Internationale Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel (Case C-11/70) [1970] ECR 1125

Facts

  • Internationale Handelsgesellschaft mbH, a German exporter, had to obtain export licences and lodge monetary deposits under German implementing rules for the Common Agricultural Policy.
  • The company argued that these national requirements clashed with directly applicable EU regulations governing agricultural exports.
  • A German administrative court questioned the compatibility of the domestic measure and referred validity and interpretation questions to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) under Article 177 EEC (now Article 267 TFEU).
  • During the reference, the German Federal Constitutional Court indicated that fundamental rights in the Basic Law might, in extreme cases, justify refusing to apply an EU measure, thereby hinting at a constitutional limit on EU law.

Issues

  1. Whether fundamental rights provisions in the German Basic Law could restrict the applicability of EU regulations within Germany.
  2. Whether the German licensing and deposit scheme was inconsistent with the relevant EU regulations on agricultural exports.

Decision

  • The ECJ ruled that the validity of an EU act can be assessed only against EU law; national constitutional provisions cannot diminish its effect.
  • EU law therefore enjoys primacy over every form of national law, including constitutional norms designed to safeguard fundamental rights.
  • The Court nonetheless confirmed that fundamental rights constitute general principles of EU law and are protected by the ECJ itself.
  • On the merits, the deposit requirement conflicted with the applicable EU agricultural rules and was consequently inapplicable.

Legal Principles

  • Supremacy: EU rules prevail over conflicting national legislation regardless of its hierarchical rank.
  • Uniformity and effectiveness: Allowing each Member State’s constitution to override EU measures would jeopardise the uniform and effective operation of the Union legal order.
  • Fundamental rights as general principles: National courts may not review EU acts by their own constitutions “so long as” equivalent protection exists at Union level (Solange I).
  • Preliminary rulings: Under Article 177 EEC, only the ECJ may determine the validity and interpretation of EU law; national courts are bound by its rulings.

Conclusion

The Court confirmed the unconditional primacy of EU law, invalidated the German export-deposit scheme, and located the protection of fundamental rights within EU law itself, excluding parallel constitutional review by Member States.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal