## Facts

- A Dutch transport and forwarding company imported urea-formaldehyde from West Germany into the Netherlands.
- Dutch customs authorities reclassified the product under a tariff heading carrying a higher customs duty than previously applied, increasing the amount charged.
- The importer paid the duty but sought reimbursement, alleging the increase violated Article 12 of the EEC Treaty, which barred Member States from introducing new customs duties (or equivalent charges) and from increasing existing duties in intra-Community trade.
- The dispute was brought before the Dutch Tariefcommissie, a tribunal with jurisdiction over customs matters.
- The Tariefcommissie referred questions to the European Court of Justice under Article 177 EEC (preliminary ruling procedure) concerning the interpretation of Article 12 and whether it could be invoked by private parties.

## Issues

1. Whether the Court had jurisdiction under Article 177 EEC to interpret Treaty provisions when the reference concerns whether a provision creates rights enforceable by individuals.
2. Whether Article 12 EEC is sufficiently clear, unconditional, and precise to have direct effect and confer enforceable rights on individuals in national courts.
3. Whether a tariff reclassification that results in a higher charge constitutes an “increase” in customs duties prohibited by Article 12 EEC.

## Decision

- The Court held it had jurisdiction because the reference clearly concerned interpretation of the Treaty; the national court’s motives and its assessment of relevance were not reviewable in the preliminary ruling procedure.
- The Court held Article 12 EEC produces direct effects and creates individual rights that national courts must protect.
- The Court interpreted Article 12 as prohibiting Member States from increasing customs duties in trade between Member States; if the duty applied was increased, the prohibition was breached.
- The Court left to the national tribunal the application of this interpretation to the facts, including whether an increase occurred in law and in practice.

## Legal Principles

- Treaty provisions may confer rights on individuals enforceable in national courts where the obligation is clear, unconditional, and does not require further implementing measures.
- A negative obligation on Member States to “refrain” from certain conduct can be immediately operative and directly enforceable.
- The Community legal order treats individuals, not only Member States, as subjects of its rules; Community law can form part of individuals’ legal position independently of national legislation.
- Under the preliminary ruling mechanism, the Court answers interpretive questions of Treaty law when the question is genuinely about interpretation; it does not assess the national court’s reasons for asking or the question’s relevance to the dispute.
- For Article 12, an “increase” focuses on the actual duty charged before and after the contested measure; a reclassification that raises the amount payable can constitute a prohibited increase.

## Conclusion

The Court recognized that Article 12 EEC is directly effective, allowing private parties to invoke it before national courts to challenge Member State measures that increase customs duties in intra-Community trade, while leaving the national tribunal to determine whether the disputed reclassification produced a prohibited increase.


N.V. Algemene Transport- en Expeditie Onderneming Van Gend & Loos v. Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen, Case 26/62, [1963] E.C.R. 1 (E.C.J. 1963)