Cases C-482/00, C-497/00, C-498/00 and C-499/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio by judgments of that court of 6 July 2000 in the cases of Aziende Agricole Ettore Raffa and Others v Azienda di Stato per gli Interventi nel Mercato Agricolo (AIMA) and the Ministry of the Treasury, the Budget and Planning (Case C-482/00); Azienda Agricola Gonal di Gonzato Simone e Stefano (C-497/00), Azienda Agricola Gianluigi Cerati and Maria Ceriali s.s. v AIMA and the Ministry of the Treasury, the Budget and Planning (Case C-498/00), and Musini Nicolò Giovanni Maria v AIMA and the Ministry of the Treasury, the Budget and Planning (Case C-499/00)
Date: 2001-04-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: agricultural quota, appeal to an administrative authority, derogation from EU law, interpretation of the law, milk, regulation of agricultural production

7.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 108/3

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio by order of that
court of 6 July 2000 in the case of Domenico Buttiglione
and Others against Azienda di Stato per gli Interventi nel
Mercato Agricolo (AIMA) and the Ministry of Agricul-
tural, Food and Forestry Policies

(Case C-481/00)

(2001/C 108/04)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 6 July 2000 of the
Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio, received at
the Court Registry on 29 December 2000, for a preliminary
ruling in Case C-481/00 Domenico Buttiglione and Others
against Azienda di Stato per gli Interventi nel Mercato Agricolo
(AIMA) and the Ministry of Agricultural, Food and Forestry
Policies, on the following questions:

(1) May the provisions contained in Articles 1 and 4 of
Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 (1) of 28 December
P92 and Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Regulation
(EEC) No 534/93 (2) of 9 March 1993 be interpreted as
meaning that it is possible, in cases of administrative or
judicial challenge to the relevant measures, to derogate
from the time-limits prescribed for the allocation of
quotas and the operation of adjustments and levies?

If not:

(2) Are the provisions contained in Articles 1 and 4 of
Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December
1992 and Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Regulation
(EEC) No 534/93 of 9 March 1993 valid, in the light of
Article 33 (ex 39) of the Treaty, in so far as they do not
provide that derogations may be made from the periods
prescribed by those provisions for the allocation of
individual reference quantities, for adjustments and levies
in cases of administrative or judicial challenge to those
provisions?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio by judgments of
that court of 6 July 2000 in the cases of Aziende Agricole
Ettore Raffa and Others v Azienda di Stato per gli
Interventi nel Mercato Agricolo (AIMA) and the Ministry
of the Treasury, the Budget and Planning (Case C-482/00);
Azienda Agricola Gonal di Gonzato Simone e Stefano
(C-497/00), Azienda Agricola Gianluigi Cerati and Maria
Ceriali s.s. v AIMA and the Ministry of the Treasury, the
Budget and Planning (Case C-498/00), and Musini Nicolo`
Giovanni Maria v AIMA and the Ministry of the Treasury,
the Budget and Planning (Case C-499/00)

(Cases C-482/00, C-497/00, C-498/00 and C-499/00)

(2001/C 108/05)

References have been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgments of 6 July 2000 of the
Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio, received at
the Court Registry on 29 December 2000, for a preliminary
ruling in the cases of Aziende Agricole Ettore Raffa and Others
v Azienda di Stato per gli Interventi nel Mercato Agricolo
(AIMA) and the Ministry of the Treasury, the Budget and
Planning (Case C-482/00); Azienda Agricola Gonal di Gonzato
Simone e Stefano (C-497/00), Azienda Agricola Gianluigi
Cerati and Maria Ceriali s.s. v AIMA and the Ministry of the
the Budget and Planning (Case C-498/00), and
Treasury,
Musini Nicolo` Giovanni Maria v AIMA and the Ministry of the
Treasury, the Budget and Planning (Case C-499/00) on the
following questions:

(1) May the provisions contained in Articles 1 and 4 of
Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 (1) of 28 December
1992 and Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Regulation
(EEC) No 534/93 (2) of 9 March 1993 be interpreted as
meaning that it is possible, in cases of administrative or
judicial challenge to the relevant measures, to derogate
from the time-limits prescribed for the allocation of
quotas and the operation of adjustments and levies?

(3) May Regulations No 3950/92 and 536/93 be interpreted
as permitting Member States to determine privileged
categories of producers who must be compensated in
priority to others, in particular by placing the ‘disadvan-
in a secondary position in relation to
taged areas’
mountain areas?

