61964CJ0040_EN
Parties
Subject of the case
Grounds
Decision on costs
Endorsements
Operative part
Parties
IN CASE 40/64
MARCELLO SGARLATA,
SALVATORE URSO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE SYRACUSE PROVINCIAL GROWERS' FEDERATION,
PAOLO BELFIORE LUCOVICH, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT OF THE SYRACUSE FARMERS' ASSOCIATION,
GIUSEPPE DENARO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PROVINCIAL FEDERATION OF THE UNION OF SYRACUSE MUTUAL CO-OPERATIVES,
SALVATORE PITRUZZELLO, AUTHORIZED TO ACT FOR SEBASTIANO FORMICA BY POWER OF ATTORNEY,
ANTONIO PIAZZA,
SEBASTIANO FAILLA,
SALVATORE BUTERA,
GIUSEPPE INNORTA,
VINCENZO PALUMBO,
PRODUCERS AND EXPORTERS OF CITRUS FRUITS,
ASSISTED BY CARLO SELVAGGI OF THE ROME BAR AND ALDO PALUMBO OF THE CATANIA BAR, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE CHAMBERS OF MR ARENDT, ADVOCATE, 6 RUE WILLY-GOERGEN,
APPLICANTS,
V
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL ADVISER, GIANCARLO OLMI, ACTING AS AGENT, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE OFFICES OF HENRI MANZANARES, SECRETARY OF THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT OF THE EUROPEAN EXECUTIVES, 2 PLACE DE METZ,
DEFENDANT,
Subject of the case
APPLICATION FOR :
1 . THE ANNULMENT OF REGULATIONS NOS 65/64/EEC, 66/64/EEC AND 74/64/EEC OF THE COMMISSION DATED 16 AND 26 JUNE 1964;
2 . A DECLARATION THAT REGULATION NO 23 OF THE COUNCIL DATED 4 APRIL 1962 AND REGULATION NO 100 OF THE COMMISSION DATED 27 JULY 1962 ARE INAPPLICABLE IN SO FAR AS THEY ARE AT ISSUE IN THIS CASE;
Grounds
P.226
I - ADMISSIBILITY
THE DEFENDANT CONTENDS THAT THE APPLICATION IS INADMISSIBLE ON THE GROUND THAT THE MEASURES FIXING THE REFERENCE PRICES FOR LEMONS, MANDARINS, CLEMENTINES AND SWEET ORANGES ARE REGULATIONS .
THE APPLICANTS TAKE THE CONTRARY VIEW, NAMELY THAT THE SAID MEASURES, ALTHOUGH ADOPTED IN THE GUISE OF REGULATIONS, ARE IN REALITY DECISIONS OF DIRECT AND INDIVIDUAL CONCERN TO THEM .
WITHOUT ITS BEING NECESSARY TO EXAMINE THE NATURE OF THE CONTESTED MEASURE IT IS IN THIS INSTANCE SUFFICIENT TO DECIDE WHETHER THIS MEASURE IS OF DIRECT AND INDIVIDUAL CONCERN TO THE APPLICANTS WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 173 OF THE EEC TREATY .
IN ORDER TO BE INDIVIDUALLY CONCERNED THE PERSON MAKING THE APPLICATION MUST HAVE BEEN AFFECTED BY THE MEASURE IN QUESTION BY REASON OF CERTAIN ATTRIBUTES WHICH ARE PECULIAR TO HIM OR BY REASON OF CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH HE IS DIFFERENTIATED FROM ALL OTHER PERSONS AND BY VIRTUE OF THESE FACTORS MUST HAVE BEEN DISTINGUISHED INDIVIDUALLY JUST AS IN THE CASE OF THE PERSON ADDRESSED .
P.227
ACCORDING TO THE TERMS OF ARTICLE 11 OF REGULATION NO 23 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE EEC : ' WHERE COMMUNITY MARKETS EXPERIENCE OR ARE THREATENED WITH SERIOUS DISTURBANCES RESULTING FROM IMPORTS FROM THIRD COUNTRIES AT PRICES LOWER THAN THE REFERENCE PRICE, MEMBER STATES MAY SUSPEND THESE IMPORTS OR IMPOSE UPON THEM A COUNTERVAILING CHARGE, WHICH SHALL BE THE SAME FOR ALL MEMBER STATES PAYABLE ON ENTRY '.
ACCORDING TO THIS SAME PROVISION : ' THE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE SHALL DECIDE UPON THE SUSPENSION OF IMPORTS AND THE FIXING OF THE AMOUNT OF THE COUNTERVAILING CHARGE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROCEDURE LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 13 ... '.
