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):		61983J0112

	Název: Title:		JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF 27 FEBRUARY 1985. SOCIETE DES PRODUITS DE MAIS S.A. V ADMINISTRATION DES DOUANES ET DROITS INDIRECTS. REFERENCE FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING FROM THE TRIBUNAL D' INSTANCE DE PARIS IER. MONETARY COMPENSATORY AMOUNTS APPLICABLE TO PRODUCTS DERIVED FROM MAIZE - CONSEQUENCES OF THE INVALIDITY OF A REGULATION. CASE 112/83.

	Publikace: Publication:		REPORTS OF CASES 1985 PAGES 0719 - 0749

	Předmět (klíčová slova): Keywords		AGRICULTURE;MONETARY MEASURES IN THE FIELD OF AGRICULTURE;CEREALS;

	Související předpisy: Corresponding acts:		376R0652 *

	Odkaz na souvisejicí judikáty: Corresponding Judgements:		[241] International Chemical Corporation Case 66/80 International Chemical Corporation [1981] ECR 1191 · [228] Roquette Case 145/79 Roquette [1980] ECR 2917 · [112] Defrenne II Case 43/75 Defrenne v Sabena [1976] ECR 455 · [486] Barber Case C-262/88 Barber v Guradian Royal Exchange Assurance Group [1990] ECR I-1889 · Providence Agricole de la Champagne Joined Cases 4, 109, 145/79 Société Co-opérative “Providence Agricole de la Champagne” V ONIC [1980] ECR 2823


	Plný text: Fulltext:		Ne

Fakta:
The Société des produits de maďs SA brought an action before the Tribunal d’instance, Paris, against the Director General for Customs and Indirect Duties seeking repayment of the compensatory amounts improperly levied by the French customs authorities under Commission Regulation (EEC) 652/76
Of March 1976 changing the monetary compensatory amounts following changes of exchange rates for French franc (OJ 1976 L 79, p. 4).
, on its exports to other Member States of a number of maize products.
The claim was based on the Court’s judgement of 15 October 1980 in
Roquette
( [228]), where several provisions of Regulation No 652/76 had been declared invalid. In
Roquette
the Court had also ruled: “The fact that the above-mentioned are invalid does not enable the charging or payment of monetary compensatory amounts by the national authorities to be challenged as regards the period prior to the date of this judgement.” However, the Tribunal d’instance, Lille, seised of the main proceedings in
Roquette
had none the less ordered the customs authorities to refund to Roquette the sums overpaid, arguing that it was not bound by the temporal restriction restated above. The court contended that the Court of Justice did not have the power to order such temporal restriction; in its opinion, this was a matter for the national court to decide.
In these circumstances, the Tribunal d’instance, Paris, took the view that a clarification of the
Roquette
judgement was necessary. It stayed the proceedings and under Article 177 of the Treaty and -
inter alia
- asked the Court to specify the limits and consequences of the invalidity of Regulation No 652/76, as laid down in the
Roquette
judgement, in particular in view of the temporal limitation set out therein.

Názor soudu a komentář:
The Court points out that a preliminary ruling given under Article 177 of the Treaty declaring an act of a Community institution void, is directly addressed only to the national court making the reference. However, such preliminary ruling “is sufficient reason for any other national court to regard the act as void for the purposes of a judgement which it has to give” ( [241]
ICC
). Although, in other words, the preliminary ruling procedure is not - strictly speaking - an “objective procedure” having effect
erga omnes
, a ruling given under Article 177 of the Treaty has the same effect on the ground that all national institutions of the Member States are obliged to respect Community law.
Article 177 of the Treaty does not expressly provide for the Court’s power to impose a temporal limitation on the effects of its judgements. The Court has, however, consistently assumed the power to provide for such temporal limitation (see in particular [112]
Defrenne II;
[486]
Barber
). It bases this power on an analogy to the second paragraph of Article 174 of the Treaty, arguing that the preliminary ruling procedure and the procedure in an action for annulment provided for in Articles 173, 174 and 175 of the Treaty required consistency of the powers conferred to the Court. In fact, in many cases it is a rather accidental result whether the question of the validity of a Community measure is brought before the Court under the procedure of Article 177(b) or that of Articles 173
et seq.
It would thus seem arbitrary not to give the Court the power to order a temporal limitation in the preliminary ruling procedure. Furthermore, as the Court points out, the possibility of imposing a temporal limitation “is a power conferred on the Court by the Treaty in the interest of the uniform application of Community law throughout the Community and in the interest of legal certainty.
Whether and in how a temporal restriction is to be ordered is a matter for the Court to decide within its discretion: “[W]here it is justified by overriding considerations the second paragraph of Article 174 gives the Court discretion to decide, in each particular case, which specific effects of a regulation which has been declared void must be maintained. It is therefore for the Court, where it make use of the possibility of limiting the effect on past events of a declaration in proceedings under Article 177 that a measure is void, to decide whether an exception to that temporal effect of its judgement may be made in favour of the party which brought the action before the national court or of any other trade which took similar steps before the declaration of invalidity or whether, conversely, a declaration of invalidity applicable only to the future constitutes an adequate remedy even for traders who took action at the appropriate time with a view to protecting their rights.”
Apart from the analogy to Article 174, the Court has also held in its case-law that the principles underlying Article 176 of the Treaty are equally applicable in the preliminary ruling procedure, thus enabling the Court, where appropriate, to order remedial action (
Providence Agricole de la Champagne
)

