Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2012:640
Date: 2012-10-18
Language of the case: Czech
Court formation: First Chamber
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries
Procedure: Action for failure to fulfil obligations - successful
Origin: Czechia

Summary – Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 18 October 2012 1. Actions for failure to fulfil obligation – Disregard of obligations under a decision or a directive – Defences – Challenge to the lawfulness of the Commission’s decision – Inadmissibility – Limits – Non-existent act (Art. 258 TFEU) 2. Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets – Regulation No 1234/2007 – Spreadable fats – Uniform sales designations – Application of a derogation – Need for a prior decision of the Commission (Council Regulations No 2991/94, recital 7, and No 1234/2007, Art. 121(c)(i) and Annex XV, point I(2), third subpara., (a); Commission Regulation No 445/2007, recital 4) 1. See the text of the decision. (see paras 46-49, 51) 2. It follows from recital 51 in the preamble to Regulation No 1234/2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products, which replaced and repeated all the provisions of Regulation No 2991/94 laying down standards for spreadable fats, that Regulation No 2991/94 defined the marketing standards for milk products and established a uniform classification of those fats. In connection with that classification, the derogation provided for in point (a) of the third subparagraph of point I(2) of Annex XV to Regulation No 1234/2007 is necessarily an exception. Moreover, Article 121(c)(i) of that regulation expressly empowers the Commission to draw up an exhaustive list of the products to which that derogation applies, on the basis of the lists sent by the Member States. Consequently, products which satisfy the requirements of point (a) of the third subparagraph of point I(2) of Annex XV to Regulation No 1234/2007 cannot benefit from that derogation without a prior decision of the Commission finding those requirements to be satisfied. A contrary interpretation would call into question both the competence of the Commission, as delegated to it by the Council by virtue of Article 121(c)(i) of Regulation No 1234/2007, and the effectiveness of that regulation, in so far as it aims to standardise the usage of marketing designations in order to preserve competition and protect consumers. (see paras 56-61)