Van Gend en Loos v Belastingen [1963] ECR 1

Facts

• Van Gend en Loos, a Dutch transport company, imported urea-formaldehyde resin from West Germany into the Netherlands.
• Dutch customs authorities required payment of a customs duty on this product.
• The company contended that levying the duty infringed Article 12 of the Treaty of Rome, which expressly forbids Member States from introducing new customs duties or increasing existing ones in intra-Community trade.
• Because Dutch legislation still provided for the tariff, the dispute arose before a national court (the Tariefcommissie) concerning whether that court could apply Article 12 directly and disregard the conflicting national rule.
• The national court referred questions to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 (now 267 TFEU), seeking clarification on the status of Article 12.

Issues

1. Does Article 12 grant subjective rights to individuals that are enforceable before national courts?
2. Is Article 12 worded in terms that are sufficiently clear, precise, and unconditional so as to satisfy the criteria for direct effect?
3. When a national provision conflicts with a directly effective treaty article, must the national court refuse to apply the domestic measure?

Decision

• The ECJ held that Article 12 is directly effective. Its prohibition on increasing customs duties is a negative obligation that is self-executing and does not require further legislative implementation.
• Individuals, including economic operators such as Van Gend en Loos, may therefore rely on Article 12 before any national court.
• The Court reasoned that the Treaty of Rome created a “new legal order” in which not only Member States but also their nationals are subjects. By conferring rights on individuals, the Treaty limits Member State sovereignty in the area covered by EU law.
• Because of that new legal order, national courts are bound to give full effect to directly effective EU provisions and must set aside any inconsistent national rule, regardless of its date or status in the domestic hierarchy of norms.

Legal Principles

• Direct effect: A treaty provision is directly effective when it is (i) clear in its wording, (ii) precise in its obligations, and (iii) unconditional, meaning it leaves no discretion to Member States or EU institutions regarding its implementation. Article 12 met all three conditions.
• Supremacy: Where EU law possesses direct effect, it prevails over conflicting national legislation. The national court’s duty is to apply EU law in place of the incompatible domestic rule.
• Vertical direct effect: The ruling confirmed that individuals may invoke treaty articles against Member States and their emanations. Although the judgment did not address directives in detail, the reasoning supplied the conceptual basis later used for vertical direct effect of directives.
• Uniformity and effectiveness: Allowing individuals to invoke EU law supports consistent application across Member States and strengthens the effectiveness of EU obligations at the grassroots judicial level.

Conclusion

By confirming that Article 12 of the Treaty of Rome could be invoked directly by Van Gend en Loos in national proceedings and that conflicting Dutch customs legislation had to be disregarded, the ECJ inaugurated the doctrine of direct effect. The judgment fundamentally reshaped the relationship between EU law and domestic legal orders, ensuring that clear, precise, and unconditional treaty provisions confer enforceable rights on individuals and stand above any contrary national measure.