Koninklijke Coöperatie Cosun UA v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit.
Date: 2006-10-26
30. Such is clearly the case as far as customs duties and charges having equivalent effect are concerned, the latter being any pecuniary charge, whatever its designation and mode of application, which is imposed unilaterally on goods by reason of the fact that they cross a frontier, and which is not a customs duty in the strict sense (see, in particular, Case C-347/95 UCAL  [1997] ECR I‑4911, paragraph 18, and Case C‑517/04 Koornstra  [2006] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 15).
55. In that regard, in Case C‑329/01 British Sugar  [2004] ECR I‑1899, paragraphs 64 to 67, the Court found that in circumstances such as those in that case, in which there was no wrongful conduct on the part of the competent national agency, neither that agency nor the national courts enjoyed any discretion to vary downwards the charge to be paid pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation No 2670/81.
60. Thus, there is no obligation, for national authorities informed of possible fraud consisting of the disposal on the internal market of C sugar which has been the subject of an export declaration, to inform the producer that it could incur liability to a charge under Article 3 of Regulation No 2670/81, even where it was not involved in carrying out the fraudulent acts (see, by way of analogy, De Haan , paragraph 36).
63. However, it is settled case-law that there is no legal basis in Community law for exemption on equitable grounds from charges due under that law (Case 118/76 Balkan-Import-Export  [1977] ECR 1177, paragraphs 7, 8 and 10; Case 299/84 Neumann  [1985] ECR 3663, paragraph 24; and Case C‑174/89 Hoche  [1990] ECR I‑2681, paragraph 31). In addition, without prejudice to the special cases expressly provided for by the Community legislature (see, for example, Case C‑68/95 T. Port  [1996] ECR I-6065, paragraphs 42 and 43), there is no general legal principle in Community law that a Community provision which is in force may not be applied by a national authority if it causes the person concerned hardship which the Community legislature would clearly have sought to avoid if it had envisaged that eventuality when enacting the provision ( Neumann , paragraph 33, and Hoche , paragraph 31).
64. Equity cannot therefore be regarded as allowing any derogation from the application of provisions of Community law, save as provided for by the legislation or where the legislation is itself declared invalid (Case C‑263/97 First City Trading and Others  [1998] ECR I-5537, paragraph 48).
72. In that regard, it must be pointed out, first, that compliance with the principle of equality and non-discrimination requires that comparable situations must not be treated differently and that different situations must not be treated in the same way unless such treatment is objectively justified (see, in particular, Case C-44/94 Fishermen’s Organisations and Others  [1995] ECR I‑3115, paragraph 46, and Joined Cases C‑87/03 and C‑100/03 Spain  v Council [2006] ECR I‑2915, paragraph 48) and, second, that the second subparagraph of Article 40(3) of the Treaty, which prohibits all discrimination in the context of the common agricultural policy, is merely a specific expression of that principle (see, inter alia, Case C‑292/97 Karlsson and Others  [2000] ECR I‑2737, paragraph 39).
79. In that regard, it should be noted that the Court has consistently held that the principle of legal certainty is a fundamental principle of Community law which requires, in particular, that rules should be clear and precise, so that individuals may be able to ascertain unequivocally what their rights and obligations are and may take steps accordingly (see, in particular, Case C-143/93 Van Es Douane Agenten  [1996] ECR I-431, paragraph 27, and Case C-110/03 Belgium  v Commission  [2005] ECR I-2801, paragraph 30). The principle of legal certainty must be observed all the more strictly in the case of a measure liable to have financial consequences (Case 326/85 Netherlands  v Commission  [1987] ECR 5091, paragraph 24, and Case C‑94/05 Emsland-Stärke  [2006] ECR I‑2619, paragraph 43).
80. Moreover, a penalty, even of a non-criminal nature, cannot be imposed unless it rests on a clear and unambiguous legal basis (see, in particular, Case 117/83 Könecke [1984] ECR 3291, paragraph 11; Case C-210/00 Käserei Champignon Hofmeister  [2002] ECR I-6453, paragraph 52; and Emsland-Stärke , paragraph 44).