61982CJ0224_EN
Parties
Subject of the case
Grounds
Decision on costs
Operative part
Parties
IN CASE 224/82
REFERENCE TO THE COURT UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY BY THE VERWALTUNGSGERICHT ( ADMINISTRATIVE COURT ) FRANKFURT AM MAIN FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING IN THE ACTION BEFORE THAT COURT BETWEEN
MEIKO-KONSERVENFABRIK, GERGWEIS,
AND
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY, REPRESENTED BY THE BUNDESAMT FUR ERNAHRUNG UND FORSTWIRTSCHAFT ( FEDERAL OFFICE FOR FOOD AND FORESTRY ), FRANKFURT AM MAIN,
Subject of the case
ON THE VALIDITY OF COMMISSION REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 2546/80 OF 2 OCTOBER 1980 AMENDING FOR THE ELEVENTH TIME REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 1530/78 LAYING DOWN RULES FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE SYSTEM OF AID IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN PRODUCTS PROCESSED FROM FRUIT AND VEGETABLES ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL 1980, L 260, P . 14 ),
Grounds
1 BY AN ORDER DATED 3 AUGUST 1982, WHICH WAS RECEIVED AT THE COURT ON 23 AUGUST 1982, THE VERWALTUNGSGERICHT ( ADMINISTRATIVE COURT ) FRANKFURT AM MAIN REFERRED TO THE COURT FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY A QUESTION ON THE VALIDITY OF COMMISSION REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 2546/80 OF 2 OCTOBER 1980 ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL 1980, L 260, P . 14 ) AMENDING FOR THE ELEVENTH TIME COMMISSION REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 1530/78 OF 30 JUNE 1978 LAYING DOWN RULES FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE SYSTEM OF AID IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN PRODUCTS PROCESSED FROM FRUIT AND VEGETABLES ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL 1978, L 179, P . 21 ).
2 THAT QUESTION WAS RAISED IN THE COURSE OF LITIGATION IN WHICH MEIKO-KONSERVENFABRIK CHALLENGED THE DECISION WHEREBY THE BUNDESAMT FUR ERNAHRUNG UND FORSTWIRTSCHAFT ( FEDERAL OFFICE FOR FOOD AND FORESTRY ), FRANKFURT AM MAIN, HAD REFUSED, ON THE BASIS OF THE AFOREMENTIONED REGULATION NO 2546/80, TO PAY IT THE AID FOR WHICH IT APPLIED IN RESPECT OF THE PROCESSING OF SWEET CHERRIES INTENDED FOR PRESERVATION IN SYRUP .
3 THE SYSTEM OF AID IN QUESTION WAS INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 516/77 OF 14 MARCH 1977 ON THE COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKET IN PRODUCTS PROCESSED FROM FRUIT AND VEGETABLES ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL 1977, L 73, P . 1 ) IN RESPECT OF THE PRODUCTS SET OUT IN ANNEX 1A THEREOF, AS AMENDED AND EXTENDED BY COUNCIL REGULATIONS NOS 1152/78 OF 30 MAY 1978 ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL 1978, L 144, P . 1 ) AND 1639/79 OF 24 JULY 1979 ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL 1979, L 192, P . 3 ).
4 IT FOLLOWS FROM ARTICLE 3A OF COUNCIL REGULATION NO 516/77 AND FROM THE FIRST AND SECOND RECITALS IN THE PREAMBLE TO COUNCIL REGULATION NO 1152/78 THAT THE SYSTEM OF AID FOR THE PRODUCTION OF PROCESSED FRUIT AND VEGETABLES
WAS INTRODUCED IN ORDER TO MAKE SUCH COMMUNITY PRODUCTS MORE COMPETITIVE WITH THOSE OF NON-MEMBER COUNTRIES WHERE THE PRODUCER PRICE WAS CONSIDERABLY LOWER . THAT SYSTEM OF AID WAS BASED ON A SYSTEM OF CONTRACTS WHICH, ON THE ONE HAND, WERE BINDING ON THE COMMUNITY PRODUCERS AND PROCESSORS OF FRUIT AND VEGETABLES AND, ON THE OTHER HAND, ENSURED BOTH THE REGULAR SUPPLY OF THE PROCESSING INDUSTRIES AND A MINIMUM PRICE TO BE PAID BY THE PROCESSORS TO THE PRODUCERS . COUNCIL REGULATION NO 1639/79 EXTENDED THE SYSTEM OF AID TO HARD-FLESHED HEART CHERRIES AND OTHER SWEET CHERRIES WITH EFFECT FROM THE 1980/81 MARKETING YEAR .
