Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2004:665
Date: 2004-10-28
Language of the case: Dutch
Court formation: Second Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Milk products;Non-contractual liability
Concepts: Appeals;Co-responsibility levy and additional levy on milk;Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations
Procedure: Appeal - unfounded;Action for damages
Origin: Netherlands

Summary of the Judgment 1. Appeals – Grounds of appeal – Plea directed against a ground of the judgment not necessary to support the operative part – Plea ineffective 2. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Milk and milk products – Additional milk levy – Allocation of reference quantities exempt from the levy – Producer who suspended deliveries under the non-marketing and conversion premium scheme and then transferred his holding – National administrative practice allowing him to retain his specific reference quantity in the event of transfer of the holding – Principle of protection of legitimate expectations – Infringement – None (Council Regulation No 857/84, as amended by Regulation No 764/89) 3. Appeals – Grounds of appeal – Grounds of a judgment vitiated by an infringement of Community law – Operative part well founded on other legal grounds – Rejected 1. In the appeal, complaints directed against the grounds of a judgment of the Court of First Instance included merely for the sake of completeness must be rejected outright since such grounds cannot provide any basis for setting that judgment aside. (see para. 60) 2. In the context of the allocation of reference quantities exempt from the additional milk levy, pursuant to Regulation No 857/84, as amended by Regulation No 764/89, a milk producer cannot expect the application of a national administrative practice enabling him to retain the special reference quantity after transferring the initial holding unless the relevant Community system made provision for competent national authorities to have such a power or the Community has previously created a situation which could give rise to such a legitimate expectation. The existence of a national administrative practice cannot, of itself, give rise to a legitimate expectation on the part of a producer that he will receive treatment in accordance with that practice from the Community. (see para. 69.) 3. Where the grounds of a judgment of the Court of First Instance disclose an infringement of Community law but the operative part of the judgment is shown to be well founded for other legal reasons, the appeal must be dismissed. (see para. 95)