ĪPPLYING THE PRINCIPLE OF COOPERATION LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 5 OF THE TREATY, IT IS THE NATIONAL COURTS WHICH ARE ENTRUSTED WITH ENSURING THE LEGAL PROTECTION WHICH CITIZENS DERIVE FROM THE DIRECT EFFECT OF THE PROVISIONS OF COMMUNITY LAW. ĥ THE PROHIBITION LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 13 OF THE TREATY AND THAT LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 13 OF REGULATION NO 159/66/EEC HAVE A DIRECT EFFECT AND CONFER ON CITIZENS RIGHTS WHICH THE NATIONAL COURTS ARE REQUIRED TO PROTECT. ĪLTHOUGH IT HAS BEEN POSSIBLE TO RELY ON THE DIRECT EFFECT OF ARTICLE 13 ( 2 ) OF THE EEC TREATY ONLY AS FROM 1 JANUARY 1970, THE END OF THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD, IT SHOULD BE STATED HOWEVER THAT THE LEVYING OF THE SAID CHARGES WAS ALREADY PREVIOUSLY UNLAWFUL BY VIRTUE OF ARTICLE 13 ( 1 ) OF REGULATION NO 159/66/EEC OF THE COUNCIL OF 25 OCTOBER 1966 ( JO 192 OF 27 OCTOBER 1966 ) WHICH ABOLISHED THEM IN RESPECT OF FRUIT AND VEGETABLES AS FROM 1 JANUARY 1967. Ĥ BOTH THE RESPONDENT AND THE NATIONAL COURT ACCEPT THAT THE CHARGES IN QUESTION HAD BEEN UNLAWFULLY EXACTED. THE THIRD QUESTION ASKS WHETHER, IF A RIGHT TO REFUND IS HELD TO EXIST UNDER COMMUNITY LAW, INTEREST IS TO BE PAID ON THE AMOUNT AND IF SO FROM WHAT DATE AND AT WHAT RATE. THE SECOND QUESTION ASKS WHETHER THIS IS SO IF THE COURT OF JUSTICE HAS ALREADY RULED THAT THERE DOES EXIST AN INFRINGEMENT OF THE PROHIBITION CONTAINED IN COMMUNITY LAW. ģ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Ģ THESE QUESTIONS HAVE ARISEN IN A CASE RELATING TO THE PAYMENT IN 1968 ON THE IMPORTATION BY THE APPELLANTS OF FRENCH APPLES OF CHARGES FOR PHYTOSANITARY INSPECTION, REGARDED AS EQUIVALENT TO CUSTOMS DUTIES BY THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF 11 OCTOBER 1973 IN CASE 39/73 ( REWE ZENTRALFINANZ EGMBH ( 1973 ) ECR 1039 ). ON THE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLES 5, 9 AND 13 ( 2 ) OF THE EEC TREATY ,ġ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ġ. ( EEC TREATY, ARTICLE 13, REGULATION NO 159/66/EEC, ARTICLE 13 )Ģ. CUSTOMS DUTIES - CHARGES HAVING EFFECT EQUIVALENT - ABOLITION - DIRECT EFFECT - RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS - PROTECTION BY NATIONAL COURTS Summary Parties Subject of the case Grounds Decision on costs Operative part Keywordsġ.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |