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):		61988J0221

	Název: Title:		JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF 22 FEBRUARY 1990. EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY V ACCIAIERIE E FERRIERE BUSSENI SPA IN LIQUIDATION. REFERENCE FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING : TRIBUNALE CIVILE E PENALE DI BRESCIA - ITALY. ECSC - ARTICLE 41 OF THE ECSC TREATY - DEBTS IN RESPECT OF LEVIES ON THE PRODUCTION OF COAL AND STEEL. CASE 221/88.

	Publikace: Publication:		REPORTS OF CASES 1990 PAGES I-0495

	Předmět (klíčová slova): Keywords		LEVIES AND LOANS - ECSC;

	Související předpisy: Corresponding acts:		386K0198;386K0198;386K0198

	Odkaz na souvisejicí judikáty: Corresponding Judgements:


	Plný text: Fulltext:		Ne

Fakta:

Názor soudu a komentář:

Shrnutí (Summary of the Judgment):
1.ARTICLE 31 OF THE ECSC TREATY, ARTICLE 164 OF THE EEC TREATY AND ARTICLE 146 OF THE EAEC TREATY CONTAIN IDENTICAL PROVISIONS UNDER WHICH THE COURT IS TO ENSURE THAT THE LAW IS OBSERVED IN THE INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF THOSE TREATIES. HOWEVER, ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY AND ARTICLE 150 OF THE EAEC TREATY, ON THE ONE HAND, AND ARTICLE 41 OF THE ECSC TREATY, ON THE OTHER, DO NOT DEFINE IN IDENTICAL TERMS THE COURT' S JURISDICTION WITH REGARD TO PRELIMINARY REFERENCES, PARTICULARLY IN SO FAR AS ARTICLE 41 OF THE ECSC TREATY CONTAINS NO EXPRESS PROVISION GOVERNING THE EXERCISE BY THE COURT OF A POWER TO INTERPRET THAT TREATY AND ACTS ADOPTED BY THE INSTITUTIONS PURSUANT THERETO. ALL OF THOSE PROVISIONS, HOWEVER, DO IN FACT EXPRESS A TWO-FOLD NEED; TO ENSURE THE UTMOST UNIFORMITY IN THE APPLICATION OF COMMUNITY LAW AND TO ESTABLISH FOR THAT PURPOSE EFFECTIVE COOPERATION BETWEEN THE COURT OF JUSTICE AND NATIONAL COURTS. THAT IS WHY, BEARING IN MIND THE FACT THAT THIS TWO-FOLD NEED IS JUST AS COGENT AND
CLEAR IN THE CASE OF THE ECSC TREATY AS IN THAT OF THE EEC AND EAEC TREATIES AND THAT THERE IS A CONNECTION BETWEEN INTERPRETATION AND APPRAISAL OF VALIDITY, IT IS NECESSARY, IN ORDER TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE OBJECTIVES AND COHESION OF THE TREATIES, TO RECOGNIZE THAT THE JURISDICTION CONFERRED ON THE COURT BY THE ABOVEMENTIONED ARTICLE 41 COVERS NOT ONLY APPRAISAL OF THE VALIDITY OF MEASURES BUT ALSO THEIR INTERPRETATION.

