Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T20:00:07.511Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

N. V. Algemene Transport- En Expeditie Onderneming Van Gend & Loos C. Administration Fiscale Néerlandaise: A Pioneering Decision of the Court of Justice of the European Communities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2017

Stefan A. Riesenfeld  and
Richard M. Buxbaum
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Notes and Comments
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 58 , Issue 1 , January 1964 , pp. 152 - 159
Copyright
Copyright © The American Society of International Law 1964

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Court of Justice of the European Communities, 9 Rec. de la Jurispr. (Fr.) 1 (1963) (Case No. 26-62) ; digested below, p. 194. For an English translation (by one of the authors of this comment), see 2 International Legal Materials (Am. Soc. Int. Law) 505 (1963).

2 The Court was constituted as Court of Justice of the European Coal and Steel Community on Dec. 10, 1952, opened its doors to litigants on March 7, 1953, and was reconstituted as the Court of Justice of the European Communities on Oct. 7, 1958; see Riesenfeld, , “The Decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, 1954-1960,” 56 A.J.I.L. 724 (1962)Google Scholar.

3 For an English translation of the article in question see 51 A. J.I.L. 865, 920 (1957).

4 The first request for an interlocutory interpretation of the E.E.C. Treaty, submitted to the Court under Art. 177, was the case of Société Kledingverkoopbedrijf de Geus o. Société Robert Bosch GmbH and Soc. An. Maatschappij tot voortzetting van de zaken der Firma W. van Eijn, 8 Rec. de la Jurispr. (Fr.) 89 (1962) (Case No. 13-61), involving the effect of Art. 85 of the Treaty of Rome; digested in 57 A.J.I.L. 129 (1963).

5 [1960] Staatsblad van het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden (hereinafter cited as Staatsbl.) No. 30.

6 [1959] Tractatenblad No. 130.

7 [1959] Staatsbl. No. 469.

8 [1947] Staatsbl. No. 438.

9 Cf. 51 A.J.I.L. 870 (1957) (with slight changes in the phrasing of the translation).

10 See in particular Bülow, “Zur unmittelbaren Wirkung von Stillhalteverpflichtungen im EWG-Vertrag,” 9 Aussenwirtschaftsdienst des Betriebs-Beraters (hereinafter cited as AWD) 162 (1963); Ehle, “Wirtschaftslenkung und Verfassungsrechtsschutz im Gemeinsamen Markt,” ibid. 157; Gori, Note on Judgment No. 26-62, 115 Giurispr. Ital. IV 49 (1963); Ophüls, “Quellen und Aufbau des Europäischen Gemeinschaftsrechts,” 16 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (hereinafter cited as N.J.W.) 1697 (1963); Samkalden, Note to Judgment No. 26-62, 11 Sociaal Economische Wetgeving (hereinafter cited as S.E.W.) 107 (1963), and Note to Judgment No. 28-30/62, ibid. 227; Suetens, “Prejudiciële Vragen in het EEG- en EGA Recht,” 26 Eechtskundig Weekblad 1913 (1963); Trabucchi, “Un nuovo diritto,” 9 Riv. di Dir. Civile 259 (1963).

11 E.g., Leeourt, “L’Europe dans le Prétoire,” Le Monde, Feb. 23, 1963, pp. 1 and 3.

12 Hay, , “Federal Jurisdiction of the Community Market Court,” 12 A. J. Comp. Law 21 (1963)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Stone, , “The Court and American Law,” European Community, No. 65, at p. 7 (1963)Google Scholar; van den Heuvel, , “Civil-Law Consequences of Violation of the Anti trust Provisions of the Rome Treaty,” 12 A.J. Comp. Law 172, 187 (1963)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 E.g., at the Conference at Cologne, “10 Years of Adjudication by the Court of the European Communities” (April, 1963), and at the Joint Conference at Vienna of the German and Austrian Societies of Comparative Law (Sept., 1963).

