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):		61976J0033
Název:
Title: 		JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF 16 DECEMBER 1976. REWE-ZENTRALFINANZ EG AND REWE-ZENTRAL AG V LANDWIRTSCHAFTSKAMMER FUER DAS SAARLAND. PRELIMINARY RULING REQUESTED BY THE BUNDESVERWALTUNGSGERICHT. CASE 33-76.
Publikace:
Publication:		REPORTS OF CASES 1976 PAGES 1989 - 2000
Předmět (klíčová slova):
Keywords		FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS;CUSTOMS UNION;CHARGES HAVING AN EQUIVALENT EFFECT;
Související předpisy:
Corresponding acts:
Odkaz na souvisejicí judikáty:
Corresponding Judgements:
    Case 39/73 Rewe Zentralfinanz [1973] ECR 1039
Plný text:
Fulltext:		Ne

Fakta:
In 1968, the German companies Rewe-Zentralfinanz eG and Rewe-Zentral AG (“Rewe”) paid in respect of the import of French apples charges for phyto-sanitary inspection which were subsequently found, by judgement of the Court in Case 39/73, to be equivalent to customs duties and thus incompatible with Article 5, 9 and 13(2) of the EEC Treaty. Thereupon, said companies applied to the Landwirtschaftskammer für das Saarland to annul the decision imposing the charges and to refund the amounts paid including interest. This claim was dismissed as inadmissible on the ground that it was out of time under § 58 of the Verwaltungsgerichtsordnung (Code of Procedure before the Administrative Court). Rewe contended that this time-limit did not apply in the present case where an infringement of Community law was at issue.
The Bundesverwaltungsgericht, seised of the case on appeal, stayed the proceedings and referred to the Court of Justice the question if, where an administrative body in one State has infringed with the prohibition on charges having an equivalent effect to customs duties, the Community citizen concerned has a right under Community law to the annulment or revocation of the administrative measure and/or to a refund of the amount paid even if under the rules of procedure of the national law the time-limit for contesting the validity of the administrative measure is past.
The Bundesverwaltungsgericht also referred two other questions to the Court: (2) if the answer depended on whether the Court of Justice has already ruled that there does exist an infringement of the Community prohibition contained in Community law and (3) whether, if a right to refund is held to exist under Community law, interest is to be paid on the amount and if so from what date and at what rate. The Court answers the second question in the negative and, in the light of its answer to the first question, finds no need to answer the third.

Názor soudu a komentář:
In the present case, the Court puts forward the general principles concerning the cooperation of the Court of Justice and the national courts in cases where Community law is directly applicable and concerning the question of the consequences resulting from a judgement of the Court of Justice invalidating a national regulation as being incompatible with Community law.
“Applying the principle of cooperation laid down in Article 5 of the Treaty, it is the national courts which are entrusted with ensuring the legal protection which citizens derive from the direct effect of the provisions of Community law. Accordingly, in the absence of Community rules on this subject, it is for the domestic legal system of each Member State to designate the courts having jurisdiction and to determine the procedural conditions governing actions at law intended to ensure the protection of rights which citizens have from the direct effect of Community law, it being understood that such conditions cannot be less favourable than those relating to similar actions of a domestic nature.” In other words, actions pursuing individual rights based on Community law brought before the national courts are governed by the general rules of the Member State’s legal system. However, these national rules may not be less favourable than those applicable to similar actions under national law and, as the Court further emphasizes, they may not, in practice, make the exercise of the right impossible.
Under these principles, the national law may, as it does in the present case, provide for “reasonable periods of limitation” for actions which, as the Court recognizes, are “an application of the fundamental principle of legal certainty protecting both the tax-payer and the administration concerned”.

Shrnutí (Summary of the Judgment):
1. THE PROHIBITION LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 13 OF THE TREATY AND THAT LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 13 OF REGULATION NO 159/66/EEC HAVE A DIRECT EFFECT AND CONFER ON CITIZENS RIGHTS WHICH THE NATIONAL COURTS ARE REQUIRED TO PROTECT.

2. IN THE ABSENCE OF COMMUNITY RULES ON THIS SUBJECT, IT IS FOR THE DOMESTIC LEGAL SYSTEM OF EACH MEMBER STATE TO DESIGNATE THE COURTS HAVING JURISDICTION AND TO DETERMINE THE PROCEDURAL CONDITIONS GOVERNING ACTIONS AT LAW INTENDED TO ENSURE THE PROTECTION OF THE RIGHTS WHICH CITIZENS HAVE FROM THE DIRECT EFFECT OF COMMUNITY LAW, IT BEING UNDERSTOOD THAT SUCH CONDITIONS CANNOT BE LESS FAVOURABLE THAN THOSE RELATING TO SIMILAR ACTIONS OF A DOMESTIC NATURE. THE POSITION WOULD BE DIFFERENT ONLY IF THE CONDITIONS MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE IN PRACTICE TO EXERCISE THE RIGHTS WHICH THE NATIONAL COURTS ARE OBLIGED TO PROTECT.

Plný text judikátu (Entire text of the Judgment):