Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2015:221
Date: 2015-04-22
Language of the case: Polish
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Fruit and vegetables
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: Poland

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber), 22 April 2015 1. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Regulation amending the system of aid for production of processed fruit and vegetables (Art. 296 TFEU; Commission Regulations No 543/2011 and No 302/2012) 2. EU law — Principles — Legal certainty — Concept — Regulation amending the system of aid for production of processed fruit and vegetables (Commission Regulations No 543/2011 and No 302/2012, Art. 2(1) to (3)) 3. EU law — Principles — Protection of legitimate expectations — Limits — Amendment of the system of aid for the production of processed fruit and vegetables — Commission’s discretion to amend the degree of EU financing — Not possible to claim protection of legitimate expectations (Council Regulation No 1234/2007, Arts 103a(2), and 103h, first para., (a); Commission Regulations No 543/2011 and No 302/2012) 4. EU law — Principles — Proportionality — Scope — Discretion of the EU legislature in the matter of the common agricultural policy — Judicial review — Limits (Arts 40 TFEU and 43 TFEU; Commission Regulation No 302/2012) 1. The statement of reasons required by Article 296 TFEU must be appropriate to the act at issue and must disclose in a clear and unequivocal fashion the reasoning followed by the institution which adopted the measure in question in such a way as to enable the persons concerned to ascertain the reasons for the measure and to enable the competent court to exercise its power of review. It is not necessary for the reasoning to go into all the relevant facts and points of law, since the question whether the statement of reasons meets the requirements of Article 296 TFEU 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. That is a fortiori the case where the Member States have been closely associated with the process of drafting the contested measure and are thus aware of the reasons underlying that measure. In the case of a regulation, the statement of reasons may be limited to indicating the general situation which led to its adoption, on the one hand, and the general objectives which it is intended to achieve, on the other. Moreover, if a measure of general application clearly discloses the essential objective pursued by the institution, it would be excessive to require a specific statement of reasons for the various technical choices made. The amendments made by Regulation No 302/2012 to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors, which limit the financial participation of the European Union in aid to groups of fruit and vegetable producers, satisfy those conditions. The reasons for the introduction of those amendments are set out in recitals 5 and 6 of the said Regulation No 302/2012. (see paras 32-36) 2. The principle of legal certainty requires that rules of law be clear, precise and predictable as regards their effects, in particular where they may have unfavourable consequences for individuals and undertakings. That is the case with the provisions of Regulation No 302/2012 amending Implementing Regulation No 543/2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Regulation No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors, which set out the rights and obligations of the legal entities concerned in a clear and precise manner so as to enable them to know unambiguously their rights and obligations upon the entry into force of Regulation No 302/2012. The same is true of the transitional provisions in Article 2(1) to (3) of the said regulation, which govern the rights of fruit and vegetable producer groups in the application of the new rules on the amounts of aid. Those transitional provisions also satisfy the foreseeability requirement because they enable the fruit and vegetable producers concerned to know the financing rules which will be applicable to them in future according to what stage the investments provided for in their recognition plans have reached. (see paras 50-52) 3. Where a prudent and circumspect economic operator could have foreseen that the adoption of a measure is likely to affect his interests, he cannot plead that principle if the measure is adopted. Furthermore, economic operators are not justified in having a legitimate expectation that an existing situation which is capable of being altered by the Union institutions in the exercise of their discretionary power will be maintained, particularly in an area such as that of the common organisation of the markets, the objective of which involves constant adjustment to reflect changes in economic circumstances. The same applies to an acceding Member State. There is no infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations in the Commission’s failure, in Regulation No 302/2012 amending Implementing Regulation No 543/2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Regulation No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors, to provide transitional provisions applying to legal entities whose recognition plans established to enable them to be recognised as producer organisations had not been accepted before the entry into force of the amending provisions. The competence conferred on the Commission by the combined provisions of Article 103a(2) and letter (a) of the first subparagraph of Article 103h of Regulation No 1234/2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products gives it the power to set rules allowing for the adoption of thresholds and ceilings in respect of applicable aid and the extent of Union financing. Given the Commission’s discretion and the fact that the legal entities in question operate in the field of the common organisation of the markets, they could not entertain a legitimate expectation that the provisions antedating the entry into force of the amending provisions of Regulation No 302/2012 would endure in perpetuity. (see paras 55-57, 59, 65, 67) 4. See the text of the decision. (see paras 80-83)