JUDGMENT OF 7.3.1972 — CASE 84/71 MARIMEX v ITALIAN MINISTRY FOR FINANCE
In Case 84/71 Reference to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the President of the Tribunale di Torino for a preliminary ruling in the action pending before that court between
THE COURT composed of: R. Lecourt, President, J. Mertens de Wilmars and H. Kutscher (Rapporteur), Presidents of Chambers, A. M. Donner, A. Trabucchi, R. Monaco and P. Pescatore, Judges, Advocate-General: K. Roemer Registrar : A. Van Houtte
gives the following
JUDGMENT
Issues of fact and of law
I — Facts and procedure
II — Observations submitted under Article 20 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC
1. Jurisdiction of the Court
2. The substance of the case
Questions 1, 2 and 4
Questions 3(a) and (b), 5(a) and (b) and 6(a) and (b)
Questions 3(c), 5(c), 6(c) and 7
Grounds of judgment
Questions 1, 2 and 4
Questions 3(a) and (b), 5(a) and (b), 6(a) and (b)
Questions 3(c), 5(c), 6(c) and 7
Costs
I —. Facts and procedure
1. Under Article 12 of Regulation No 14/64/EECthe charging of any customs duty or charge having equivalent effect, other than as provided in the present regulation, shall be incompatible with the application of the present regulation both in trade between Member States (paragraph (1)) and in respect of imports from third countries (paragraph (2)). The second paragraph of Article 25 fixes the data of introduction of the system of trade instituted by the present regulation at 1 July 1964.
2. During 1966, 1968 and 1969, Marimex imported various consignments of beef and veal into Italy from both Member States and third countries. In respect of each of these imported consignments it had to pay the statistics duty and the duty for administrative services provided for under Italian legislation. Considering that these charges were unlawful, it brought an action before the President of the Tribunale di Torino for an order against the Minister for Finance of the Italian Republic for reimbursement of the sums paid. The company claims that the national provisions in question were not applicable to imports of beef and veal into Italy because they were incompatible with Regulation No 14/64/EEC and Regulation (EEC) No 805/68.
3. By order of 18 September 1971 the President of the Tribunale di Torino decided to refer the following questions to the Court :
4. The order making the reference was entered at the Court Registry on 30 September 1971. Under Article 20 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC, Marimex, the Government of the Italian Republic and the Commission of the European Communities submitted written observations.
II —. Observations submitted under Article 20 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC
1. Jurisdiction of the Court
2. The substance of the case
1. By order of 18 September 1971, which was received at the Court Registry on 30 September 1971, the President of the Tribunale di Torino has referred to the Court several questions on the interpretation, in particular, of Regulation No 14/64/EEC of the Council of 5 February 1964 and Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 of the Council of 27 June 1968 on the common organization of the market in beef and veal. These questions were referred in connexion with the application by the Italian authorities to imports from other Member States and third countries of a duty for administrative services and a statistics duty, which were introduced by Italian Law No 330 of 15 June 1950 and Decrees of the President of the Italian Republic Nos 723 of 26 June 1965 and 1339 of 21 December 1961.
2. The first question invites the Court to rule whether the concept of a charge having effect equivalent to customs duties, referred to in Article 12(1) and (2) of Regulation No 14/64 and in Article 20(2) of Regulation No 805/68 is the same as that defined by the EEC Treaty, in particular in Articles 9, 12, 13 and 16 thereof. The second and fourth questions ask whether the duty for administrative services and the statistics duty introduced under Italian legislation constitute such charges, which are prohibited under the regulations quoted.
3. It follows from the judgments of the Court of 1 July 1969 in Case 24/68 ([1969] ECR 193 et seq.) and of 18 November 1970 in Case 8/70 ([1970] ECR 961 et seq.) that these duties constitute charges having an effect equivalent to a customs duty within the meaning of Articles 9, 12 and 13 of the EEC Treaty and of certain regulations on the common organization of the agricultural market, especially Article 12(1) of Regulation No 14/64 and Article 22(1) of Regulation No 805/68. The concept, in the provisions of the regulations quoted by the Italian court, of charge having equivalent effect has the same meaning as in Article 9 et seq. of the Treaty and in the other regulations on the organization of the agricultural market.
