Europa It would be incompatible with the binding effect attributed to decisions by article 189 to exclude in principle the possibility that persons affected may invoke the obligation imposed by a decision. Particularly in cases where, for example, the community authorities have by means of a decision imposed an obligation in a member state or all the member states to act in a certain way, the effectiveness (‘l’ effet utile’) of such a measure would be weakened if the nationals of that state could not invoke it in the courts and the national courts could not take it into consideration as part of community law. Although the effects of a decision may not be identical with those of a provision contained in a regulation, this difference does not exclude the possibility that the end result, namely the right of the individual to invoke the measure before the courts, may be the same as that of a directly applicable provision of a regulation. Therefore, in each particular case, it must be ascertained whether the nature, background and wording of the provision in question, are capable of producing direct effects in the legal relationships between the addressee of the act and third parties.
The second paragraph of article 4 of the council decision of 13 May 1965, which prohibits the member states from applying the common system of turnover tax concurrently with specific taxes levied instead of turnover tax, is capable, in conjunction with the provisions of the council directives of 11 april 1967 and 9 december 1969, of producing direct effects in the legal relationships between the member states to which the decision is addressed and those subject to their jurisdiction and of creating for the latter the right to invoke these provisions before the courts.
Europa The prohibition on applying the common system of turnover tax concurrently with specific taxes becomes effective on the date laid down in the third council directive of 9 Dec 1969, namely on 1 Jan 1972.
Whilst the second paragraph of article 4 of the decision of 13 May 1965 provides for the abolition of ‘ specific taxes ‘ in order to ensure a common and consistent system of taxation of turnover, this objective does not prohibit the imposition on transport services of other taxes which are of a different nature and have aims different from those pursued by the common system of turnover tax. A tax which is not imposed on commercial transactions but merely because goods are carried by road and the basis of assessment of which is not consideration for a service but the physical load expressed in metric tons/kilometres to which the roads are subjected by the activity taxed, does not correspond to the usual form of turnover tax within the meaning of the second paragraph of article 4 of the decision of 13 May 1965.
It is not for the court, in the procedure laid down by article 177 of the eec treaty, to assess, from the point of view of community law, the features of a measure adopted by one of the member states . On the other hand it is within its jurisdiction to interpret the relevant provision of community law in order to enable the national court to apply it correctly to the measure in question.
C-9/70, R-9/70,  EUECJ R-9/70,  ECR 825
Cited – Feakins and Another v Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Civ 1513) CA 9-Dec-2005
The department complained that the defendants had entered into a transaction with their farm at an undervalue so as to defeat its claim for recovery of sums due. The transaction used the grant of a tenancy by the first chargee.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.131904