1 BY ORDER OF 18 SEPTEMBER 1971, WHICH WAS RECEIVED AT THE COURT REGISTRY ON 30 SEPTEMBER 1971, THE PRESIDENT OF THE TRIBUNALE DI TORINO HAS REFERRED TO THE COURT SEVERAL QUESTIONS ON THE INTERPRETATION, IN PARTICULAR, OF REGULATION NO 14/64/EEC OF THE COUNCIL OF 5 FEBRUARY 1964 AND REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 805/68 OF THE COUNCIL OF 27 JUNE 1968 ON THE COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKET IN BEEF AND VEAL . THESE QUESTIONS WERE REFERRED IN CONNEXION WITH THE APPLICATION BY THE ITALIAN AUTHORITIES TO IMPORTS FROM OTHER MEMBER STATES AND THIRD COUNTRIES OF A DUTY FOR ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES AND A STATISTICS DUTY, WHICH WERE INTRODUCED BY ITALIAN LAW NO 330 OF 15 JUNE 1950 AND DECREES OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC NOS 723 OF 26 JUNE 1965 AND 1339 OF 21 DECEMBER 1961 . QUESTIONS 1, 2 AND 4
2 THE FIRST QUESTION INVITES THE COURT TO RULE WHETHER " THE CONCEPT OF A CHARGE HAVING EFFECT EQUIVALENT TO CUSTOMS DUTIES, REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 12 ( 1 ) AND ( 2 ) OF REGULATION NO 14/64 AND IN ARTICLE 20 ( 2 ) OF REGULATION NO 805/68 IS THE SAME AS THAT DEFINED BY THE EEC TREATY, IN PARTICULAR IN ARTICLES 9, 12, 13 AND 16 THEREOF ". THE SECOND AND FOURTH QUESTIONS ASK WHETHER THE DUTY FOR ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES AND THE STATISTICS DUTY INTRODUCED UNDER ITALIAN LEGISLATION CONSTITUTE SUCH CHARGES, WHICH ARE PROHIBITED UNDER THE REGULATIONS QUOTED .
3 IT FOLLOWS FROM THE JUDGMENTS OF THE COURT OF 1 JULY 1969 IN CASE 24/68 (( 1969 ) ECR 193 ET SEQ .) AND OF 18 NOVEMBER 1970 IN CASE 8/70 (( 1970 ) ECR 961 ET SEQ .) THAT THESE DUTIES CONSTITUTE CHARGES HAVING AN EFFECT EQUIVALENT TO A CUSTOMS DUTY WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLES 9, 12 AND 13 OF THE EEC TREATY AND OF CERTAIN REGULATIONS ON THE COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE AGRICULTURAL MARKET, ESPECIALLY ARTICLE 12 ( 1 ) OF REGULATION NO 14/64 AND ARTICLE 22 ( 1 ) OF REGULATION NO 805/68 . THE CONCEPT, IN THE PROVISIONS OF THE REGULATIONS QUOTED BY THE ITALIAN COURT, OF " CHARGE HAVING EQUIVALENT EFFECT " HAS THE SAME MEANING AS IN ARTICLE 9 ET SEQ . OF THE TREATY AND IN THE OTHER REGULATIONS ON THE ORGANIZATION OF THE AGRICULTURAL MARKET . QUESTIONS 3 ( A ) AND ( B ), 5 ( A ) AND ( B ), 6 ( A ) AND ( B )
4 THE COURT IS FURTHER ASKED WHETHER THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 12 ( 1 ) AND ( 2 ) OF REGULATION NO 14/64 AND OF ARTICLES 20 ( 2 ) AND 22 ( 1 ) OF REGULATION NO 805/68 LAY DOWN RULES WHICH ARE DIRECTLY APPLICABLE IN THE MEMBER STATES AND HAVE CREATED SUBJECTIVE RIGHTS FOR THE BENEFIT OF INDIVIDUALS WHICH THE NATIONAL COURTS MUST PROTECT .
