61980CJ0179_EN
Parties
Subject of the case
Grounds
Decision on costs
Operative part
Parties
IN CASE 179/80
SA ROQUETTE FRERES, WHOSE REGISTERED OFFICE IS SITUATED IN LESTREM ( PAS-DE-CALAIS ), REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, GERARD ROUSSEAUX, ASSISTED BY MARCEL VEROONE, OF MESSRS VEROONE, FREVRIA, LETARTRE, PAILLUSSEAU, HOSTE AND DUTAT, OF THE LILLE BAR, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE CHAMBERS OF MR LOESCH, ADVOCATE, 2 RUE GOETHE,
APPLICANT,
V
COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, REPRESENTED BY DANIEL VIGNES, A DIRECTOR IN ITS LEGAL DEPARTMENT, ASSISTED BY ARTHUR BRAUTIGAM, AN ADMINISTRATOR IN THAT DEPARTMENT, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE OFFICE OF DOUGLAS FONTEIN, DIRECTOR OF LEGAL AFFAIRS AT THE EUROPEAN INVESTMENT BANK,
DEFENDANT,
AND
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL ADVISER, PETER GILSDORF, ASSISTED BY JACQUES DELMOLY, A NEMBER OF ITS LEGAL DEPARTMENT, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE OFFICE OF MARIO CERVINO, LEGAL ADVISER TO THE COMMISSION, JEAN MONNET BUILDING, KIRCHBERG,
INTERVENER,
Subject of the case
APPLICATION FOR A DECLARATION THAT COUNCIL REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 1592/80 OF 24 JUNE 1980 ON THE APPLICATION OF THE SYSTEM OF PRODUCTION QUOTAS IN THE SUGAR AND ISOGLUCOSE SECTORS DURING THE PERIOD 1 JULY 1980 TO 30 JUNE 1981 ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL 1980, L 160, P . 12 ) IS VOID IN SO FAR AS IT EXTENDS THE VALIDITY OF THE SYSTEM OF PRODUCTION QUOTAS FOR ISOGLUCOSE ESTABLISHED BY COUNCIL REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 1111/77 OF 17 MAY 1977 LAYING DOWN COMMON PROVISIONS FOR ISOGLUCOSE ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL 1977, L 134, P . 4 ), AS SUBSEQUENTLY AMENDED,
Grounds
1 BY APPLICATION LODGED AT THE COURT REGISTRY ON 21 AUGUST 1980, ROQUETTE FRERES, A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER FRENCH LAW, INSTITUTED PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 173 OF THE EEC TREATY FOR A DECLARATION THAT COUNCIL REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 1592/80 OF 24 JUNE 1980 ON THE APPLICATION OF THE SYSTEM OF PRODUCTION QUOTAS IN THE SUGAR AND ISOGLUCOSE SECTORS DURING THE PERIOD 1 JULY 1980 TO 30 JUNE 1981 ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL 1980, L 160, P . 12 ) WAS PARTIALLY VOID . MORE PRECISELY, THE APPLICANT
ASKED THE COURT TO DECLARE INVALID ARTICLE 2 OF THE SAID REGULATION AS WELL AS ANNEX II THERETO . ARTICLE 2 ( 1 ) EXTENDS THE VALIDITY OF THE SYSTEM OF PRODUCTION QUOTAS FOR ISOGLUCOSE WHICH WAS INCORPORATED, FOR THE PERIOD BETWEN 1 JULY 1979 AND 30 JUNE 1980, IN COUNCIL REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 1111/77 OF 17 MAY 1977 LAYING DOWN COMMON PROVISIONS FOR ISOGLUCOSE ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL 1977 L 134, P . 4 ) BY REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 1293/79 OF 25 JUNE 1979 ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL 1979, 162, P . 10, AS RECTIFIED BY A CORRIGENDUM IN OFFICIAL JOURNAL 1979, L 176, P . 37 ). UNDER ARTICLE 2 ( 2 ), THE BASIC QUOTA FOR EACH ISOGLUCOSE PRODUCING ENTERPRISE FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1 JULY 1980 TO 30 JUNE 1981 WAS TO BE THAT APPLICABLE DURING THE PERIOD FROM 1 JULY 1979 TO 30 JUNE 1980 .
