Judgment_paragraph 3. · Derrick Guy Edmund Hurd v Kenneth Jones (Her Majesty's Inspector of Taxes) (44/84)

3.The United Kingdom's primary submission is that Question 3, concerning direct effect, calls for no answer from the Court because the United Kingdom is under no obligation to accord the tax exemption.Even if such an obligation existed, it would be an obligation to take positive legislative measures enacted under national law and would be both conditional and imprecise since the national authorities would need to determine, among other issues, whether the detailed rules for the implementation of the obligation should be the same as those adopted in Italy or the Netherlands.Article 3 (1) of the Act of Accession is neither clear nor unconditional. Even if that provision encompasses a duty to abide by the decision in question, new Member States will need to determine whether they are obliged to give effect to all, and ail parts, of the Board of Governors' decisions; and if not, to identify those decisions and parts of decisions to which they must give effect and all other arrangements connected with the ‘other agreements’ mentioned in Article 3 (1). The original Member States will need to determine to what extent they are bound equally with the new Member States by such an obligation.The same considerations apply with even greater force to an obligation arising under Article 3 (3) of the Act of Accession, since it would be difficult to find a provision less precise than Article 3 (3) in the Community's basic Treaties. The declarations and resolutions referred to in that provision do not constitute legal commitments the breach of which might incur the sanction of the Court; they involve a political undertaking only.Further, any obligation such as arises under Article 3 of the Act of Accession is not unconditional since it is contingent on the conclusion of an agreement or the making of arrangements between the Board of Governors and the Member State under Article 28 of the Statute. That is why there is a specific and different solution for Luxembourg, Belgium, Italy and the Netherlands.In so far as an obligation is said to arise under Article 5 of the EEC Treaty, an individual is not entitled to rely on. such an obligation (Case 9/73 Schlüter v Hauptzollamt Łonach [1973] ECR 1135, paragraph 39; and Case 10/73 REWE v Hauptzollamt Kehl [1973] ECR 1175, paragraph 26).As far as Article 7 is concerned, that provision produces direct effects only in conjunction with other specific provisions of the Treaty, thereby entitling a national of one Member State to be treated equally with nationals of another when exercising in the territory of the latter State rights conferred on him by the Treaty. (See for example, 2/74 Reyners v Belgium, [1974] ECR 631; Case 118/75 Watson and Belmann [1976] ECR 1185, and Case 1/78 Kenny, [1978] ECR 1489).The United Kingdom therefore takes the view that the third question must be answered in the negative.

Derrick Guy Edmund Hurd v Kenneth Jones (Her Majesty's Inspector of Taxes) (44/84)

Key facts

Connections

History · 1 version