14 For recent discussions of the different forms in which the applicability of treaties to nationals and by national authorities is regulated in the legal systems of the member states of the E.E.C., see Seidl-Hohenveldern, , “Transformation or Adoption of International Law into Municipal Law,” 12 Int. and Comp. Law Q. 88 (1963)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schlochauer, , “Das Verhältnis des Bechts der Europäischen Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft zu den nationalen Rechtsordnungen der Mitgliedstaaten,” 11 Archiv des Völkerrechts 1 (1963)Google Scholar; de Termicourt, Hayoit, “Le Conflit ‘Traité-Loi interne’,” 78 Journal des Tribunaux 481 (1963)Google Scholar; see also Pescatore, , “L’autorité en Droit Interne des Traités Internationaux,” [1962] Pasicrisie Luxembourgeoise 99 Google Scholar.

15 is The Italian law of approbation of Oct. 14, 1957, No. 1203, [1957] Le Leggi 1484, contains at the same time a provision giving the treaty “full and entire execution” and a delegation of authority to the government to enact regulations with the force of law for implementing a catalogue of provisions in the treaty; see Miele, , “L’Esecuzione nell’Ordinamento Italiano degli Atti Internazionali istitutivi della CEE e dell’Euratom,” 15 Diritto Internazionale 17 (1963)Google Scholar. The German ratification law of July 27, 1957, contains no general transformatory clause, but empowers the government to enact regulations for the fulfillment of certain treaty obligations with the express or presumed approval of parliament. Law of July 27, 1957, II Bundesgesetzblatt 753 (1957).

The Belgian, Dutch and Luxembourg laws approving ratification are straightforward and contain no conditions. Belgian Law of Dec. 2, 1957, Moniteur Belge 1180 (1957) ; Dutch Law of Dec. 5, 1957, [1957] Staatsbl. No. 493 (see, however, Law of Dec. 5, 1957, [1957] Staatsbl. No. 528, concerning the lack of direct applicability of Arts. 85 and 86 of the Rome Treaty before the promulgation of implementing regulations under Art. 87).

The French law approving ratification likewise contains no qualifying or amplifying provision. Law No. 57-880, Aug. 2, 1957, 40 Bull. Lég. Dalloz 480 (1957). During parliamentary debate thereon, however, a motion was adopted in the Conseil de la Képublique to prevent any diminution of sovereignty because of the Treaty’s entry into force. See Cocatre-Zilgien, “Les Traités de Bome devant le Parlement Français, “1957 Annuaire Français de Droit International 517, 533.

16 For recent discussions see Goetz, , “Europäisches Gemeinschaftsrecht und Deutsches Becht,” 9 Juristenzeitung 265 (1963)Google Scholar; Udina, “Sull’Efficacia delle Norme della Comunità Europee nell’Ordinamento Italiano,” 15 Diritto Internazionale 123 (1961)Google Scholar; Zannini, “La Giurisdizione della Corte di Giustizia della Comunità Europee in rapporto agli Ordinamenti degli Stati Membri,” 16 ibid. 242 (1962); Balladore Pallieri, “Le Comunità Europee e gli Ordinamenti Interni degli Stati Membri,” 15 ibid. 4 (1961); Schlochauer, loc. cit. note 14 above. See also Ophüls, loc. cit. note 10 above.

17 For a discussion of the constitutional limits upon Community enactments, see Ehle, loc. cit. note 10 above.

18 It is worth noting that the Italian Council of State had reached the same result as the Court of the European Communities prior to the Van Gend & Loos case in the decision of Soc. biscotti panettoni Colussi Milano c. Ministeri commercio estero e finanze, Il Foro Italiano III 143 (1963), involving the direct applicability of Art. 31 of the E.E.C. Treaty (prohibition of new quantitative restrictions and equivalent measures).

19 About the significance and operation of Arts. 60 and 66 of the Dutch Constitution, see especially Erades and Gould, The Relation Between International Law and Municipal Law in the Netherlands and in the United States, especially pp. 198, 307, 393 (1961); and Van Panhuys, “The Netherlands Constitution and International Law,” above, pp. 88-108.

20 4 Wheaton 316 (1819).