IN ACCORDANCE WITH REGULATION NO 100 OF THE COMMISSION LAYING DOWN THE DETAILED RULES FOR APPLYING ARTICLE 11(2 ) OF REGULATION NO 23, A REFERENCE PRICE SHALL BE THE SAME IN ALL MEMBER STATES AND SHALL BE FIXED EVERY YEAR BY PRODUCT, BY VARIETY OR BY GROUP OF VARIETIES .
IT FOLLOWS FROM THE PROVISIONS REFERRED TO ABOVE THAT THE REFERENCE PRICE CONSTITUTES A GENERAL CRITERION, ADOPTED IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST WITH A VIEW TO FACILITATING COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS AND TO STABILIZING PRICES ON THE MARKETS . THIS CRITERION LIMITS THE POWERS WHEREBY THE COMMISSION AND THE MEMBER STATES CAN DISCOURAGE THE IMPORTATION OF THE SAID PRODUCTS BY MEASURES FOR SAFEGUARDING THE COMMON AGRICULTURAL MARKET .
THE ANNUAL AND UNIFORM FIXING OF REFERENCE PRICES FORMS A BASIS FOR FREEDOM OF ACTION IN THE IMPORT BUSINESS AND IN BUSINESS GENERALLY . THEREFORE THE FIXING OF REFERENCE PRICES DOES NOT CONCERN THE APPLICANTS INDIVIDUALLY BUT IS DIRECTED TO A MULTIPLICITY OF CITIZENS OF THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE .
FINALLY REGULATIONS 65/64/EEC, 66/64/EEC AND 74/64/EEC DO NO MORE THAN FIX REFERENCE PRICES TO THE EXCLUSION OF ANY OTHER PROVISION OF SUCH A NATURE AS TO CONCERN THE APPLICANTS DIRECTLY AND INDIVIDUALLY . THEREFORE THESE REGULATIONS CANNOT, AS REGARDS ANY OF THEIR PROVISIONS, BE THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BROUGHT BY THE APPLICANTS .
THE APPLICANTS OBJECT THAT, IF RECOURSE TO ARTICLE 173 WERE TO BE REFUSED BY REASON OF A RESTRICTIVE INTERPRETATION OF ITS WORDING, INDIVIDUALS WOULD THUS BE DEPRIVED OF ALL PROTECTION BY THE COURTS BOTH UNDER COMMUNITY LAW AND UNDER NATIONAL LAW, WHICH WOULD BE CONTRARY TO THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES GOVERNING ALL THE MEMBER STATES .
HOWEVER THESE CONSIDERATIONS, WHICH WILL NOT BE DISCUSSED HERE, CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO OVERRIDE THE CLEARLY RESTRICTIVE WORDING OF ARTICLE 173, WHICH IT IS THE COURT'S TASK TO APPLY .
HAVING REGARD TO THE FORMAL WORDING OF THIS TEXT IT MATTERS LITTLE WHETHER THE CONTESTED MEASURE IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO A DIRECT POWER OF THE COMMISSION OR ONLY TO A DERIVED OR DELEGATED POWER .
IT FOLLOWS FROM ALL THE ABOVE CONSIDERATIONS THAT THE APPLICATION MUST BE DECLARED INADMISSIBLE .
Decision on costs
UNDER ARTICLE 69(2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE THE UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY SHALL BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS .
IN THIS CASE THE APPLICANTS HAVE FAILED IN THEIR ACTION AND MUST BEAR THE COST OF THE PROCEEDINGS .
Endorsements
ON THOSE GROUNDS,
UPON READING THE PLEADINGS;
UPON HEARING THE REPORT OF THE JUDGE - RAPPORTEUR;
UPON HEARING THE PARTIES;
UPON HEARING THE OPINION OF THE ADVOCATE-GENERAL;
HAVING REGARD TO ARTICLES 173 AND 189 OF THE EEC TREATY;
HAVING REGARD TO THE PROTOCOL ON THE STATUTE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EEC;
HAVING REGARD TO THE RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES;
HAVING REGARD TO REGULATION NO 23 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE EEC DATED 4 APRIL 1962 AND TO REGULATION NO 100 OF THE COMMISSION OF THE EEC DATED 27 JULY 1962;
Operative part
THE COURT
HEREBY :
1 . DISMISSES APPLICATION 40/64 AS INADMISSIBLE;
2 . ORDERS THE APPLICANTS TO PAY THE COSTS .