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):		61976J0117
Název:
Title: 		JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF 19 OCTOBER 1977. ALBERT RUCKDESCHEL AND CO AND HANSA-LAGERHAUS STROEH AND CO V HAUPTZOLLAMT HAMBURG-ST. ANNEN. DIAMALT AG V HAUPTZOLLAMT ITZEHOE. PRELIMINARY RULING REQUESTED BY THE FINANZGERICHT HAMBURG. QUELLMEHL. JOINED CASES 117-76 AND 16-77.
Publikace:
Publication:		REPORTS OF CASES 1977 PAGES 1753 - 1773
Předmět (klíčová slova):
Keywords		AGRICULTURE;CEREALS;
Související předpisy:
Corresponding acts:		367R0120;374R1125
Odkaz na souvisejicí judikáty:
Corresponding Judgements:
Plný text:
Fulltext:		Ne

Fakta:


Názor soudu a komentář:


Shrnutí (Summary of the Judgment):
3. ILLEGALITY - CONSEQUENCES - OBLIGATION OF THE INSTITUTIONS

1. THE WORDING OF THE SECOND SUBPARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 40 (3) OF THE TREATY DOES NOT REFER IN CLEAR TERMS TO THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DIFFERENT INDUSTRIAL OR TRADE SECTORS IN THE SPHERE OF PROCESSED AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS. THIS DOES NOT ALTER THE FACT THAT THE PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION LAID DOWN IN THE AFORESAID PROVISION IS MERELY A SPECIFIC ENUNCIATION OF A GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY WHICH IS ONE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF COMMUNITY LAW. THIS PRINCIPLE REQUIRES THAT SIMILAR SITUATIONS SHALL NOT BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY UNLESS DIFFERENTIATION IS OBJECTIVELY JUSTIFIED.

2. THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 11 OF REGULATION NO 120/67/EEC OF THE COUNCIL OF 13 JUNE 1967, AS WORDED WITH EFFECT FROM 1 AUGUST 1974 FOLLOWING THE AMENDMENT MADE BY ARTICLE 5 OF REGULATION (EEC) NO 1125/74 OF THE COUNCIL OF 29 APRIL 1974, AND REPEATED IN SUBSEQUENT REGULATIONS, ARE INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY IN SO FAR AS THEY PROVIDE FOR QUELLMEHL AND PRE-GELATINIZED STARCH TO RECEIVE DIFFERENT TREATMENT IN RESPECT OF PRODUCTION REFUNDS FOR MAIZE USED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF THESE TWO PRODUCTS.

3. IN THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THIS FINDING OF ILLEGALITY DOES NOT INEVITABLY INVOLVE A DECLARATION THAT A PROVISION OF REGULATION (EEC) NO 1125/74 IS INVALID. THE ILLEGALITY OF ARTICLE 5 OF REGULATION (EEC) NO 1125/74 CANNOT BE REMOVED MERELY BY THE FACT THAT THE COURT, IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER ARTICLE 177, RULES THAT THE CONTESTED PROVISION WAS IN PART OR IN WHOLE INVALID. AS THE SITUATION CREATED, IN LAW, BY ARTICLE 5 OF REGULATION (EEC) NO 1125/74 IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY, IT IS FOR THE COMPETENT INSTITUTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY TO ADOPT THE MEASURES NECESSARY TO CORRECT THIS INCOMPATIBILITY.

Plný text judikátu (Entire text of the Judgment):