2 IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT COUNCIL REGULATION NO 1592/80 WAS ADOPTED WHILE THE PROCEEDINGS WERE PENDING WHICH LED TO THE COURT ' S DECLARATION, IN ITS JUDGMENTS OF 29 OCTOBER 1980 IN CASE 138/79 ROQUETTE V COUNCIL ( 1980 ) ECR 3333 AND IN CASE 139/79 MAIZENA V COUNCIL ( 1980 ) ECR 3393, THAT REGULATION NO 1293/79 WAS VOID ON THE GROUND THAT IT HAD BEEN ADOPTED WITHOUT THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ' S BEING CONSULTED, AS REQUIRED BY ARTICLE 43 OF THE EEC TREATY . IN ITS DECISION IN THE AFORESAID CASES, HOWEVER, THE COURT REJECTED ALL THE SUBSTANTIVE ARGUMENTS DIRECTED AGAINST THE SYSTEM OF PRODUCTION QUOTAS ESTABLISHED FOR ISOGLUCOSE BY THE SAID REGULATION AND, IN PARTICULAR, AGAINST THE FIXING OF BASIC QUOTAS FOR THE APPLICANTS IN BOTH CASES .
3 IN ITS APPLICATION, THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT THE COUNCIL ADOPTED REGULATION NO 1592/80 WITHOUT AWAITING THE PARLIAMENT ' S OPINION . AS REGARDS THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CASE, THE APPLICANT MERELY RESTATES THE ARGUMENTS WHICH IT PUT FORWARD IN CASE 138/79 AND WHICH WERE REJECTED BY THE COURT IN ITS AFOREMENTIONED JUGDMENT IN THAT CASE . IN ITS REPLY, IT ALSO CONTENDS THAT REGULATION NO 1592/80, IN SO FAR AS IT MERELY EXTENDS THE VALIDITY OF REGULATION NO 1293/79, IS VOID FOR THE SAME REASONS AS THE LATTER . THE UNLAWFULNESS OF REGULATION NO 1592/80 IS, IT MAINTAINS, A NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE OF THE COURT ' S FINDING IN ITS ABOVE-MENTIONED JUGDMENT THAT REGULATION NO 1293/79 WAS UNLAWFUL . FINALLY, IT STATES THAT IT NO LONGER RELIES ON THE SUBSTANTIVE ARGUMENTS WHICH IT PUT FORWARD IN ITS APPLICATION .
4 IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT ON 10 FEBRUARY 1981, WHILE THIS CASE WAS PENDING BEFORE THE COURT, THE COUNCIL, AFTER OBTAINING THE PARLIAMENT ' S OPINION ON 4 FEBRUARY 1981, ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING TWO REGULATIONS :
( A ) REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 387/81 AMENDING REGULATION NO 1111/77 LAYING DOWN COMMON PROVISIONS FOR ISOGLUCOSE ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL 1981, L 44, P . 1 ). REGULATION NO 387/81 REINTRODUCES, BY REFERRING TO THE PROVISIONS OF REGULATION NO 1111/77, INTER ALIA THE SYSTEM OF PRODUCTION QUOTAS WITH RETROACTIVE EFFECT FROM 1 JULY 1979 .
( B)REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 388/81 AMENDING REGULATION NO 1592/80 ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL 1981, L 44, P . 4 ). REGULATION NO 388/81, ACCORDING TO THE SECOND RECTIAL IN THE PREAMBLE THERETO, WAS ADOPTED ' ' IN ORDER TO AVOID ANY DOUBTS AS TO THE LEGALITY . . . OF REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 1592/80 ' ' . WITH THAT END IN VIEW, ARTICLE 1 OF REGULATION NO 388/81 PROVIDES THAT ARTICLE 2 OF REGULATION NO 1592/80 IS TO REFER TO ARTICLE 9 OF REGULATION NO 1111/77, AS AMENDED BY REGULATION NO 387/81 . REGULATION NO 388/81, ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 2 THEREOF, IS TO APPLY FROM 1 JULY 1980 .
