Van Gend en Loos v. Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen
Encyclopedia
NV Algemene Transporten Expeditie Onderneming van Gend en Loos v Nederlandse Administratis der Belastingen (commonly just referred to as Van Gend en Loos) was a landmark case of the European Court of Justice
which established that provisions of the Treaty Establishing the European Economic Community were capable of creating legal rights which could be enforced by both natural
and legal persons before the courts of the Community's member states
. This is now called the principle of direct effect
. The case is acknowledged as being one of the most important, if not the most important, decision in the development of European Union law
.
The case arose from the reclassification of a chemical, by the Benelux
countries, into a customs category entailing higher customs charges. The Court held that this breached a provision of the treaty requiring member states to progressively reduce customs duties between themselves, and continued to rule that the breach was actionable by individuals before national courts and not just by the member states of the Community themselves.
from West Germany
to the Netherlands. The Dutch customs authorities charged them a tariff on the import. Van Gend en Loos objected, submitting that the tariff was contrary to EC law. Article 12 of the Treaty of Rome
(now replaced by Article 30 TFEU) stated:
Van Gend en Loos paid the tariff but then sought to retrieve the money in the national court. The national court made a request for a preliminary ruling
to the European Court of Justice
, asking whether the then Article 12 of the Treaty of Rome conferred rights on the nationals of a member state that they could be enforced in national courts.
The court gave guidance as to when a treaty article would be directly effective. It stated that it is necessary to consider the spirit, general scheme, and wording of a provision alleged to be directly effective. The court held that since the object of the Treaty of Rome
was to establish a common market, for the benefit of individuals, the treaty is more than a typical international agreement. Not only does it create mutual obligations between states, but it is capable of giving individuals rights in the national courts.
The court decided that the fact that the failure of member states to comply with EU law could be supervised by enforcement actions brought either by the Commission or other member state, did not mean that individuals should not also be able to act as enforcers in national courts. Two reasons were given. The first was that a failure to recognise a concept of direct effect would not give sufficient legal protection to individuals. The second was that individual enforcement was an effective supervisory mechanism. The availability of both supervision by individuals and by the Commission and member states is described by Stephen Weatherill as being on of "dual vigilance".
On the question of the tariff on urea-formaldehyde, the Court ruled that the Netherlands could not impose a higher tariff than that in force on 1 January 1958 (when the Treaty came into force). The Court noted that increase in the tariff could arise either through an increase in the rate or through the reclassification of a product into a higher-rated category, and that both were illegal under Article 12. The question of the proper tariff for urea-formaldehyde (i.e., that which was correctly applied on 1 January 1958) was remitted to the national court.
The case illustrates the creative jurisprudence of the European court of justice. The concept of direct effect is not mentioned in the treaty. The court held that such a doctrine was necessary in order to ensure the compliance of member states with their obligations under the Treaty of Rome.
The case illustrates a procedure of enforcement of EC law at the national leveldirect effect does not require the Commission to bring an action against the state. This is significant, because it provides a more effective, distributed enforcement mechanism.
European Court of Justice
The Court can sit in plenary session, as a Grand Chamber of 13 judges, or in chambers of three or five judges. Plenary sitting are now very rare, and the court mostly sits in chambers of three or five judges...
which established that provisions of the Treaty Establishing the European Economic Community were capable of creating legal rights which could be enforced by both natural
Natural person
Variously, in jurisprudence, a natural person is a human being, as opposed to an artificial, legal or juristic person, i.e., an organization that the law treats for some purposes as if it were a person distinct from its members or owner...
and legal persons before the courts of the Community's member states
Member State of the European Union
A member state of the European Union is a state that is party to treaties of the European Union and has thereby undertaken the privileges and obligations that EU membership entails. Unlike membership of an international organisation, being an EU member state places a country under binding laws in...
. This is now called the principle of direct effect
Direct effect
Direct effect is the principle of European Union law according to which provisions of Union law may, if appropriately framed, confer rights and impose obligations on individuals which the courts of European Union member states are bound to recognise and enforce...
. The case is acknowledged as being one of the most important, if not the most important, decision in the development of European Union law
European Union law
European Union law is a body of treaties and legislation, such as Regulations and Directives, which have direct effect or indirect effect on the laws of European Union member states. The three sources of European Union law are primary law, secondary law and supplementary law...
.
The case arose from the reclassification of a chemical, by the Benelux
Benelux
The Benelux is an economic union in Western Europe comprising three neighbouring countries, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg. These countries are located in northwestern Europe between France and Germany...
countries, into a customs category entailing higher customs charges. The Court held that this breached a provision of the treaty requiring member states to progressively reduce customs duties between themselves, and continued to rule that the breach was actionable by individuals before national courts and not just by the member states of the Community themselves.
