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, 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 & Loos oldtimer truck in het spoorwegmuseum tijde… Flickr
EUR-Lex - 61962CJ0026 - EN - EUR-Lex EUROPA EUR-Lex home EUR-Lex - 61962CJ0026 - EN Document 61962CJ0026 Judgment of the Court of 5 February 1963. NV Algemene Transport- en Expeditie Onderneming van Gend & Loos v Netherlands Inland Revenue Administration. Reference for a preliminary ruling: Tariefcommissie - Netherlands. Case 26-62. 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. 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. 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.
Wie in 1956 met paard en wagen voor Van Gend en Loos? Foto AD.nl
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. William Phelan Chapter Get access Share Cite Summary 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 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. On 13 May 2013, at the seat of the Court of Justice in Luxembourg, a day of reflection took place to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the judgment in Van Gend en Loos, delivered on 5 February 1963.During the day, the judgment was examined as a source of and a framework for the principles which have shaped the constitutional structure of the European Union and from the point of view of its.
Van Gend & Loos Stichting Cultureel Erfgoed Enschede
The judgment - usually mentioned in one breath with its Italian twin Flaminio Costa v ENEL - is known as one of the landmark decisions that made the EU what it is today, with EU lawyers claiming that the EU may not even have survived without them. The Court of Justice itself celebrated the anniversary of the decision with a festive event in 2013. Van Gend & Loos was a Dutch distribution company. It was established in 1809, and was purchased by DHL in 2003. History Van Gend & Loos was established by the Antwerp -based innkeeper and carriage driver Jan-Baptist van Gend. He had married a woman from the Loos family in 1796.
WHAT DOES THE JUDGMENT ESTABLISH? In its judgment, the Court of Justice of the European Union (the Court) enshrines the direct effect of European Union (EU) law. The judgment states that EU law not only engenders obligations for EU Member States, but also rights for individuals. Van Gend en Loos, voluit Van Gend en Loos t. Nederlandse administratie der belastingen ( HvJ 5 februari 1963 , 26/62, ECLI:EU:C:1963:1 , Jur. 1963, p. 3 .) is de roepnaam van een standaardarrest van het Hof van Justitie van de Europese Gemeenschappen gewezen op 5 februari 1963, betreffende een verzoek om een prejudiciële beslissing van de.
Van Gend en Loos Trucks, Old trucks, Van
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 5 February 1963 judgment of the Court of Justice in Case 26/62 N.V. Algemente Transport- en Expeditie Onderneming van Gend & Loos v Nederlandse administratie der belastingen (in short 'Van Gend & Loos') is one of the milestones of the Court's jurisprudence and a fundamental building block of EU constitutional law, 'universally celebrated as perhaps the most important case of the Court.