5 IN ITS REJOINDER, THE COUNCIL RAISED A FRESH ISSUE, WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 42 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, BY CONTENDING THAT THE ACTION HAS BECOME POINTLESS AS A RESULT OF THE ADOPTION OF THE TWO AFORESAID REGULATIONS . THE COUNCIL CONSIDERS, MOREOVER, THAT THE APPLICANT NO LONGER HAS ANY INTEREST IN PROCEEDING WITH ITS APPLICATION AND THAT TO DO SO MAY BE REGARDED AS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS .
6 IN AN ADDITIONAL STATEMENT SUBMITTED IN REPLY TO THE FRESH ISSUE RAISED BY THE COUNCIL, THE APPLICANT POINTS OUT THAT IT HAS NO INTENTION OF WITHDRAWING ITS APPLICATION BUT LEAVES TO THE COURT THE QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT IT IS NECESSARY TO GIVE A DECISION ON THE POINT AT ISSUE .
7 WHILST PROCEEDING WITH ITS ACTION IN THIS CASE, THE APPLICANT INSTITUTED PROCEEDINGS, BY APPLICATION LODGED AT THE COURT REGISTRY ON 7 MAY 1981, FOR A DECLARATION THAT COUNCIL REGULATIONS NOS 387 AND 388/81 WERE VOID . BY JUDGMENT OF 30 SEPTEMBER 1982, THE COURT DISMISSED THAT APPLICATION AS UNFOUNDED .
8 IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, IT MUST BE STATED THAT A DECLARATION THAT REGULATION NO 1592/80 IS VOID IS NO LONGER OF ANY INTEREST TO THE APPLICANT IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE PROVISIONS WHICH IT SEEKS TO HAVE DECLARED VOID HAVE, IN THE MEANTIME, BEEN CONFIRMED BY A REGULATION AGAINST
WHICH AN APPLICATION FOR A DECLARATION OF NULLITY BROUGHT BY THE APPLICANT WAS DISMISSED BY THE COURT AS UNFOUNDED IN ITS AFOREMENTIONED JUDGMENT .
9 CONSEQUENTLY, IT IS UNNECESSARY FOR THE COURT TO GIVE A DECISION ON THE POINT AT ISSUE .
Decision on costs
COSTS
10 UNDER ARTICLE 69 ( 5 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, WHERE A CASE DOES NOT PROCEED TO JUDGMENT, THE COSTS SHALL BE IN THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT .
11 IF THE APPLICANT HAD WITHDRAWN ITS APPLICATION AFTER IT BECAME AWARE OF THE AMENDMENT MADE TO THE CONTESTED REGULATION BY THE TWO REGULATIONS OF 10 FEBRUARY 1981, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN GROUNDS FOR FINDING THAT ITS WITHDRAWAL WAS JUSTIFIED BY THE ATTITUDE OF THE COUNCIL AND FOR ORDERING THE LATTER TO PAY THE COSTS .
12 HOWEVER, IT IS CLEAR FROM THE COURT ' S JUDGMENT IN CASE 110/81 THAT THE UNLAWFULNESS RELIED UPON BY THE APPLICANT IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION, EVEN ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT IT HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED, WAS REMEDIED BY THE ADOPTION OF REGULATION NO 388/81 AND THAT THEREAFTER THE APPLICANT NO LONGER HAD ANY INTEREST IN THE PROSECUTION OF THE ACTION .
13 IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THOSE CONSIDERATIONS, IT IS EQUITABLE FOR THE PARTIES TO BEAR THEIR OWN COSTS .
Operative part
ON THOSE GROUNDS,
THE COURT
HEREBY :
1 . DECLARES THAT IT IS UNNECESSARY FOR IT TO GIVE A DECISION ON THE POINT AT ISSUE ;
2.ORDERS THE PARTIES TO BEAR THEIR OWN COSTS .