Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2016:64
Date: 2016-01-28
Language of the case: French
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Sugar
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling;Reference for a preliminary ruling - decision unnecessary
Origin: France

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 16 June 2016 1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Jurisdiction of the national court — Necessity of a question referred and relevance of the questions raised — Assessment by the national court (Art. 267 TFEU) 2. Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Sugar — Production levy — Calculation of exportable surplus — Taking into acount of the quantities of non-exportable sugar stored at the end of the marketing year 2005/2006 — Non-renewal of the production levy scheme — No effect (Arts 40 TFEU to 43 TFEU; Council Regulations No 1260/2001, Recital 15 and Art. 15(2), (3) and (8), No 318/2006 and No 1360/2013; Commission Regulation No 314/2002, as amended by Regulation No 1140/2003, Art. 6(4)) 1. See the text of the decision. (see para. 34) 2. Article 15(2) and (8) of Regulation No 1260/2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector must be interpreted as not conferring on a sugar producer the right to be reimbursed for production levies paid on the quantities of sugar under A and B quotas which were still stored on 30 June 2006, as the production levy system was not renewed after that date by Regulation No 318/2006 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector. Therefore, in the calculation of the exportable surplus for the 2001/2002 to 2005/2006 marketing years, the exclusion of quantities of sugar, isoglucose and inulin syrup stored at the end of the 2005/2006 marketing year is contrary to both Article 6(4) of Regulation No 314/2002 laying down detailed rules for the application of the quota system in the sugar sector as amended by Regulation No 1140/2003, which expressly provides that those stocks are to be taken into account, and Article 15(2)(a) of Regulation No 1260/2001, which also refers to the exportable and not the exported surplus, which necessarily includes, as is clear, in particular from recital 15 of the latter regulation, the quantities on the market in the relevant marketing year, and those held in stock. Moreover, the fact of continuing to refer to a ‘foreseeable’ overall loss, even after the adjustment provided for in Article 15(2) and (3) of Regulation No 1260/2001, so far as concerns the 2001/2002 to 2005/2006 marketing years, implies that the loss may not yet have been incurred in its entirety. In that regard, it does not appear that the Council committed a manifest error, a misuse of power or exceeded the limits of its discretionary power under Articles 40 to 43 TFEU by providing that, as regards the 2005/2006 marketing year in the context of the financing of the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector, the exportable surplus existing at the end of that year would be taken into consideration, which necessarily included the quantities of sugar held in stock at the end of that year. In those circumstances, no factors have been disclosed capable of affecting the validity of Regulation No 1360/2013 fixing the production levies in the sugar sector for the 2001/2002, 2002/2003, 2003/2004, 2004/2005 and 2005/2006 marketing years, the coefficient required for calculating the additional levy for the 2001/2002 and 2004/2005 marketing years and the amount to be paid by sugar manufacturers to beet sellers in respect of the difference between the maximum levy and the levy to be charged for the 2002/2003, 2003/2004 and 2005/2006 marketing years. (see paras 44, 45, 52, 54, 56, operative part 1 and 2)