Odbor kompatibility s právem ES Úřad vlády ČR	I S A P Informační Systém pro Aproximaci Práva
	Databáze č. 17 : Databáze judikatury

ă Odbor kompatibility s právem ES, Úřad vlády ČR - určeno pouze pro potřebu ministerstev a ostatních ústředních orgánů


	Číslo (Kód CELEX): Number (CELEX Code):		61976J0078

	Název: Title:		JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF 22 MARCH 1977. FIRMA STEINIKE UND WEINLIG V FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY. PRELIMINARY RULING REQUESTED BY THE VERWALTUNGSGERICHT FRANKFURT. CASE 78-76.

	Publikace: Publication:		REPORTS OF CASES 1977 PAGES 0595 - 0617

	Předmět (klíčová slova): Keywords		COMPETITION;STATE AIDS;FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS;CUSTOMS UNION;CHARGES HAVING AN EQUIVALENT EFFECT;TAXATION;AGRICULTURE;FRUIT AND VEGETABLES;

	Související předpisy: Corresponding acts:		157E093;157E092;157E095;157E013

	Odkaz na souvisejicí judikáty: Corresponding Judgements:


	Plný text: Fulltext:		Ne

Fakta:

Názor soudu a komentář:

Shrnutí (Summary of the Judgment):
1. THE INTENTION OF THE TREATY IN PROVIDING THROUGH ARTICLE 93 FOR AID TO BE KEPT UNDER CONSTANT REVIEW AND SUPERVISED BY THE COMMISSION IS THAT THE FINDING THAT AN AID MAY BE INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE COMMON MARKET IS TO BE DETERMINED, SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY THE COURT, BY MEANS OF AN APPROPRIATE PROCEDURE WHICH IT IS THE COMMISSION' S RESPONSIBILITY TO SET IN MOTION. THE PARTIES CONCERNED CANNOT THEREFORE SIMPLY, ON THE BASIS OF ARTICLE 92 ALONE, CHALLENGE THE COMPATIBILITY OF AN AID WITH COMMUNITY LAW BEFORE NATIONAL COURTS OR ASK THEM TO DECIDE AS TO ANY COMPATIBILITY WHICH MAY BE THE MAIN ISSUE IN ACTIONS BEFORE THEM OR MAY ARISE AS A SUBSIDIARY ISSUE. THERE IS THIS RIGHT HOWEVER WHERE THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 92 HAVE BEEN APPLIED BY THE GENERAL PROVISIONS PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 94 OR BY SPECIFIC DECISIONS UNDER ARTICLE 93 (2).

2. THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 93 DO NOT PRECLUDE A NATIONAL COURT FROM REFERRING A QUESTION ON THE IN- TERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 92 OF THE TREATY TO THE COURT OF JUSTICE IF IT CONSIDERS THAT A DECISION THEREON IS NECESSARY TO ENABLE IT TO GIVE JUDGMENT; IN THE ABSENCE OF IMPLEMENTING PROVISIONS WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 94 HOWEVER A NATIONAL COURT DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO DECIDE AN ACTION FOR A DECLARATION THAT EXISTING AID WHICH HAS NOT BEEN THE SUBJECT OF A DECISION BY THE COMMISSION REQUIRING THE MEMBER STATE CONCERNED TO ABOLISH OR ALTER IT OR A NEW AID WHICH HAS BEEN INTRODUCED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 93 (3) IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE TREATY.

3. SAVE FOR THE RESERVATION IN ARTICLE 90 (2) OF THE TREATY, ARTICLE 92 COVERS ALL PRIVATE AND PUBLIC UNDERTAKINGS AND ALL THEIR PRODUCTION.

4. THE PROHIBITION CONTAINED IN ARTICLE 92 (1) COVERS ALL AID GRANTED BY A MEMBER STATE OR THROUGH STATE RESOURCES WITHOUT ITS BEING NECESSARY TO MAKE A DISTINCTION ACCORDING TO WHETHER THE AID IS GRANTED DIRECTLY BY THE STATE OR BY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE BODIES ESTABLISHED OR APPOINTED BY IT TO ADMINISTER THE AID.

5. A MEASURE ADOPTED BY THE PUBLIC AUTHORITY AND FAVOURING CERTAIN UNDERTAKINGS OR PRODUCTS DOES NOT LOSE THE CHARACTER OF A GRATUITOUS ADVANTAGE BY THE FACT THAT IT IS WHOLLY OR PARTIALLY FINANCED BY CONTRIBUTIONS IMPOSED BY THE PUBLIC AUTHORITY AND LEVIED ON THE UNDERTAKINGS CONCERNED.

6. ANY BREACH BY A MEMBER STATE OF AN OBLIGATION UNDER THE TREATY CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED BY THE FACT THAT OTHER MEMBER STATES ARE ALSO FAILING TO FULFIL THIS OBLIGATION.

7. THE SAME CHARGE CANNOT WITHIN THE SYSTEM OF THE TREATY FALL SIMULTANEOUSLY WITHIN THE CATEGORY OF CHARGES HAVING AN EFFECT EQUIVALENT TO A CUSTOMS DUTY WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLES 9, 12 AND 13 OF THE TREATY AND THAT OF INTERNAL TAXATION WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 95 IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT WHEREAS ARTICLES 9 AND 12 PROHIBIT MEMBER STATES FROM INTRODUCING BETWEEN THEMSELVES ANY NEW CUSTOMS DUTIES ON IMPORTS OR EXPORTS OR ANY CHARGES HAVING EQUIVALENT EFFECT, ARTICLE 95 IS LIMITED TO PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THE PRODUCTS OF OTHER MEMBER STATES BY MEANS OF INTERNAL TAXATION.

8. WHERE THE CONDITIONS WHICH DISTINGUISH A CHARGE HAVING AN EFFECT EQUIVALENT TO A CUSTOMS DUTY ARE FULFILLED, THE FACT THAT IT IS APPLIED AT THE STAGE OF MARKETING OR PROCESSING OF THE PRODUCT SUBSEQUENT TO ITS CROSSING THE FRONTIER IS IRRELEVANT WHEN THE PRODUCT IS CHARGED SOLELY BY REASON OF ITS CROSSING THE FRONTIER, WHICH FACTOR EXCLUDES THE DOMESTIC PRODUCT FROM SIMILAR TAXATION.

9. THERE IS GENERALLY NO DISCRIMINATION SUCH AS IS PROHIBITED BY ARTICLE 95 WHERE INTERNAL TAXATION APPLIES TO DOMESTIC PRODUCTS AND TO PREVIOUSLY IMPORTED PRODUCTS ON THEIR BEING PROCESSED INTO MORE ELABORATE PRODUCTS WITHOUT ANY DISTINCTIONS OF RATE, BASIS OF ASSESSMENT OF DETAILED RULES FOR THE LEVYING THEREOF BEING MADE BETWEEN THEM BY REASON OF THEIR ORIGIN.

Plný text judikátu (Entire text of the Judgment):