The Van Gend & Loos case was triggered by a company that claimed that Dutch customs duties on a product imported from West Germany were in violation of the standstill clause contained in Article 12 of the Treaty of Rome. Van Gend en Loos is a case with more than a single protagonist—central both to its genesis and its subsequent impact. The very decision by the Dutch court to make a preliminary reference (and the truly breakthrough decision of the lawyers who pleaded the case to request such) was not only procedurally and politically bold but conceptually.
Van Gend en Loos Vintage advertising posters, Old advertisements, Vintage advertisements
The Van Gend en Loos judgment is consequently not just a historical event of limited importance for contemporary affairs. It constitutes a focal point for a rich patchwork of constantly reproduced historical memory and myths used for ideological purposes. This makes the judgment particularly ripe for historical analysis. In Van Gend en Loos [1] it was decided that a citizen was able to enforce a right granted by European Community legislation against the state - the question of whether rights could be enforced against another citizen was not addressed. In Defrenne v. The De Algemeene Postwagen Onderneming J.B. van Gend & Loos (General Postal Carriage Company J.B. van Gend & Loos) gradually expanded its network of diligence services, to transport passengers, goods and money. The company remained active in the Low Countries (and beyond) when Belgium became independent from the Netherlands in 1830. The product imported by Van Gend & Loos was, at the time of the entry into force of the Treaty of Rome (1 January 1958), subject to a customs duty charged at 3 %, as it was classified under heading 279-a-2 of the 1947 customs tariff. Under the 1960 tariff, the product was moved to heading 39.01-a-1, to which a higher duty of 8 % was attached.
Pin op Van Gend en Loos
Van Gend en Loos, a postal and transportation company, imported urea formaldehyde from West Germany to the Netherlands. The authorities charged them a tariff on the import. Van Gend en Loos objected, stating that it was a clear violation of Article 12 of the Treaty of Rome (now replaced by Article 30 TFEU), which stated: Van Gend en Loos ( VGL) was understood very differently at the time to how it is understood today. 1 Within the Court, it was seen as a compromise judgment 2 and the distinguished comparatists, Riesenfeld and Buxbaum, noted that the judgment neither ventured "beyond the line of minimum exposure" nor engaged in "a premature en tanglement with con. This chapter discusses the Court's 1963 judgment, Van Gend en Loos, where the Court declared that European law could be relied upon by private individuals before their national courts.The direct effect of European law is often understood as empowering private individuals and national courts, as supplementing the European Commission-initiated compliance procedure set out in Article 169 of the. Interpreting the Van Gend en Loos Judgment. from Part II - Constitutionalization and Democratization. Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 June 2017 By. Morten Rasmussen. Edited by. Fernanda Nicola and. Bill Davies. Show author details Fernanda Nicola Affiliation:
Groenegraf.nl Jan Daatzelaar bij Van Gend en Loos
Van Gend & Loos stands for the proposition that the European Union (or European Economic Community as it was known then) is 'a new legal order', different from 'ordinary institutional organisations' in that the laws of the European Union are part of the law of the land of each of the member states, for national judges to enforce (Van Gend & Loos. The seminal case of Van Gend & Loos offered the Court an opportunity to proclaim the doctrine of the direct effect of EU law within the legal orders of the Member States. In practice, this means.
The Van Gend & Loos case was triggered by a company that claimed that Dutch customs duties on a product imported from West Germany were in violation of the standstill clause contained in Article 12 of the Treaty of Rome. Luxembourg & Belgium and Van Gend en Loos, 31 and that, taken together, it is clear that a causal relationship between the ECJ's Luxembourg & Belgium, Van Gend en Loos, and Costa v. ENEL decisions was intermittently acknowledged by scholars or ECJ judges back in the 1960s when these remarkable decisions were being taken. 4.1. Lecourt, 1991
(9ECF340666C94F7D7DC51BFF37F1E429).jpg)
Een wagen met paarden van Van Gend en Loos. Geheugen van Oost
The claimants, van Gend en Loos, imported chemicals from Western Germany to the Netherlands where they were asked to pay import taxes at Dutch customs, the defendants, which they objected to on the grounds it ran contrary to the European Economic Community's prohibition on inter-State import duties, as per Article 12 of the Treaty of Rome. Van Gend en Loos raised the question whether a provision of the treaty (art. 12 TEU) could be a source of individual rights that national courts should protect. To answer this question, the Court of Justice insisted on the nature of the Community legal order, a nature justifying the capacity of provisions mentioned in the treaty to create.
