Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2009:367
Date: 2009-06-11
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Second Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Principles, objectives and tasks of the Treaties;Sugar
Concepts: Production quotas
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Austria

Summary of the Judgment 1. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Sugar – Temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry – Calculation of the temporary restructuring amount (Council Regulation No 320/2006, Art. 11; Commission Regulation No 493/2006, as amended by Regulation No 1542/2006, Art. 3) 2. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Sugar – Temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry – Calculation of the temporary restructuring amount (Council Regulation No 320/2006, Art. 11) 1. Article 11 of Regulation No 320/2006 establishing a temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry in the Community and amending Regulation No 1290/2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy must be interpreted as meaning that the part of the sugar quota allocated to an undertaking, which has been subject to a preventive withdrawal pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation No 493/2006 laying down transitional measures within the framework of the reform of the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector, and amending Regulations No 1265/2001 and No 314/2002, as amended by Regulation No 1542/2006, is to be included in the basis for the calculation of the temporary amount. The basis for the calculation of the temporary amount owed by an undertaking consists of the total number of tonnes of sugar quota allocated to that undertaking. The only exemption from the requirement to pay the temporary amount laid down in Regulation No 320/2006 is – as provided in the second subparagraph of Article 11(1) of the regulation – for quotas renounced by the undertaking in accordance with Article 3(1) of that regulation. In the regard, in the first place, the renunciation of a quota in terms of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 320/2006 is, within the framework of the reform of the common organisation in the market in sugar, an instrument which is quite distinct from withdrawal from the market within the meaning of Article 19 of Regulation No 318/2006 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector, and from preventive withdrawal within the meaning of Article 3 of Regulation No 493/2006, the nature and purpose of which are different. In the second place, as the renouncing of a quota, withdrawal from the market and preventive withdrawal all form part of the same set of measures seeking to reform the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector, it follows that it was by design that the Community legislature did not lay down, in Article 11 of Regulation No 320/2006, an exemption from the temporary amount for quantities of sugar withdrawn from the market such as that provided for in that article in respect of quotas which have been renounced. (see paras 19-21, 25-26, operative part 1) 2. The fixing of the temporary amount on the basis of the quota allocated, including, where necessary, the part of the quota which was subject to a withdrawal from the market, is not manifestly inappropriate to attain the objective pursued by Regulation No 320/2006 establishing a temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry in the Community and amending Regulation No 1290/2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy and, therefore, cannot be held to be contrary to the principle of proportionality. Moreover, the inclusion, in the basis for calculating the temporary amount, of the quantity of sugar which was subject to a preventive withdrawal cannot be considered to be contrary to the principle of non-discrimination. Admittedly, the fixing of the temporary amount provided for in Article 11 of Regulation No 320/2006 will result in different treatment for undertakings which may be in a similar situation but are established in different Member States. Nevertheless, such treatment of undertakings appears to be objectively justified. As the division of the quotas between undertakings and the management of those quotas are ensured by the Member States, the renouncing of quotas is also organised by each Member State and will vary from one Member State to another. In that context, the object of applying a coefficient which varies depending on the Member State concerned, as provided for in Article 3(2) of Regulation No 493/2006 laying down transitional measures within the framework of the reform of the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector, is to take into account the special efforts which Member States have made to renounce quotas definitively and, in so doing, to contribute to reducing production at an equal rate in all the Member States in order to achieve balanced production throughout the Community. (see paras 43, 50-52)