4. The Court is further asked whether the provisions of Article 12(1) and (2) of Regulation No 14/64 and of Articles 20(2) and 22(1) of Regulation No 805/68 lay down rules which are directly applicable in the Member States and have created subjective rights for the benefit of individuals which the national courts must protect.
5. Under the second paragraph of Article 189 of the Treaty, a regulation shall have general application and shall be … directly applicable in all Member States. In consequence, owing to its very nature and its function in the system of sources of Community law, it produces direct effects and, as such, is capable of conferring rights on individuals which national courts have a duty to protect.
6. Finally, the Court is asked to state the dates on which the individual rights arising under Article 12(1) and (2) of Regulation No 14/64 and under Articles 20(2) and 22(1) of Regulation No 805/68 arose. The Court is further requested to declare whether these rights have existed continuously from the time when they arose under the system laid down in Regulation No 14/64. It is therefore necessary to consider from what dates the said provisions took effect and whether they have continued to exist since then.
7. (1) Under Article 25 of Regulation No 14/64, the date of introduction of the system of trade instituted by the regulation was fixed at 1 July 1964. Under Article l(l)(b) of Regulation No 82/64 the date 31 July 1964 was substituted therefor and, pursuant to paragraphs (2) and (3) of the same provision, was in turn replaced by 1 November 1964. The cumulative effect of these provisions is that the date 1 July 1964, which appears in Article 25 of Regulation No 14/64, has been replaced by 1 November 1964. Accordingly, the provisions of Article 12(1) and (2) of Regulation No 14/64 took effect on 1 November 1964.
8. (2) The third paragraph of Article 34 of the basic regulation, (EEC) No 805/68, repealed Regulation No 14/64 with effect from 29 July 1968. The second paragraph of Article 34 provides that, except for certain measures of no relevance to the present case, the system established by this regulation shall apply from that date. Accordingly, as far as the system established by Regulation No 805/68 is concerned, the provisions of Articles 20(2) and 22(1) of that regulation took effect on 29 July 1968. Regulation No 805/68 is still in force.
9. (3) It follows from the above considerations that the effects in question have existed continuously since 1 November 1964.
10. The costs incurred by the Government of the Italian Republic and by the Commission of the European Communities, which submitted observations to the Court, are not recoverable and, as these proceedings are a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court.
On those grounds, Upon reading the pleadings; Upon hearing the report of the Judge-Rapporteur; Upon hearing the oral observations of the Government of the Italian Republic, the Commission of the European Communities and Marimex; Upon hearing the opinion of the Advocate-General; Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, especially Articles 9, 12, 13, 177 and 189; Having regard to Regulation No 14/64/EEC of the Council on the progressive establishment of a common organization of the market in beef and veal, especially Articles 12, 17 and 25; Having regard to Regulation No 82/64/EEC of the Council amending the date of application of certain measures relating to common agricultural policy, especially Article 1; Having regard to Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 of the Council on the common organization of the market in beef and veal, especially Articles 20, 22 and 34; Having regard to the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC, especially Article 20; Having regard to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, THE COURT in answer to the questions referred to it by the President of the Tribunale di Torino by order of 18 September 1971, hereby rules:
1 The concept of charge having equivalent effect has, in Articles 12(1) and (2) of Regulation No 14/64/EEC and 20(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 805/68, the same meaning as in Article 9 et seq. of the Treaty and in the other regulations on the organization of the agricultural market.
2 All regulations produce direct effects and, as such, are capable of conferring rights on individuals which national courts have a duty to protect; this applies to Article 12(1) and (2) of Regulation No 14/64/EEC and to Articles 20(2) and 22(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 805/68;
3 The provisions of Article 12(1) and (2) of Regulation No 14/64/EEC took effect on 1 November 1964;
4 The provisions of Articles 20(2) and 22(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 took effect on 29 July 1968;
5 The effects in question have continued to exist since 1 November 1964.