JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
16 DECEMBER
Rewe-Zentralfinanz v
eG
1976
1
Rewe-Zentral AG
and
Landwirtschaftskammer für das Saarland
(preliminary ruling requested by Bundesverwaltungsgericht)
the
Case 33/76
Summary 1.
Customs duties
having
effect equivalent
Protection
—
Treaty, Article 13, Regulation
(EEC 2.
Charges
—
Rights of individuals
—
Community law national
Direct
—
courts
effect
Recourse
—
to
—
the
by
—
Abolition
—
Direct
effect
national courts
No 159/66/EEC, Article Rights courts
13)
Protection of individuals National procedural rules —
—
by —
Application
1. The 13
the
Treaty
Article
in
13
confer
on
national
are
In
the
absence
on
this
subject,
legal to
procedural
which
the
to
the to
such
the
rights
similar
The
it
State
if
the
in
the
to
actions
the
of
to
ensure
being
the
citizens
effect
of
understood
cannot
be
less
those a
would
conditions
practice
which
governing
than
position
to
which
direct
the
conditions
favourable
rules
determine
conditions
that
having
courts
of
Community law,
domestic
the
law intended
from
have
protect.
Member
each
and
and
Community
or
designate
jurisdiction
rights
protection
No
effect
required
it is for
of
system
direct
a
citizens
courts
Regulation
of
at
actions
laid down
that
and
have
159/66/EEC
2.
laid down in Article
prohibition
of
to relating domestic nature.
be different only it impossible
made
exercise
national
courts
the are
rights
obliged
protect.
In Case 33/76
Reference Senate
of
to the
the
Court
pending before that
court
1.
REWE-ZENTRALFINANZ
2.
REWE-ZENTRAL
1
—
Language
of
the
under
Article
177
Bundesverwaltungsgericht for
of a
the
EEC
Treaty by
the
preliminary ruling in the
VIIth action
between
EG ,
Cologne,
AG, Cologne,
Case: German.
1989
JUDGMENT OF
16. 12.
1976
CASE 33/76
—
and
LANDWIRTSCHAFTSKAMMER
SAARLAND
DAS
FUR
(Agricultural
Saarbrücken
,
Chamber for the Saar), on
interpretation
the
Articles 5, 9
of
13
and
(2)
Treaty,
EEC
the
of
THE COURT
composed
H.
of:
(Presidents
J.
de
Mertens
Stuart, A. O'Keeffe, G. Bosco
Mackenzie
A. M.
President,
Kutscher,
Chambers),
of
Donner
A.
and
Pescatore
P.
and
M.
Wilmars,
Lord
Sørensen,
Touffait, Judges,
Advocate-General: J.-P. Warner Registrar: A. Van Houtte
gives
following
the
JUDGMENT
Facts
The
order
making the
procedure
and
submitted
pursuant
Protocol Justice as
the
of
to
the
reference,
observations
Article 20
Statute
the
on
the
written
Court
the
of
EEC may be
the
of
of
summarized
follows:
Saarland to the
dismissed that of of
it
the
out
was
Facts
—
and
interest. This
time
of
imposing
the
amounts
claim
Procedure
before
under
Article 58 (Code
Administrative
the
brought
actions
before
was
the ground
on
Verwaltungsgerichtsordnung
companies
procedure
decisions
refund
inadmissible
as
Court). The I
to
and
including
paid
the
annul
charges
by
the
two
Verwaltungsgericht
the
für das Saarland (Saarland Administrative In
1968
the
Zentralfinanz paid
in
German and
eG
respect
of
inspection judgment
the
were
Court
1973 in Case 39/73
be
equivalent
to
import
for
which of
Rewe-
Rewe-Zentral
the
charges
apples
companies
French
Court) made
were
by
gericht
1973
the
1990
the
said
was
as
the
to
the
appeal
Oberverwaltungs
(Higher Administrative Court).
found 11
of
by
the
October
ECR 1039 to
duties.
