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):		61979J0044
Název:
Title: 		JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF 13 DECEMBER 1979. LISELOTTE HAUER V LAND RHEINLAND-PFALZ. PRELIMINARY RULING REQUESTED BY THE VERWALTUNGSGERICHT NEUSTADT. PROHIBITION ON NEW PLANTING OF VINES. CASE 44-79.
Publikace:
Publication:		REPORTS OF CASES 1979 PAGES 3727 - 3751
Předmět (klíčová slova):
Keywords		AGRICULTURE;WINE;
Související předpisy:
Corresponding acts:		376R1162;376R1162;376R1162;378R2776
Odkaz na souvisejicí judikáty:
Corresponding Judgements:
Plný text:
Fulltext:		Ne

Fakta:


Názor soudu a komentář:


Shrnutí (Summary of the Judgment):
1. BY PROVIDING THAT THE MEMBER STATES SHALL NO LONGER GRANT AUTHORIZATIONS FOR NEW PLANTING'' AS FROM THE DATE ON WHICH THIS REGULATION ENTERS INTO FORCE'', THE SECOND SUBPARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 2 (1) OF COUNCIL REGULATION NO 1162/76 ON MEASURES DESIGNED TO ADJUST WINE GROWING POTENTIAL TO MARKET REQUIREMENTS, AS AMENDED BY REGULATION NO 2776/78, RULES OUT THE POSSIBILITY OF TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE TIME AT WHICH AN APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED AND INDICATES THE INTENTION TO GIVE IMMEDIATE EFFECT TO THE REGULATION. REGULATION NO 1162/76 MUST THEREFORE BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT THE SECOND SUBPARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 2 (1) THEREOF ALSO APPLIES TO APPLICATIONS FOR AUTHORIZATION OF NEW PLANTING OF VINES MADE BEFORE THE ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THAT REGULATION.

2. ARTICLE 2 (1) OF REGULATION NO 1162/76 MUST BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT THE PROHIBITION LAID DOWN THEREIN ON THE GRANTING OF AUTHORIZATIONS FOR NEW PLANTING - DISREGARDING THE EXCEPTIONS SPECIFIED IN ARTICLE 2 (2) OF THE REGULATION - IS OF INCLUSIVE APPLICATION, THAT IS TO SAY, IS IN PARTICULAR UNAFFECTED BY THE QUESTION OF THE SUITABILITY OR OTHERWISE OF A PLOT OF LAND FOR WINE-GROWING, AS DETERMINED BY THE PROVISIONS OF A NATIONAL LAW.

3. THE QUESTION OF A POSSIBLE INFRINGEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS BY A MEASURE OF THE COMMUNITY INSTITUTIONS CAN ONLY BE JUDGED IN THE LIGHT OF COMMUNITY LAW ITSELF. THE INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL CRITERIA FOR ASSESSMENT STEMMING FROM THE LEGISLATION OR CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF A PARTICULAR MEMBER STATE WOULD, BY DAMAGING THE SUBSTANTIVE UNITY AND EFFICACY OF COMMUNITY LAW, LEAD INEVITABLY TO THE DESTRUCTION OF THE UNITY OF THE COMMON MARKET AND THE JEOPARDIZING OF THE COHESION OF THE COMMUNITY. FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS FORM AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW, THE OBSERVANCE OF WHICH IS ENSURED BY THE COURT. IN SAFEGUARDING THOSE RIGHTS, THE LATTER IS BOUND TO DRAW INSPIRATION FROM CONSTITUTIONAL TRADITIONS COMMON TO THE MEMBER STATES, SO THAT MEASURES WHICH ARE INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS RECOGNIZED BY THE CONSTITUTIONS OF THOSE STATES ARE UNACCEPTABLE IN THE COMMUNITY. INTERNATIONAL TREATIES FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS ON WHICH THE MEMBER STATES HAVE COLLABORATED OR OF WHICH THEY A
RE SIGNATORIES, CAN ALSO SUPPLY GUIDELINES WHICH SHOULD BE FOLLOWED WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF COMMUNITY LAW. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE DOUBTS EVINCED BY A NATIONAL COURT AS TO THE COMPATIBILITY OF THE PROVISIONS OF AN ACT OF AN INSTITUTION OF THE COMMUNITIES WITH THE RULES CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS FORMULATED WITH REFERENCE TO NATIONAL CONSTITUTIONAL LAW MUST BE UNDERSTOOD AS QUESTIONING THE VALIDITY OF THAT ACT IN THE LIGHT OF COMMUNITY LAW.