Shrnutí (Summary of the Judgment):
ALTHOUGH A JUDGMENT OF THE COURT GIVEN UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE TREATY DECLARING AN ACT OF AN INSTITUTION, IN PARTICULAR A COUNCIL OR COMMISSION REGULATION, TO BE VOID IS DIRECTLY ADDRESSED ONLY TO THE NATIONAL COURT WHICH BROUGHT THE MATTER BEFORE THE COURT, IT IS SUFFICIENT REASON FOR ANY OTHER NATIONAL COURT TO REGARD THAT ACT AS VOID FOR THE PURPOSES OF A JUDGMENT WHICH IT HAS TO GIVE. THE COURT' S POWER TO IMPOSE TEMPORAL LIMITS ON THE EFFECTS OF A DECLARATION THAT A LEGISLATIVE ACT IS INVALID, IN THE CONTEXT OF PRELIMINARY RULINGS UNDER INDENT (B) OF THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 177, IS JUSTIFIED BY THE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 174 OF THE TREATY HAVING REGARD TO THE NECESSARY CONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE PRELIMINARY RULING PROCEDURE AND THE ACTION FOR ANNULMENT, WHICH ARE TWO MECHANISMS PROVIDED BY THE TREATY FOR REVIEWING THE LEGALITY OF ACTS OF THE COMMUNITY INSTITUTIONS. THE POSSIBILITY OF IMPOSING TEMPORAL LIMITS ON THE EFFECTS OF THE INVALIDITY OF A COMMUNITY REGULATION, WHETHER UNDER ARTICLE 173 OR
ARTICLE 177, IS A POWER CONFERRED ON THE COURT BY THE TREATY IN THE INTEREST OF THE UNIFORM APPLICATION OF COMMUNITY LAW THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY. WHERE IT IS JUSTIFIED BY OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 174 GIVES THE COURT DISCRETION TO DECIDE, IN EACH PARTICULAR CASE, WHICH SPECIFIC EFFECTS OF A REGULATION WHICH HAS BEEN DECLARED VOID MUST BE MAINTAINED. IT IS THEREFORE FOR THE COURT, WHERE IT MAKES USE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF LIMITING THE EFFECT ON PAST EVENTS OF A DECLARATION IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER ARTICLE 177 THAT A MEASURE IS VOID, TO DECIDE WHETHER AN EXCEPTION TO THAT TEMPORAL LIMITATION OF THE EFFECT OF ITS JUDGMENT MAY BE MADE IN FAVOUR OF THE PARTY WHICH BROUGHT THE ACTION BEFORE THE NATIONAL COURT OR OF ANY OTHER TRADER WHO TOOK SIMILAR STEPS BEFORE THE DECLARATION OF INVALIDITY OR WHETHER, CONVERSELY, A DECLARATION OF INVALIDITY APPLICABLE ONLY TO THE FUTURE CONSTITUTES AN ADEQUATE REMEDY EVEN FOR TRADERS WHO TOOK ACTION AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME WITH A VIEW TO PROTECTI
NG THEIR RIGHTS.

Plný text judikátu (Entire text of the Judgment):