CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 13 janvier 2005

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 71 January 2005 Emesa Sugar N.V. v. the Netherlands (dec.) - 62023/00 Decision 13.1.2005 [Section III] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Civil rights and obligations Applicability of Article 6 to summary injunction proceedings concerning customs duties or charges: inadmissible   The applicant company operates a sugar factory established in Aruba, a State which under EC law is included in the category of “overseas countries and territories” (OCT). Until 1997, the EC Council Decision within which the company operated provided that goods imported to the EC which originated from OCT’s were exempt of custom duties. That year the EC Council Decision was amended and the imports of sugar of OCT origin were limited to a certain amount per year. The applicant company instituted summary injunction proceedings against the EC Council Decision before the Regional Court. The action was dismissed but a number of questions were referred by the court to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) for a preliminary ruling. Following a hearing at the ECJ in March 1999, the Advocate General of the ECJ submitted an opinion and the oral proceedings were brought to an end. The applicant company’s request for leave to submit written observations on the Advocate General’s opinion was rejected by the ECJ in 2000. The ECJ subsequently gave the requested preliminary ruling, upholding the above-mentioned Council Decision. The summary injunction proceedings before the Regional Court were as a result discontinued. The applicant complains it was deprived of its right to a fair hearing in the proceedings before the ECJ, arguing that the national judiciary was obliged to respect and follow the ECJ’s preliminary ruling. Inadmissible under Article 6: The Court did not find it necessary to deal with the question raised by the Government that they could not be held responsible for the alleged violation as it concerned an act by the ECJ, as it was necessary to determine in first place whether the proceedings at issue fell within the ambit of this article. Whilst pecuniary interests are certainly at stake in proceedings on the question of customs duties or charges, merely showing that a dispute is “pecuniary” in nature is not in itself sufficient to attract the applicability of Article 6 § 1 under its “civil” head. As customs duties or charges for imported goods are regarded as coming under the realm of tax matters, which fall outside the scope of civil rights and obligations, the summary injunction proceedings in question did not come under the civil head of Article 6: incompatible ratione materiae.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes