# C_2010113EN.01006801.xml

| 1.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/68 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/68

---

Action brought on 3 March 2010 — Poland v Commission

(Case T-101/10)

2010/C 113/101

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Szpunar, Agent)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | declare invalid Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1193/2009 of 3 November 2009 correcting Regulations (EC) No 1762/2003, (EC) No 1775/2004, (EC) No 1686/2005, (EC) No 164/2007 and fixing the production levies in the sugar sector for marketing years 2002/2003, 2003/2004, 2004/2005, 2005/2006, (1) to the extent to which that article recasts Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1686/2005 of 14 October 2005 setting the production levies and the coefficient for the additional levy in the sugar sector for the 2004/05 marketing year; (2) |
| --- | --- |

—

declare invalid Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1193/2009 of 3 November 2009 correcting Regulations (EC) No 1762/2003, (EC) No 1775/2004, (EC) No 1686/2005, (EC) No 164/2007 and fixing the production levies in the sugar sector for marketing years 2002/2003, 2003/2004, 2004/2005, 2005/2006, (1) to the extent to which that article recasts Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1686/2005 of 14 October 2005 setting the production levies and the coefficient for the additional levy in the sugar sector for the 2004/05 marketing year; (2)

1

2

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant submits that the contested provision introduced a difference in coefficients for the additional production levy in the sugar sector for the marketing year 2004/2005 in that that coefficient was established in the amount of 0.25466 for the new Member States, whereas it was established in the amount of 0.14911 for the States of the Community of Fifteen.

The applicant raises the following heads of complaint in respect of the contested provision:

| | First, the applicant alleges that there was a lack of competence on the part of the Commission and a breach of Article 16 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001, (3) which authorised the Commission solely to establish one single coefficient in a uniform amount for the whole of the Union. The applicant submits that the various language versions of the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 are to that extent perfectly in line with one another and unambiguous. The applicant further submits that the principles of the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector cannot constitute justification for departing from the literal construction of the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 and, indeed, rather exclude any such departure. In the applicant’s view, a uniform coefficient constituted an essential instrument for the purpose of giving effect to the principles of the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector. |
| --- | --- |

First, the applicant alleges that there was a lack of competence on the part of the Commission and a breach of Article 16 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001, (3) which authorised the Commission solely to establish one single coefficient in a uniform amount for the whole of the Union. The applicant submits that the various language versions of the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 are to that extent perfectly in line with one another and unambiguous. The applicant further submits that the principles of the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector cannot constitute justification for departing from the literal construction of the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 and, indeed, rather exclude any such departure. In the applicant’s view, a uniform coefficient constituted an essential instrument for the purpose of giving effect to the principles of the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector.

3

| | Second, the applicant alleges that there has been a breach of the principle that new Member States must give immediate and full effect to the acquis communautaire. In the applicant’s view, the contested provision is de facto a transitional measure which lacks any basis in the 2003 Act of Accession or in the measures adopted pursuant thereto. The applicant cites in this regard Article 2 of the Act of Accession, which forms the basis for the full adoption by the Republic of Poland of all rights and obligations resulting from membership, and thus also, according to the applicant, of the right to benefit from excess payments and duties covering losses on the sugar market which have arisen in previous marketing years. |
| --- | --- |

Second, the applicant alleges that there has been a breach of the principle that new Member States must give immediate and full effect to the acquis communautaire. In the applicant’s view, the contested provision is de facto a transitional measure which lacks any basis in the 2003 Act of Accession or in the measures adopted pursuant thereto. The applicant cites in this regard Article 2 of the Act of Accession, which forms the basis for the full adoption by the Republic of Poland of all rights and obligations resulting from membership, and thus also, according to the applicant, of the right to benefit from excess payments and duties covering losses on the sugar market which have arisen in previous marketing years.

acquis communautaire

de facto

| | Third, the applicant alleges that there has been an infringement of the principle of non-discrimination. According to the applicant, the sole criterion for the difference in coefficients is the date on which Member States acceded to the European Union. It contends that the accession of new Member States cannot, by itself, constitute an objective criterion capable of justifying the distinction introduced inasmuch as the consequences of accession were exhaustively regulated in the Act of Accession and in the measures adopted pursuant thereto. |
| --- | --- |

Third, the applicant alleges that there has been an infringement of the principle of non-discrimination. According to the applicant, the sole criterion for the difference in coefficients is the date on which Member States acceded to the European Union. It contends that the accession of new Member States cannot, by itself, constitute an objective criterion capable of justifying the distinction introduced inasmuch as the consequences of accession were exhaustively regulated in the Act of Accession and in the measures adopted pursuant thereto.

| | Fourth, the applicant alleges infringement of the principle of solidarity. It submits that the principle of solidarity among producers is a fundamental principle of the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector and implies that the costs of financing that market are to be borne jointly by all producers, and financial neutrality is achieved, not on the basis of individual Member States, but rather on the basis of the entire Union, in accordance with objective criteria. A distinction in coefficients with regard to individual Member States is, according to the applicant, indicative of an arbitrary and disproportionate distribution of the costs of financing the sugar market which demonstrates a lack of solidarity. |
| --- | --- |

Fourth, the applicant alleges infringement of the principle of solidarity. It submits that the principle of solidarity among producers is a fundamental principle of the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector and implies that the costs of financing that market are to be borne jointly by all producers, and financial neutrality is achieved, not on the basis of individual Member States, but rather on the basis of the entire Union, in accordance with objective criteria. A distinction in coefficients with regard to individual Member States is, according to the applicant, indicative of an arbitrary and disproportionate distribution of the costs of financing the sugar market which demonstrates a lack of solidarity.

| | Fifth, the applicant submits that there has been a breach of Article 253 EC (now the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU) by reason of the inadequate reasoning of the contested provision. In the opinion of the applicant, the Commission failed to define either the circumstances which would justify a difference in coefficients or the objectives to be served by such a difference. |
| --- | --- |

Fifth, the applicant submits that there has been a breach of Article 253 EC (now the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU) by reason of the inadequate reasoning of the contested provision. In the opinion of the applicant, the Commission failed to define either the circumstances which would justify a difference in coefficients or the objectives to be served by such a difference.

---

(1)  OJ 2009 L 321 of 8.12.2009, p. 1.

1

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1686/2005 of 14 October 2005 setting the production levies and the coefficient for the additional levy in the sugar sector for the 2004/05 marketing year (OJ 2005 L 271 of 15.10.2005, p. 12).

2

(3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (OJ 2001 L 178 of 30.06.2001, p. 1).

3

---