Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2000:363
Date: 2000-07-06
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Agriculture and Fisheries;Sugar
Concepts: Statement of reasons;Powers of the Community institutions;Prohibition of discrimination;Prices
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Italy

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Sugar — Intervention price 
and derived intervention prices — Limit-date for fixing intervention prices — Limit-
date not complied with — Consequences 
(Council Regulations Nos 1785/81 and 1580/96) 
I - 5409 
SUMMARY — CASE C-289/97 
2. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Regulations 
(EC Treaty, Art. 190 (now Art. 253 EC)) 
3. Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — Evaluation of a complex economic 
situation — Council's discretion — Overall finding of the basic facts — Legality — 
Judicial review — Limits 
4. Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Sugar — Régionalisation of 
intervention prices — Discrimination between producers and consumers — None 
(EC Treaty, Art. 40(3), second subpara, (now, after amendment, Art. 34(2), second 
subpara., EC); Council Regulation Nos 1785/81 and 1580/96) 
5. Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Sugar — Regionalisation of 
prices — Internal market 
(Council Regulation No 1785/81) 
1. The limit-date of 1 August for fixing 
the intervention price and derived 
intervention prices in Article 3(4) and 
(5) of Regulation No 1785/81 on the 
common organisation of the markets in 
the sugar sector is not strict. Therefore, 
failure to observe that date cannot have 
the effect of rendering invalid Regula­
tion No 1580/96 as regards the fixing 
therein, for marketing year 1996/97, of 
the intervention price after 1 August. 
(see paras 34, 70) 
2. The statement of reasons required by 
Article 190 of the Treaty (now Arti­
cle 253 EC) must be appropriate to the 
nature of the measure in question and 
must show clearly and unequivocally 
the reasoning of the institution which 
adopted the contested measure so as to 
inform the persons concerned of the 
justification for the measure adopted 
and to enable the Court to exercise its 
powers of review. The question whe­
ther the statement of reasons meets the 
requirements must be assessed with 
regard not only to its wording but also 
to its context and to all the legal rules 
governing the matter in question. The 
statement of the reasons on which 
regulations are based is not required 
to specify the often very numerous and 
complex matters of fact or of law dealt 
with in the regulations, provided that 
the latter fall within the general scheme 
of the body of measures of which they 
form part. 
(see paras 38, 40-41, 70) 
3. When the implementation by the 
Council of the Community's agricul-
I - 5 4 1 0 
ERIDANIA 
tural policy involves the need to eval­
uate a complex economic situation, the 
discretion which it has does not apply 
exclusively to the nature and scope of 
the measures to be taken but also to 
some extent to the finding of the basic 
facts. In reviewing the exercise of such 
a power the Court must confine itself 
to examining whether it contains a 
manifest error or constitutes a misuse 
of power or whether the authority in 
question did not clearly exceed the 
bounds of its discretion. 
(see paras 48-49, 70) 
4. The regionalisation of intervention 
prices for sugar cannot be regarded as 
discrimination within the meaning of 
the second subparagraph of Arti­
cle 40(3) of the Treaty (now, after 
amendment, the second subparagraph 
of Article 34(2) EC), given that the 
differences in treatment between opera­
tors in deficit areas and those in surplus 
areas are based on objective differ­
ences, namely insufficient beet and 
sugar production. 
(see paras 75, 77, 81) 
5. The restrictions on free movement 
within the Community of sugar pro­
duced in deficit areas and the denial to 
producers in those areas of the oppor­
tunity to export sugar which derives in 
practice from the régionalisation sys­
tem are the necessary, and indeed 
deliberate, consequences of that sys­
tem. 
(see para. 78) 
I - 5411