The Gazette 1977

GAZ LTN - :

JANUARY/F IZ BRUARY 1977

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.

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

FORTHCOMING LECTURES AND SEMINARS March 31 — London — The European Communities Q nd 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. 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.

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 J ermyn 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