Judgment_paragraph 4. · Amministrazione delle finanze dello Stato v Srl Meridionale Industria Salumi and others ; Ditta Italo Orlandi & Figlio and Ditta Vincenzo Divella v Amministrazione delle finanze dello Stato (212/80, 213/80, 214/80, 215/80, 216/80, 217/80)

4.The Commission of the European Communities considers that Regulation No 1697/79 applies only to customs operations entered in the accounts as from 1 July 1980, the date on which the regulation came into force or, if not entered in the accounts, to debts arising thereafter. That conclusion follows from consideration of the object of Regulation No 1697/79, which is the complete harmonization of both the substantive and procedural provisions on post-clearance recovery of customs duties, charges having equivalent effect and agricultural levies on imports and exports.More particularly, the Commission relies on three considerations, namely the general principles applicable when one law is replaced by another, the systematic interpretation of the regulation and the principles of the Community legal system.(a) As regards the first point (principles applicable when one law is replaced by another), in the absence of a specific provision only procedural and not substantive provisions can apply to matters still pending. That is apparent from previous decisions of the Court on the temporal validity of Community measures. According to those decisions, measures of a legislative nature apply only to matters arising after their entry into force. In this connection, the Commission cites the judgments of 24 November 1971 in Case 30/71 Siemers [1971] ECR 919 and 15 December 1971 in Case 77/71 Gervais-Danone [1971] ECR 1127 on regulations concerning tariff classification and the judgment of 5 May 1977 in Case 104/76 Jansen [1977] ECR 829 on social security rules.(b) In the second place, Regulation No 1697/79 must be considered in the context of the whole body of legislation applicable to customs matters in the Community, which is made up of directly applicable Community provisions, subordinate national provisions and independent national provisions in sectors not governed by provisions of Community law.From that point of view it is to be observed that the period of three years provided for by the regulation for commencing proceedings for recovery constitutes a compromise between the various periods, extending from one to six years, provided for by the national laws. Therefore the application of the period of three years to matters still pending would result in extending the national periods in certain Member States and shortening them in others, which would seriously affect legal certainty and the rights of persons subject to the law.(c) Finally, both the fact that Regulation No 1697/79 is a single and indivisible whole and the necessity of ensuring equal treatment for all traders regarding the collection of charges for the benefit of the Community budget preclude the possibility that part of the regulation, namely that relating to the limitation period for commencing proceedings for recovery, might enter into force at a different date from the rest of the regulation concerning the conditions of form and substance for bringing such proceedings. It would be inconceivable to substitute a Community period for the national periods whilst leaving the national laws to govern the substantive conditions. In support of its position the Commission adds that the Committee on Duty-Free Arrangements expressed a similar,view to that of the Commission when it discussed the question of the temporal validity of Regulation No 1697/79.(d) In conclusion the Commission proposes that the Court should answer the first question put by the national court as follows, the other questions losing their purpose:“Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 applies solely to operations entered in the accounts after 1 July 1980 or, if not entered in the accounts, to customs debts arising thereafter”.

Amministrazione delle finanze dello Stato v Srl Meridionale Industria Salumi and others ; Ditta Italo Orlandi & Figlio and Ditta Vincenzo Divella v Amministrazione delle finanze dello Stato (212/80, 213/80, 214/80, 215/80, 216/80, 217/80)

Key facts

History · 1 version

Connections