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):		61980J0036
Název:
Title: 		JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF 10 MARCH 1981. IRISH CREAMERY MILK SUPPLIERS ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS V GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND AND OTHERS. MARTIN DOYLE AND OTHERS V AN TAOISEACH AND OTHERS. PRELIMINARY RULING REQUESTED BY THE HIGH COURT OF IRELAND. NATIONAL CHARGE ON AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS OF NATIONAL ORIGIN. JOINED CASES 36 AND 71-80.
Publikace:
Publication:		REPORTS OF CASES 1981 PAGES 0735 - 0755
Předmět (klíčová slova):
Keywords		AGRICULTURE;MILK PRODUCTS;BEEF AND VEAL;CEREALS;SUGAR;FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS;CUSTOMS UNION;CHARGES HAVING AN EQUIVALENT EFFECT;
Související předpisy:
Corresponding acts:		157E177;157E012;157E016;157E009
Odkaz na souvisejicí judikáty:
Corresponding Judgements:
    Meilicke Case C-83/91 Meilicke v ADV/ORGA [1992] ECR I-4871
Plný text:
Fulltext:		Ne

Fakta:
Two associations of Irish agricultural producers, together with a number of processing undertakings and cattle exporter, brought actions against the Government of Ireland before the High Court of Ireland for a declaration that a temporary excise duty imposed by the Government of Ireland in 1979 on the value of certain agricultural products was incompatible with Community law. The duty in question was imposed temporarily on fresh milk and live bovine animals and on certain cereals as well as on sugar beet. Subject to certain exceptions the duty was applicable to such products at the time of delivery for processing, storage or export. The duty was payable either by the exporter or by the processing or storage undertaking. As it was intended to be borne by producers, the government orders which introduced the duty provided that exporters and undertakings were entitled to recover the amount of the duty from the producers. The duty formed part of an incomes policy which is designed to divide up the tax burden between the various sectors of the working population. The plaintiffs in the main action contended that the duty constitutes an unlawful interference with the common organization of markets in so far as the latter attempt to guarantee a certain price for the producers. If the amount of the duty is to be borne by agricultural producers, the latter will receive a net price lower than the price envisaged by the Community authorities when they fixed a target or guide price, the intervention price or the minimum price for the product in question.
The High Court of Justice, without first examining the parties’ differences on the matters of fact, decided to stay the proceedings and to refer, under Article 177 of the Treaty, to the Court of Justice the question whether a national tax such as that in issue in the present case was contrary to the EEC Treaty, in particular with the prohibition of charges having an equivalent effect to customs duties, or to certain regulations of the common organization of the agricultural markets in the sectors covering products subject to the duty (Council Regulations Nos 804/68, 805/68, 3330/74 and 2727/75). Since the Government of Ireland contended that the reference for a preliminary ruling was premature at this stage of the proceedings, the High Court also referred to the ECJ the question whether the decision to make the reference at this stage of the hearing.

Názor soudu a komentář:
The second paragraph of Article 177 of the Treaty makes it clear that it is in principle in the national court’s discretion to decide at what stage in the proceedings it is appropriate for that court to refer a question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling. While the Court has held that “it might be convenient, in certain circumstances, for the facts in the case to be established and for the questions of purely national law to be settled at the time the reference is made to the Court of Justice so as to enable the latter to take cognizance of all the features of fact and of law which may be relevant to the interpretation of Community law which it is called upon to give”, the Court points out that “those considerations do not in any way restrict the discretion of the national court, which alone has knowledge of the fact of the case and of the arguments of the parties, which will have to take responsibility for giving the judgement in the case and which is therefore in the best position to appreciate at what stage in the proceedings it requires a preliminary ruling” In response to the first question, the Court therefore accepts the reference for a preliminary ruling. The wide discretion of the national courts which the Court of Justice thus recognizes has in later judgements been limited in so far as the Court has refused to rule on purely hypothetical issues; see in particular
Meilicke
().
With regard to the second questions, the Court points out that “[a]ccording to Article 39(2)(c) of the Treaty, in working out the common agricultural policy account shall be taken of ‘the fact that in the Member States agriculture constitutes a sector closely linked with the economy as a whole’. The common agricultural policy is not intended, therefore, to shield those engaged in agriculture from the effects of a national incomes policy” such as that pursued by the Government of Ireland with the duty in question. “Moreover, the fixing of common prices within the framework of the common organization of markets does not serve to guarantee to agricultural producers a net price independently of any taxation imposed by the national authorities, and the very wording of Article 39(1)(b) shows that the increase in individual earnings of persons engaged in agriculture is envisaged as being primarily the result of the structural measures described in subparagraph (a).” The mere fact that the duty in question might influence the net price received by the producers does not render its imposition incompatible with the common agricultural organization in the respective markets. However, the methods used to implement a national incomes policy can be incompatible with the Treaty and with rules on the common agricultural organization these methods interfere with the functioning of the machinery employed by those organizations. Whether the duty here in issue thus obstructs the working of the machinery established by the common organizations of the market is a matter for the national courts to determine.