2.WHERE COMMUNITY AUTHORITIES HAVE PLACED MEMBER STATES UNDER A DUTY TO ADOPT A CERTAIN COURSE OF ACTION, WHETHER BY MEANS OF A DIRECTIVE OR AN ECSC RECOMMENDATION (THE SAME RULES BEING APPLICABLE IN BOTH CASES SINCE THE MEASURES ARE SIMILAR IN NATURE), THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SUCH A MEASURE WOULD BE DIMINISHED IF INDIVIDUALS AND NATIONAL COURTS WERE PRECLUDED FROM TAKING IT INTO CONSIDERATION AS AN ELEMENT OF COMMUNITY LAW. CONSEQUENTLY, A MEMBER STATE WHICH HAS NOT ADOPTED THE IMPLEMENTING MEASURES REQUIRED BY THE DIRECTIVE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD MAY NOT PLEAD, AS AGAINST INDIVIDUALS, ITS OWN FAILURE TO PERFORM THE OBLIGATIONS WHICH THE DIRECTIVE ENTAILS. THUS, WHEREVER THE PROVISIONS OF A DIRECTIVE APPEAR, AS FAR AS THEIR SUBJECT-MATTER IS CONCERNED, TO BE UNCONDITIONAL AND SUFFICIENTLY PRECISE, THOSE PROVISIONS MAY, IN THE ABSENCE OF IMPLEMENTING MEASURES ADOPTED WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD, BE RELIED ON AS AGAINST ANY NATIONAL PROVISION WHICH IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE DIRECTIVE OR IN SO FAR AS THE PRO
VISIONS DEFINE RIGHTS WHICH INDIVIDUALS ARE ABLE TO ASSERT AGAINST THE MEMBER STATE. SUCH A POSSIBILITY, HOWEVER, EXISTS ONLY AS AGAINST THE MEMBER STATE CONCERNED AND OTHER PUBLIC AUTHORITIES. A DIRECTIVE CANNOT THEREFORE, OF ITSELF, IMPOSE OBLIGATIONS ON AN INDIVIDUAL, AND A PROVISION OF A DIRECTIVE MAY NOT BE RELIED UPON AS SUCH AGAINST AN INDIVIDUAL.

3.SINCE RECOMMENDATION 86/198/ECSC IMPOSES ON MEMBER STATES OBLIGATIONS WHICH ARE PRECISE AND UNCONDITIONAL, IT MUST BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY NATIONAL IMPLEMENTING MEASURE ADOPTED BY A MEMBER STATE AT THE EXPIRY OF THE MANDATORY TIME-LIMIT LAID DOWN FOR THAT PURPOSE IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 4, A FAILURE WHICH CONSTITUTES A BREACH OF COMMUNITY LAW, THE ECSC MAY RELY ON THE RECOMMENDATION AGAINST THAT MEMBER STATE WITH REGARD TO ALL DEBTS OWED TO IT BY UNDERTAKINGS IN RESPECT OF THE LEVIES REFERRED TO IN ARTICLES 49 AND 50 OF THE ECSC TREATY, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE DATE ON WHICH THEY AROSE, IF THOSE DEBTS ARE STILL PROVABLE IN THE LIQUIDATION OF THE UNDERTAKING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF NATIONAL LAW GOVERNING THE RIGHTS OF CREDITORS. HOWEVER, IT MAY ONLY DO SO SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT THE PREFERENTIAL STATUS OF THE DEBTS OWED TO IT MAY BE RECOGNIZED SOLELY AS AGAINST THAT STATE, THE COMMUNITY' S CLAIMS BEING PLACED ON THE SAME FOOTING AS ANY CLAIMS BY THE STATE,
AND THAT IT DOES NOT PREJUDICE THE RIGHTS OF CREDITORS OTHER THAN THE STATE UNDER NATIONAL LEGISLATION ON THE RIGHTS OF CREDITORS IN THE ABSENCE OF THE RECOMMENDATION.

4.THE PRINCIPLE OF PROTECTION OF LEGITIMATE EXPECTATIONS CANNOT PREVENT PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT FROM BEING CONFERRED ON DEBTS WHICH AROSE PRIOR TO THE ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THE MEASURE WHICH INTRODUCED SUCH TREATMENT, SINCE THAT PRINCIPLE MAY NOT BE EXTENDED TO THE POINT OF GENERALLY PREVENTING NEW RULES FROM APPLYING TO THE FUTURE EFFECTS OF SITUATIONS WHICH AROSE UNDER EARLIER RULES.

Plný text judikátu (Entire text of the Judgment):