3.

I could thus dispense with examining the third obiection of madmissirnlitv. But that ooiection is well-founded too In that connection the Council pointed out that the applicant made no submission challenging the justification of the production lesy on isoglucose as an instrument ot marke: organisation and that instead it takes the view that theCouncil, in view of its Decision of 21 April 1970, ought not to treat the revenue resulting from the levy as Communities' own resources without following the procedure under Article 201 of the EEC Treaty. If the applicant were right in its argument it would not as a result be exempted from the levy; at most the consequence would be that the revenue could not accrue to the Community budget. It is clear from this, however, that the applicant cannot be said to have an interest requiring legal protection and that therefore the application, not being based on any other submission, must also be regarded as inadmissible in this respect. The applicant responded to that argument by referring to the intended purpose of the levy, namely to cover losses arising from the financing of exports of sugar surpluses. That purpose may only be achieved, according to the applicant, if the revenue from the levies is treated as own resources within the meaning of the Council Decision of 21 April 1970 but not if it accrues to the budgets of the Member States. Its correct budgetar) treatment is therefore crucial. The charging of the levy is therefore not permissible so long as no provision is made, in the procedure laid down for thai purpose, by which the Community ma\make use of the revenue as own resources. So far as this issue is concerned, the first point to note is that a significant innovation was introduced by Regulation No 1785/81 inasmuch as under it — as is apparent from the 11th recital in the preamble and Article 28 — sugar and isoglucose producers are made to bear the nil cost ot export losses The production lesies to be paid by them do not constitute, as in earlier vears. merely a contribution to that cost, but must cover the losses in full, if need be by spreading them over several marketing years. The Council infers from this that we are now concerned with intervention measures to stabilize the markets adopted under Article 43 of the EEC Treaty and already approved in principle by the Court in its decisions and that it is consequently not necessary to describe levies, which form part of those measures and which pursue a particular objective in the context of the organization of the markets in sugar, as own resources within the meaning of the Council Decision in respect of which, as the applicant itself has pointed out, a specific compulsory use is not permissible. In fact, the system thus created can also function perfectly well if the levies are regarded as other revenue within the meaning of Article 4 (I) of the Council Decision of April 1970 to which, because that revenue does not accrue to the budget, the procedure mentioned in the second paragraph of Article 2 does not apply. In that connection and in support of trie view that, as well as the general budget, certain related revenue might have come into existence, the Council was able to rely on the case-law of the Court on the issue of the coresponsibility levy introduced in the context of the organization of the market in milk and milk products (Case 138/78 ( 3 )). The sole decisive factor in that case was that it concerned a measure to stabilize the market which came within the terms of Anieles 39 and 40 of the EEC Treaty and tor which a legal basis is to be found in Article 43. Mr Advocate General Mayras expressly stated that Article 231 of the EEC Treaty in no way redudes the Council, within the framework of specific rules and pamcuiarlv in the context ot the common agricultural policy, from generating ownresources of that nature. In that respect the Council was able to rely on the judgment in Case 66/80 ( 4 ) which concerned the provision of securities in connection with the obligation to purchase skimmed-milk powder. Forfeited securities were used to reduce intervention expenditure in the context of the organization of the market in milk and milk products. In the judgment this was found to be justified on the basis of .Article 43 of the EEC Treaty and it was expressly declared that the amounts in question constituted Communities' own resources within the meaning of Article 4 (1) of the Council Decision of 21 April 1970. Furthermore, the Council was also able — and this also has a bearing on the question of a sufficient legal interest in bringing the action — to claim that, even if the applicant's premise were accepted and it were assumed that there had been an unlawful creation of Communities' own resources, the result would not necessarily be that the charging of the production levy is unlawful because it is possible to envisage other budgetary techniques which would enable the objective pursued to be achieved without the Communities' participating in the costs of disposal. It would thus be conceivable, if the production levies had to accrue to national budgets, that additional payments under Article 4 (1) of the Council Decision of 21 April 1970 could compensate for that or it might also be conceivable for the Community provisionally to take up into its general budget the charges arising until ratiticauon by the national parliaments In my view, these considerations lusuh inr conclusion that as tar as the budgeiarv treatment of the production levies is concerned the applicant has no legitimate interest in taking proceedings and that therefore the application is inadmissible for that reason as well.