5 IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLES 3C AND 20 OF COUNCIL REGULATION NO 516/77, DETAILED RULES FOR THE APPLICATION OF THAT SYSTEM WERE LAID DOWN BY COMMISSION REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 1530/78 OF 30 JUNE 1978, WHICH WAS LATER AMENDED BY COMMISSION REGULATIONS ( EEC ) NOS 1348/80 OF 30 MAY 1980 ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL 1980, L 135, P . 66 ), 1964/80 OF 24 JULY 1980 ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL 1980, L 197, P . 17 ) AND 2546/80 OF 2 OCTOBER 1980 ( CITED ABOVE ).
6 AS A RESULT OF THOSE RULES, A PROCESSOR MAY NOT CLAIM PAYMENT OF THE AID UNLESS THE CONTRACTS AND ANY SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENTS THERETO WERE CONCLUDED WITHIN THE TIME-LIMITS LAID DOWN BY THE COMMISSION . BY VIRTUE OF REGULATION NO 1348/80 OF 30 MAY 1980 THE TIME-LIMIT FOR THE CONCLUSION OF CONTRACTS FOR THE 1980/81 MARKETING YEAR WAS 10 JULY 1980 . HOWEVER, AS THE HARVEST OF HARD-FLESHED HEART CHERRIES AND OTHER SWEET CHERRIES WAS DELAYED IN 1980, REGULATION NO 1964/80 OF 24 JULY 1980 EXTENDED THE TIME-LIMIT TO 31 JULY 1980 .
7 ARTICLE 2 OF COMMISSION REGULATION NO 1530/78 LAYS DOWN A SECOND REQUIREMENT FOR THE GRANTING OF AID BY STATING THAT A COPY OF THE CONTRACTS MUST BE FORWARDED ' ' BEFORE THE DATE ON WHICH THEY ARE TO TAKE EFFECT ' ', THAT IS TO SAY BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE FIRST DELIVERY OF FRUIT, TO THE AGENCY DESIGNATED BY THE MEMBER STATE IN WHICH PROCESSING IS TO TAKE PLACE TO ADMINISTER THE SYSTEM OF AID AND TO INSPECT THE FRUIT BEFORE PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT .
8 THE WEATHER CONDITIONS FOR THE HARVEST IN 1980 APPARENTLY MADE IT VERY DIFFICULT FOR PROCESSORS TO COMPLY WITH THE TIME-LIMIT SET BY ARTICLE 2 OF REGULATION NO 1530/78 FOR THE FORWARDING OF A COPY OF THE CONTRACT . RECOGNIZING THOSE EXCEPTIONAL DIFFICULTIES, THE COMMISSION, BY ARTICLE 1 OF
REGULATION NO 2546/80 OF 2 OCTOBER 1980, ADDED THE FOLLOWING WORDS TO ARTICLE 2 OF REGULATION NO 1530/78 :
' ' HOWEVER, FOR THE 1980/81 MARKETING YEAR, CONTRACTS CONCLUDED FOR CHERRIES MAY BE FORWARDED, EVEN AFTER THE DATE ON WHICH THEY TAKE EFFECT, TO THE SAID AGENCY NOT LATER THAN 31 JULY 1980 . ' '
9 ON THE BASIS OF THE LATTER PROVISION AND TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE FACT THAT THE CONTRACTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENTS CONCLUDED BY MEIKO ON 21 AND 31 JULY 1980 WERE FORWARDED ON 7 AND 19 AUGUST 1980 RESPECTIVELY, THE BUNDESAMT FUR ERNAHRUNG AND FORSTWIRTSCHAFT REJECTED THAT COMPANY ' S APPLICATION FOR AID .
10 MEIKO CHALLENGED THAT DECISION BEFORE THE VERWALTUNGSGERICHT FRANKFURT AM MAIN, WHICH REFERRED THE FOLLOWING QUESTION TO THE COURT OF JUSTICE FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY :
' ' DOES ARTICLE 1 OF COMMISSION REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 2546/80 OF 2 OCTOBER 1980 ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL 1980, L 260, 3 . 10 . 1980, P . 14 ) OFFEND AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF PROPORTIONALITY AND EQUAL TREATMENT IN RETROACTIVELY FIXING A TIME-LIMIT, NAMELY 31 JULY 1980, BY WHICH THE CONCLUDED CONTRACTS HAD TO BE FORWARDED TO THE APPROPRIATE AGENCY?
