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):
61979J0066
Název:
Title:
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF 27 MARCH 1980. AMMINISTRAZIONE DELLE FINANZE V S.R.L. MERIDIONALE INDUSTRIA SALUMI, FRATELLI VASANELLI AND FRATELLI ULTROCCHI. PRELIMINARY RULING REQUESTED BY THE CORTE SUPREMA DI CASSAZIONE, ROME. THE EFFECT IN POINT OF TIME OF PRELIMINARY RULINGS. JOINED CASES 66, 127 AND 128-79.
Publikace:
Publication:
REPORTS OF CASES 1980 PAGES 1237
Předmět (klíčová slova):
Keywords
AGRICULTURE;BEEF AND VEAL;OWN RESOURCES;
Související předpisy:
Corresponding acts:
157E177
Odkaz na souvisejicí judikáty:
Corresponding Judgements:
    Frecassetti Case 113/75, Giordano Frecassetti v Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato, [1976] ECR 983
    Barra, Case 309/85, Bruno Barra v Belgian State and City of Ličge, [1988] ECR 355
Plný text:
Fulltext:
Ne

Fakta:
The present case arose in a dispute on the interpretation of Council regulations on import levies for agricultural goods. Various Council regulations provide that the amount of the import levy to be charged is that applicable “on the day of importation”. The corresponding Italian law provided that the rate to be charged is that in force “at the date on which the import declaration is accepted by the customs authorities”. However, the relevant provision continues that where the duty is changed after the aforementioned date customs authorities may, at the request of the importer, apply the most favourable rate provided that the goods have not been released to the importer.
By judgement of 15 June 1976, published in the Official Journal of the European Communities on 11 September 1976, the European Court of Justice decided, that the “day of importation” referred to in Council regulations on the common organization of the agricultural markets was to be interpreted as being the day “on which the import declaration for the goods is accepted by the customs authorities”, thus leaving no room for the “most-favourable-rate” rule provided by the Italian provisions cited above (
Frecassetti
).
The Italian government subsequently supplemented its relevant provisions on import levies, specifying that the option of applying for the most favourable rate does not extend to agricultural levies or to other charges laid down within the context of the common agricultural policy. However, this restriction to the possibility of applying for the “most-favourable-rate” rule was to enter into force only as from 11 September 1976, the day of the publication of the
Frecassetti
judgement.
Already before the date of the
Frecassetti
judgement the Italian Finance Administration required the three undertakings involved in the present proceedings - Salumi, Vasanelli and Ultrocchi - to pay additional amounts on levies relating to the import of beef and veal because the rule “of the most favourable rate” had been applied by mistake. When subsequently the Court’s ruling in
Frecassetti
had been delivered, the Corte di Cassatione was confronted with the question whether the supplemented Italian laws which limited the retroactive effect as from the day of the judgement was in conformity with Community law.
The Corte di Cassatione under Article 177 of the Treaty referred to the ECJ two questions: (1) Whether the interpretation of Community law given by the Court also applies retroactively to relationships within the domestic legal system of a Member State, or whether such application was subject to specific limits and on specified conditions; and with respect to the supplement of the relevant Italian laws, the Corte di Cassatione wished to konw (2) whether the rights or duties which derive from the direct effect of a Community law may or may not be adapted and possibly limited by national law.


Názor soudu a komentář:
The Court has in rare cases set temporal limitations to its rulings, thus limiting their retroactive effect (
Defrenne II
). It had, however, emphasised that such temporal limitation could only be granted under exceptional circumstances, “in application of the general principle of legal certainty inherent in the Community legal order and in taking account of the serious effects which its judgement might have, as regards the past, on legal relationships established in good faith” ( cf. also the subsequent judgement in
Barra
). Whether such restriction applies is for the Court alone to decide and this decision is to be made in the actual judgement. In other words, national courts do not have the power to subsequently provide for temporal limitations. If the Court - as had been the case in
Frecassetti
- has not limited the scope of its judgement, then the interpretation given in its judgement applies to the respective Community law as from the day of the law’s entry into force.
As to the second question, the adaptation and limitation of rights and duties arising under Community law by the national legislature, the Court first points out the general need for a uniform application of the Community law which is being mandated by the general principle of equality. “It follows [from the principle of equality] that the system of revenues which are contributed to the Community budget must be so arranged as to constitute a uniform burden on all persons who meet the conditions specified in the Community provisions on such burdens.” The Court points out that in pursuance of this principle, the Council has adopted two Regulations
Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 of 2 July 1979 on the repayment or remission of import or export duties (OJ 1979, L 175, p. 1) and Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 of 24 July 1979 on the post-clearance recovery of import duties or export duties which have not been required of the person liable for payment on goods entered for a customs procedure involving the obligation to pay such duties (OJ 1979, L 197, p. 1).
on the repayment of import and export duties; these Regulations have not been in force at the date of the present judgement. Therefore, “in so far as no provisions of Community law are relevant, it is for the national legal system of each Member State do lay down the detailed rules and conditions for the collection of Community revenues in general and agricultural levies in particular ...”. It has to be provided, however, that the national law is not discriminatory on the one hand and secondly that it may not hinder the effective application of Community law: “the application of national legislation must be effected in a non-discriminatory manner having regard to the procedural rules relating to disputes of the same type, but purely national, and (...) procedural rules cannot have the result of making impossible in practice the exercise of rights conferred by Community law”.
In sum, the judgement (a) reaffirms that in general the Court’s judgements apply also retroactively and without any temporal limitation and (b) national legislation governs the questions of reimbursement of amounts collected for the Community, this national law may not, however, apply in a discriminatory fashion and it may not make Community rights impossible.


