Judgment of the Court of 25 October 1972. - R. & V. Haegeman v Commission of the European Communities. - Case 96-71.



European Court reports 1972 Page 01005

Danish special edition Page 00269

Greek special edition Page 00245

Portuguese special edition Page 00353



Summary

Parties

Subject of the case

Grounds

Decision on costs

Operative part



Keywords

++++

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES - OWN RESOURCES - LEVYING OF CHARGES BY MEMBER STATES - DISPUTES - POWERS OF THE NATIONAL AUTHORITIES AND COURTS

( COUNCIL DECISION OF 21 APRIL 1970, ARTICLE 6; REGULATION NO 2/71 OF THE COUNCIL, ARTICLES 1, 2 AND 13 )

Summary

DISPUTES CONCERNING THE LEVYING ON INDIVIDUALS OF THE CHARGES AND LEVIES REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 6 OF THE COUNCIL DECISION OF 21 APRIL 1970 ON THE REPLACEMENT OF FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS FROM MEMBER STATES BY THE COMMUNITIES' OWN RESOURCES MUST BE RESOLVED, APPLYING COMMUNITY LAW, BY THE NATIONAL AUTHORITIES AND FOLLOWING THE PRACTICES LAID DOWN BY THE LAW OF THE MEMBER STATES .

Parties

IN CASE 96/71

SOCIETE DE PERSONNES A RESPONSABILITE LIMITEE DE DROIT BELGE R . AND V . HAEGEMAN, WHOSE REGISTERED OFFICE IS AT CHAUSSE DE VILVORDE, BRUSSELS 60, REPRESENTED BY JACQUES PUTZEYS, ADVOCATE OF THE COUR D' APPEL, BRUSSELS, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE CHAMBERS OF NICOLAS WENNMACHER, HUISSIER, 17 BOULEVARD ROYAL, APPLICANT,

V

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL ADVISER, BERNARD BAULIN, ACTING AS AGENT, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE CHAMBERS OF ITS LEGAL ADVISER, EMILE REUTER, 4 BOULEVARD ROYAL, DEFENDANT,

Subject of the case

APPLICATION FOR :

1 . THE ANNULMENT OF A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES OF 15 OCTOBER 1971 IN SO FAR AS THIS DECISION REJECTS THE APPLICANT' S REQUEST FOR EXEMPTION FROM THE COUNTERVAILING CHARGE IMPOSED ON THE IMPORTATION OF GREEK WINES INTO THE TERRITORY OF THE BELGO-LUXEMBOURG ECONOMIC UNION;

2 . AN ORDER THAT THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY PAY THE APPLICANT COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE CAUSED,

Grounds

1 THE HAEGEMAN UNDERTAKING IS ASKING THE COURT TO DECLARE REGULATION NO 1019/70 ( OJ, ENGLISH SPECIAL EDITION 1970 ( I ), P . 294 ) AND REGULATION NO 2320/70 ( JO L 250 ) OF THE COMMISSION AND ALL OTHER REGULATIONS OF SIMILAR EFFECT INAPPLICABLE TO IMPORTS OF GREEK WINE INTO THE TERRITORY OF THE BELGO-LUXEMBOURG ECONOMIC UNION AND THEREBY TO ANNUL THE DECISION OF 15 OCTOBER 1971 REFUSING TO EXEMPT THE APPLICANT FROM THE COUNTERVAILING CHARGE AND TO ORDER THE REFUND OF THE COUNTERVAILING CHARGES WRONGLY LEVIED .

2 BY LETTERS DATED 9 AUGUST, 27 SEPTEMBER AND 15 OCTOBER 1971 THE COMMISSION REFUSED TO ACCEDE TO THE APPLICANT' S REQUEST FOR A REFUND OF THE LEVIES WHICH IT CLAIMED TO HAVE PAID WRONGLY ON ITS IMPORTS OF GREEK WINE .

3 THE APPLICATION ESSENTIALLY SEEKS THE ANNULMENT OF THIS REFUSAL AND THEREBY THE REFUND OF THE CONTESTED CHARGES .

4 ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANT, THE APPLICATION OF THE COUNTERVAILING CHARGE INTRODUCED BY REGULATION NO 816/70 OF THE COUNCIL ( OJ ENGLISH SPECIAL EDITION 1970 ( I ), P . 234 ) TO GREEK WINES IMPORTED INTO THE BELGO-LUXEMBOURG ECONOMIC UNION IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE AGREEMENT OF ASSOCIATION BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY AND GREECE OF 9 JULY 1961 .

