Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2006:688
Date: 2006-10-26
Language of the case: French
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Sugar
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: France

Summary of the Judgment 1. Plea of illegality – Preliminary in nature – Legality of provisions of a regulation concerning isoglucose production quotas challenged before the national court (Arts 230 EC and 241 EC) 2. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Sugar – Isoglucose – Production quotas (Council Regulation No 1111/77, as amended by Regulation No 387/81, Art. 9(1); Commission Regulation No 1471/77, Art. 1) 1. Article 241 EC expresses a general principle of law under which an applicant must, in proceedings brought under national law against the rejection of his application, be able to plead the illegality of a Community measure on which the national decision adopted in his regard is based, and the question of the validity of that Community measure may thus be referred to the Court in proceedings for a preliminary ruling. However, this general principle, which has the effect of ensuring that every person has or will have had the opportunity to challenge a Community measure which forms the basis of a decision adversely affecting him, does not in any way preclude a regulation from becoming definitive as against an individual in regard to whom it must be considered to be an individual decision and who could undoubtedly have sought its annulment under Article 230 EC, a fact which prevents that individual from pleading the illegality of that regulation before the national court. In that regard, an isoglucose producer cannot be directly concerned, for the purposes of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC, by the allocation of basic isoglucose production quantities to the Member States as effected at Community level in the context of the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector. In a scheme whereunder it is for the Member States to distribute the basic production quantities allocated to them among producers, with the possibility to transfer quotas between them, each producer has its quotas directly and definitively set by decision of the Member State in which it is established. Therefore, a producer could not undoubtedly have brought an admissible action, on the basis of Article 230 EC, to annul the contested provisions. Therefore, such a person may, in proceedings brought under national law, plead the illegality of those provisions, even though it has not brought an action for annulment of those provisions before the Community Courts within the time‑limit laid down in Article 230 EC. (see paras 39-40, 43, 45, 47-48, operative part 1) 2. The fact that, in the provisions of the regulations on the allocation of basic isoglucose production quantities to the Member States, the Council fixed maximum isoglucose production quantities for a Member State on the basis of the initial basic quotas, without taking account of isoglucose produced in that Member State during the reference period from 1 November 1978 to 30 April 1979, as an intermediate product used in the final manufacture of other products intended for sale, cannot in itself have the consequence of rendering those provisions invalid. The initial quotas for the period 1 July 1979 to 30 June 1980 had been set, in accordance with Article 9(1) of Regulation No 1111/77 laying down common provisions for isoglucose as amended by Regulation No 387/81, on the basis of the producers’ production as determined in the reference period, and that determination was based on the information that those undertakings themselves had transmitted to the Member States which, after taking note of them and carrying out any checks, had communicated them to the Commission in accordance with Article 1 of Regulation No 1471/77 on information from the Member States concerning isoglucose. Since the Council had decided to use those quotas as a basis, it did not have to collect that information again when it adopted the contested regulations. (see paras 57-58, operative part 2)