' '
11 IT FOLLOWS FROM THE WORDING USED BY THE NATIONAL COURT THAT THE QUESTION ON WHICH A PRELIMINARY RULING IS SOUGHT RELATES IN ESSENCE TO THE VALIDITY OF ARTICLE 1 OF REGULATION NO 2546/80 OF 2 OCTOBER 1980 IN THE LIGHT OF THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW THE OBSERVANCE OF WHICH IS ENSURED BY THE COURT OF JUSTICE .
12 AS THE COURT STATED IN ITS JUDGMENTS OF 25 JANUARY 1979 IN CASE 98/78 ( RACKE V HAUPTZOLLAMT MAINZ ( 1979 ) ECR 69 ) AND CASE 99/78 ( DECKER V HAUPTZOLLAMT LANDAU ( 1979 ) ECR 101 ), AS A GENERAL RULE IT IS CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPLE OF LEGAL CERTAINTY FOR A COMMUNITY MEASURE TO SPECIFY A DATE PRIOR TO ITS PUBLICATION AS THE DATE ON WHICH IT IS TO TAKE EFFECT . IT MAY EXCEPTIONALLY BE OTHERWISE WHERE THE PURPOSE TO BE ACHIEVED SO DEMANDS AND WHERE THE LEGITIMATE EXPECTATIONS OF THOSE CONCERNED ARE DULY RESPECTED .
13 IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE PRINCIPLE OF THE PROTECTION OF LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION HAS BEEN COMPLIED WITH IT IS NECESSARY TO EXAMINE THE SITUATION WHICH REGULATION NO 2546/80 WAS INTENDED TO CORRECT IN THE LIGHT OF THE RULES WHICH WERE IN FORCE AT THE TIME . IT MUST BE RECALLED IN THAT RESPECT THAT AT THE TIME THE PERSONS CONCERNED CONCLUDED THE CONTRACTS THE RECEIPT OF AID WAS SUBJECT TO THE TWO REQUIREMENTS LAID DOWN BY REGULATION NO 1530/78 OF 30 JUNE 1978 AND REGULATION NO 1964/80 OF 24 JULY 1980, THAT IS TO SAY THE CONCLUSION OF THE CONTRACT BY 31 JULY 1980 AND THE FORWARDING OF A COPY OF IT TO THE RESPONSIBLE NATIONAL AGENCY BEFORE THE CONTRACT TOOK EFFECT . IT MUST BE RECOGNIZED THAT PROCESSORS WHO WAITED, AS THEY WERE LEGALLY ENTITLED TO DO, UNTIL THE TIME-LIMIT OF 31 JULY 1980 TO CONCLUDE THEIR CONTRACTS COULD NOT HAVE FORWARDED THE DOCUMENTS ON THE SAME DAY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NEW REQUIREMENT LAID DOWN BY REGULATION NO 2546/80 OF 2 OCTOBER 1980 .
14 IT MUST ALSO BE RECOGNIZED THAT BY RETROACTIVELY SUBJECTING THE PAYMENT OF AID TO THE FORWARDING OF THE CONTRACTS BY 31 JULY 1980 THE COMMISSION ACTED IN BREACH OF THE LEGITIMATE EXPECTATIONS OF THE PERSONS CONCERNED, WHO, HAVING REGARD TO THE PROVISIONS IN FORCE AT THE TIME THE CONTRACTS WERE CONCLUDED, COULD NOT REASONABLY HAVE ANTICIPATED THE RETROACTIVE IMPOSITION OF A TIME-LIMIT FOR FORWARDING THE CONTRACTS WHICH COINCIDED WITH THE TIME-LIMIT FOR THEIR CONCLUSION .
15 IT MUST BE STATED, FURTHERMORE, THAT THE COMMISSION WAS ALSO IN BREACH OF THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUAL TREATMENT AS REGARDS PROCESSORS OF HARD-FLESHED HEART CHERRIES AND OTHER SWEET CHERRIES, WHO, AS A RESULT OF REGULATION NO 2546/80, ONLY RECEIVED AID BY THE ACCIDENT OF HAVING CONCLUDED THEIR CONTRACTS AT A RELATIVELY EARLY DATE AND HAVING FORWARDED THEM RELATIVELY SWIFTLY . IN FACT, IT IS CLEAR FROM THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED TO THE COURT THAT 207 CONTRACTS WERE FORWARDED TO THE BUNDESAMT FUR ERNAHRUNG UND FORSTWIRTSCHAFT AND THAT AID COULD NOT BE GRANTED IN RESPECT OF 38 BECAUSE THEY HAD NOT BEEN FORWARDED BY 31 JULY 1980 .