5 UNDER ARTICLE 6 OF THE COUNCIL DECISION OF 21 APRIL 1970 ON THE REPLACEMENT OF FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS FROM MEMBER STATES BY THE COMMUNITIES' OWN RESOURCES ( OJ, ENGLISH SPECIAL EDITION 1970 ( I ), P . 224 ), ADOPTED PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 201 OF THE EEC TREATY, THE COMMUNITY' S OWN RESOURCES SHALL BE COLLECTED BY MEMBER STATES ON BEHALF OF THE COMMUNITY " IN ACCORDANCE WITH NATIONAL PROVISIONS IMPOSED BY LAW, REGULATION OR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION " AND MADE AVAILABLE TO THE COMMISSION .

6 UNDER ARTICLES 1, 2 AND 13 OF REGULATION NO 2/71 OF THE COUNCIL OF 2 JANUARY 1971 IMPLEMENTING THE DECISION OF 21 APRIL 1970 ( OJ, ENGLISH SPECIAL EDITION 1971 ( I ), P . 3 ) THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THESE RESOURCES AND THE CONTROL OF THEIR COLLECTION IS PRIMARILY THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE COMPETENT DEPARTMENTS OR AGENCIES OF THE MEMBER STATES .

7 DISPUTES CONCERNING THE LEVYING ON INDIVIDUALS OF THE CHARGES AND LEVIES REFERRED TO BY THIS PROVISION MUST BE RESOLVED, APPLYING COMMUNITY LAW, BY THE NATIONAL AUTHORITIES AND FOLLOWING THE PRACTICES LAID DOWN BY THE LAW OF THE MEMBER STATES .

8 ISSUES, THEREFORE, WHICH ARE RAISED DURING SUCH A PROCEDURE AS TO THE INTERPRETATION AND VALIDITY OF REGULATIONS ESTABLISHING THE COMMUNITIES' OWN RESOURCES MUST BE BROUGHT BEFORE THE NATIONAL COURTS WHICH HAVE AT THEIR DISPOSAL THE PROCEDURE UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE TREATY IN ORDER TO ENSURE THE UNIFORM APPLICATION OF COMMUNITY LAW .

9 THE COUNTERVAILING CHARGE IN QUESTION IS PART OF THE OWN RESOURCES REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 6 OF THE COUNCIL DECISION OF 21 APRIL 1970 .

10 IT IS THEREFORE FOR THE COMPETENT NATIONAL AUTHORITIES TO RULE ON CLAIMS FOR THE REFUND OF THAT CHARGE .

11 THE APPLICANT' S CLAIM FOR A REFUND SHOULD THEREFORE HAVE BEEN MADE TO THOSE AUTHORITIES .

12 IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE COMMISSION' S REFUSAL OF THE APPLICANT' S REQUEST IS NOT AN ACT CAPABLE OF BEING THE SUBJECT OF AN APPLICATION FOR ANNULMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 173 OF THE TREATY .

13 THE APPLICATION FOR ANNULMENT IS THEREFORE INADMISSIBLE .

14 THE APPLICANT MAINTAINS FURTHER THAT BY REASON OF THE DEFENDANT' S BEHAVIOUR IT HAS SUFFERED EXCEPTIONAL DAMAGE AS A RESULT OF LOSS OF PROFIT, UNFORESEEN FINANCIAL OUTLAY AND LOSSES ON EXISTING CONTRACTS .

15 THE QUESTION OF THE POSSIBLE LIABILITY OF THE COMMUNITY IS IN THE FIRST PLACE LINKED WITH THAT OF THE LEGALITY OF THE LEVYING OF THE CHARGE IN QUESTION .

16 IT HAS JUST BEEN FOUND THAT, IN THE CONTEXT OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS AND THE TAXATION AUTHORITY WHICH HAS LEVIED THE CHARGE IN DISPUTE, THE LATTER QUESTION COMES UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE NATIONAL COURTS .

17 ACCORDINGLY, AT THE PRESENT STAGE THE CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION FOR POSSIBLE DAMAGE MUST BE DISMISSED .

Decision on costs

18 UNDER ARTICLE 69 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE THE UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY SHALL BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS .

Operative part

THE COURT

HEREBY :

1 . DISMISSES THE APPLICATION FOR ANNULMENT AND THE CLAIM FOR DAMAGES;

2 . ORDERS THE APPLICANT TO BEAR THE COSTS .