JUDGMENT OF 27.2. 1962 — CASE 10/61 COMMISSION v ITALY

In Case 10/61

THE COURT composed of: A. M. Donner, President, O. Riese and J. Rueff (Presidents of Chambers), L. Delvaux (Rapporteur), Ch. L. Hammes, R. Rossi and N. Catalano, Judges, Advocate-General: M. Lagrange Registrar: A. Van Houtte

gives the following

JUDGMENT

Issues of fact and of law

I — Conclusions of the parties

The applicant claims that the Court should:

The defendant contends that the Court should:

II — Facts

III — Submissions and arguments of the parties

A — On admissibility

B — On the substance of the case

IV — Procedure

The procedure followed the normal course.

Grounds of judgment

I — As to admissibility

II — On the substance of the case

III — Costs

I —. Conclusions of the parties

II —. Facts

III —. Submissions and arguments of the parties

A —. On admissibility

B —. On the substance of the case

1. The Commission of the EEC, the applicant in this action, claims that Articles 12, 13 and 14 of the EEC Treaty have been infringed by the application of a minimum duty of 150 lire to tubes, valves and lamps, the dutiable value of which does not exceed 428 lire. This submission is developed under heads (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) below.

2. Alternatively, the applicant maintains that on 1 January 1957 and 1 January 1958 only the duty of 35 % without fixed minimum had been bound in a convention ratified by the Italian Parliament, that is to say, the tariff conference held at Annecy in 1949. The delegation of powers allowed to the executive enabled the Italian Government to enact temporary measures suspending or reducing the legal tariffs, but not to increase them. Therefore, the Presidential Decree of 12 July 1956, applying provisionally — until its ratification by the Italian Parliament — the Geneva Agreement of 1956 which imposed the duty of 30 % with a minimum of 150 lire per article for the whole of tariff heading 1204 d, was only legal to the extent that the new duty was as favourable to the importer as the duty of 35 % without fixed minimum. The Circular of 13 July 1956 had therefore rightly interpreted the Presidential Decree as instructing the customs authorities to apply the new duty only where it was more favourable to the importer than the old duty.

3. The Italian Government raises an objection based on Article 234 of the EEC Treaty, which states that the rights and obligations arising from agreements concluded before the entry into force of this Treaty between one or more Member States on the one hand, and one or more third countries on the other, shall not be affected by the provisions of this Treaty.

IV —. Procedure

I —. As to admissibility

II —. On the substance of the case

A. One must first examine the meaning given by Articles 12 and 14 respectively to the words customs duties … or any charges having equivalent effect… which (Member States) … already apply in their trade with each other (Article 12) and the duty applied on 1 January 1957 (Article 14).

B. The defendant raises an objection based upon the first paragraph of Article 234, relating to the maintenance of rights and obligations arising from prior agreements concluded with third countries. The defendant maintains that this text permits and even obliges it to impose in every case the duty of 30 % subject to the fixed minimum established under the Geneva Agreements of 1956.

III —. Costs

On those grounds, Upon reading the pleadings; Upon hearing the report of the Judge-Rapporteur; Upon hearing the parties; Upon hearing the opinion of the Advocate-General; Having regard to Articles 12, 13, 14, 19, 169, 171 and 234 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community; Having regard to the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Economic Community; Having regard to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Communities; THE COURT hereby:

1 Rules that, by applying the fixed customs duty of 150 lire on the goods in question from other Member States with a dutiable value not exceeding 428 lire per article, after the entry into force of the Treaty, and by taking that duty as the basis for the calculation of the successive reductions in customs duties, the Italian Government has failed in its obligations under Articles 12 and 14 (1) of the Treaty;

2 Orders the defendant to pay the costs.