companies
and
then appealed to the
Bundesverwaltungs
gericht
Landwirtschaftskammer
(Federal
The latter
applied
für
to
das
Rewe-Zentral
Rewe-Zentralfinanz
whether
In
dismissed
them
phyto-sanitary
[1973]
customs
of
AG
Administrative
took the view that the
it
is
infringement
irrespective
of
possible
of
the
to
Court). question
rely
Community expiry
of
on
an
law
time-limits
REWE
in
national
general
Treaty 1976
by
and
appeal
the
for
Court
Article
under
ruling
preliminary
177
a
of
the EEC Treaty:
1.
where
an
having
customs
the
of
body
administrative
an
in
one
prohibition
effect
on
equivalent
to
duties (Articles 5, 9 and 13 (2) EEC has the Treaty)
Community
citizen
concerned
a
(a)
to
the
(b)
and/or
revocation
or
the administrative measure; to
a
for
time-limit
is
measure
2.
Is this the
the
If
a
right
be
paid
on
date
order
refund
a
held
is
is
the amount
and
of
at
what
in
to
exist
interest if
and
so
to
from
the
Court
the
judgment
VIIth
the
on
accordance
Protocol
on
6 April
Senate
the
of
registered
was
1976.
of
were
lodged
the
Article
with
Statute
the
Justice
EEC
by
Communities, by Federal
is
by
of
of
as
that
stated
the
hearing -General
the
in
Court
the
infringements
1973
July
ECR 813 the Court
aim
by
concerned.
12
of
the
of
part
person
to of
elimination
Member States
thereof,
is
Treaty
the
of
practical
consequences
It
is
true
the
and
future.
and
past
45 the Court
itself
Court
of
observations companies
Rewe-Zentral, European
the
can
be
infringement
relating
liability for
the
if the
the
no
and
oral
the and
the
report
the
Court
procedure
preparatory inquiry.
of
views
of
provision
consequences
infringement
treatment
idiosyncrasies
the
system;
to
without
a
(b)
the
by
of
requirements
protection
system
of
and
the
simply
by
to
an
national
administrative reasons:
Community and
rules
uniform
apply to
can
the
arising from their State. Member a
traders would
the
decided
13
to
the
of
of
case
all-embracing
other
legal
United
the
of
is
the
of
affected
following
effect
the
regards
consequences
in this
Article
of
as
context
State.
remedies
(a)
has law
law relating to the Nevertheless there
trader
a
by
Germany,
the
question
referring
there
the
national
the
of
Italian Republic
of
in
of
no
take
ECR
Community
State,
the
to
party,
of
22
of
[1976]
that where
stated
for
be
injured upon
judgment
the
infringement
an
will
in
that
1976 in Case 60/75
January
Otherwise
Judge-Rapporteur
open
101
the
on
the
[1973]
the
achieve
unequal
Advocate
liability
Further in the judgment
Kingdom. After
1973
February
ECR
of
against
per se
of
the
the
of
Government
Government
the
7
of
infringement
rule
possible
the
the
Republic
Government
20
the and
Commission
the
to
by a Member Community law which directly applicable could be the basis a
provisions
the
of
written
Rewe-Zentralfinanz
by
decision
the
against
[1973]
that an
of
liability In
of
charges
charges.
39/72
State
been
rate?
Bundesverwaltungsgericht at
its
Case
it
The
Court
law?
to
Community law,
under
what
the European
contained
prohibition
Community 3.
impose
State
of
there
period
prescribed
in Case 70/72 if
to the
whether
question
Community law contrary to may exceptionally be retained because no been brought has the within claim
the
administrative
least
at
from submitting the
collected
of
past?
case
the
of
refrained
the
Justice has already ruled that does infringement exist an
Court
of
law
contesting
the
of
validity
of
rules
national
first of all say that the Member States have so far
appellants
courts
stated
amount
the
under
the
of
procedure
the
or
refund
if
even
paid
The
In
or
annulment
obser
written
right
Community law
under
of
vations
Justice
State has infringed the charges
Summary
—
January
referred
the
II
EEC
the
23
and
to
questions
provisions
of
dated
order
the
stayed
following
procedural
interpretation
the
required
LANDWIRTSCHAFTSKAMMER SAARLAND
v
be
subject
to
according
each
of
the
national
effective
logic
Treaty imply
of
to
the
legal
legal the
likewise
1991
JUDGMENT OF 16. 12. 1976
that
directly
rules
should
characterized
infringement
the
Member
the
States
of
law
the
of
effects
as
rules
the
to
German
or
setting
have
to
administrative
act
the
the
charge
this
annulment
decision
the
ot
According
charge.