Shrnutí (Summary of the Judgment):
1. THE INTERPRETATION WHICH, IN THE EXERCISE OF THE JURISDICTION CONFERRED ON IT BY ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY, THE COURT GIVES TO A RULE OF COMMUNITY LAW CLARIFIES AND DEFINES WHERE NECESSARY THE MEANING AND SCOPE OF THAT RULE AS IT MUST BE OR OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN UNDERSTOOD AND APPLIED FROM THE TIME OF ITS COMING INTO FORCE. IT FOLLOWS THAT THE RULE AS THUS INTERPRETED MAY, AND MUST, BE APPLIED BY THE COURTS EVEN TO LEGAL RELATIONSHIPS ARISING AND ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE JUDGMENT RULING ON THE REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION, PROVIDED THAT IN OTHER RESPECTS THE CONDITIONS ENABLING AN ACTION RELATING TO THE APPLICATION OF THAT RULE TO BE BROUGHT BEFORE THE COURTS HAVING JURISDICTION ARE SATISFIED. IT IS ONLY EXCEPTIONALLY THAT THE COURT MAY, IN APPLICATION OF THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF LEGAL CERTAINTY INHERENT IN THE COMMUNITY LEGAL ORDER AND IN TAKING ACCOUNT OF THE SERIOUS EFFECTS WHICH ITS JUDGMENT MIGHT HAVE, AS REGARDS THE PAST, ON LEGAL RELATIONSHIPS ESTABLISHED IN GOOD FAITH, BE MOVED TO RESTRICT FOR ANY PER
SON CONCERNED THE OPPORTUNITY OF RELYING UPON THE PROVISION AS THUS INTERPRETED WITH A VIEW TO CALLING IN QUESTION THOSE LEGAL RELATIONSHIPS.

2. THE GENERAL ARRANGEMENTS REGARDING THE FINANCIAL PROVISIONS OF THE TREATY ARE GOVERNED BY THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY WHICH REQUIRES THAT COMPARABLE SITUATIONS MAY NOT BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY UNLESS DIFFERENCE OF TREATMENT IS OBJECTIVELY JUSTIFIED. IT FOLLOWS THAT THE REVENUES WHICH ARE CONTRIBUTED TO THE COMMUNITY BUDGET AND THE FINANCIAL ADVANTAGES CHARGED THERETO MUST BE SO ARRANGED AND APPLIED AS TO CONSTITUTE A UNIFORM BURDEN OR TO CONFER UNIFORM BENEFITS ON ALL PERSONS WHO MEET THE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN THE COMMUNITY PROVISIONS ON SUCH BURDENS OR ADVANTAGES.

3. IN SO FAR AS NO PROVISIONS OF COMMUNITY LAW ARE RELEVANT, IT IS FOR THE NATIONAL LEGAL SYSTEM OF EACH MEMBER STATE TO LAY DOWN THE DETAILED RULES AND CONDITIONS FOR THE COLLECTION OF COMMUNITY REVENUES IN GENERAL AND AGRICULTURAL LEVIES IN PARTICULAR AND TO DETERMINE THE AUTHORITIES RESPONSIBLE FOR COLLECTION AND THE COURTS HAVING JURISDICTION TO DECIDE DISPUTES TO WHICH THAT COLLECTION MAY GIVE RISE BUT SUCH PROCEDURES AND CONDITIONS MAY NOT MAKE THE SYSTEM FOR COLLECTING COMMUNITY CHARGES AND DUES LESS EFFECTIVE THAN THAT FOR COLLECTING NATIONAL CHARGES AND DUES OF THE SAME KIND. A SPECIAL SYSTEM OF NATIONAL RULES RELATING TO THE COLLECTION OF COMMUNITY CHARGES AND DUES WHICH RESTRICTS THE POWERS GRANTED TO THE NATIONAL AUTHORITY TO ENSURE THE COLLECTION OF THOSE CHARGES AS COMPARED WITH THE POWERS GRANTED TO THE SAME AUTHORITY IN REGARD TO NATIONAL CHARGES OR DUES OF THE SAME KIND IS THEREFORE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH COMMUNITY LAW.

Plný text judikátu (Entire text of the Judgment):