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):		61984J0174
Název:
Title: 		JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF 18 FEBRUARY 1986. BULK OIL (ZUG) AG V SUN INTERNATIONAL LIMITED AND SUN OIL TRADING COMPANY. REFERENCE FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (COMMERCIAL COURT OF THE QUEEN' S BENCH DIVISION). QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED BY THE UNITED KINGDOM ON EXPORTS OF CRUDE OIL TO NON-MEMBER COUNTRIES (ISRAEL) - VALIDITY UNDER THE COMMON COMMERCIAL POLICY - VALIDITY UNDER THE EEC - ISRAEL AGREEMENT. CASE 174/84.
Publikace:
Publication:		REPORTS OF CASES 1986 PAGES 0559 - 0597
Předmět (klíčová slova):
Keywords		COMMERCIAL POLICY;
Související předpisy:
Corresponding acts:		275A0511(01);369R2603;157E034;157E085;361D1002P1273;362D0903P2353;369D0494
Odkaz na souvisejicí judikáty:
Corresponding Judgements:
Plný text:
Fulltext:		Ne

Fakta:


Názor soudu a komentář:


Shrnutí (Summary of the Judgment):
1. THE IMPLEMENTATION BY THE GOVERNMENT OF A MEMBER STATE OF A POLICY WHOSE EFFECT IS EQUIVALENT TO QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS DOES NOT ESCAPE THE PROHIBITIONS LAID DOWN BY COMMUNITY LAW SIMPLY BECAUSE IT IS NOT INCORPORATED IN DECISIONS BINDING ON UNDERTAKINGS, SINCE EVEN GOVERNMENT MEASURES WHICH DO NOT HAVE BINDING EFFECT MAY BE CAPABLE OF INFLUENCING THE CONDUCT OF UNDERTAKINGS AND THUS OF FRUSTRATING THE AIMS OF THE COMMUNITY.

2. THE AGREEMENT OF 20 MAY 1975 BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY AND THE STATE OF ISRAEL DOES NOT PROHIBIT THE IMPOSITION OF NEW QUANTITIVE RESTRICTIONS OR MEASURES HAVING EQUIVALENT EFFECT ON EXPORTS FROM A MEMBER STATE TO ISRAEL.

3. REGULATION NO 2603/69, ESTABLISHING COMMON RULES FOR EXPORTS, DOES NOT PROHIBIT MEMBER STATES FROM IMPOSING NEW QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS OR MEASURES HAVING EQUIVALENT EFFECT ON EXPORTS OF OIL TO NON-MEMBER COUNTRIES. ARTICLE 10 OF THAT REGULATION AND ITS ANNEX CONSTITUTE THE SPECIFIC AUTHORIZATION MADE NECESSARY BY THE TRANSFER TO THE COMMUNITY, AT THE END OF THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD, OF JURISDICTION IN MATTERS OF COMMERCIAL POLICY, AND THERE IS NO NEED TO DISTINGUISH IN THAT REGARD BETWEEN PREVIOUSLY EXISTING QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS AND THOSE WHICH ARE SUBSEQUENTLY INTRODUCED.

4. ALTHOUGH ARTICLE 113 OF THE TREATY PROHIBITS THE GENERAL EXCLUSION, AS A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE, OF CERTAIN PRODUCTS FROM THE FIELD OF APPLICATION OF THE COMMON COMMERCIAL POLICY, THE COUNCIL MAY NEVERTHELESS, IN THE EXERCISE OF THE DISCRETION WHICH IT ENJOYS IN ECONOMIC MATTERS OF SUCH COMPLEXITY, PROVISIONALLY EXCLUDE CERTAIN PRODUCTS FROM THE COMMON RULES ON EXPORTS. SUCH AN EXCLUSION WAS PERMISSIBLE IN PARTICULAR IN THE CASE OF OIL, IN VIEW OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMITMENTS ENTERED INTO BY CERTAIN MEMBER STATES AND TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE PARTICULAR CHARACTERISTICS OF THAT PRODUCT, WHICH IS OF VITAL IMPORTANCE FOR THE ECONOMY OF A STATE AND FOR THE FUNCTIONING OF ITS INSTITUTIONS AND PUBLIC SERVICES.

5. ARTICLES 34 AND 85 OF THE TREATY DO NOT PREVENT A MEMBER STATE FROM ADOPTING A POLICY RESTRICTING OR PROHIBITING EXPORTS OF OIL TO A NON-MEMBER COUNTRY ON THE BASIS OF ARTICLE 10 OF REGULATION NO 2603/69. SUCH A POLICY DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY AFFECT EXPORTS TO OTHER MEMBER STATES AND IS NOT INTENDED TO PROVIDE A PARTICULAR ADVANTAGE FOR THE NATIONAL PRODUCTION OR FOR THE DOMESTIC MARKET OF THE MEMBER STATE CONCERNED; NOR IS IT LIKELY, IN ITSELF, TO RESTRICT OR DISTORT COMPETITION WITHIN THE COMMON MARKET.

6. EVEN AFTER THE END OF THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD AND THE ADOPTION OF REGULATION NO 2603/69 ARTICLE 4 OF THE COUNCIL DECISION OF 9 OCTOBER 1961, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE COUNCIL DECISION OF 16 SEPTEMBER 1969, REQUIRES A MEMBER STATE CONTEMPLATING A CHANGE IN THE STATE OF LIBERALIZATION OF ITS EXPORTS TO NON-MEMBER COUNTRIES TO GIVE PRIOR NOTICE TO THE OTHER MEMBER STATES AND THE COMMISSION. A MEMBER STATE WHICH FAILS TO GIVE PRIOR NOTICE, DELAYS IN DOING SO OR DOES SO IN AN INADEQUATE MANNER FAILS TO FULFIL ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THOSE COUNCIL DECISIONS, BUT THAT FAILURE DOES NOT CREATE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS WHICH NATIONAL COURTS MUST PROTECT.

7. THE FACT THAT NO COMMUNITY INSTITUTION CHALLENGES THE LEGALITY OF A POLICY ADOPTED BY A MEMBER STATE RESTRICTING TRADE WITH NON-MEMBER COUNTRIES CANNOT IN ITSELF HAVE ANY EFFECT ON THE COMPATIBILITY OF THAT POLICY WITH COMMUNITY LAW.

Plný text judikátu (Entire text of the Judgment):