# C_2012174EN.01001801.xml

| 16.6.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 174/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.6.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 174/18

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 29 March 2012 — Isera & Scaldis Sugar SA, Philippe Bedoret and Co SPRL, Jean Rigot, Mathieu Vrancken v Bureau d’intervention et de restitution belge (BIRB)

(Case C-154/12)

2012/C 174/27

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Isera & Scaldis Sugar SA, Philippe Bedoret and Co SPRL, Jean Rigot, Mathieu Vrancken

Applicants:

Defendant: Bureau d’intervention et de restitution belge (BIRB)

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

Is Article 16 of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector, (1) now Article 51 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products, (2) in imposing on the sugar-beet sector a charge of EUR 12 per tonne of the quota sugar, invalid:

1

2

| — | inasmuch as the legal basis used by the legislature for the introduction of this provision is former Article 37(2)(3) EC, now Article 43(2) TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

—

inasmuch as the legal basis used by the legislature for the introduction of this provision is former Article 37(2)(3) EC, now Article 43(2) TFEU;

| — | inasmuch as the legislature, which justified the charge as a measure intended to finance the expenditure of the common organisation of the market in sugar even though it actually funds direct aid and/or is intended to preserve the budget neutrality of the ‘2006 sugar reform’, did not clearly and unequivocally set out the reasons for the introduction of the charge as is required by Article 296 TFEU (former Article 253 EC); |
| --- | --- |

—

inasmuch as the legislature, which justified the charge as a measure intended to finance the expenditure of the common organisation of the market in sugar even though it actually funds direct aid and/or is intended to preserve the budget neutrality of the ‘2006 sugar reform’, did not clearly and unequivocally set out the reasons for the introduction of the charge as is required by Article 296 TFEU (former Article 253 EC);

| — | inasmuch as the ‘sugar-beet’ industry is the only sector on which such a charge contributing to the general budget of the European Union has been imposed, the charge should be considered as discriminatory both between growers having maintained beet production and those having ceased beet production and between the ‘sugar-beet’ industry and any other agricultural or non-agricultural sector; |
| --- | --- |

—

inasmuch as the ‘sugar-beet’ industry is the only sector on which such a charge contributing to the general budget of the European Union has been imposed, the charge should be considered as discriminatory both between growers having maintained beet production and those having ceased beet production and between the ‘sugar-beet’ industry and any other agricultural or non-agricultural sector;

| — | inasmuch as the charge should be considered as breaching the principle of proportionality in being neither appropriate nor necessary to finance the expenditure of the common organisation of the market in sugar, nor proportionate in relation to the real expenditure and the prospective future expenditure of the common organisation of the market in sugar? |
| --- | --- |

—

inasmuch as the charge should be considered as breaching the principle of proportionality in being neither appropriate nor necessary to finance the expenditure of the common organisation of the market in sugar, nor proportionate in relation to the real expenditure and the prospective future expenditure of the common organisation of the market in sugar?

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 58, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ 2007 L 299, p. 1.

2

---