Judgment of the Court of 5 February 1976. - Süddeutsche Zucker-Aktiengesellschaft v Hauptzollamt Mannheim. - Reference for a preliminary ruling: Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg - Germany. - Sugar. - Case 94-75.



European Court reports 1976 Page 00153

Greek special edition Page 00077

Portuguese special edition Page 00081



Summary

Parties

Subject of the case

Grounds

Decision on costs

Operative part



Keywords

1 . MEASURES ADOPTED BY THE INSTITUTIONS - METHODS OF INTERPRETATION

2 . AGRICULTURE - COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKETS - SUGAR - QUOTA SYSTEM - CALCULATION WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 1 ( 1 ) OF REGULATION NO 142/69 OF THE COMMISSION - CRITERIA

Summary

1 . ALTHOUGH ARTICLE 1 ( 2 ) OF REGULATION NO 142/69 OF THE COMMISSION DOES NOT EXPRESSLY MENTION SUGAR SWEEPINGS , BOTH LOGIC AND EQUITY LEAD NEVERTHELESS TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THEY MUST BE DEDUCTED FROM THE PRODUCTION MENTIONED IN PARAGRAPH ( 1 ) OF THE ARTICLE .

2 . QUANTITIES OF WHITE SUGAR PRODUCED FROM SUGAR SWEEPINGS FROM A PREVIOUS SUGAR YEAR ARE TO BE EXCLUDED WHEN THE QUANTITY OF SUGAR REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 1 ( 1 ) OF REGULATION NO 142/69 OF THE COMMISSION IS BEING CALCULATED .

FOR THIS PURPOSE SUGAR SWEEPINGS FROM A PREVIOUS SUGAR YEAR ARE TO BE EXPRESSED AS WHITE SUGAR IN PROPORTION TO THE SUCROSE CONTENT .

Parties

IN CASE 94/75 ,

REFERENCE TO THE COURT UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY BY THE FINANZGERICHT BADEN-WURTTEMBERG FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING IN THE ACTION PENDING BEFORE THAT COURT BETWEEN

SUDDEUTSCHE ZUCKER-AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT , MANNHEIM

AND

HAUPTZOLLAMT MANNHEIM ,

Subject of the case

ON THE INTERPRETATION OF REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 142/69 OF THE COMMISSION OF 25 JANUARY 1969 , LAYING DOWN CERTAIN DETAILED RULES FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE QUOTA SYSTEM FOR SUGAR ( OJ L 20 OF 27 . 1 . 1969 P . 1 ; ENGLISH SPECIAL EDITION 1969 ( I ), P . 18 ),

Grounds

1 BY AN ORDER OF 22 MAY 1975 , RECEIVED AT THE COURT REGISTRY ON THE FOLLOWING 3 SEPTEMBER , THE FINANZGERICHT BADEN-WURTTEMBERG , UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY , REFERRED TO THE COURT THREE QUESTIONS ON THE INTERPRETATION OF REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 142/69 OF THE COMMISSION OF 25 JANUARY 1969 , LAYING DOWN CERTAIN DETAILED RULES FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE QUOTA SYSTEM FOR SUGAR ( OJ L 20/1969 , P . 1 ).

THESE QUESTIONS WERE RAISED IN PROCEEDINGS RELATIVE TO THE COLLECTION OF THE PRODUCTION LEVY PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 27 OR REGULATION NO 1009/67/EEC OF THE COUNCIL OF 18 DECEMBER 1967 ON THE COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKET IN SUGAR ( OJ NO 308/1967 , P . 1 ), WHICH SUBJECTS THE QUANTITY OF SUGAR PRODUCED OUTSIDE THE BASIC QUOTA OF THE MANUFACTURERS IN QUESTION TO SUCH A LEVY .

2 UNDER THE TERMS OF ARTICLE 1 ( 1 ) OF REGULATION NO 142/69 ' SUGAR PRODUCTION ' FOR THE PURPOSES OF ARTICLE 27 OF REGULATION NO 1009/67/EEC MEANS THE TOTAL QUANTITY , EXPRESSED AS WHITE SUGAR , OF : WHITE SUGAR , RAW SUGAR , INVERT SUGAR AND THE SYRUPS MENTIONED THEREIN .

UNDER PARAGRAPH ( 2 ) OF THE SAME ARTICLE CERTAIN QUANTITIES ARE TO BE EXCLUDED WHEN THE QUANTITY REFERRED TO IN PARAGRAPH ( 1 ) IS BEING CALCULATED , THE PARTICULAR INTENTION BEING THE AVOIDANCE OF A DOUBLE LEVY .

3 THE SUGAR MANUFACTURER , THE PLAINTIFF IN THE MAIN ACTION , DISPUTES THE CALCULATION OF THE LEVY DEMANDED IN SO FAR AS IT REFERS TO THE SUGAR PRODUCED FROM SUGAR SWEEPINGS , THAT IS TO SAY , FROM SUGAR PRODUCED PREVIOUSLY , BUT WHICH REMAINS AFTER THE OPERATIONS OF PACKAGING AND DISPATCH IN THE FACTORY , AND WHICH IS REVOVERED BY SWEEPING , BUT WHICH MUST BECAUSE IT IS DIRTY BE REFINED AGAIN .

ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANT , SUGAR SWEEPINGS HAVING ALREADY AT THE TIME OF A PREVIOUS REFINING BEEN INCLUDED AS SUGAR PRODUCED WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 1 OF REGULATION NO 142/69 , MUST BE DEDUCTED FROM THE QUANTITY PRODUCED WHEN IT IS REFINED FOR A SECOND TIME .

