C-84/71

JUDGMENT OF 7.3.1972 — CASE 84/71

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

SpA Marimex, Milan,

and

Ministry for Finance of the Italian Republic,

Registrar : A. Van Houtte

gives the following

MARI МЕХ ν ITALIAN MINISTRY FOR FINANCE

JUDGMENT

Issues of fact and of law

I — Facts and procedure 3. If the regulations in implementation of Regulation No 13/64/EEC referred to The facts and procedure may be sum­ in paragraph (2) above have not been marized as follows: adopted before 31 July 1964, that date shall be replaced : 1. Under Article 12 of Regulation No 14/64/EEC 'the charging of any customs — in the articles of Regulation Nos ... duty or charge having equivalent effect, 14/64/EEC set out in paragraph (1), other than as provided in the present by the date 1 November 1964, 5 regulation', 'shall be incompatible with the application of the present regulation' both in trade between Member States (para­ Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 prohibits 'the graph (1)) and in respect of imports from levying of any charge having effect third countries (paragraph (2)). The equivalent to a customs duty' both in second paragraph of Article 25 fixes 'the trade with third countries (Article 20(2)) data of introduction of the system of trade and in the internal trade of the Com­ instituted by the present regulation' at munity (Article 22(1)). Under Article 34 1 July 1964. of the same regulation, 'the system On 30 June 1964, however, the Council established by this regulation shall apply adopted Regulation No 82/64/EEC 'amend­ from 29 July 1968' except for certain ing the date of application of certain provisions of no relevance to the present measures relating to common agricultural case (second paragraph) and Regulation policy' (JO 1964, p. 1626), Article 1 of No 14/64/EEC was repealed with effect which provides as follows : from the same date (third paragraph).

'1. Is the concept of a 'charge having (c) does the existence of these rights effect equivalent' to customs duties, date from 29 July 1968? referred to in Article 12(1) and (2) of Regulation No 14/64/EEC and in 6. (a) Are the rules contained in Article Article 20(2) of Regulation (EEC) 22(1) of Regulation (EEC) No No 805/68 the same as that defined by 805/68 directly applicable in the the EEC Treaty, in particular in Italian legal system? Articles 9, 12, 13 and 16 thereof? (b) has Article 22(1) of Regulation 2. Do the statistics duty (provided for in (EEC) No 805/68 created in­ Article 42 of Decree No 1339 of the dividual rights which national President of the Republic of 21 Decem­ courts must protect? ber 1961 and by Article 42 of Decree (c) does the existence of these rights No 723 of the President of the Republic date from 29 July 1968? of 26 June 1965) and the duty for administrative services (provided for by law No 330 of 15 June 1950), come 7. Have the duty imposed on the Italian within the charges having equivalent State not to demand payment of the effect which the Italian State is pro­ statistics duty and of the duty for hibited from levying by Article 12(1) administrative services on the importa­ and (2) of Regulation No 14/64/EEC? tion of products which come within a common organization of the market in 3. If the answer to Question No 2 is in the beef and veal and the subjective right affirmative, of individuals not to pay the above mentioned 'charges having equivalent (a) are the rules contained in Article effect' which is its corollary existed 12(1) and (2) directly applicable in continuously between the date as­ Italy? certained in the reply to Question No 3 and the time-limit laid down in (b) does Article 12(1) and (2) create Law No 447 of 24 June 1971 for individual rights which national courts must protect? abolition of the statistics duty and the duty for administrative services?' (c) does the existence of these rights date from 31 July 1964 or from 4. The order making the reference was 1 November 1964? entered at the Court Registry on 30 September 1971. Under Article 20 of the 4. Do the statistics duty and the duty for Protocol on the Statute of the Court of administrative services come within the Justice of the EEC, Marimex, the Govern­ charges having equivalent effect which ment of the Italian Republic and the Com­ the Italian State is prohibited from mission of the European Communities levying by Article 20(2) and Regulation submitted written observations. (EEC) No 805/68? The Court, after hearing the report of the Judge-Rapporteur and the views of the 5. If the answer to Question No 4 is in the Advocate-General, decided to open the affirmative, oral procedure without any preparatory inquiry. (a) are the rules contained in Article Marimex, the Italian Government and the 20(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 directly applicable in the Commission presented oral argument at Italian legal system? the hearing on 1 February 1972. The Advocate-General delivered his opin­ (b) has Article 20(2) of Regulation ion at the hearing on 24 February 1972. (EEC) No 805/68 created in­ Marimex was represented by Giovanni dividual rights which national Maria Ubertazzi and Fausto Capelli, of the courts must protect? Milan Bar; the Italian Government by