law
national
aside
imposing condition
a
constitutes
the
of
aside
setting
imposing
by
rights
or
annulment
decision
individual
which
the
gives
Community
under
Community
applicable
be
CASE 33/76
—
to the refund of the charges.
precedent
annulled,
(c)
if the legal
in
only in
an
such
become
to
were
established national
of
consequences
infringement
accordance
with
would
be
thus
under
German law
on
administrative
of
the
conjunction
(Basic
Article
with
839
the
of
Code) by the
committed
the
in
Law))
Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (Civil only infringements in administration
exercise
of
authority are covered. Further German law or a wilful requires public
breach
negligent
of
not
duty on
Case
11/70
declared
Court
because
by
overridden
however its
legal
The
question.
to
particular
ECR
33
[1974]
ECR 139). It
the
of
nature
The
Treaty to
and
Community without
It
right
to
contrary
1992
146/73
the to
a
of
refund
of
Community
charges
law but
effects
of
covers
the
injured
to
also
special
a
of
internal the and
conceived
law for
Court action
only
a
exacted also
to
as
claims
citizens
of
law.
national
for
Community on
independent
them
the
to
said
claim
charge
any substantive ground Article 13 (2) was not
State.
Member
a
recognized
of
The
that
the
national
or
wrongly levied may the law of the Member State charges
Thus it
circumstances
to
be
must
an
repayment
ECR
system
in
prohibition
of
always
concerned.
453
levied
authority in Community for repayment brought by
against
has
the
after
been
enabling
repayment
in
that
has
having
action
independently
to
Treaty
not
Article 13
appellants
as
recognized
does
that it
effect of
the
the
be based
not
the
of
stresses
notwithstanding question
the
State
functioning of being impeded
has
by Community
in
only
direct
charge
the
adopted
the
party
the
action.
EEC
the
of
of
jeopardized.
that
this
the
contested
effectiveness
of
of
since
achieve
trader
is
(2)
the
effect
the
infringements
measure
the
of
in
(Case
one
of
annulment
follow from
to
the
on
by
question,
is to
action
which
application
likely
vary from
the
The Commission
the attainment of the aims of the
follows
interest,
measures
nature
the
entitlement
right
system
Treaty being
third
Treaty
administrative
or
able
measures
without
to
law for an
take
cannot
by
another
measures
be
mandatory
implement it
the
to the
of
of
be contrary to Community system for
to
the
compromise
Case
aim
in
would
force
in
maintain
Treaty.
the
States
Member
extends
procedure and
177,
raised
a
the
the
called
likewise
66/73
and
precedence
national
[1974]
law of
being
absolute
law
Community
deprived
basis
itself
Community
law,
national
being Community
as
be
nature
without
the
regard
States,
of
give
in
court.
national
Member
rules
character
without
interpretation
elimination
Court
the
very
law.
general
not
Article
under
of
practical
1125
its
question
but,
matter
ECR
of
framed,
this
procedure questions
does
Justice
of
on
ruling
the
law stemming from the independent source of law,
an
in
Community
duty.
official
that the
cannot
charge
with
This follows from the fact that in the
date
Justice declared
of
the
of
incompatible
17 December 1970 in
[1970]
Treaty,
of
of
Court
levying
that the was
it
limit the Member
to
to make a refund to the
the
which
With In its judgment
question
second
the Bundesverwaltungsgericht
permissible
annulled
(Article 34
liability
Grundgesetz
is
the
to
regard
by
raised
States'
law they part:
With
was
in
Case
held
'it is for
determine
the
13/68 that
[1968]
in
national
which
these
legal
court
or
REWE
has
tribunal
protection
decide how
for
true
be
to
Treaty. No doubt
for
claims
for
Article
law
national
dependent
the
same
for
second
the
EEC
the
of
of
necessity
on
basing of
provisions
the
make
may
on
The
actions
215
the
refund
to
thus
position
under
of
paragraph
this
give
purpose,
classified'.
