Jeroen van Schijndel y Johannes Nicolaas Cornelis van Veen contra Stichting Pensioenfonds voor Fysiotherapeuten.

JurisdictionEuropean Union
CourtCourt of Justice (European Union)
Writing for the CourtMoitinho de Almeida
ECLIECLI:EU:C:1995:441
Procedure TypeReference for a preliminary ruling
Celex Number61993CJ0430
Docket NumberC-431/93,C-430/93
Date14 December 1995
EUR-Lex - 61993J0430 - EN 61993J0430

Judgment of the Court of 14 December 1995. - Jeroen van Schijndel and Johannes Nicolaas Cornelis van Veen v Stichting Pensioenfonds voor Fysiotherapeuten. - References for a preliminary ruling: Hoge Raad - Netherlands. - Treatment of an occupational pension fund as an undertaking - Compulsory membership of an occupational pension scheme - Compatibility with the rules of competition - Whether a point of Community law may be raised for the first time in cassation, thereby altering the subject-matter of the proceedings and entailing an examination of facts. - Joined cases C-430/93 and C-431/93.

European Court reports 1995 Page I-04705


Summary
Parties
Grounds
Decision on costs
Operative part

Keywords

++++

Community law ° Direct effect ° Individual rights ° Protection by national courts and tribunals ° Legal proceedings ° Detailed national procedural rules ° Conditions of application ° Assessment by national courts of their own motion of a plea alleging a breach of Community law ° Limits ° Principle that civil courts have only a passive role

(EEC Treaty, Arts 3(f), 5, 85, 86, 90 and 177)

Summary

In proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations freely entered into by the parties, it is for the national court or tribunal to apply binding Community provisions such as Articles 3(f), 85, 86 and 90 of the Treaty even when the party with an interest in application of those provisions has not relied on them, where domestic law allows such application by the national court or tribunal.

Pursuant to the principle of cooperation laid down in Article 5 of the Treaty, it is for national courts and tribunals to ensure the legal protection which individuals derive from the direct effect of provisions of Community law.

However, Community law does not require national courts to raise of their own motion an issue concerning the breach of provisions of Community law where examination of that issue would oblige them to abandon the passive role assigned to them by going beyond the ambit of the dispute defined by the parties themselves and relying on facts and circumstances other than those on which the party with an interest in application of those provisions bases his claim.

In the absence of Community rules governing the matter, it is for the domestic legal system of each Member State to designate the courts and tribunals having jurisdiction and to lay down the detailed procedural rules governing actions for safeguarding rights which individuals derive from the direct effect of Community law. However, such rules must not be less favourable than those governing similar domestic actions nor render virtually impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by Community law. A rule of national law preventing the procedure laid down in Article 177 of the Treaty from being followed must, in this regard, be set aside.

Each case which raises the question whether a national procedural provision renders application of Community law impossible or excessively difficult must be analysed by reference to the role of that provision in the procedure, its progress and its special features, viewed as a whole, before the various national instances. In the light of that analysis the basic principles of the domestic judicial system, such as protection of the rights of the defence, the principle of legal certainty and the proper conduct of procedure, must, where appropriate, be taken into consideration.

In that regard, the principle that in a civil suit it is for the parties to take the initiative, the court or tribunal being able to act of its own motion only in exceptional cases where the public interest requires its intervention, reflects conceptions prevailing in most of the Member States as to the relations between the State and the individual, safeguards the rights of the defence and ensures proper conduct of proceedings by, in particular, protecting them from the delays inherent in examination of new pleas.

Parties

In Joined Cases C-430/93 and C-431/93,

REFERENCES to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between

Jeroen van Schijndel

and

Stichting Pensioenfonds voor Fysiotherapeuten

and between

Johannes Nicolaas Cornelis van Veen

and

Stichting Pensioenfonds voor Fysiotherapeuten

on (i) the interpretation of Community law with regard to the power of a national court to consider of its own motion the compatibility of a rule of domestic law with Articles 3(f), 5, 85, 86 and/or 90 of the EEC Treaty and (ii) the interpretation of those provisions,

THE COURT,

composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, C.N. Kakouris, D.A.O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet and G. Hirsch (Presidents of Chambers), G.F. Mancini, F.A. Schockweiler, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida (Rapporteur), P.J.G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, J.L. Murray, P. Jann and H. Ragnemalm, Judges,

Advocate General: F.G. Jacobs,

Registrar: R. Grass, Registrar, and H.A. Ruehl, Principal Administrator,

after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:

° the appellants in the main proceedings, by I.G.F. Cath, of the Hague Bar,

° the respondent in the main proceedings, by P.A. Wackie Eysten, of the Hague Bar, and E.H. Pijnacker Hordijk, of the Amsterdam Bar,

° the Netherlands Government, by J.G. Lammers, Deputy Legal Adviser at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, acting as Agent,

° the German Government, by E. Roeder, Ministerialrat at the Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs, and B. Kloke, Regierungsrat in the same Ministry, acting as Agents,

° the French Government, by C. Chavance, Foreign Affairs Secretary at the Directorate of Foreign Affairs of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and C. de Salins, Deputy Director in the same directorate, acting as Agents,

° the United Kingdom, by J.D. Colahan, of the Treasury Solicitor' s Department, acting as Agent, and P. Duffy, Barrister,