5 UNDER THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 189 OF THE TREATY, A REGULATION " SHALL HAVE GENERAL APPLICATION " AND " SHALL BE ... DIRECTLY APPLICABLE IN ALL MEMBER STATES ". IN CONSEQUENCE, OWING TO ITS VERY NATURE AND ITS FUNCTION IN THE SYSTEM OF SOURCES OF COMMUNITY LAW, IT PRODUCES DIRECT EFFECTS AND, AS SUCH, IS CAPABLE OF CONFERRING RIGHTS ON INDIVIDUALS WHICH NATIONAL COURTS HAVE A DUTY TO PROTECT . ACCORDINGLY THE EFFECT OF REGULATIONS SUCH AS THOSE PROVIDED FOR UNDER ARTICLE 189 PRECLUDES THE APPLICATION OF ANY LEGISLATIVE MEASURE, EVEN A SUBSEQUENT ONE, WHICH IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THEIR PROVISIONS . THIS APPLIES TO THE PROVISIONS QUOTED . QUESTIONS 3 ( C ), 5 ( C ), 6 ( C ) AND 7
6 FINALLY, THE COURT IS ASKED TO STATE THE DATES ON WHICH THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS ARISING UNDER ARTICLE 12 ( 1 ) AND ( 2 ) OF REGULATION NO 14/64 AND UNDER ARTICLES 20 ( 2 ) AND 22 ( 1 ) OF REGULATION NO 805/68 AROSE . THE COURT IS FURTHER REQUESTED TO DECLARE WHETHER THESE RIGHTS HAVE EXISTED CONTINUOUSLY FROM THE TIME WHEN THEY AROSE UNDER THE SYSTEM LAID DOWN IN REGULATION NO 14/64 . IT IS THEREFORE NECESSARY TO CONSIDER FROM WHAT DATES THE SAID PROVISIONS TOOK EFFECT AND WHETHER THEY HAVE CONTINUED TO EXIST SINCE THEN .
7 ( 1 ) UNDER ARTICLE 25 OF REGULATION NO 14/64, THE DATE OF INTRODUCTION OF THE SYSTEM OF TRADE INSTITUTED BY THE REGULATION WAS FIXED AT 1 JULY 1964 . UNDER ARTICLE 1 ( 1 ) ( B ) OF REGULATION NO 82/64 THE DATE 31 JULY 1964 WAS SUBSTITUTED THEREFOR AND, PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPHS ( 2 ) AND ( 3 ) OF THE SAME PROVISION, WAS IN TURN REPLACED BY 1 NOVEMBER 1964 . THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF THESE PROVISIONS IS THAT THE DATE 1 JULY 1964, WHICH APPEARS IN ARTICLE 25 OF REGULATION NO 14/64, HAS BEEN REPLACED BY 1 NOVEMBER 1964 . ACCORDINGLY, THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 12 ( 1 ) AND ( 2 ) OF REGULATION NO 14/64 TOOK EFFECT ON 1 NOVEMBER 1964 .
8 ( 2 ) THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 34 OF THE BASIC REGULATION, ( EEC ) NO 805/68, REPEALED REGULATION NO 14/64 WITH EFFECT FROM 29 JULY 1968 . THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 34 PROVIDES THAT, EXCEPT FOR CERTAIN MEASURES OF NO RELEVANCE TO THE PRESENT CASE, " THE SYSTEM ESTABLISHED BY THIS REGULATION SHALL APPLY FROM " THAT DATE . ACCORDINGLY, AS FAR AS THE SYSTEM ESTABLISHED BY REGULATION NO 805/68 IS CONCERNED, THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLES 20 ( 2 ) AND 22 ( 1 ) OF THAT REGULATION TOOK EFFECT ON 29 JULY 1968 . REGULATION NO 805/68 IS STILL IN FORCE .
9 ( 3 ) IT FOLLOWS FROM THE ABOVE CONSIDERATIONS THAT THE EFFECTS IN QUESTION HAVE EXISTED CONTINUOUSLY SINCE 1 NOVEMBER 1964 .