moreover
compensation
LANDWIRTSCHAFTSKAMMER SAARLAND
to
this
individual
the
is
protected
is
jurisdiction
and,
v
refund
rules which
vary according to the Member States but this position is
in
integration
with
individual
of
States be
can
extent
down
the
Member
the
down to
it
by
the
that
mean
in
unlimited
by
such
of
a
to
right, it
a
to
the
conditions
laid
party the
to
required
only law.
this same national
To interpret Article it
that
meaning
substantive
13
(2)
gives
to
right
of
the
Treaty
independent
an
would
refund
raise
between
the
question
Community law those provided for by national laws. from basing their prohibit parties
and
To
right
to
claims
their
of
the
connexion
based
on
the
of
refund
law
national
provisions
be contrary
would
Court
the previous case-law of the
direct
concurrent
Article
of
effect
and
favourable
more
the
sphere
lead
would
in
be law
by
action
constitute
of
to
object
such
or
expressly
having rules
of
to
the
with
having
latter
repayment
by
obstacle
legal
would
13
But
to
main
either
provisions
governing of
national
what
extent
of
the
provision
of
Community
the
German
procedure?
were after
indeed the
If to
as
law
Code
the
a
the
prohibit
precedence, of
Treaty,
of
effect
exclude
be nothing accept
Such
based
national
the
on
of
a
a
even
procedure
claims
court of
rules
the
where
and
arguments
law.
law
no
and
does
of
of
the
a
with
provisions
give
do
can
system.
so of
on
time-limits
for
contain.
so
long
subject
admissibility
bringing
The
given
protection
of
rights
as
govern
to
and
actions
principle
to
referring itself
not
thus
and
matters,
by
procedure,
does
'which
National
protect.
only
effect
applicable
rights
must
law
conditions
direct
to
directly
individuals
rules
Community
they
legal
its
national
which
courts
own
to
regard
to
according
these
into
law may be inferred here from the dicta in
indirectly
courts
complementary law or national
of
rules
Community Community
pre-emincence
the
reference
national
since
claim
not
them
case-law
their
law
recognizes
Such
between
conflict
national
the the
which
making the
parties'
expiry
any and
actions.
that the
principle
Community
There is
law
procedure
in
the
any national rule of be incompatible with
bases his
plaintiff
on
the
in
of
decision
a
the
law
admissibility
exclusion
procedure
the
in
individuals
to
bringing
to
right
that
would
refusal
for
is
of
rights
refunds
a
it
the
of
of
time-limits general
but
on
preclude,
to
than
the
achieved
the
of
conditions
over
(2)
administrative
an
and
right,
any of
conclusion
a
thus
regard
other
strict
the
application
procedure.
application
full
an
of
their nature as
the
Article
substantive
the
rules
which
precedence
time-limits, could
by
or
However
situation
present
national
Community
prevailing by less
context
Community
no
bring
to
this
of
sphere
powers.
to the
on
governed
the
time-limits
and
entitlement
the
measure
the
to
integrates in
has
nature
time
assertion
any
relating internal
application
are
thus
of
gives
conditions.
There
would
its proprietary nature, must not impeded or prevented in fact or in
reason
of
Further,
practice
action
because
other
(2).
13
would
actions
innovation in the law
its
by of
(2)
Community
a
refund;
unconditional
13
absolute
a
uniformity
such
a
of
point
for
In fact
action.
concerned
person
an
objection
a valid
Article
which
provision,
action
be
means
precedence,
admissibility laid
annulment
main
of
the
by
enjoys
the
effect
protection
as
in
of
for
not
could
claim
direct
the
conditions
time-limits
States'
exercise
subject
and
protection
the
principle
claimed
by
the
to
Since
of
state
present
regard
rights.
in
are
facilitate
the
with
accord
the
period, and
subject
to the
1993
JUDGMENT OF
of
requirements
Code
of
large
ECR
recognized
has
in
in
not
CASE 33/76
—
the
execution entrusted
courts
of
of
Case
that
set
where
expressly
the
the
of sums
by
The
is
position
the
satisfactory since down by national 30
and
month
decide
law
national
down
at
to
to
other
the
of
concerned,
of
level
main
law
uniform
the rights would
action
the
all
involving
and
on
other
law.
