Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2011:531
Date: 2011-07-28
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF);Sugar
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 – Temporary restructuring amount owed by undertakings (Council Regulation No 320/2006, Arts 1(3) second para., and 11) 2. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Sugar – Temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry – Temporary restructuring amount owed by undertakings (Art. 37 EC; Council Regulation No 320/2006, Art. 11) 3. Acts of the institutions – Statement of reasons – Obligation – Scope – Regulation establishing temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry (Art. 253 EC; Council Regulation No 320/2006, Recital 2, and Arts 1(3) second para., and 11) 4. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Sugar – Temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry – Temporary restructuring amount owed by undertakings (Council Regulation No 320/2006, Art. 11) 5. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Sugar – Temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry – Temporary restructuring amount owed by undertakings (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 is to be interpreted as meaning that the temporary amount must be raised in full, even if there were to be a revenue surplus in the temporary restructuring fund. First, Article 11(1) of Regulation No 320/2006 provides that undertakings to which a quota has been allocated are to pay a temporary amount per marketing year, that temporary amount being fixed as to quantum, for the marketing years 2006/2007, 2007/2008 and 2008/2009, in Article 11(2) of that regulation. Second, the possibility that the revenue accruing from that temporary amount could exceed the expenditure linked to the financing of the restructuring measures for which it is intended was provided for by the Union legislature in the second subparagraph of Article 1(3) of that regulation, according to which any amount that may be available in the restructuring fund after the financing of that expenditure is to be assigned to the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF). Thus, it is clear from the wording of Article 11 and from the general scheme of Regulation No 320/2006 that the temporary amount must be paid in full by the undertakings concerned for every marketing year referred to. (see paras 20-22, operative part 1) 2. 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 is not contrary to the principle of conferral. Intended to contribute to the restructuring of the sugar industry in the Community, the raising of the temporary restructuring amount owed by undertakings, pursuant to Article 11 of Regulation No 320/2006, is a common agricultural policy measure lawfully adopted on the basis of Article 37 EC. The fact that a revenue surplus may arise on the expiry of such a temporary multiannual restructuring scheme, and that that surplus is assigned to the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGF) pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 1(3) of Regulation No 320/2006, does not call into question the competence of the EU legislature to adopt that measure; nor does it divest the measure of its character as an agricultural measure. Any surplus continues to be earmarked for financing common agricultural policy measures only. (see paras 29-30, 32-33, operative part 2) 3. 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 is not flawed by any unlawful element with regard to the obligation to state reasons. Admittedly, the second recital in the preamble, concerning the financial details of that scheme, does not explain the reasons for which, as provided for under the second subparagraph of Article 1(3) of that regulation, any amount that may be available in the restructuring fund after the financing of the expenditure is to be assigned to the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGF). However, at the relevant date for the purposes of assessing the legality of that measure – that is to say, the date of its adoption – it was possible to predict only that a residual amount of surplus might arise in the restructuring fund after that expenditure had been effected. The decision to assign that surplus to the EAGF, of which the restructuring fund forms part, should therefore be regarded as merely a technical choice, for which no specific statement of reasons can be required. (see paras 37-39, operative part 2) 4. 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, and the raising of the temporary amount pursuant to that provision, cannot be regarded as contrary to the principle of proportionality. Where the EU legislature is obliged to assess the future effects of rules to be adopted and those effects cannot be accurately foreseen, its assessment is open to criticism only if it appears manifestly incorrect in the light of the information available to it at the time when the rules in question were adopted. The temporary amount was determined on the basis of the future effects of the restructuring scheme set up by that regulation, when it was not possible to predict with accuracy what those effects would be. Since the assessment of the expenditure and of the revenue necessary to meet that expenditure did not appear to be manifestly incorrect in the light of the information available to the Community legislature at the time when Regulation No 320/2006 was adopted, the size of that surplus not being a factor sufficient to prove the existence of such an error, the determination of the temporary amount was not manifestly inappropriate for the purposes of attaining the intended purpose of the financing, by the producers, of that temporary scheme. (see paras 45-46, 48, 50-51, operative part 2) 5. The raising of the second instalment of the temporary amount for the marketing year 2008/2009, provided for under Article 11(2) 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, notwithstanding the appearance of a surplus in the restructuring fund, is not without valid legal foundation. Consequently, it does not constitute unjust enrichment of the Union which may properly found a claim for restitution and, in any case, cannot be relied upon for the purposes of assessing the validity of Article 11 of the regulation as the legal basis for raising that instalment. A claim for restitution based on unjust enrichment of the Union requires, in order to succeed, proof of enrichment on the part of the Union for which there is no legal basis and of impoverishment on the part of the applicant which is linked to that enrichment. (see paras 53-54, operative part 2)