The Gazette 1977

7 / 264

GAZ LTN-: JANUARY/FIZBRUARY 1977
institute proceedings within the period laid down by the
national legislation concerning such proceedings against
the assessments arid the reminder notice sent to it, the
plaintiff in the main action can no iongcr contest the
contributions at issue nor claim repayment of them.
For its part, Comet maintains that the supremacy of
Community law implies that any measure infringing that
law is void and that therefore it has a cause of action
before the national courts, independently of restrictions
laid down by the national legislation which might lessen
the impact of the direct affect of that law in the legal
systems of the Member States.
The question put to the Court of Justice asks whether
the procedure — at least in so far as periods of limitation
are concerned — in respect of judicial actions intended to
ensure protection for rignts which individuals hold by
reason ot the direct effect of a Community provision are
governed by the national law of the Member State where
those rights of action are exercised or whether, on the
contrary, they are independent and can only be governed
by Community law itself.
After analysing the principle of co-operation with
-national courts laid down in Article 5 of the Treaty, the
Court of Justice has ruled that in the case of a litigant
w ho is challenging before the national courts a decision of
a national body for incompatibility with Community law,
that law, in its present state, does not prevent the expiry of
the period within which proceedings must be brought
under national law from being objected against him,
provided that the procedural rules applicable in his case
ure not less favourable than those governing the same
right of action on an internal matter.
Ca s e 3 3 / 7 6 - R e w e - Z e n t r al AG and
Londwirtschaftskammer fur das Saarland (preliminary
niling) 16 December 1976.
Rules of Procedure — Period of Limitation — This case
is simiiar to Case 45/76 (Comet), summarised above. This
time the Bundesverwaitungsgericht turned to the Court in
Luxembourg to obtain its interpretation of Article 5 of the
EEC Treaty concerning procedural aspects of actions at
law.
These questions were raised in the context of
proceedings concerning the payment in 1968, in respcct
of imports by Rewe, of charges in respect of
phytosanitary inspection, which were considered to be
equivalent to customs duties by the judgment of the Court
of 11 October 1973 in Case 39/73 [19731 ECR 1039).
The respondent, the Agricultural Chamber for the
Saarland, rejected the complaints of the appellant Rewe,
requesting the annulment of the decisions imposing the
charges and the reimbursement of the sums paid
(including interest), on the ground that they were
inadmissible in that the time-limit laid down by Article 58
of the German Rules of Procedure of the
Verwaltungsgericht was not observed.
The first question asked whether, where an
administrative body in one State has infringed the
prohibition on charges having equivalent effect, the
Community citizen concerned has a right under
Community law to the annulment or revocation of the
administrative measure and/or to a refund of the amount
paid, even if under the rules of procedure of the national
law the time-limit for contesting the validity of the
administrative measure is passed.
The court has replied with a ruling that in the case of a
litigant who is challenging before the national courts a
decision of a national body for incompatibility with
Community law, that law, in its present state, does not
prevent the expiry of the period within which proceedings
must be brought under national law from being objected
against him, provided that the procedural rules applicable
in his case are not less favourable than those governing
the same right of action on an internal matter.
The second question asked whether the fact that the
Court has already ruled on the question of infringement of
the Treaty has an affect on the reply given to the first
question. The Court answered in the negative.
FORTHCOMING LECTURES AND SEMINARS
March 31 — London — The European Communities
Qnd The Rule of Law. Hamlyn Lecture I. First of four by
Lord Mackenzie Stuart — at Institute of Advanced Legal
Studies, Russell Square, London.
April 4 — London — The European Communities and
The Rule of Law. Hamlyn Lecture II.
April 5 — London — The European Communities and
The Rule of Law. Hamlyn Lecture III.
April 6 — London — The European Communities and
The Rule of Law. Hamlyn Lecture IV.
April 19 — London — "Consequencesand experiences
concerning the competition between Floating charges and
Reseiration and of Title". Sponsor: Section on Business
Law of the International Bar Association. Apply: The
director General. International Bar Association, 93
Jermyn Street, London SW1Y 6JE.
April 20-21 — London — The Responsibility and
Liability of Directors and the Lawyer's Role as a
bircctor. Sponsor: International Bar Association. Apply:
Director-Gcileral, IBA, 93 Jermyn Street, London SW1
8
6JE.
April 28 — London — Confidentiality and Clients
Privilege. Sponsors: Solicitors European Group and
Commerce and Industry Group of The Law Society, Law
Society's Hall, 113 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1PL.
Tel. (01) 242 1222.
April 28 29 — Venice — First European Seminar on
Product Liability. Sponsors: European Organisation for
Quality Control and the Italian Association for Quality-
Control (AICQ). Languages: (Simultaneous translation)
English, French, German, Italian. Apply: AICQ Seminar
Secretariat, Piazza Diaz 2, 20123 Milan, Italv. Tei. (02)
80.08.21 or 89.22.85. Telex 22481 I UNI Sig'.na.Pagetti.
May 15-21 — Florence — New Perspectives on a
Common Law of Europe. Sponsor: The European
University Institute, Badia Fiosolana, Florence, Italy.
May 22-25 —Nice — 74th French Notaries Congress.
Theme: "Droit Fiscal et Gestion des Bicns". Organiser:
Mme. Boulanger, P.O. Box 149,62520 Le Touquet-Paris-
Plage, France.