subject
is
question
definitive
Article
on
13
Court
the that
(2)
been
to
of
give
could
in
contained
43/75
in
to
rights
which
an
the
refund
second
based
are
Treaty. At
the
most
answer similar
judgment in
the
it is to
possible
has
reference
which
has
refund
the
become
Constitutional
based is
already
The fact of
in
Court has
the
main
this
in
and
referred
to
there will
rules
settled
similar
national
fails because
action
procedural
in
law
Community
the
been
not
be
that therefore
to
Germany
The
of
administrative
of
legal
States
fact that,
1994
to
conform
Community
apart
by
on
from
the
that
Treaty
no
purpose
certainly
the
the
procedure
protection
must
substantive
directly
rules
Member
when
applying law is due to the
the sectors governed and
Member of
the
law
by
result
but
it
of
the
the
allow with
of
the
the
right
is
the
of
Member States
second
procedure:
either,
paragraph
that there
withdrawal
measures
which
particular
it is
have
not
is of
to adopt
of a
rights
the
to
'general
with
regard
they do
not
by
analogy Article 215
Community
administrative
become
proved
EEC
question
Community
give
true
conclusion
Treaty,
to
in
cannot
same
administrative
the
of
the
Member States
measures
principles'
or the system
Community
position
one
5
in
to
requires
The
parties.
to
Article
in
referred
absence
organization
which
legal
Community
of
provision
German
appropriate
considers
the
Member States.
matters
Community
they
which
unconstitutional.
may differ from another is only the
of
The Government of the Federal Republic
of
on
cases
law. If
question.
of
declares
Court)
provision
implementation
has
affected
not
parties
State
question
which
are
to
why have
Bundesverfassungsgericht
legal
the
or
explains
measures
the
(Federal
are
This
unassailable
to
measure
unassailable
paid.
sum
longer
authority
administrative
administrative
that
the
become no
rule
a
for
action
has
it as
also
an
to
Case
made.
The third
of
longer be
no
legal
a
require
the
withdraw
become
purpose
no since
is
rule
a
when
can
because
annulment
when
There
sense
law
German
the
consideration
national
Under
a
of
the
rights
law.
measure
by Community But to lay
Member States based
on
Community
true
the
administrative
assertion
taking into
Community
is
it
in
therefore
the
to
Community
of
the
by
afforded
procedure
laid down
assimilated).
in
claims
spheres
it
such
which
for the
question
lead
as
right
1
assertion
and
on
provisions
limitation on
of
refund
form
concrete
national
law
national
the
to
or
Member
each
Community
a
time-limits
in
far the
be
must
right
vary between (in this respect
whether
is
which
laid
time-limits
law
years
may be asked State can, in so
hardly
certainly
to
withdrawal
measures
the
the
fact
individuals
of
or
are given
paid
limited
and
authorities
explained
rights
it,
has
Community and by the
the
is
annulment
administrative
law
States. The division
the Member
between
tasks
the
to
to
given
Community
of
been
subject.
This
harmonization
task of
general
Member States
them.
prescribed
1976
legal
even
cases
has
law
Community
the
given
455
time-limits
specific
is
of all
Community
judgment
[1976]
43/75
procedure
systems
in the
legal
German
the
likewise
and
extent
The
system.
legal
the
States
Member to a
by
administrative
in
recognized
in
certainty
given expression
relations
16. 12.
