Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2015:380
Date: 2015-06-11
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Sugar
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Germany

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 11 June 2015 1. EU law — Interpretation — Texts in several languages — Uniform interpretation — Consideration of different language versions 2. Free movement of goods — Quantitative restrictions — Measures having equivalent effect — Articles 34 FTEU and 35 FTEU — Scope — Measures emanating from the EU institutions — Included (Arts 34 FTEU and 35 FTEU) 3. Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Sugar — Offsetting of storage costs — Production in excess of the quota (C sugar) — Replacement of C sugar for export — Conditions — Replacement sugar required to be produced by a manufacturer established on the territory of the same Member State — Validity in the light of Articles 34 TFEU and 35 TFEU (Arts 34 TFEU and 35 TFEU; Council Regulation No 1785/81, as amended by Regulation No 1069/89; Commission Regulations No 1998/78, as amended by Regulation No 1714/88, Art. 14(3) and No 2670/81, as amended by Regulation No 3892/88, Art. 2(2), second para.) 4. Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Sugar — Offsetting of storage costs — Production in excess of the quota (C sugar) — Replacement of C sugar for export — Conditions — Absence of any requirement for an actual exchange of C sugar with the substitute sugar) (Commission Regulations No 1998/78, as amended by Regulation No 1714/88, Art. 14(3) and No 2670/81, as amended by Regulation No 3892/88, Art. 2(2), second para.) 1. See the text of the decision. (see para. 34) 2. See the text of the decision. (see para. 37) 3. Article 14(3) of Regulation No 1998/78 laying down detailed rules for the offsetting of storage costs for sugar, as amended by Commission Regulation No 1714/88, and the second subparagraph of Article 2(2) of Regulation No 2670/81 laying down detailed implementing rules in respect of sugar production in excess of the quota, as amended by Regulation No 3892/88, read in conjunction, must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as that in which a manufacturer wishes to replace a quantity of C sugar for export by an equivalent quantity of sugar under quota produced by another manufacturer, it is appropriate to have regard to the requirements set out in the latter provision as regards reimbursement of storage costs. Those requirements include, in particular, that the replacement sugar must have been produced by another manufacturer established on the territory of the same Member State. Despite any potential ambiguity in the wording of the second subparagraph of Article 2(2) of Regulation No 2670/81, in its initial German language version, it is clear from the other official language versions that the EU legislature laid down, as a requirement for the replacement of C sugar for export, that the replacement sugar must have been produced by another manufacturer established on the territory of the same Member State. What is more, that requirement is clear from the German language version of that regulation applicable ratione temporis at the date of the facts in the main proceedings. As regards the validity of the second subparagraph of Article 2(2) of Regulation No 2670/81, in the light of Articles 34 TFEU and 35 TFEU even if the requirement that the replacement sugar must have been produced by a manufacturer established in the same Member State constitutes a restriction within the meaning of those provisions, it is, in any event, justified, since it is a necessary implication of the quota system instituted by Regulation No 1785/81 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector, as amended by Regulation No 1069/89. As is apparent from the 3rd, 10th and 14th recitals in the preamble to Regulation No 1785/81, the quota system is one of the measures of the common organisation of the markets in sugar with the ultimate aim of stabilising the EU market in sugar and, consequently, ensuring, inter alia, that the necessary guarantees in respect of the employment and standard of living of EU producers are maintained. In that context, national quotas constitute a means of guaranteeing producers Community prices and an outlet for their production. To that end, the EU legislature has provided for the division by Member States of the EU sugar production. It is therefore for each Member State to allocate the basic quantities allocated to it to the sugar-producing undertakings established in its territory in order to regulate the production of sugar in its territory. Such a replacement of C sugar for export between manufacturers established in different Member States, forming part of different national quotas, would upset the quota system instituted by the basic regulation since it would equate, on the facts, to a transfer of quotas from the manufacturer supplying the replacement sugar to the manufacturer making the substitution. It would mean, in particular, that the quotas held by those two manufacturers would no longer match those initially allocated to them by their respective Member States on the basis of their basic quantities. (see paras 35, 38-41, 43, operative part 1) 4. Article 14(3) of Regulation No 1998/78 laying down detailed rules for the offsetting of storage costs for sugar, as amended by Regulation No 1714/88, and the second subparagraph of Article 2(2) of Regulation No 2670/81 laying down detailed implementing rules in respect of sugar production in excess of the quota, as amended by Regulation No 3892/88, must be interpreted as not requiring, for the proper substitution of sugar for export, that the initial quantity of C sugar produced in excess of the quota and the quantity of replacement sugar be physically substituted by the manufacturer. Such a requirement does not form part of the requirements laid down, on its wording, in the second subparagraph of Article 2(2) of Regulation No 2670/81, and accordingly that provision does not require such physical replacement. In addition, it is apparent from the fifth recital in the preamble to Regulation No 2670/81 that the mechanism for the substitution of C sugar for export seeks to enable a manufacturer to meet its obligation to export C sugar while exporting a sugar which it did not itself produce. To require the physical substitution of the quantities of sugar would run counter to that objective. (see paras 46, 48, 49, operative part 2)