Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:1998:161
Date: 1998-07-14
Language of the case: German
Court formation: First Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Milk products;Non-contractual liability
Concepts: Co-responsibility levy and additional levy on milk
Procedure: Action for damages - unfounded;Action for annulment - inadmissible
Origin: Germany

Summary of the Judgment 
Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Milk and milk products — Additional 
levy on milk — Reduction without compensation of the reference quantities exempt from the 
levy — Right to property — Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations — Principle of 
equality — Breach — None 
(EC Treaty, Art. 39(1 )(b) and Art. 40(3), second para.; Council Regulation No 816/92) 
I I -2713 
SUMMARY — CASE T-l 19/95 
The reduction by Regulation N o 816/92 of 
the reference quantities exempt from the 
additional levy on milk for 1992/93, without 
compensation, did not breach the right to 
property, the principle of protection of 
legitimate expectations or the principle of 
equality. 
First, that measure was justified by the con­
cern to continue with the rationalisation of 
the milk market, following other similar 
measures adopted for previous years, and the 
reduction in question was not so large that it 
exceeded a tolerable interference, so that it 
did not affect the very substance of the right 
to property. Moreover, the Council could 
legitimately, within the framework of its 
wide discretion in the sphere of the common 
agricultural policy, give temporary priority 
to the objective of stabilising the market, as 
the measures adopted contribute, by means 
of a rational development of production, to 
maintaining a fair standard of living for the 
agricultural community within the meaning 
of Article 39(1 )(b) of the Treaty. 
Second, as the Council and the Commission 
did not create a situation in which milk pro­
ducers could legitimately expect that the 
quantities temporarily withdrawn would be 
restored, and since the duration of the tem­
porary withdrawal scheme was intrinsically 
linked, from its entry into force as well as 
from its renewal, to the duration of the addi­
tional levy scheme, those producers cannot 
claim that the institutions aroused a legiti­
mate expectation on their part. 
Third, since the temporary withdrawal 
arrangements at issue are such that the quan­
tities withdrawn are proportional to the ref­
erence quantities, and are thus based on 
objective rules which are formulated to meet 
the needs of the general common organisa­
tion of the market, they do not constitute 
discrimination between producers. 
The above conclusions are not affected 
where a trader has acquired additional refer­
ence quantities from the national authorities 
in addition to the reference quantity origi­
nally allocated. 
II - 2714