Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2023:531
Date: 2023-06-29
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Fruit and vegetables;Processed fruit and vegetables
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: France

Translation  C-501/22 ‒ 1 
Case C-501/22 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
22 July 2022 
Referring court: 
Conseil d’État (France) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
22 July 2022 
Applicant: 
Association interprofessionnelle des fruits et légumes frais (Interfel) 
Defendant: 
Ministère de l’Agriculture et de la Souveraineté alimentaire 
  
CONSEIL D'ETAT (Council of State, France)  
in its judicial capacity 
[…] 
ASSOCIATION  
INTERPROFESSIONNELLE DES  
FRUITS ET LEGUMES FRAIS 
[…] 
Having regard to the following procedure: 
By an application registered on 5 March 2021 and a reply registered on 8 July 
2022 at the Judicial Affairs Secretariat of the Council of State, the Association 
interprofessionnelle des fruits et légumes frais (Interfel) requested the Council of 
State: 
1. to annul, on the ground that they were adopted ultra vires, the decision of 
7 September 2020 by which the Minister for Agriculture and Food refused to 
extend the inter-trade agreement ‘Peach-nectarine ‒ sizing’ for the marketing 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 22. 7. 2022 – CASE C-501/22 
 
2  
years 2021 to 2023, concluded within Interfel, and the Minister’s decision 
impliedly dismissing the administrative appeal brought against that decision; 
2. to adopt an order requiring the Minister for Agriculture and Food, on the basis 
of Articles L. 911-1 and L 911-2 of the Code de justice administrative (Code of 
Administrative Justice), to re-examine its request for the extension of the inter-
trade agreement ‘Peach-nectarine ‒ sizing’ for the marketing years 2021 to 2023, 
within two months of the date of notification of the Council of State’s decision; 
[…] 
It maintains that: 
‒ the statement of reasons contained in the decision of 7 September 2020 is 
insufficient, contrary to the last paragraph of Article L. 632-4 of the Code rural et 
de la pêche maritime (Rural and Maritime Fishing Code); 
‒ the decision of 7 September 2020 was adopted by an authority lacking 
competence; 
‒ the refusal to extend infringes the principles of legal certainty and of the 
protection of legitimate expectations; 
‒ the refusal to extend is vitiated by a misuse of powers in that the 
administration carried out a review of appropriateness, rather than a review of 
lawfulness; 
‒ the refusal to extend is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment, since it 
demonstrated the impact of the sizing measures on quality; 
‒ the ground for refusing to extend, alleging that there was no notification 
under Article 210 of [Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of 17 December 2013], is 
vitiated by errors of fact and law. 
By a defence registered on 22 April 2022, the Minister for Agriculture and Food 
contended that the application should be dismissed. The Minister maintains that 
the pleas raised by the applicant are unfounded. 
[…] 
Having regard to: 
‒ Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 17 December 2013; 
‒ Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011; 
‒ Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/428 of 12 July 2018; 
INTERFEL 
 
3 
[…] 
Whereas: 
1 It is apparent from the case file that, on 10 June 2020, the Association 
interprofessionnelle des fruits et légumes frais (Interfel), an agricultural inter-trade 
organisation recognised on the basis of Article L. 632-1 of the Rural and Maritime 
Fishing Code, concluded an inter-trade agreement ‘Peach-nectarine ‒ sizing’ for 
the marketing years 2021 to 2023, which banned the marketing of small (size D) 
peaches and nectarines for the entire marketing period. Interfel requested the 
Minister for Agriculture and Food to extend that agreement. By decision of 
7 September 2020, the Minister for Agriculture and Food refused to extend that 
agreement. Interfel seeks the annulment, on the ground that they were adopted 
ultra vires, of that decision and the implied decision by which the Minister 
dismissed the administrative appeal brought against the refusal decision. 
2 Article 164 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of 
the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the 
markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) 
No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 
provides as follows: ‘1. In cases where a recognised producer organisation, a 
recognised association of producer organisations or a recognised interbranch 
organisation operating in a specific economic area or areas of a Member State is 
considered to be representative of the production of or trade in, or processing of, 
a given product, the Member State concerned may, at the request of that 
organisation, make binding for a limited period of time some of the agreements, 
decisions or concerted practices agreed within that organisation on other 
operators acting in the economic area or areas in question, whether individuals 
or groups, who do not belong to the organisation or association. […] 4. The rules 
for which extension to other operators may be requested as provided for in 
paragraph 1 shall have one of the following aims: […] (b) stricter production 
rules than those laid down in Union or national rules; […] (d) marketing; […] (k) 
the definition of minimum qualities and definition of minimum standards of 
packing and presentation; […] Those rules shall not cause any damage to other 
operators in the Member State concerned or the Union and shall not have any of 
the effects listed in Article 210(4) or be otherwise incompatible with Union law or 
national rules in force. […]’ 
3 Article 75 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of 17 December 2013 provides as 
follows: ‘1. Marketing standards may apply to one or more of the following 
sectors and products: […] (b) fruit and vegetables; […] 3. Without prejudice to 
Article 26 of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of 
the Council, the marketing standards referred to in paragraph 1 may cover one or 
more of the following, to be determined on a sectoral or product basis and based 
on the characteristics of each sector, the need to regulate the placing on the 
market and the conditions defined in paragraph 5 of this article: […] (b) 
classification criteria such as grading into classes, weight, sizing, age and 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 22. 7. 2022 – CASE C-501/22 
 
