van Gend en Loos
European Court of Justice
Submitted August 16 1962 Decided February 5 1963
Full case name	NV Algemene Transporten Expeditie Onderneming van Gend en Loos v Nederlandse Administratis der Belastingen
Case number	26/62, [1963 ECR 1; [1963] CMLR 105]
Chamber	Full court
Nationality of parties	Netherlands
Procedural history	Tariefcommissie, uitspraak van 14 August 1962 (8847/48 T)
Court composition
Judge-Rapporteur Charles Léon Hammes President Andreas Matthias Donner Advocate General Karl Roemer
Legislation affecting
Interpreted Article 12 TEEC

Van Gend en Loos v Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen (1963) Case 26/62 was a landmark case of the European Court of Justice which established that provisions of the Treaty Establishing the European Economic Community were capable of creating legal rights which could be enforced by both natural and legal persons before the courts of the Community's member states. This is now called the principle of direct effect.^[1] The case is acknowledged as being one of the most important, if not the most important, decision in the development of European Union law.^[1]

The case arose from the reclassification of a chemical, by the Benelux countries, into a customs category entailing higher customs charges. The Court held that this breached a provision of the treaty requiring member states to progressively reduce customs duties between themselves, and continued to rule that the breach was actionable by individuals before national courts and not just by the member states of the Community themselves.

Facts[link]

Van Gend en Loos, a postal and transportation company, imported urea-formaldehyde from West Germany to the Netherlands. The Dutch customs authorities charged them a tariff on the import. Van Gend en Loos objected, submitting that the tariff was contrary to EC law. Article 12 of the Treaty of Rome (now replaced by Article 30 TFEU) stated:

"Member States shall refrain from introducing between themselves any new customs duties on imports and exports or any charges having equivalent effect, and from increasing those which they already apply in their trade with each other."

Van Gend en Loos paid the tariff but then sought to retrieve the money in the national court. The national court made a request for a preliminary ruling to the European Court of Justice, asking whether the then Article 12 of the Treaty of Rome conferred rights on the nationals of a member state that they could be enforced in national courts.

Advocate General's opinion[link]

Advocate General Roemer thought that some provisions of the treaty could have "direct effect" (that citizens could rely on them) but that Article 12 was not one of them. Note that the advocate general's opinion is distinct from the judgment of the court.

Judgment[link]

The European Court of Justice, delivering its judgment on the 5 February 1963, firmly held that Article 12 was capable of creating personal rights for Van Gend en Loos. In a seminal judgment it gave a wide and purposive interpretation to the Treaty of Rome.

The Community constitutes a new legal order of international law for the benefit of which the states have limited their sovereign rights, albeit within limited fields and the subjects of which comprise not only member states but also their nationals. Independently of the legislation of member states, community law therefore not only imposes obligations on individuals but is also intended to confer upon them rights which become part of their legal heritage. These rights arise not only where they are expressly granted by the treaty, but also by reason of obligations which the treaty imposes in a clearly defined way upon individuals as well as upon the member states and upon the institutions of the community.

—Judgment of the Court of 5 February 1963.^[2]

The court gave guidance as to when a treaty article would be directly effective. It stated that it is necessary to consider the spirit, general scheme, and wording of a provision alleged to be directly effective. The court held that since the object of the Treaty of Rome was to establish a common market, for the benefit of individuals, the treaty is more than a typical international agreement. Not only does it create mutual obligations between states, but it is capable of giving individuals rights in the national courts.

The court decided that the fact that the failure of member states to comply with EU law could be supervised by enforcement actions brought either by the Commission or other member state, did not mean that individuals should not also be able to act as enforcers in national courts. Two reasons were given. The first was that a failure to recognise a concept of direct effect would not give sufficient legal protection to individuals. The second was that individual enforcement was an effective supervisory mechanism. The availability of both supervision by individuals and by the Commission and member states is described by Stephen Weatherill as being on of "dual vigilance".^[3]

On the question of the tariff on urea-formaldehyde, the Court ruled that the Netherlands could not impose a higher tariff than that in force on 1 January 1958 (when the Treaty came into force). The Court noted that increase in the tariff could arise either through an increase in the rate or through the reclassification of a product into a higher-rated category, and that both were illegal under Article 12. The question of the proper tariff for urea-formaldehyde (i.e., that which was correctly applied on 1 January 1958) was remitted to the national court.