If not,

(1) OJ L 405, 31.12.1992, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 57, 10.3.1993, p. 12.

(2) Are the provisions contained in Articles 1 and 4 of
Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December
1992 and Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Regulation
(EEC) No 534/93 of 9 March 1993 valid, in the light of
Article 33 (ex 39) of the Treaty, in so far as they do not
provide that derogations may be made from the periods
prescribed by those provisions for the allocation of
individual reference quantities, for adjustments and levies
in cases of administrative or judicial challenge to those
provisions?

C 108/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

7.4.2001

(3) May Regulations No 3950/92 and 536/93 be interpreted
as meaning that the application of the system introduced
by that legislation excludes the allocation and official
notification of individual reference quantities for pro-
ducers or does it exclude the official redistribution among
its producers by the Member State of the global quantity
which that State is guaranteed?

(4) May Articles 3 and 4 of Regulation (EC) No 3950/92 be
interpreted as meaning that no official notification of
individual reference quantities need be given to producers,
or does the allocation of an individual reference quantity
exclude individual notification to those producers?

(1) OJ L 405, 31.12.1992, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 57, 10.3.1993, p. 12.

Appeal brought on 22 January 2001 by Glencore Grain
Ltd against the judgment delivered on 8 November
2000 by the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities
in Joined Cases
T-485/93, T-491/93, T-494/93 and T-61/98 between Glen-
core Grain Ltd and the Commission of the European
Communities

(Second Chamber)

(Case C-24/01 P)

(2001/C 108/06)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 8 November
2000 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communi-
ties (Second Chamber) in Joined Cases T-485/93, T-491/93,
T-494/93 and T-61/98 between Glencore Grain Ltd and the
(Agents:
Commission of
M.-J. Jonczy and H. van V1iet) was brought before the Court
of Justice of the European Communities on 22 January 2001
by Glencore Grain Ltd, represented by P.V.F. Bos and J.G.A. van
Zuuren, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the Chambers of M. Loesch, 4 Rue Carlo Hammer.

European Communities

the

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— rule that,

in its judgment of 8 November 2000, the
Court of First Instance infringed Community law and/or
procedural rules;

— rule that the Court of First Instance should have awarded
the damages applied for, and accordingly refer the
case back to the Court of First Instance for further
consideration, or alternatively itself award the appellant
the damages sought;

— allow, on appeal, the claims made by the appellant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— The Court of First Instance manifestly erred in law by
having regard exclusively to the conditions of
free
competition: where contracts are concluded at the level
of prices on the world market, the burden of proof with
regard to free competition must be less onerous. There is
no reason to adhere to the clearly formalistic rule
requiring competition between at least three undertakings
independent of each other if that will not lead to markedly
different results. The Court of First Instance therefore
displayed an erroneous conception of the law in failing
to attach primary importance to the condition relating to
the world market price, or at least in not allowing that
condition to influence its assessment of the burden of
proof with regard to free competition.

— The Court of First

Instance displayed an erroneous
conception of the law in ruling that the principle of free
competition was not complied with at the time when the
riders to the contracts were entered into:

— Community law does not require three offers to be

made in respect of each contract concluded;

— in arriving at its conclusion concerning the require-
ment of free competition, the Court of First Instance
laid down a rule lacking any foundation as regards
the objective and purpose of both Council Decision
91/658/EEC (1)
(‘the Decision’) and Commission
Regulation (EEC) No 1897/92 (2) (‘the Regulation’).
Neither of those acts requires, for the purposes of
approval pursuant to Article 4 of the Regulation,
that each contract must involve offers from at least
two other independent suppliers which must be
comparable to the offer accepted;

terms ..., [of] the responses,

— without making any express statement to that effect,
the Court of First Instance nevertheless appears to
require each supplier to comply with the obligation
imposed on the Russian authorities, in their capacity
as the recipient of the loan, requiring consideration,
‘upon being officially notified ... of the new contrac-
tual
favourable or
unfavourable, given by at least three independent
undertakings’. That rule was laid down solely in
Annex 2-A to the loan agreement concluded by the
Community. That subsequent shifting of obligations
from one party to the other is wrong in law, since
rules of which third parties (such as Glencore in the
present case) are unaware cannot be invoked against
those third parties;

— the Court of First Instance erred in its determination
of the case by failing to take into account the
Commission’s own administrative practice and the
obligations flowing therefrom;