4. THE RIGHT TO PROPERTY IS GUARANTEED IN THE COMMUNITY LEGAL ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE IDEAS COMMON TO THE CONSTITUTIONS OF THE MEMBER STATES, WHICH ARE ALSO REFLECTED IN THE FIRST PROTOCOL TO THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS.

5. TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRECEPTS COMMON TO THE MEMBER STATES, CONSISTENT LEGISLATIVE PRACTICES AND ARTICLE 1 OF THE FIRST PROTOCOL TO THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, THE FACT THAT AN ACT OF AN INSTITUTION OF THE COMMUNITY IMPOSES RESTRICTIONS ON THE NEW PLANTING OF VINES CANNOT BE CHALLENGED IN PRINCIPLE AS BEING INCOMPATIBLE WITH DUE OBSERVANCE OF THE RIGHT TO PROPERTY. HOWEVER, IT IS NECESSARY THAT THOSE RESTRICTIONS SHOULD IN FACT CORRESPOND TO OBJECTIVES OF GENERAL INTEREST PURSUED BY THE COMMUNITY AND THAT, WITH REGARD TO THE AIM PURSUED, THEY SHOULD NOT CONSTITUTE A DISPROPORTIONATE AND INTOLERABLE INTERFERENCE WITH THE RIGHTS OF THE OWNER, SUCH AS TO IMPINGE UPON THE VERY SUBSTANCE OF THE RIGHT TO PROPERTY.

6. THE PROHIBITION ON THE NEW PLANTING OF VINES LAID DOWN FOR A LIMITED PERIOD BY REGULATION NO 1162/76 IS JUSTIFIED BY THE OBJECTIVES OF GENERAL INTEREST PURSUED BY THE COMMUNITY, CONSISTING IN THE IMMEDIATE REDUCTION OF PRODUCTION SURPLUSES AND IN THE PREPARATION, IN THE LONGER TERM, OF A RESTRUCTURING OF THE EUROPEAN WINE INDUSTRY. IT DOES NOT THEREFORE INFRINGE THE SUBSTANCE OF THE RIGHT TO PROPERTY.

7. IN THE SAME WAY AS THE RIGHT TO PROPERTY, THE RIGHT OF FREEDOM TO PURSUE TRADE OR PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES, FAR FROM CONSTITUTING AN UNFETTERED PREROGATIVE, MUST BE VIEWED IN THE LIGHT OF THE SOCIAL FUNCTION OF THE ACTIVITIES PROTECTED THEREUNDER. IN PARTICULAR, THIS BEING A CASE OF THE PROHIBITION, BY AN ACT OF AN INSTITUTION OF THE COMMUNITIES, ON THE NEW PLANTING OF VINES, IT IS APPROPRIATE TO NOTE THAT SUCH A MEASURE IN NO WAY AFFECTS ACCESS TO THE OCCUPATION OF WINE GROWING OR THE FREE PURSUIT OF THAT OCCUPATION ON LAND PREVIOUSLY DEVOTED TO WINE-GROWING. SINCE THIS CASE CONCERNS NEW PLANTINGS, ANY RESTRICTION ON THE FREE PURSUIT OF THE OCCUPATION OF WINE-GROWING IS AN ADJUNCT TO THE RESTRICTION PLACED UPON THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT TO PROPERTY.

Plný text judikátu (Entire text of the Judgment):