° the Commission of the European Communities, by M.C. Timmermans, Deputy Director-General, B.J. Drijber and B. Smulders, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents,

having regard to the Report for the Hearing,

after hearing the oral observations of the appellants in the main proceedings, represented by I.G.F. Cath; of the respondent in the main proceedings, represented by P.A. Wackie Eysten and E.H. Pijnacker Hordijk; of the Netherlands Government, represented by J.W. de Zwaan, Deputy Legal Adviser at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, acting as Agent; of the German Government, represented by G.Thiele, Assessor at the Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs, acting as Agent; of the Greek Government, represented by V. Kontolaimos, Deputy Legal Adviser to the State Legal Council, acting as Agent; of the Spanish Government, represented by A. Navarro González, Director-General for Legal Coordination of Community Institutional Affairs, and R. Silva de Lapuerta and G. Calvo Díaz, Abogados del Estado, of the State Legal Service, acting as Agents; of the French Government, represented by C. Chavance and H. Renié, Foreign Affairs Secretary in the Directorate of Foreign Affairs of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, acting as Agent; of Ireland, represented by J. O' Reilly SC and J. Payne, Barrister-at-Law; of the United Kingdom, represented by J.D. Colahan and P. Duffy, and of the Commission, represented by M.C. Timmermans and B.J. Drijber, at the hearing on 4 April 1995,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 15 June 1995,

gives the following

Judgment

Grounds

1 By judgments of 22 October 1993, received at the Court on 28 October 1993, the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands)...

To continue reading

Request your trial
58 practice notes
  • Heemskerk BV and Firma Schaap v Productschap Vee en Vlees.
    • European Union
    • Court of Justice (European Union)
    • 6 May 2008
    ...to 31. 27 – Paragraph 32. 28 – Paragraph 33 and case-law cited. 29 – Joined Cases C-430/93 and C-431/93 [1995] ECR I‑4705. 30 – Judgment in van Schijndel and van Veen, paragraph 21. 31 – Ibid. ...
  • Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid and X v C and Others.
    • European Union
    • Court of Justice (European Union)
    • 8 November 2022
    ...tali disposizioni ha posto a fondamento della propria domanda (v., in particolare, sentenze del 14 dicembre 1995, van Schijndel e van Veen, C‑430/93 e C‑431/93, EU:C:1995:441, punti 21 e 22, del 7 giugno 2007, van der Weerd e a., da C‑222/05 a C‑225/05, EU:C:2007:318, punti 35 e 36, nonché ......
  • BT v Balgarska Narodna Banka.
    • European Union
    • Court of Justice (European Union)
    • 25 March 2021
    ...14 dicembre 1995, Peterbroeck, C‑312/93, EU:C:1995:437, punto 14; del 14 dicembre 1995, van Schijndel et van Veen, C‑430/93 e C‑431/93, EU:C:1995:441, punto 19; del 15 marzo 2017, Aquino, C‑3/16, EU:C:2017:209, punto 53, nonché dell’11 settembre 2019, Călin, C‑676/17, EU:C:2019:700, punto 1......
  • Consorzio Italian Management and Catania Multiservizi SpA v Rete Ferroviaria Italiana SpA.
    • European Union
    • Court of Justice (European Union)
    • 6 October 2021
    ...principi di equivalenza e di effettività (v., in tal senso, sentenze del 14 dicembre 1995, van Schijndel e van Veen, C‑430/93 e C‑431/93, EU:C:1995:441, punto 17, nonché del 15 marzo 2017, Aquino, C‑3/16, EU:C:2017:209, punto 62 Il principio di equivalenza richiede che la complessiva discip......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
55 cases
  • Heemskerk BV and Firma Schaap v Productschap Vee en Vlees.
    • European Union
    • Court of Justice (European Union)
    • 6 May 2008
    ...to 31. 27 – Paragraph 32. 28 – Paragraph 33 and case-law cited. 29 – Joined Cases C-430/93 and C-431/93 [1995] ECR I‑4705. 30 – Judgment in van Schijndel and van Veen, paragraph 21. 31 – Ibid. ...
  • BT v Balgarska Narodna Banka.
    • European Union
    • Court of Justice (European Union)
    • 25 March 2021
    ...14 dicembre 1995, Peterbroeck, C‑312/93, EU:C:1995:437, punto 14; del 14 dicembre 1995, van Schijndel et van Veen, C‑430/93 e C‑431/93, EU:C:1995:441, punto 19; del 15 marzo 2017, Aquino, C‑3/16, EU:C:2017:209, punto 53, nonché dell’11 settembre 2019, Călin, C‑676/17, EU:C:2019:700, punto 1......
  • Consorzio Italian Management and Catania Multiservizi SpA v Rete Ferroviaria Italiana SpA.
    • European Union
    • Court of Justice (European Union)
    • 6 October 2021
    ...principi di equivalenza e di effettività (v., in tal senso, sentenze del 14 dicembre 1995, van Schijndel e van Veen, C‑430/93 e C‑431/93, EU:C:1995:441, punto 17, nonché del 15 marzo 2017, Aquino, C‑3/16, EU:C:2017:209, punto 62 Il principio di equivalenza richiede che la complessiva discip......
  • Gerhard Köbler v Republik Österreich.
    • European Union
    • Court of Justice (European Union)
    • 8 April 2003
    ...confers on courts and tribunals a mere discretion - and not an obligation - to apply of their own motion binding rules of law. See Joined Cases C-430/93 and C-431/93 Van Schijndel and Van Veen [1995] ECR I-4705, paragraphs 13 and 14. 67 – Simmenthal, paragraph 16. 68 – Case 222/84 Johnston ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
1 provisions

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT