Amministrazione delle finanze dello Stato v Sas Mediterranea importazione, rappresentanze, esportazione, commercio (MIRECO).

• Jurisdiction: European Union
• Celex Number: 61979CJ0826
• ECLI: ECLI:EU:C:1980:198
• Date: 10 July 1980
• Court: Court of Justice (European Union)
• Procedure Type: Reference for a preliminary ruling
• Docket Number: 826/79

Avis juridique important

|

61979J0826

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 July 1980. - Amministrazione delle finanze dello Stato v Sas Mediterranea importazione, rappresentanze, esportazione, commercio (MIRECO). - Reference for a preliminary ruling: Corte suprema di Cassazione - Italy. - Recovery of undue payment. - Case 826/79.

European Court reports 1980 Page 02559
Greek special edition Page 00643

Summary
Parties
Subject of the case
Grounds
Decision on costs
Operative part

Keywords

1 . FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS - CUSTOMS DUTIES - CHARGES HAVING EQUIVALENT EFFECT - PROHIBITION - DIRECT EFFECT

( EEC TREATY , ART . 13 ; REGULATION NO 14/64 OF THE COUNCIL , ART . 12 )

2 . PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS - INTERPRETATION - TEMPORAL EFFECTS OF INTERPRETATIVE JUDGMENTS - RETROACTIVE EFFECT - LIMITS - LEGAL CERTAINTY

( EEC TREATY , ART . 177 )

3 . COMMUNITY LAW - DIRECT EFFECT - RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS - PROTECTION BY NATIONAL COURTS - PRINCIPLE OF COOPERATION

( EEC TREATY , ART . 5 )

4 . COMMUNITY LAW - DIRECT EFFECT - NATIONAL CHARGES INCOMPATIBLE WITH COMMUNITY LAW - RECOVERY - DETAILED RULES - APPLICATION OF NATIONAL LAW - CONDITIONS - TAKING ACCOUNT OF FACT THAT CHARGE MAY HAVE BEEN PASSED ON - PERMISSIBILITY

5 . COMMUNITY LAW - DIRECT EFFECT - NATIONAL CHARGES INCOMPATIBLE WITH COMMUNITY LAW - RECOVERY - DETAILED RULES - APPLICATION OF NATIONAL LAW - PERMISSIBILITY HAVING REGARD TO PROVISIONS OF TREATY RELATING TO FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS , COMPETITION AND THE PROHIBITION OF TAX DISCRIMINATION

( EEC TREATY , ARTS . 9 , 12 , 13 , 92 , 93 AND 95 )

Summary

1 . THE PROHIBITION ON THE LEVYING OF CHARGES HAVING AN EFFECT EQUIVALENT TO CUSTOMS DUTIES , WHETHER IT HAS ITS ORIGIN IN THE GENERAL RULE CONTAINED IN ARTICLE 13 OF THE TREATY WITH EFFECT FROM 1 JANUARY 1970 , AT THE END OF THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD , OR IN THE SPECIAL PROVISION OF ARTICLE 12 OF REGULATION NO 14/64 WITH EFFECT , AS REGARDS THE PRODUCTS REFERRED TO BY THE REGULATION , FROM 1 NOVEMBER 1964 , HAS A DIRECT EFFECT IN THE RELATIONS BETWEEN THE MEMBER STATES AND THEIR SUBJECTS THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY AS FROM THE DATE PRO- VIDED FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROVISIONS IN QUESTION .

2 . THE INTERPRETATION WHICH , IN THE EXERCISE OF THE JURISDICTION CONFERRED UPON IT BY ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY , THE COURT OF JUSTICE GIVES TO A RULE OF COMMUNITY LAW CLARIFIES AND DEFINES WHERE NECESSARY THE MEANING AND SCOPE OF THAT RULE AS IT MUST BE OR OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN UNDERSTOOD AND APPLIED FROM THE TIME OF ITS COMING INTO FORCE . IT FOLLOWS THAT THE RULE AS THUS INTERPRETED MUST BE APPLIED BY THE COURTS EVEN TO LEGAL RELATIONSHIPS ARISING AND ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE JUDGMENT RULING ON THE REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION , PROVIDED THAT IN OTHER RESPECTS THE CONDITIONS ENABLING AN ACTION RELATING TO THE APPLICATION OF THAT RULE TO BE BROUGHT BEFORE THE COURTS HAVING JURISDICTION ARE SATISFIED .

IT IS ONLY EXCEPTIONALLY THAT THE COURT MAY , IN APPLICATION OF THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF LEGAL CERTAINTY INHERENT IN THE COMMUNITY LEGAL ORDER AND IN TAKING ACCOUNT OF THE SERIOUS EFFECTS WHICH ITS JUDGMENT MIGHT HAVE , AS REGARDS THE PAST , ON LEGAL RELATIONSHIPS ESTABLISHED IN GOOD FAITH , BE MOVED TO RESTRICT FOR ANY PERSON CONCERNED THE OPPORTUNITY OF RELYING UPON THE PROVISION AS THUS INTERPRETED WITH A VIEW TO CALLING IN QUESTION THOSE LEGAL RELATIONSHIPS .

3 . IT IS THE COURTS OF THE MEMBER STATES , APPLYING THE PRINCIPLE OF COOPERATION LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 5 OF THE EEC TREATY , WHICH ARE ENTRUSTED WITH ENSURING THE LEGAL PROTECTION WHICH SUBJECTS DERIVE FROM THE DIRECT EFFECT OF THE PROVISIONS OF COMMUNITY LAW .

4 . IN THE ABSENCE OF COMMUNITY RULES CONCERNING THE CONTESTING OR RECOVERY OF NATIONAL CHARGES WHICH HAVE BEEN UNLAWFULLY DEMANDED OR WRONGFULLY LEVIED BY REASON OF THEIR INCOMPATIBILITY WITH COMMUNITY LAW IT IS FOR THE DOMESTIC LEGAL SYSTEM OF EACH MEMBER STATE TO DESIGNATE THE COURTS HAVING JURISDICTION AND DETERMINE THE PROCEDURAL CONDITIONS GOVERNING ACTIONS AT LAW INTENDED TO SAFEGUARD THE RIGHTS WHICH SUBJECTS DERIVE FROM THE DIRECT EFFECT OF COMMUNITY LAW , IT BEING UNDERSTOOD THAT SUCH CONDITIONS CANNOT BE LESS FAVOURABLE THAN THOSE RELATING TO SIMILAR ACTIONS OF A DOMESTIC NATURE AND THAT UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES MAY THEY BE SO ADAPTED AS TO MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE IN PRACTICE TO EXERCISE THE RIGHTS WHICH THE NATIONAL COURTS HAVE A DUTY TO PROTECT .

HOWEVER , COMMUNITY LAW DOES NOT REQUIRE AN ORDER FOR THE RECOVERY OF CHARGES IMPROPERLY LEVIED TO BE GRANTED IN CONDITIONS SUCH AS WOULD INVOLVE AN UNJUSTIFIED ENRICHMENT OF THOSE ENTITLED . THERE IS THEREFORE NOTHING FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF COMMUNITY LAW TO PREVENT NATIONAL COURTS FROM TAKING ACCOUNT , IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR NATIONAL LAW , OF THE FACT THAT IT HAS BEEN POSSIBLE FOR CHARGES UNDULY LEVIED TO BE...