Shrnutí (Summary of the Judgment):
1. THE NEED TO PROVIDE AN INTERPRETATION OF COMMUNITY LAW WHICH WILL BE OF USE TO THE NATIONAL COURT MAKES IT ESSENTIAL TO DEFINE THE LEGAL CONTEXT IN WHICH THE INTERPRETATION REQUESTED SHOULD BE PLACED. FROM THAT ASPECT IT MIGHT BE CONVENIENT IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES FOR THE FACTS IN THE CASE TO BE ESTABLISHED AND FOR QUESTIONS OF PURELY NATIONAL LAW TO BE SETTLED AT THE TIME THE REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE COURT OF JUSTICE SO AS TO ENABLE THE LATTER TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF ALL THE FEATURES OF FACT AND LAW WHICH MAY BE RELEVANT TO THE INTERPRETATION OF COMMUNITY LAW WHICH IT IS CALLED UPON TO GIVE. HOWEVER, THOSE CONSIDERATIONS DO NOT IN ANY WAY RESTRICT THE DISCRETION OF THE NATIONAL COURT IN DECIDING AT WHAT STAGE IN THE PROCEEDINGS PENDING BEFORE IT A QUESTION SHOULD BE REFERRED TO THE COURT FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING.

2. A TEMPORARY NATIONAL DUTY INTENDED TO BE BORNE BY AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS AS PART OF AN INCOMES POLICY DIVIDING TAX BURDENS AMONG THE VARIOUS SECTORS OF THE WORKING POPULATION, BUT APPLIED IN THE FORM OF AN INDIRECT TAX ON THE VALUE OF CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS SUBJECT TO COMMON ORGANIZATIONS OF THE MARKETS AT THE TIME OF THEIR DELIVERY FOR PROCESSING, STORAGE OR EXPORT AND PAYABLE EITHER BY THE EXPORTER OR BY THE PROCESSING OR STORAGE UNDERTAKING, WHO ARE ENTITLED TO RECOVER THE AMOUNT OF THE DUTY FROM THE PRODUCERS, IS NOT, IN PRINCIPLE, INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE EEC TREATY ON AGRICULTURAL POLICY, OR WITH COMMUNITY RULES ON THE COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKETS. SUCH INCOMPATIBILITY WOULD, HOWEVER, EXIST IF AND IN SO FAR AS THE DUTY HAD THE EFFECTS OF IMPEDING THE PROPER FUNCTIONING OF THE MACHINERY ESTABLISHED AS PART OF THE RELEVANT COMMON ORGANIZATIONS FOR THE FORMATION OF COMMON PRICES AND TO REGULATE MARKET SUPPLIES. IT IS FOR THE NATIONAL COURT TO DECIDE WHETHER, AND IF SO TO WHA
T EXTENT, THE DUTY WHICH IT IS CALLED UPON TO CONSIDER IN FACT HAS SUCH EFFECTS.

3. EVEN IF IT IS APPLIED TO LIVESTOCK EXPORTED ON THE HOOF WHEN THEY ARE DELIVERED FOR EXPORT, A NATIONAL DUTY DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE PROHIBITION OF CHARGES HAVING AN EFFECT EQUIVALENT TO CUSTOMS DUTIES ON EXPORTS IF IT IS ALSO APPLIED, SYSTEMATICALLY AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SAME CRITERIA, TO LIVESTOCK WHICH ARE NOT BEING EXPORTED, AT THE TIME OF THEIR DELIVERY FOR SLAUGHTER.

Plný text judikátu (Entire text of the Judgment):