RECEPTION INTO NATIONAL LAW .
BY VIRTUE OF THE OBLIGATIONS ARISING FROM THE TREATY AND ASSUMED ON RATIFICATION, MEMBER STATES ARE UNDER A DUTY NOT TO OBSTRUCT THE DIRECT APPLICABILITY INHERENT IN REGULATIONS AND OTHER RULES OF COMMUNITY LAW .
STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THIS OBLIGATION IS AN INDISPENSABLE CONDITION OF SIMULTANEOUS AND UNIFORM APPLICATION OF COMMUNITY REGULATIONS THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY .
11 MORE PARTICULARLY, MEMBER STATES ARE UNDER AN OBLIGATION NOT TO INTRODUCE ANY MEASURE WHICH MIGHT AFFECT THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT TO PRONOUNCE ON ANY QUESTION INVOLVING THE INTERPRETATION OF COMMUNITY LAW OR THE VALIDITY OF AN ACT OF THE INSTITUTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY, WHICH MEANS THAT NO PROCEDURE IS PERMISSIBLE WHEREBY THE COMMUNITY NATURE OF A LEGAL RULE IS CONCEALED FROM THOSE SUBJECT TO IT .
UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE TREATY IN PARTICULAR, THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT IS UNAFFECTED BY ANY PROVISIONS OF NATIONAL LEGISLATION WHICH PURPORT TO CONVERT A RULE OF COMMUNITY LAW INTO NATIONAL LAW .
ON QUESTION 7
12 IN THE SEVENTH QUESTION, THE COURT IS INVITED TO DECLARE WHETHER THE RIGHTS CONFERRED ON PRIVATE PARTIES UNDER ARTICLES 18 AND 20 OF REGULATION NO 19/62 REMAINED VALID AFTER REGULATION NO 120/67 CAME INTO FORCE .
13 ARTICLE 33 OF REGULATION NO 120/67 PROVIDES THAT THE ARRANGEMENTS SET OUT THEREIN WERE EFFECTIVE FROM 1 JULY 1967 AND THAT REGULATION NO 19/62 WAS REPEALED WITH EFFECT FROM THE SAME DATE .
IN THE ABSENCE OF VALID PROVISION TO THE CONTRARY, REPEAL OF A REGULATION DOES NOT MEAN ABOLITION OF THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS WHICH IT HAS CREATED .
MOREOVER, THE PROHIBITIONS, CONTAINED IN ARTICLES 18 AND 20 OF REGULATION NO 90/62, AGAINST STATES LEVYING CHARGES HAVING EQUIVALENT EFFECT TO CUSTOMS DUTIES, WERE REPEALED BY ARTICLES 18 AND 21 OF REGULATION NO 120/67 .
IT FOLLOWS FROM THIS THAT THE RIGHTS CREATED IN FAVOUR OF PRIVATE PARTIES UNDER ARTICLES 18 AND 20 OF REGULATION NO 19/62 REMAINED IN FORCE, WITHOUT INTERRUPTION, AFTER REGULATION NO 120/67 CAME INTO EFFECT .
ON QUESTION 8
14 IN THE EIGHTH QUESTION, THE COURT IS ASKED TO DECLARE WHETHER, BY A LEGISLATIVE PROVISION ENACTED AFTER ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THE REGULATIONS IN DISPUTE, A MEMBER STATE CAN CHANGE THE DATE FROM WHICH THE PROHIBITION OF CHARGES HAVING EQUIVALENT EFFECT BECOMES OPERATIVE .
IT IS CLEAR FROM THE FILE THAT THIS QUESTION IS OCCASIONED BY THE ITALIAN LAW NO 447 OF 24 JUNE 1971 UNDER WHICH WERE ABOLISHED THE STATISTICS DUTY AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DUTY WHICH, IN ITS JUDGEMENTS OF 1 JULY 1961 IN CASE 24/68 ( REC . 1969 ) AND OF 18 NOVEMBER 1970 IN CASE 8/70 ( REC . 1970 ), THE COURT DECLARED TO BE INCOMPATIBLE WITH COMMUNITY PROVISIONS PROHIBITING THE LEVYING OF DUTIES HAVING EQUIVALENT EFFECT TO CUSTOMS DUTIES .
THE ITALIAN LAW PROVIDES THAT ABOLITION TAKES EFFECT ONLY FROM THE DATE ON WHICH THE LAW CAME INTO FORCE, VIZ . 1 AUGUST 1971, EXCEPT FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DUTY LEVIED ON GOODS IMPORTED FROM OTHER