61978CO0092_EN
Parties
Grounds
Decision on costs
Operative part
Parties
IN CASE 92/78 R
SIMMENTHAL S.P.A ., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE IN APRILIA ( ITALY ), REPRESENTED AND ASSISTED BY EMILIO CAPPELLI AND PAOLO DE CATERINI, ADVOCATES OF THE ROME BAR, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE CHAMBERS OF CHARLES TURK, 4 RUE NICOLAS WELTER,
APPLICANT,
V
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL ADVISER, PETER KALBE, ACTING AS AGENT, ASSISTED BY GUIDO BERARDIS, A MEMBER OF THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE OFFICE OF MARIO CERVINO, LEGAL ADVISER TO THE COMMISSION, JEAN MONNET BUILDING, KIRCHBERG,
DEFENDANT,
Grounds
THE FIRST HEAD OF CLAIM
1THE FIRST HEAD OF CLAIM OF THE APPLICATION REQUESTS THE SUSPENSION, ' ' IN SO FAR AS POSSIBLE ' ', OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF COMMISSION DECISION 78/258, IN THE SENSE THAT THAT SUSPENSION SHOULD BE ORDERED ON AN INTERIM BASIS AND THAT ' ' THE COMMISSION BE ORDERED TO INSTRUCT THE NATIONAL AUTHORITIES TO SUSPEND THE ISSUE OF IMPORT LICENCES CORRESPONDING TO THE CONTRACTS OF PURCHASE ENTERED INTO BY SUCCESSFUL TENDERERS WITH THE INTERVENTION AGENCIES ' ' .
2PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 1, THAT DECISION FIXES THE MINIMUM PRICES TO BE APPLIED IN RELATION TO MEAT ' ' FOR THE INVITATION TO TENDER HELD IN ACCORDANCE WITH REGULATION ( EEC ) 2900/77, FOR WHICH THE TIME-LIMIT FOR SUBMITTING TENDERS WAS 30 JANUARY 1978 ' ' .
3ARTICLE 2 OF THE DECISION FIXES, ' ' FOR THE PERIOD 1 JANUARY TO 31 MARCH 1978 ' ', THE MAXIMUM QUANTITIES OF MEAT INTENDED FOR THE PROCESSING INDUSTRY TO BE ACCEPTED FOR IMPORTATION WITH TOTAL SUSPENSION OF THE LEVY .
4IT IS COMMON GROUND THAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS IN FORCE APPLICATIONS FOR IMPORT LICENCES RELATING TO THE QUANTITIES AVAILABLE FOR IMPORTATION UNDER THE ABOVE-MENTIONED CONDITIONS DURING THE PERIOD IN QUESTION HAD TO BE SUBMITTED BY 31 MARCH 1978 .
5ON THE OTHER HAND, ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 11A ( 6 ) OF REGULATION NO 585/77, ' ' THE LICENCE SHALL BE ISSUED WITHOUT DELAY TO THE APPLICANT ' ' .
6HOWEVER, DURING THE HEARING THE APPLICANT STATED THAT IN ITS OPINION, IN SO FAR AS ITALY IS CONCERNED, NOT ALL THE LICENCES IN QUESTION HAVE YET BEEN ISSUED TO THOSE CONCERNED BY THE NATIONAL AUTHORITIES .
7EVEN ASSUMING FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT THAT THAT STATEMENT IS CORRECT, IT SHOULD BE EMPHASIZED THAT THE DECISION IN DISPUTE IS ADDRESSED TO ALL THE MEMBER STATES AND IT MAY BE PRESUMED THAT WITHIN THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE THE MAJORITY OF THE SAID LICENCES HAVE ALREADY BEEN ISSUED, SO THAT FROM THIS POINT OF VIEW THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE DECISION IN DISPUTE HAS BEEN EXHAUSTED AND IT CAN THEREFORE NO LONGER BE THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF A SUSPENSORY MEASURE .
8MOREOVER, TO RESTRICT THE APPLICATION OF THE MEASURE SOUGHT TO LICENCES WHICH HAVE NOT YET BEEN ISSUED WOULD AMOUNT TO DEPRIVING THOSE CONCERNED OF A RIGHT CONFERRED UPON THEM BY THE COMMUNITY RULES IN FORCE .
9EVEN IF IT IS ACCEPTED THAT THE COURT IS EMPOWERED TO ADOPT AN INTERIM MEASURE HAVING SO SERIOUS AN EFFECT ON THE RIGHTS AND INTERESTS OF THIRD PARTIES, WHO ARE NOT PARTIES TO THE DISPUTE AND HAVE NOT THEREFORE BEEN ABLE TO EXPRESS THEIR VIEWS, SUCH A MEASURE COULD HOWEVER ONLY BE JUSTIFIED IF, IN ITS ABSENCE, THE APPLICANT WOULD BE EXPOSED TO A SITUATION WHICH THREATENED ITS VERY EXISTENCE .