AS THE MATERIAL REFINED SUFFERS A LOSS IN ITS SUCROSE CONTENT , KNOWN AS REFINING LOSS , THE QUANTITY PRODUCED BY THE SECOND REFINING OF SUGAR SWEEPINGS MUST FURTHER BE INCREASED BY THIS PERCENTAGE LOSS WHICH THEREFORE HAS ALSO TO BE DEDUCTED FROM THE SUGAR PRODUCTION SUBJECT TO THE LEVY .

THE HAUPTZOLLAMT MANNHEIM ( MANNHEIM PRINCIPAL CUSTOMS OFFICE ), THE DEFENDANT IN THE MAIN ACTION , HOWEVER , DISPUTES THIS VIEW .

4 THE FIRST QUESTION ASKS WHETHER SUGAR PRODUCTION WITHIN THE MEANING OF REGULATION NO 142/69 ALSO INCLUDES WHITE SUGAR PRODUCED FROM SUGAR SWEEPINGS ON WHICH THE PRODUCTION LEVY HAS ALREADY BEEN IMPOSED IN THE PREVIOUS SUGAR MARKETING YEAR .

THE SECOND QUESTION ASKS WHETHER IN THE EVENT OF AN AFFIRMATIVE ANSWER ARTICLE 1 ( 2 ) OF THE REGULATION , WHICH EXCLUDES CERTAIN PRODUCTS FROM THE CALCULATION OF THE PRODUCTION SUBJECT TO THE LEVY , APPLIES TO SUGAR SWEEPINGS .

THE THIRD QUESTION ASKS WHETHER THE CALCULATION OF THE QUANTITY TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE PRODUCTION AS SUGAR SWEEPINGS MUST BE BASED UPON THE QUANTITY OF SUGAR SWEEPINGS BEFORE THE SECOND REFINING , OR ON THE QUANTITY OF WHITE SUGAR PRODUCED FROM THE SUGAR SWEEPINGS AFTER SUCH REFINING .

5 ALTHOUGH ARTICLE 1 ( 2 ) OF REGULATION NO 142/69 DOES NOT EXPRESSLY MENTION SUGAR SWEEPINGS , BOTH LOGIC AND EQUITY LEAD NEVERTHELESS TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THEY MUST BE DEDUCTED FROM THE PRODUCTION MENTIONED IN PARAGRAPH ( 1 ) OF THE ARTICLE .

THE OBJECTIVE OF THE REGULATION BEING TO FIX EXACTLY THE QUANTITIES PRODUCED OUTSIDE THE QUOTA AND WHICH FOR THIS REASON ARE SUBJECT TO THE PRODUCTION LEVY PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 27 OF REGULATION NO 1009/67/EEC SUGAR SWEEPINGS SHOULD BE DEDUCTED FROM THESE QUANTITIES WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN SUBJECT TO SUCH LEVY AT THE TIME OF THEIR FIRST REFINING .

FOR THE SAME REASON ACCOUNT SHOULD BE TAKEN OF THE QUANTITY OF SUGAR WHICH AT THE FIRST REFINING WAS REGARDED AS BEING PART OF THE PRODUCTION , BUT WHICH BECAUSE OF ITS ORIGIN HAS NOT BEEN DISPOSED OF ON THE MARKET .

THESE CONCLUSIONS ARE CONFIRMED MOREOVER BY THE WORDING OF REGULATION NO 700/73 OF THE COMMISSION OF 12 MARCH 1973 ( OJ L 67/1973 , P . 12 ) WHICH REPLACED REGULATION NO 142/69 AND ARTICLE 1 ( 2 ) OF WHICH LAYS DOWN THAT THERE SHALL BE EXCLUDED , WHEN THE QUANTITY REFERRED TO IN PARAGRAPH ( 1 ) IS BEING CALCULATED , QUANTITIES OF WHITE SUGAR PRODUCED FROM SUGAR SWEEPINGS , AND WHILST ARTICLE 1 ( 4 ) LAYS DOWN THAT SUGAR SWEEPINGS FROM A PREVIOUS SUGAR YEAR SHALL BE EXPRESSED AS WHITE SUGAR IN PROPORTION TO THE SUCROSE CONTENT .

IT IS THEREFORE APPROPRIATE TO REPLY TO THE EFFECT THAT ARTICLE 1 OF REGULATION NO 142/69 MUST BE INTERPRETED IN THIS SENSE .

Decision on costs

COSTS

6 THE COSTS INCURRED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES WHICH HAS SUBMITTED ITS OBSERVATIONS TO THE COURT ARE NOT RECOVERABLE .

AS THESE PROCEEDINGS ARE , IN SO FAR AS THE PARTIES TO THE MAIN ACTION ARE CONCERNED , IN THE NATURE OF A STEP IN THE ACTION PENDING BEFORE THE FINANZGERICHT BADEN-WURTTEMBERG , THE DECISION ON COSTS IS A MATTER FOR THAT COURT .

Operative part

ON THOSE GROUNDS ,

THE COURT

IN ANSWER TO THE QUESTIONS REFERRED TO IT BY THE FINANZGERICHT BADEN-WURTTEMBERG IN ITS ORDER OF 22 MAY 1975 HEREBY RULES :

QUANTITIES OF WHITE SUGAR PRODUCED FROM SUGAR SWEEPINGS FROM A PREVIOUS SUGAR YEAR ARE TO BE EXCLUDED WHEN THE QUANTITY OF SUGAR REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 1 ( 1 ) OF REGULATION NO 142/69 OF THE COMMISSION IS BEING CALCULATED .

FOR THIS PURPOSE SUGAR SWEEPINGS FROM A PREVIOUS SUGAR YEAR ARE TO BE EXPRESSED AS WHITE SUGAR IN PROPORTION TO THE SUCROSE CONTENT .