## Facts

- Between 1967 and 1971, Société Cafés Jacques Vabre imported soluble coffee from the Netherlands into France using SARL J. Weigel et Cie as its customs broker.
- French Customs collected an internal consumption tax on the imports under article 265 of the French Customs Code.
- The import tax burden was higher than that borne by competing domestically produced soluble coffee sold for internal consumption.
- The importers contended the differential internal taxation violated Article 95 of the EEC Treaty (non-discriminatory internal taxation).
- The plaintiffs sought restitution of taxes paid and damages for losses caused by the allegedly unlawful tax.

## Issues

1. Whether Article 95 of the EEC Treaty could be invoked directly by private parties before French courts to challenge discriminatory internal taxation.
2. Whether French judicial courts had jurisdiction to apply EEC Treaty rules and disapply conflicting national tax legislation in a dispute over assessment and collection of tax.
3. Whether a later-enacted domestic statute could prevail over an earlier treaty obligation, or whether the treaty must be applied in preference under the French constitutional hierarchy.
4. Whether France could resist applying the EEC obligation based on an asserted lack of reciprocity by other Member States.

## Decision

- The Cour de cassation (chambre mixte) rejected the Customs Administration’s appeal and affirmed the judgment for the plaintiffs.
- It held that Article 95 EEC was directly effective and could be relied on by individuals in domestic litigation.
- It held that, under the French constitutional rule giving ratified treaties superior authority to statutes, Article 95 had to be applied in preference to the conflicting Customs Code provision even though the national provision was later in time.
- It treated the dispute as concerning the legal existence of the tax, its basis of assessment, and its collection, confirming judicial-court competence in that posture.
- It held that a reciprocity-based objection to applying EEC obligations was inadmissible in national courts.
- It confirmed that the tax regime unlawfully discriminated against competing imports, supporting restitution and related compensation.

## Legal Principles

- Directly effective treaty provisions create enforceable rights that national courts must protect in disputes properly before them.
- Where a treaty provision with direct effect conflicts with a domestic statute, the court must set aside the statute and apply the treaty, including when the statute postdates the treaty.
- Ordinary courts may review statutory compatibility with treaty obligations and refuse to apply incompatible statutory provisions in the case at hand.
- Jurisdictional objections based on separation of powers must be timely raised under applicable procedural rules; late-raised objections may be inadmissible.
- Member-State compliance disputes framed as “reciprocity” defenses are not for unilateral resolution by national courts in private litigation.

## Conclusion

The Cour de cassation confirmed that Article 95 EEC could be invoked directly to defeat discriminatory internal taxation and that French courts must apply directly effective treaty rules over conflicting later national legislation, rejecting reciprocity and competence objections and leaving in place relief for unlawfully collected taxes and resulting losses.


Administration des Douanes v. Société Cafés Jacques Vabre, 2 C.M.L.R. 336 (Cass. ch. mixte 1975)