Commentary[link]

The case is authority for the proposition that articles of the EC treaty are directly effective (as distinct from directly applicable) in their application against the state.

The case illustrates the creative jurisprudence of the European court of justice. The concept of direct effect is not mentioned in the treaty. The court held that such a doctrine was necessary in order to ensure the compliance of member states with their obligations under the Treaty of Rome.

The case illustrates a procedure of enforcement of EC law at the national level — direct effect does not require the Commission to bring an action against the state. This is significant, because it provides a more effective, distributed enforcement mechanism.

See also[link]

• European Union law
• Supremacy (European Union law)
• Marbury v. Madison

Notes[link]

References[link]

• Kent, Penelope (2001). Law of the European Union. Pearson Education. ISBN 0-582-42367-8. 
• Craig, Paul; de Búrca, Gráinne (2003). EU Law: Text, Cases and Materials (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-924943-1. 
• Weatherill, Stephen (2007). Cases and materials on EU law. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-921401-3. 

External links[link]

• Case 26/62, NV Algemene Transporten Expeditie Onderneming van Gend en Loos v Nederlandse Administratis der Belastingen [1963] ECR 1.

Van Gend & Loos on Dam Square, Amsterdam c. 1890-1900

Van Gend & Loos was a Dutch distribution company. It was established in 1809, and was purchased by DHL in 2003.

History[link]

Van Gend & Loos was established by the Antwerp-based innkeeper and carriage driver J.B. van Gend. He had married a woman from the Loos family in 1796. When Van Gend's brother-in-law P.J. Loos died in 1809, his diligence company was merged with Van Gend's company to form Van Gend & Loos.

The De Algemeene Postwagen Onderneming J.B. van Gend & Loos (General Postal Carriage Company J.B. van Gend & Loos) gradually expanded its network of diligence services, to transport passengers, goods and money. The company remained active in the Low Countries (and beyond) when Belgium became independent from the Netherlands in 1830.

Van Gend & Loos had trouble keeping up with competition from rail transport. Diligence services between places that also had a railway connection, had to be abandoned. Van Gend & Loos did offer a connection to places where a railway hadn't yet been constructed, but the number of such places declined with the expansion of the railway system. Disestablishment of the company was even considered in the 19th century.

Van Gend & Loos was purchased by employee Hipolyte Colignon, who revitalised the company. He abandoned passenger transport, and focussed on the transport of break bulk cargo from and to railway stations. To this end, he signed deals with railway companies.

Railway companies in their turn had trouble keeping up with the competition from motorised traffic, particularly trucks, vans and buses, in the 1920s. The national railroad company established the Algemeene Transport Onderneming (ATO; General Transport Company), which used both buses and trucks. The ATO was intended to transport break bulk cargo from and to the railway stations, which had been Van Gend & Loos' market. In 1928, the national railway company took over Van Gend & Loos. The N.V. Expeditie Onderneming Van Gend & Loos switched to trucks, and grew significantly.

Important railway stations had large warehouses, with freight wagons on one side, and grey and orange Van Gend & Loos trucks and vans on the other side. The corporate headquarters were moved to Utrecht in 1960, near the headquarters of the Nederlandse Spoorwegen, the Dutch railway company.

Takeover[link]

The company was reorganised in 1984. Railway transport of break bulk cargo was abandoned, and the company focussed on transport by truck. Van Gend & Loos was sold to Nedlloyd in 1986, with its main focus becoming the transport of packages and pallets within the Benelux area.

Nedlloyd sold Van Gend & Loos to Deutsche Post in 1999. The three daughter companies of Deutsche Post (Danzas, DHL Worldwide Express and Van Gend & Loos) were merged to form DHL in 2003, ending the almost 200-year history of Van Gend & Loos.

See also[link]

• Postal history