Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2005:742
Date: 2005-12-06
Language of the case: Dutch
Court formation: Grand Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Provisions governing the Institutions;Sugar
Concepts: Optional or mandatory reference;Imports
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Netherlands

Summary of the Judgment 1. Preliminary rulings – Assessment of validity – Finding of invalidity of Community provisions comparable to those already declared invalid by the Court – Lack of jurisdiction of national courts – Duty to refer (Art. 230 EC, Art. 234 EC, third para., and Art. 241 EC) 2. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Sugar – Trade with non-member countries – Additional import duties – Determination on the basis of the cif import price – Obligation on the importer to make an application – Determination on the basis of the representative price – Not valid (Commission Regulation No 1423/95, Arts 1(2) and 4(1) and (2)) 1. The third paragraph of Article 234 EC requires a court or tribunal of a Member State against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law to seek a ruling from the Court of Justice on a question relating to the validity of the provisions of a regulation even where the Court has already declared invalid analogous provisions of another comparable regulation. National courts have no jurisdiction themselves to determine that acts of Community institutions are invalid. Although the rule that national courts may not themselves determine that Community acts are invalid may have to be qualified in certain circumstances in the case of proceedings relating to an application for interim measures, the interpretation adopted in Cilfit and Others, referring to questions of interpretation, cannot be extended to questions relating to the validity of Community acts. That solution is imposed, first, by the requirement of uniformity in the application of Community law. That requirement is particularly vital where the validity of a Community act is in question. Differences between courts of the Member States as to the validity of Community acts would be liable to jeopardise the essential unity of the Community legal order and undermine the fundamental requirement of legal certainty. It is imposed, secondly, by the necessary coherence of the system of judicial protection instituted by the EC Treaty. References for a preliminary ruling on validity constitute, on the same basis as actions for annulment, a means of reviewing the legality of Community acts. By Articles 230 EC and 241 EC, on the one hand, and Article 234 EC, on the other, the Treaty established a complete system of legal remedies and procedures designed to ensure review of the legality of acts of the institutions and has entrusted such review to the Community Courts. (see paras 17-19, 21-22, 25, operative part 1) 2. Paragraphs (1) and (2) of Article 4 of Regulation No 1423/95 laying down detailed implementing rules for the import of products in the sugar sector other than molasses are invalid inasmuch as they provide that the additional duty referred to therein is, as a general rule, established on the basis of the representative price referred to in Article 1(2) of that regulation and that that duty is established on the basis of the cif import price of the shipment concerned only if the importer so requests. (see para. 32, operative part 2)