that
final. the
In
other
REWE
Member
in
States,
Republic a
Germany, to
right
administrative
Federal
to the
contrast
of
recognize
LANDWIRTSCHAFTSKAMMER SAARLAND
v
the
generally
withdrawal
measures
of
according to legal system
Moreover to
The Government of the Italian Republic states that in the absence of Community rules
it
the
must
and
subjective
Community
for
rights
which
the
in
favour
of
an
fact
In
are
always
the
by
governed
of
order
that
the
in
be
It
is
the
if
and
prohibition
Member
on
individuals been
not
exports of
a
dealers
the
in
to
refund
that
from
or
has
which
on
refunds
the amount
Similarly sums of
result
an
to
paid
sums
of
the
wrong has rules
same
it
criterion
prohibition
in
against
equivalent
effect
not
to
view
accords
Court
the
in
for
to
refund
to
of
the
on
repercussions
practice
to
the
market
intendent
and
have
a
had
already
the
budgets
the
the
would
the
various
to note that an
would
give
obligation
rise
discrimination
Member States
and
serious
which
of
Community
to
for
the
to
who
suffer
the
from
the
obstacle
in
customs
increase
the
provided
by
the
practical
law
national
of
State.
importing
the
to
are
result
States
Member
arising
by
constituted
rules
the
all
disadvantage
new other
disadvantage duties
Community
prevent; above
of
exporters
national
very sort of change in in the conditions of
which
to
be
would
benefiting
an
to the
and
competition
As
a
direct
the
that
Government
Italian
the
result
thinks
of
applicability
Community rules to the prohibition against levying charges having an effect to
equivalent
in
relied
on
been
paid
of
a
an
questions
the
right
as
paid
effect
to
same
way
rate
be
the
given
the
that the
is governed, just
an
estoppel
national
interest may be
in
as
inadmissibility
national
which
of
refund
having
charges
laws
as
of
order
time-limits,
from
refunded
the
by
regards
to
having
regards
by
the case of submissions of
whether,
duties subject
intended
ruling may be
a
of
exercise
raised
the
charges
As
effect.
equivalent
sums
as
have
which
customs
decision nature
be
cannot
sums
duties have been
their
reference
of
particular
as
relevant
specific
duties
customs
respect
these
establish
as
stress
consequences
Member States
unjustified
in
with
Case 43/75.
necessary
financial ensue
amounts
resultant
prescription,
is
the
since
arising from the increase in charges. A refund would lead in
equivalent
This
by
levied
wrongly
the an
duties.
adopted
aforementioned
It
assets
account
therefore
and
profit
the
have obviously already been in determining costs
into
before
a
the case of the obligation
having
customs
concerned
question
taken
in
event
practice
the
an
obligation
aid
exceeded
that
apply in
charges
in any
in
in
increase
that
Community excluded. Accordingly
expressly
contravention
the
having
of
seem
refund
of
recover
for
reimburse
interpretation
should
to
paid
as
asked
observed no
authorized.
individuals
would
imposes
have
to
obligation
to
charges
It is to be
authorized
which
refunds
been
bound
States
sums
be
which
contravention
Commission
the
assumption
levying
on
equivalent effect.
of
charges
must
Thus it may be
are
in
exacted
clearly assumes
to what extent national
so
administrations sums
of
'aid'
contravention
effect
this
examined.
whether
court
levying
on
equivalent
refunded. must
reference
national
prohibition
having
each
charged.
lead
would
refund
or
margin
Member States.
that the sums exacted the
improperly
unforeseen
dealers shows
by
recovery
purchasers
the various
of
recognized
conditions
creates
individuals
laws
be
necessarily
means
protecting
duties
customs
issued
rules
regarding
have
which
become definitive.
that
the
laws
date
to those entitled
the
determine
and
payable
or
in
on
at
what
sums
to
to them.
an
between citizens
The Government of the United Kingdom importance out of that the points
1995
JUDGMENT OF 16. 12. 1976
CASE 33/76
—
time-limits
Member
in
national
is frequently acknowledged Community law and that the Court (Second Chamber) stated in Case 79/70 [1971] ECR 689 that they were matters of
they
It
policy.
public
substantive
in
of
rules
limitation.
But
in
create
disproportionately
the
to
and
the
answers
given
will
lay
down
likely
application
case
in
duty,
an
or
which
the
to
duty
the
Dietrich
Ehle,
of
by
Cologne
the
the
add
Communities
Court in
this
to
out
Kalbe,
the
of
Mr and
European
Legal
its
by
Agent,
as
acting
which
arguments
the written
of
they
set
procedure.
any
The
customs
value-added
by
collected
in
by
Stato,
the
of
represented
Mr
expanded
general
of
Government
dello
Commission
the
the
Legal
its
by
represented
Avvocato
Marzano,
of
Republic
Italian
Bar, Republic
Federal
the
legislation
apply equally
levy,
1976
and
Community
agricultural
which
Advocate
of
took
procedure
represented Germany, Adviser, Mr Seidel, the
of
complexities
principles
a
excise
an
by
relevant
November
represented
Adviser, case
9
appellants,
accounting and to the cost of collection borne by national and Community funds.
The
oral
Government
of
advance
uncertainty
the
to
has
action
administrative
contrary
law,
by
provisions.
on
place
the
invalidation
Community
appropriate would
of
prescription
time-limits
national
During
satisfactory
adoption
the
Community
that
legislation to harmonize
Community relevant
only
the
or
collected
the
with
imposed
limiting
of
effect
The
rights.
lies
remedy
the
denied
be
cannot
have
may
accordance
provisions
regulation
been
in
States
delivered
Advocate-General
tax
opinion
the
1976.
at
the
hearing
on
his
30 November
Law
1
By
order
1976,
the
dated 23
Articles 5, 9 Article
2
These
177
inspection, ECR
The
of
of
the
by
(2)
of
EEC
the
the
to
for
Treaty
Court
Registry
Court
the a
three
6 April
on
questions
preliminary ruling
on
under
EEC Treaty.
have the
regarded
arisen
in
appellants
as
a
relating to French apples
case
of
equivalent
to
customs
to
the
imposing interest) on
the
respondent
the
laid down
by
appeal
charges ground
rejected
the
annulled
that
Article 58
of
Procedure before the Administrative
1996
at
referred
the of
payment
charges
duties
by
the
in 1968
on
the
for phytosanitary judgment
of
the
1039).
time-limits of
received
11 October 1973 in Case 39/73 (Rewe Zentralfinanz eGmbH [1973]
decisions (with
13
and
questions
importation
Court
January 1976,
Bundesverwaltungsgericht
they
appellants'
claims
and
the
were
amounts
to
paid
inadmissible
have
the
refunded
because
the
Verwaltungsgerichtsordnung (Code Courts) had not been observed.
the
REWE
3
The first
prohibition
duties (Articles 5, 9 has
concerned of
second
that
ruled
measure
third
does
exist
question
asks
if
whether,
rate.
at
The first
the
what
respondent
it
period,
already
Treaty should
is
the
even
paid
if
for contesting
past.
if the Court
so
amount
time-limit
the
of
Justice has already
of
prohibition
contained
in
a
to
right
is held to
refund
the
on
paid
amount
and
accept
that
if
exist
so
under
from
what
be
the
of
abolished
as
to
from
rely
1
by
unlawful
Council in
court
the
on
direct
effect
January 1970, that the levying
the
the
in
charges
of
virtue
Article
of
of
13
respect
of
fruit
and
the
of
vegetables
said
of
(2)
of
transitional
the
of
(1)
25 October 1966 (JO 192
Article 13
of
end
however
stated
them
national
exacted.
possible
only
previously
159/66/EEC which
the
and
Although it has been EEC
customs
question
had been unlawfully
question
State has
a
to
law.
date
and
is
infringement
an
interest is to be
the
law
the
of
refund
measure
Community law,
Both
to a
and/or
asks whether this
question
there
Community The
under
right
equivalent
effect
an
(2) or the EEC Treaty) the Community citizen Community law to the annulment or revocation
the administrative
of
validity
The
13
having
in
body
administrative
an
where
charges
the rules of procedure of the national
under
4
a
on
and
the administrative
the
whether
asks
question
infringed the
LANDWIRTSCHAFTSKAMMER SAARLAND
v
charges
was
Regulation
No
27 October
as
from
1
1966) January
1967.
5
The
prohibition
Article 13 citizens
rights
Applying
the
laid down in Article 13
Regulation No
of
which
the
principle
is the
national
which
citizens
courts
national
courts
of cooperation
which
derive from
the
of
159/66/EEC have
are
the
are
a
and
direct
required
to
with of
effect
laid down in
that
effect
of the
ensuring the legal the
confer
and
on
protect.
laid down in Article 5
entrusted
direct
Treaty
provisions
of
Treaty, it
protection
Community
law.