4  
category; […]’ Part 5, ‘Marketing standard for peaches and nectarines’, within 
Part B of Annex I to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 
7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation 
(EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and 
vegetables sectors, as amended by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 
2019/428 of 12 July 2018 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 
as regards marketing standards in the fruit and vegetables sector, provides that 
‘The minimum size shall be: ‒ 56 mm or 85 g in Class “Extra”, ‒ 51 mm or 65 g 
in Classes I and II’ and ‘However, fruit below 56 mm or 85 g, is not marketed in 
the period from 1 July to 31 October (northern hemisphere) and from 1 January 
to 30 April (southern hemisphere).’ 
4 It is apparent from the case file that the inter-trade agreement relating to the 
marketing rules for peaches and nectarines for the marketing years 2021 to 2023 
concluded by Interfel provides that peaches and nectarines produced in France and 
intended for sale on the French market or for export are subject to a minimum size 
requirement of 56 mm or 85 g at every stage of marketing and throughout the 
entire marketing year. Those requirements therefore go further than the provisions 
cited above found in Part 5 within Part B of Annex I to Commission 
Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011. 
5 In support of its request for the extension of that agreement, Interfel argued that 
the concern of ensuring the quality of fruit sold to consumers justified that 
additional requirement. However, the provisions of Article 164(4) of Regulation 
(EU) No 1308/2013 of 17 December 2013 cited in paragraph 2 above expressly 
authorise the extension of agreements establishing more stringent standards than 
those laid in Union rules only in the case of ‘production rules’, mentioned in point 
(b) of Article 164(4). 
6 The response to the plea alleging that the Minister could not legally refuse to 
extend the agreement at issue, since Interfel had demonstrated the beneficial effect 
on quality of the sizing measures for which the extension is sought, depends on 
the answer to the question of whether Article 164 of Regulation (EU) 
No 1308/2013 is to be interpreted as authorising the extension of inter-trade 
agreements which establish stricter rules than those laid down in Union rules not 
only in the case of ‘production rules’, mentioned in point (b) of Article 164(4), but 
also in all of the cases mentioned in points (a) and (c) to (n) thereof, in relation to 
which Article 164 provides that the extension of an inter-trade agreement may be 
requested and, in particular, whether Article 164 authorises, where EU rules lay 
down marketing rules for a given class of fruit or vegetables, the adoption of more 
stringent rules, in the form of an inter-trade agreement, and their extension to all 
operators. 
7 The question set out in paragraph 6 above is decisive to the resolution of the 
present dispute and raises a serious difficulty of interpretation, since there is no 
case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union offering guidance on the 
purpose and scope of the provisions in question. Accordingly, it is necessary to 
INTERFEL 
 
5 
make a reference to the Court under Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning 
of the European Union and, until the Court gives its ruling, to stay the proceedings 
on the application brought by the Association interprofessionnelle des fruits et 
légumes. 
DECIDES AS FOLLOWS: 
Article 1: The proceedings on the application brought by the Association 
interprofessionnelle des fruits et légumes are stayed until the Court of Justice of 
the European Union has given its ruling on the question of whether Article 164 of 
Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in 
agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) 
No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 is to be interpreted as 
authorising the extension of inter-trade agreements which establish more stringent 
standards than those laid down in Union rules not only in the case of ‘production 
rules’, mentioned in point (b) of Article 164(4), but also in all of the cases 
mentioned in points (a) and (c) to (n) thereof, in relation to which Article 164 
provides that the extension of an inter-trade agreement may be requested and, in 
particular, whether that Article 164 authorises, where EU rules lay down 
marketing rules for a given class of fruit or vegetables, the adoption of more 
stringent rules, in the form of an inter-trade agreement, and their extension to all 
operators. 
[…]