Facts
Van Gend en Loos, a postal and transportation company, imported urea-formaldehydeUrea-formaldehyde
Urea-formaldehyde, also known as urea-methanal, named so for its common synthesis pathway and overall structure, is a non-transparent thermosetting resin or plastic, made from urea and formaldehyde heated in the presence of a mild base such as ammonia or pyridine...
from West Germany
West Germany
West Germany is the common English, but not official, name for the Federal Republic of Germany or FRG in the period between its creation in May 1949 to German reunification on 3 October 1990....
to the Netherlands. The Dutch customs authorities charged them a tariff on the import. Van Gend en Loos objected, submitting that the tariff was contrary to EC law. Article 12 of the Treaty of Rome
Treaty of Rome
The Treaty of Rome, officially the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, was an international agreement that led to the founding of the European Economic Community on 1 January 1958. It was signed on 25 March 1957 by Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and West Germany...
(now replaced by Article 30 TFEU) stated:
Van Gend en Loos paid the tariff but then sought to retrieve the money in the national court. The national court made a request for a preliminary ruling
Preliminary ruling
A preliminary ruling is a decision of the European Court of Justice on the interpretation of European Union law, made at the request of a court of a European Union member state. The name is somewhat of a misnomer in that preliminary rulings are not subject to a final determination of the matters...
to the European Court of Justice
European Court of Justice
The Court can sit in plenary session, as a Grand Chamber of 13 judges, or in chambers of three or five judges. Plenary sitting are now very rare, and the court mostly sits in chambers of three or five judges...
, asking whether the then Article 12 of the Treaty of Rome conferred rights on the nationals of a member state that they could be enforced in national courts.
Advocate General's opinion
Advocate General Roemer thought that some provisions of the treaty could have "direct effect" (that citizens could rely on them) but that Article 12 was not one of them. Note that the advocate general's opinion is distinct from the judgment of the court.Judgment
The European Court of Justice, delivering its judgment on the 5 February 1963, firmly held that Article 12 was capable of creating personal rights for Van Gend en Loos. In a seminal judgment it gave a wide and purposive interpretation to the Treaty of Rome.The court gave guidance as to when a treaty article would be directly effective. It stated that it is necessary to consider the spirit, general scheme, and wording of a provision alleged to be directly effective. The court held that since the object of the Treaty of Rome
Treaty of Rome
The Treaty of Rome, officially the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, was an international agreement that led to the founding of the European Economic Community on 1 January 1958. It was signed on 25 March 1957 by Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and West Germany...
was to establish a common market, for the benefit of individuals, the treaty is more than a typical international agreement. Not only does it create mutual obligations between states, but it is capable of giving individuals rights in the national courts.
The court decided that the fact that the failure of member states to comply with EU law could be supervised by enforcement actions brought either by the Commission or other member state, did not mean that individuals should not also be able to act as enforcers in national courts. Two reasons were given. The first was that a failure to recognise a concept of direct effect would not give sufficient legal protection to individuals. The second was that individual enforcement was an effective supervisory mechanism. The availability of both supervision by individuals and by the Commission and member states is described by Stephen Weatherill as being on of "dual vigilance".
On the question of the tariff on urea-formaldehyde, the Court ruled that the Netherlands could not impose a higher tariff than that in force on 1 January 1958 (when the Treaty came into force). The Court noted that increase in the tariff could arise either through an increase in the rate or through the reclassification of a product into a higher-rated category, and that both were illegal under Article 12. The question of the proper tariff for urea-formaldehyde (i.e., that which was correctly applied on 1 January 1958) was remitted to the national court.
Commentary
The case is authority for the proposition that articles of the EC treaty are directly effective (as distinct from directly applicable) in their application against the state.The case illustrates the creative jurisprudence of the European court of justice. The concept of direct effect is not mentioned in the treaty. The court held that such a doctrine was necessary in order to ensure the compliance of member states with their obligations under the Treaty of Rome.
The case illustrates a procedure of enforcement of EC law at the national leveldirect effect does not require the Commission to bring an action against the state. This is significant, because it provides a more effective, distributed enforcement mechanism.
External links
- Case 26/62, NV Algemene Transporten Expeditie Onderneming van Gend en Loos v Nederlandse Administratis der Belastingen
[1963 ECR 1].
See also
- European Union lawEuropean Union lawEuropean Union law is a body of treaties and legislation, such as Regulations and Directives, which have direct effect or indirect effect on the laws of European Union member states. The three sources of European Union law are primary law, secondary law and supplementary law...
- Marbury v. MadisonMarbury v. MadisonMarbury v. Madison, is a landmark case in United States law and in the history of law worldwide. It formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution. It was also the first time in Western history a court invalidated a law by declaring...