Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2001:164
Date: 2001-03-15
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Sugar
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: Italy

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Sugar — Intervention price 
and derived intervention prices — Limit-date for fixing intervention prices — Limit-
date not complied with — Consequences 
(Council Regulations Nos 1785/81, 1360/98 and 1361/98) 
I - 2663 
SUMMARY — CASE C-340/98 
2. Community law — Principles — Protection of legitimate expectations — Limits — 
Amendments to rules concerning a common organisation of the market — No fixing 
of a derived intervention price for white sugar for Italy — Discretionary power of the 
institutions 
(Council Regulation No 1785/81) 
3. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Regu­
lations 
(EC Treaty, Art. 190 (now Art. 253 EC)) 
1. The limit-date of 1 August for fixing 
the intervention price and derived 
intervention prices in Article 3(4) and 
(5) of Regulation No 1785/81 on the 
common organisation of the markets in 
the sugar sector is not strict. Therefore, 
failure to observe that date cannot have 
the effect of rendering invalid Regu­
lations No 1580/96 and 1361/98 fix­
ing, for the 1998/99 marketing year, 
intervention prices after 1 August. 
(see paras 25, 29) 
2. Whilst the protection of legitimate 
expectations is one of the fundamental 
principles of the Community, economic 
operators cannot have a legitimate 
expectation that an existing situation 
which is capable of being altered by the 
Community institutions in the exercise 
of their discretionary power will be 
maintained; this is particularly true in 
an area such as the common organi­
sation of the markets, which involves 
constant adjustments to meet changes 
in the economic situation. 
Since Regulation No 1785/81 on the 
common organisation of the markets in 
the sugar sector obliges the Council 
and the Commission each year to 
determine the intervention prices, mini­
mum prices and increased prices afresh, 
on the basis, in particular, of the 
pattern of production and the pattern 
of consumption, economic operators 
can have no legitimate expectation that 
the prices fixed for previous marketing 
years will be repeated. 
(see paras 42, 45) 
3. The statement of reasons required by 
Article 190 of the Treaty (now 
Article 253 EC) must be appropriate 
I - 2664 
ITALY v COUNCIL 
to the nature of the measure in question 
and must show clearly and unequivo­
cally the reasoning of the institution 
which adopted the contested measure 
so as to inform the persons concerned 
of the justification for the measure 
adopted and to enable the Court to 
exercise its powers of review. The 
requirements in respect of the state­
ment of reasons must be assessed with 
regard not only to its wording but also 
to its context and to all the legal rules 
governing the matter in question. It is 
not required to specify the often very 
numerous and complex matters of fact 
or of law dealt with in those regu­
lations, provided that the latter fall 
within the general scheme of the body 
of measures of which they form part. 
(see paras 58-59) 
I - 2665