10NO SUCH SITUATION EXISTS IN THE CASE IN POINT AND THE FIRST HEAD OF CLAIM MUST THEREFORE BE DISMISSED .
THE SECOND HEAD OF CLAIM
11UNDER ITS SECOND HEAD THE APPLICATION REQUESTS THE SUSPENSION, ' ' UNTIL PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL JUDGMENT ' ', OF ' ' THE APPLICATION OF THE SPECIAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE IMPORTATION OF FROZEN MEAT INTENDED FOR THE PROCESSING INDUSTRY ' ' .
12THAT REQUEST MUST BE UNDERSTOOD AS REFERRING IN ESSENCE TO THE COMPLEX OF REGULATIONS ADOPTED BY THE COMMISSION IN IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE 14 OF REGULATION NO 805/68 IN ITS AMENDED VERSION AS REFERRED TO IN COUNCIL REGULATION NO 425/77, IN SO FAR AS THE APPLICANT HAS DISPUTED THOSE REGULATIONS IN ITS PRINCIPAL APPLICATION .
13IN ADOPTING THE RULES IN QUESTION THE COMMISSION PERFORMED THE TASK ENTRUSTED TO IT BY THE COUNCIL UNDER THE TERMS OF THE SAID ARTICLE 4 ( 4 ), THAT IS TO SAY, THE TASK OF DETERMINING THE DETAILED RULES FOR THE APPLICATION OF THAT ARTICLE .
14SHOULD THE OCCASION ARISE, JURISDICTION TO RULE AS TO THE LAWFULNESS OF THE PROVISIONS WHEREBY THE COMMISSION LAID DOWN THOSE DETAILED RULES DOES NOT BELONG TO THE COURT IN THE CONTEXT OF INTERLOCUTORY PROCEEDINGS BUT ONLY ON THE OCCASION OF A JUDGMENT ON THE PRINCIPAL APPLICATION .
15IT MAY SUFFICE TO NOTE THAT IF THE APPLICATION FOR THE ADOPTION OF INTERIM MEASURES WERE GRANTED, ALL THE PROVISIONS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE 14 OF REGULATION NO 805/68 WOULD THEREBY BE JEOPARDIZED .
16THE APPLICATION UNDER CONSIDERATION IS THEREFORE AIMED, IN SUBSTANCE, AT DEPRIVING THE SAID ARTICLE 14 OF ALL EFFECT UNTIL THE COURT HAS GIVEN JUDGMENT ON THE PRINCIPAL APPLICATION .
17MOREOVER, AS IS CLEAR FROM THE SECOND TO THE FIFTH RECITALS OF THE PREAMBLE TO REGULATION NO 425/77, THE AMENDMENTS MADE BY THAT REGULATION TO ARTICLE 14 OF REGULATION NO 805/68 WERE PROMPTED BY THE DESIRE TO AVOID A RECURRENCE OF THE SITUATION WHICH HAD ALREADY OCCURRED PREVIOUSLY, CONSISTING IN A MARKET PRICE SLUMP FOLLOWING MASSIVE IMPORTS .
18IT FOLLOWS THAT THE MEASURE SOUGHT MIGHT HAVE SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES ON THE MARKET IN BEEF AND VEAL AND ADVERSELY AFFECT THE INTERESTS OF AN INCALCULABLE NUMBER OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS AND TRADERS .
19THE SCOPE AND POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES OF SUCH A MEASURE WOULD RENDER IT OUT OF ALL PROPORTION TO THE INDIVIDUAL INTEREST WHICH THE APPLICANT WISHES TO SAFEGUARD .
20DURING THE HEARING THE APPLICANT INTIMATED THAT IT MIGHT BE SATISFIED WITH INTERIM MEASURES OF A LESS INCISIVE CHARACTER THAN THOSE REQUESTED BY IT IN ITS APPLICATION .
21HOWEVER, IT PUT FORWARD NO PRECISE SUBMISSIONS ON THIS MATTER .
22IN VIEW OF ALL THESE FACTS THE SECOND HEAD OF CLAIM IN THE APPLICATION MUST ALSO BE DISMISSED .
Decision on costs
23THE DECISION ON COSTS SHOULD BE RESERVED UNTIL THE FINAL JUDGMENT IN CASE 92/78 .
Operative part
ON THOSE GROUNDS,
THE PRESIDENT,
BY WAY OF INTERLOCUTORY DECISION,
HEREBY ORDERS AS FOLLOWS :
1 . THE APPLICATION IS DISMISSED ;
2 . COSTS ARE RESERVED .