21 Warren, The Making of the Constitution 346, 606, 819 (1929).

22 Accord: Knopp, über die Pflicht deutscher Gerichte zur Vorlage von Auslegungsfragen an den Gerichtshof der Europäischen Gemeinschaften nach Art. 177 des EWG-Vertrages,” 16 N.J.W. 305 (1961). Thus the duty of national tribunals of last resort to submit questions of interpretation applies only to matters that were not already the subject of a determination by the Court, Da Costa en Schaake N.V., Jacob Meijer N.V., Hoechst-Holland N.V. c. Administration Fiscale Néerlandaise, 9 Eec. de la Jurispr. 59 (1963) (Cases Nos. 28-30/62). Moreover, only the tribunal ■where the controversy is pending, and not the parties, is competent to certify preliminary questions to the Court, Milchwerke Wöhrmann & Sohn K.G. et Alfons Lütticke c. Commission de la C.E.E., 8 ibid. 965 (Cases Nos. 31 and 32/62); [1963] Dalloz J. 490, with note by Chevallier. It is submitted that this restraint is a matter of political wisdom rather than a defect, as suggested by Hay, loc. cit. note 12 above.

For a recent decision of a Dutch administrative tribunal of last resort submitting a preliminary question, see N.V. Internationale Credieten Handelsvereniging Eotterdam en Coöp. Suikerfabriek Puttershoek t. Ministerie van Landbouw en Visserij, 11 S.E.W. 454 (1963); 6 J.O.C.E. 2284 (Cases Nos. 73-74/63) (from College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven). For eases in which a national tribunal of last resort refused to certify a preliminary question suggested by the parties on the ground that it was not necessary to a decision of the controversy, see K.I.M. Bijwielfabriek N.V. en L.M. Slootmans t. J.N. Sieverdiug N.V., [1962] Ned. Jur. 772 (Hoge Baad, 1961), noted by Samkalden, 11 S.E.W. 227, at 230 (1963) ; Technische Handelsonderneming Nibeja N.V. en H. T. Reymers t. Grundig Radio-Werke G.m.b.H., [1962] Ned Jur. 787 (Hoge Raad, 1962); OLG Düsseldorf, Oct. 21, 1958 (“Sarotti” IV), WuW/E/OLG 263, 9 Wirtschaft und Wettbewerb [hereinafter cited as WuW] 298 (1959). For lower court decisions refusing submission of a preliminary question, see Henckels & Hammesfahr Holland N.V. t. Henckels Zwillingwerk Nederland N.V., [1963] Ned. Jur. 569 (Court of Appeals, Arnhem, 1962), noted by Samkalden, 11 S.E.W. 353 (1963), refusing submission on the ground that it was not a court of last resort; OLG Munich, May 30, 1963 (“Fotokameras”), WuW/E/OLG 556, 13 WuW 626 (1963), holding that Art. 177 was not applicable to temporary restraining orders; Nicolas et Société Brandt, Court of Appeals, Amiens, May 9, 1963, 37 J.C.P., II Jur. 13222 (1963), holding that a conflict between French legislation and Community law raises no preliminary question; Blume t. Van Praag, Court of Commerce, Antwerp, Oct. 25, 1962, 26 Rechtskundig Weekblad [col.] 1959 (1963), holding that an interpretation of Art. 85 was not necessary to the disposition of the case, which proceeded under Belgian law.

23 Art. 9 of Regulation No. 17, containing the first regulations of the application of Arts. 85 and 86 of the Treaty (prohibition of anti-competitive practices), [1962] J.O.C.E. 204, saves the jurisdiction of the national authorities to apply the provisions of Arts. 85 and 86 “as long as the Commission has not initiated any proceedings under articles 2, 3 or 6 of the regulations.” It has been held that this provision compels national courts to stay pending proceedings, if the Commission initiates investigation of the matters pending before the courts, or if an exemption under Art. 85(3) might still be obtained. Soc. Union Nationale des Économies Familiales o. Consten, Court of Appeals, Paris, Jan. 26, 1963, [1963] Dalloz Jur. 189; 37 J.C.P., II Jur. 13103 (1963); Société Pierre Rivière et Cie c. Société Nouvelle de Produits Alimentaires “La Maison du Whisky,” Commercial Tribunal, Seine, March 12, 1963, [1963] Dalloz Jur. 367; semble contra, Blume t. Van Praag, Court of Commerce, Antwerp, Oct. 25, 1962, 26 Eechtskundig Weekblad [col.] 1959 (1963); Nicolas et Société Brandt, Court of Appeals, Amiens, May 9, 1963, 37 J.C.P., II Jur. 13222 (1963).