Accordingly,
in the
domestic legal jurisdiction
and
law intended the
direct
absence
system
to
of
each
determine
to ensure
effect of
of
the
Community
rules
on
this subject,
Member State to designate the the
procedural
protection
Community law,
it
of
the
being
conditions rights
governing
which
understood
it is for
courts
citizens
the
having
actions
at
have from
that such conditions
1997
JUDGMENT OF
be less favourable
cannot
12. 1976
16.
than those
CASE 33/76
—
domestic
to similar actions of a
relating
nature.
Where
States if they Market. the
the
The
position
obliged
to
This
not
is
laid down
by
to
practice
administrative
the
of
the
Common
conferred
right
in
courts
the
in Member
by
accordance
rules.
national
exercise
the
national
enable
between
action
functioning
harmonization the
Treaty
the
of
differences
remedy or
before
be different only if
would
it impossible in
of
exercised
235
and
harm the
or
measures
be
must
conditions
to
regulation
such
of
law
102
to
taken
by law, likely to distort
are
absence
Community with
100
be
to
measures
laid down
provisions
In
Articles
necessary,
appropriate
the
the
which
time-limits
and
conditions
rights
made
courts
are
actions
are
national
protect.
the
case
down
of
where
reasonable
of
periods
limitation
of
fixed. The is
laying
an
application
both
6
The
the
tax-payer
answer
state
of
before
a
be
to
national
the
In
1998
than
law
of
with
administration
to
the
first
to
regard
principle
of
question
is therefore that in the
is nothing to prevent a decision of a national authority
Community laid
down
procedural
those
by
relating to
being
national
conditions
fiscal
a
nature
certainty protecting
concerned.
there
law from
of
actions
legal
on
the
confronted
have
law
the
governing
similar
citizen
actions
of
a
who
present
contests
ground
with
the
expired,
that
it
defence it
being
may not be domestic nature. action
question
does
third
view
arise.
given
the
that the
Treaty
The
8
second
the
periods
less favourable
The fact
and
court a
that
understood
7
fundamental
with
limitation
The
time-limits
the
Community
is incompatible that
such
of
Court has
not
affect
given
the
a
ruling
reply
given
on
the
to the
question
first
of
infringement
of
question.
question
the
reply
given
to
the
first
question
the
third
question
does
not
REWE
LANDWIRTSCHAFTSKAMMER SAARLAND
v
Costs
9
The the
costs
Kingdom made
As
incurred
Government and
to
observations
these
are
Italian
matter
a
in
are, of
nature
are
for that
Government
Germany,
of
the
of
Communities,
United
which
have
recoverable.
not
far
so
Federal Republic
the
European
the
the
as
step in
a
the
of
Republic, of
Court,
the
proceedings
costs
court,
Government
the
the
Commission
the
concerned, in the
On
by
of
the
the
to
parties
main
pending before
action
action
the
are
national
court.
those grounds,
THE COURT
in
answer
order
of
1.
the questions
to
23
In
the
a
decision
citizen
of
a
incompatible
law
have
those
The fact
first
relating
that
Delivered in
Registrar
it
authority
being the
the
law
may
actions
given
does
a
from
being
laid down
a
by
on
the
the
it
to a
is
confronted
by
national
procedural
favourable
domestic
affect
court
that
less
be
not of
the
that
ruling
not
nothing
national
ground
periods
action
a
the
understood
similar
Treaty
on
is
there
before
contests
Court has
the of
to
Bundesverwaltungsgericht
the
Community law
Donner
Pescatore
Mackenzie Stuart
open
A. Van Houtte
by
nature.
question
of
given
to
reply
question.
Kutscher
Sørensen
it
Community
with
governing
infringement the
national
expired,
conditions
than
of
who
to
rules:
defence that limitation
the
with
state
present
prevent
2.
referred
January 1976, hereby
court
in
Luxembourg
O'Keeffe
on
Mertens de Wilmars
Bosco
Touffait
16 December 1976.
H. Kutscher President
1999
