JUDGMENT OF 4. 2. 1965—CASE 20/64 ALBATROS v SOPÉCO

In Case 20/64 Reference to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Tribunale Civile di Roma for a preliminary ruling in the action pending before that court between

THE COURT composed of: Ch. L. Hammes, President, A. M. Donner (Rapporteur) and R. Lecourt, Presidents of Chambers, L. Delvaux, A. Trabucchi, W. Strauß and R. Monaco, Judges, Advocate-General: J. Gand Registrar: A. Van Houtte

gives the following

JUDGMENT

Issues of fact and of law

Grounds of judgment

As to the jurisdiction of the Court

On the substance of the case

Costs

A. Must Article 30 of the Treaty, read together with Article 3 and Articles 31, 32 and 35, be interpreted as having or not having the effect of abrogating the previous provisions of the French Regulations concerning the petroleum import system, and in particular the provisions of the law of 30 March 1928 (JO of 31 March 1928) and the Decree-Laws of 8 August and 1 February 1950, should these conflict with the above-mentioned provisions of the Treaty?

B. Must Articles 31 and 32 of the Treaty, read together with Article 5, be interpreted as constituting or not a source of rules overriding Ordonnance No 58892 of 24 September 1958, promulgated by the French Government after the entry into force of the same Treaty (1 January 1958), an ordonnance which supplemented and modified the above-mentioned law of 30 March 1928?

C. In the event of the Court's answering the above questions in the negative, must Article 33 of the Treaty, read together with Article 5, be so interpreted that the French rules derived from the whole of the said provisions of the national law are to be regarded as subsequently rendered void, or not, af ter the date of the entry into force of the said Treaty (1 January 1958)?

D. Must Article 37 of the Treaty, read together with Article 5, be interpreted as involving the progressive abolition of any public monopoly operating in compliance with the French legislation governing the importation of petroleum?

(a). were taken after the entry into force of the Treaty and make the situation in respect of imports more restrictive than it had been previously;

(b). or, in comparison with the situation existing at the date when the Treaty entered into force, restrict the importation of petroleum products from other Member States to a smaller quantity than that envisaged by Article 33 of The Treaty.

(a). on the interpretation of Articles 30, 31, 32, 33 and 37 in respect of the French legislation concerning petroleum, as applied, and according to which only organizations or persons already in possession of special authorizations in accordance with the law of 30 March 1928 can obtain a licence to import petroleum and its derivatives;

(b). on the question whether or not these Articles 30, 31, 32, 33 and 37 are calculated to produce direct effects in the legal systems of the various Member States and whether, in consequence, the nationals of the Member States may derive rights directly from these Articles which courts are obliged to protect.

On those grounds, Upon reading the pleadings; Upon hearing the report of the Judge-Rapporteur; Upon hearing the submissions of the parties to the main action and the observations of the Commission of the European Economic Community and the Netherlands, French and Belgian Governments; Upon hearing the opinion of the Advocate-General; Having regard to Articles 30, 31, 32, 33, 37 and 177 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community; Having regard to the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the said Community; Having regard to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, THE COURT hereby rules:

1 None of the provisions of the Treaty mentioned by the Tribunale Civile, Rome, implies the abrogation ipso jure on the date of the entry into force of the Treaty of the quantitative restrictions, discriminations or measures having equivalent effect which existed on that date, or requires the States to abolish them completely as from 1959;

2 The decision as to costs is a matter for the above-mentioned court.