16 IT IS TRUE, AS THE COMMISSION CONTENDED BEFORE THE COURT, THAT THE CONTESTED REGULATION ENABLED A LARGE NUMBER OF UNDERTAKINGS TO RECEIVE AID WHICH THEY COULD NOT HAVE OBTAINED UNDER THE SYSTEM WHICH WAS ESTABLISHED BY ARTICLE 2 OF REGULATION NO 1530/78 AND WHICH WAS IN FORCE AT THE TIME THE CONTRACTS
WERE CONCLUDED . IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT THE COMMISSION WAS UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO ALTER THE PROVISIONS OF REGULATION NO 1530/78 RETROACTIVELY .
17 NEVERTHELESS, ONCE THE COMMISSION HAD AGREED TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE PROCESSORS '
DIFFICULTIES AND TO CORRECT THE EFFECTS THEREOF, IT WAS UNDER A DUTY, IN ADOPTING THE APPROPRIATE MEASURES, TO HAVE REGARD TO THE LEGITIMATE EXPECTATIONS OF THE PERSONS CONCERNED AND TO ENSURE THAT THEY WERE ACCORDED EQUAL TREATMENT .
18 IN THAT RESPECT THE COMMISSION CONTENDS THAT IN ADOPTING THE CONTESTED REGULATION IT TOOK INTO ACCOUNT THE VIEWS EXPRESSED IN THAT CONNECTION BY THE MEMBER STATES AND THAT INASMUCH AS IT WAS A QUESTION OF ADOPTING AN EXCEPTIONAL PROVISION, SOUGHT IN PARTICULAR BY THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY, THERE WAS NO OBJECTIVE REASON TO PROVIDE LONGER TIME-LIMITS THAN THOSE PROPOSED BY THE GERMAN AUTHORITIES THEMSELVES .
19 WHILST IT IS TRUE THAT THE ATTITUDE ADOPTED BY THE GERMAN AUTHORITIES CONTRIBUTED TO THE SITUATION FROM WHICH THE DISPUTE AROSE, INASMUCH AS IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THEY PROPOSED THE TIME-LIMIT OF 31 JULY 1980 WITHOUT HAVING MADE A THOROUGH STUDY OF THE APPLICATIONS PENDING, THAT CIRCUMSTANCE CANNOT, BY ITSELF, PROVE THE VALIDITY OF REGULATION NO 2546/80 . IN FACT, THE COMMISSION WAS UNDER A DUTY TO CHECK THAT THE DATE SUGGESTED BY THE GERMAN AUTHORITIES WAS COMPATIBLE WITH THE REGULATION WHICH IT HAD, ITSELF, PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED .
20 IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, THE REPLY TO THE QUESTION RAISED BY THE VERWALTUNGSGERICHT FRANKFURT AM MAIN MUST BE THAT ARTICLE 1 OF COMMISSION REGULATION NO 3546/80 OF 2 OCTOBER 1980 AS INVALID INASMUCH AS IT FIXED 31 JULY 1980 AS THE FINAL DATE FOR FORWARDING CONCLUDED CONTRACTS TO THE COMPETENT NATIONAL AGENCY .
Decision on costs
COSTS
21 THE COSTS INCURRED BY THE COMMISSION, WHICH SUBMITTED OBSERVATIONS TO THE COURT, ARE NOT RECOVERABLE . AS THESE PROCEEDINGS ARE, IN SO FAR AS THE PARTIES TO THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS ARE CONCERNED, IN THE NATURE OF A STEP IN THE ACTION PENDING BEFORE THE NATIONAL COURT, THE DECISION ON COSTS IS A MATTER FOR THAT COURT .
Operative part
ON THOSE GROUNDS,
THE COURT ( THIRD CHAMBER ),
IN ANSWER TO THE QUESTION SUBMITTED TO IT BY THE VERWALTUNGSGERICHT FRANKFURT AM MAIN, BY ORDER OF 3 AUGUST 1982, HEREBY RULES :
ARTICLE 1 OF COMMISSION REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 2546/80 OF 2 OCTOBER 1980 IS INVALID INASMUCH AS IT FIXED 31 JULY 1980 AS THE FINAL DATE FOR FORWARDING CONCLUDED CONTRACTS TO THE COMPETENT NATIONAL AGENCY .