1.

In this dispute between Irish Grain Board (Trading) Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘Irish Grain’) and the Minister for Agriculture, the Supreme Court of Ireland is asking the Court of Justice to interpret two Community measures: Regulation (EEC) No 974/71 of the Council of 12 May 1971 on certain measures of conjunctural policy to be taken in agriculture following the temporary widening of the margins of fluctuation for the currencies of certain Member States (Official Journal, English Special Edition 1971 (I), p. 257) and Regulation (EEC) No 1380/75 of the Commission of 29 May 1975 laying down detailed rules for the application of monetary compensatory amounts (Official Journal 1975, L 139, p. 37). In particular, the national court wishes to ascertain whether and on what conditions a trader is entitled to payment of monetary compensatory amounts on imports of grain whose release into the economy of the importing State has net been fully established. Between December 1977 and July 1978 Irish Grain, an industrial and provident society which purchases grain from its members and markets it on their behalf, exported grain from Ireland to five purchasers in Northern Ireland. During that period monetary compensatory amounts were levied on exports from Ireland to the United Kingdom and granted on imports into the United Kingdom. At the time the two countries were bound by an agreement made under Article 2 a of Regulation No 974/71, whereby the exporting State pays the monetary compensatory amounts which should be granted by the importing State. Irish Grain accordingly claimed from the Minister for Agriculture (who in Ireland is the intervention agency) payment of the monetary compensatory amounts on the grain imported into the United Kingdom. It is common ground that the documentation needed for compliance with the Community legislation on monetary compensatory amounts and on the export of the grain in question was duly completed by Irish Grain's customs clearance agent. That documentation included inter alia the control copy T 5 form which contained a declaration that the grain was ‘intended for home use in Northern Ireland’. Where grain had been exported by Irish Grain in its lorries or by a carrier acting on its behalf, the intervention agency paid the monetary compensatory amounts without delay. However, where grain had been transported by carriers acting on behalf of Northern Irish purchasers, the intervention agency considered that an administrative investigation was called for. The United Kingdom customs authorities, who were entrusted with the task of carrying out the investigation, were unable to satisfy themselves that the grain had entered the United Kingdom for home use and the Irish Minister for Agriculture therefore refused to pay the monetary compensatory amounts. Irish Grain accordingly brought an action against the intervention agency before the High Court of Ireland in order to recover from the defendant the monetary compensatory amounts claimed by it and totalling over IRL 138000. By judgments of 9 March 1981 and 19 July 1982, the High Court held that the Northern Irish purchasers or at least some of them were guilty of fraudulent manoeuvres and of irregularities. The High Court was also satisfied that Irish Grain was in no way guilty of or privy to those irregularities. It therefore ruled that the plaintiff did not forfeit its entitlement to the payment of monetary compensatory amounts and ordered the defendant to pay the amount claimed, but rejected the plaintiff's claim for interest. The Minister for Agriculture, however, appealed against the judgment of 19 July 1982 to the Supreme Court on the ground that the investigation carried out by the United Kingdom authorities and the High Court's finding regarding frauds and irregularities on the part of the purchasers justified his refusal to pay the monetary compensatory amounts claimed by Irish Grain until satisfactory evidence was produced of the entry of the grain for home use within the territory of the importing Member State. The Minister's argument was based on a number of provisions of Community law and, in particular, on Article 8 of Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 of the Council of 21 April 1970 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (Official Journal, English Special Edition 1970 (I), p. 218) and of Articles 11 and 16 of Regulation No 1380/75. Irish Grain, on the other hand, contended that the Minister was not entitled to refuse payment of the monetary compensatory amounts. It argued, in particular, that Article 8 of Regulation No 729/70 was inapplicable in this case because of the agreement concluded between the United Kingdom and Ireland under Article 2 a of Regulation No 974/71, as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1112/73 (Official Journal 1973, L 114, p. 4). In its view, when acting as the agent of the importing Member State, the intervention agency has no function in the matter other than to pay the amount claimed. Irish Grain also argued that it was entitled to the payment of interest on the monetary compensatory amounts as from the date on which payment was claimed and, further, that it was entitled to payment in pounds sterling and not in Irish pounds. In the light of those arguments and considering that the solution of the dispute called for the interpretation of Community law, the Supreme Court set in motion the procedure under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty. Accordingly, by order of 25 June 1985, the Supreme Court decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to this Court for a preliminary ruling: (a) In a case where monetary compensatory amounts are payable by it in respect of commodities exported to another Member State pursuant to the relevant Community regulations and Community law governing the payment of such monetary compensatory amounts (in particular Articles 38 to 45 of the EEC Treaty, Regulation No 974/71 of 12 May 1971, as amended, Regulation No 1380/75 of 29 May 1975, as amended, and Regulation No 3094/76 of 17 December 1976) is a Member State entitled to refuse payment when the commodities concerned have not been released into the economy of the importing Member State due to fraud or other irregularity on the part of the purchasers of the said commodities, notwithstanding that customs formalities were completed, appropriate T 5 forms issued and the ‘exporter’ or ‘person concerned’, within the meaning of the said regulations, at all times acted bona fide in relation to the said transaction? (b) Is a Member State entitled to refuse payment of monetary compensatory amounts claimed in respect of commodities exported to another Member State unless and until the claimant discharges an onus of establishing that such transactions were actually carried out and executed correctly in accordance with the Community regulations and law, and notwithstanding the production of the appropriate T 5 forms or the bona fides of the actual claimant? (c) Where the competent authority liable to pay monetary compensatory amounts has not paid them within two months from the date of receipt of sufficient supporting documentation by reason of having set in train administrative inquiries owing to the doubts concerning the said documentation, is Article 16 of Regulation No 1380/75 to be interpreted as requiring the said competent authority to pay interest on the monetary compensatory amounts and, if so, from what date and at what rate? (d) Where a Member State is obliged to charge a levy on exports under Regulation No 974/71, as amended, and by agreement with another Member State under Article 2 a of the said Regulation No 974/71 is paying the monetary compensatory amounts granted on imports by that importing Member State and which exceed the levy so that the amount paid to the person concerned is the excess of the monetary compensatory amount over the levy, are Article 2 a of Regulation No 974/71 and Article 8 of Regulation No 1380/75 to be interpreted as entitling the person concerned to be paid in the currency of the importing Member State granting the monetary compensatory amount?