Adolfo Maresca, Minister Plenipotentiary, Question No 2 constitute 'charges having assisted by Giorgio Zagari, Deputy State equivalent effect'; see the judgments of Advocate-Genreal ; and the Commission 1 July 1969 in Case 24/68 (Commission of by its Legal Adviser, Doctor Cesare the European Communities v Italian Re Maestripieri. public [1969] ECR 193), 18 November 1970 in Case 88/70 (Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic [1970] II — Observations submitted under ECR 961), 17 December 1970 in Case Article 20 of the Protocol on 33/70 (SpA SACE v Ministry for Finance of the Statute of the Court of the Italian Republic [1970] ECR 1213) and Justice of the EEC 14 December 1971 in Case 43/71, quoted

reference. The national court can, before from the object pursued by those regula hearing the other parties, request a tions, namely to substitute a Community preliminary ruling in the course of sum system for the various national measures mary proceedings such as those for an impeding trade between Member States injunction under Articles 633 et seq. of and with third countries (see the third and the Italian code of civil procedure. fourth recitals of the preamble to Regula These arguments are supported by the tion No 14/64 and the twelfth and thir judgment of the Court of 14 December teenth recitals of the preamble to Regula 1971 in Case 43/71 (SpA Politi v Ministry tion No 805/68). for Finance of the Italian Republic). As for the criteria used in defining charges The Italian Government had, in its written having an effect equivalent to a customs observations, challenged the admissibility duty, reference need only be made, in of the request for interpretation by refer particular, to the judgments quoted by ring to the arguments which it had put Marimex and the judgment of 1 July 1969 forward in the Politi case mentioned above. in Joined Cases 2 and 3/69 (Sociaal Fonds After noting the judgment delivery by voor de Diamantarbeiders v SA Ch.

The substance of the case pointed out by the national court are contained in Community regulations which Only Marimex and the Commission adopt are of general application and are binding a view-point on the substance of the case. in their entirety by virtue of Article 189 of the Treaty. Moreover, those provisions Questions 1, 2 and 4 fulfil all the conditions required by the Court for a Community rule to confer In the view of Marimex, it is clear from the rights on those subject to Community law. case-law of the Court that the statistics In short, they are expressed in clear and duty and the duty for administrative ser precise terms, are unconditional and not vices referred to by the Italian court in subject to subsequent action by Member

States or institutions of the Community in implementation of certain provisions of and lie outside the discretionary power of Regulation No 13/64 are adopted before the Member States. 31 July 1964, did in fact occur; the The Commission's arguments are in essence reference is to Regulations Nos 111/64/ the same as those of Marimex. EEC, 112/64/EEC and 114/64/EEC of the Council, all of 30 July 1964 (JO 1964,

In Regulation No 805/68 (see Article 34 of this connexion, Law No 447 may be con that regulation). sidered to have been adopted to repeal formally the provisions declared to be The effect of these provisions, taken as a incompatible with the Treaty by the whole, is that the prohibition on levying judgments of the Court in Cases 24/68 and charges having equivalent effect has existed 8/70 and to ensure that the costs which continuously from 1 November 1964 up were thereby incurred by the Italian State to the present and, in any case, until the were covered, but not to have been intended date laid down by Italian Law No 447 of to exclude the application of the Com 24 June 1971 for abolition of the statistics munity rules concerned with regard to the duty and of the duty for administrative period prior to the dates from which it services, that is to say, until, respectively, abolished the statistics duty and the duty 2 August 1971 and 1 July 1968. for administrative services. The seventh question from the national Should it nevertheless, in spite of all court raises in addition the issue of the attempts at interpretation, be necessary conflict between Community law and the to declare that the abovementioned law rules of national law.

duced by Regulation No 805/68). With measures without endangering the func regard to the former date, the Commission tioning of the Community system and points out that the situation contemplated jeopardizing the attainment of the objec in Article 1(2) of Regulation No 82/64, tives of the Treaty. namely, where the regulations to be made

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.

Questions 3(a) and (b), 5(a) and (b), 6(a) and (b)

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

JUDGMENT OF 7.3.1972 — CASE 84/71

subjective rights for the benefit of individuals which the national courts must protect.

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.

MARIMEX ν ITALIAN MINISTRY FOR FINANCE

Costs

№ The costs incurred by the Government of the Italian Republic and by the Com­ mission 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,

Questions 3(a) and (b), 5(a) and (b), 6(a) and (b)

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;

Questions 3(c), 5(c), 6(c) and 7

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.

Mr President, legal problems are raised in the present Members of the Court, case. This means that, in common with the parties who submitted oral observa­ Although the facts of the present case are tions, I can be fairly brief in giving my different from those of the case which was opinion. referred by the President of the Tribunale di As the Court will be aware, the Marimex Torino, on which the Court gave a ruling undertaking, Milan, imported into Italy in its judgment of 14 December 1971 in during the years 1966, 1968 and 1969 beef Case 43/71 (Politi Sas. ν Ministry for and veal from Member States of the EEC Finance of the Italian Republic, the same and from third countries.

1 — Translated from the German.