Case C-329/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court, by order of that court of 20 July 2001, in the case of the Queen on the application of British Sugar plc against Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce
Date: 2001-10-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: customs regulations, export, export licence, interpretation of the law, quantitative restriction, sugar industry

27.10.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 303/11

Action brought on 29 August 2001 by the Kingdom of
the Netherlands against the Commission of the European
Communities

(Case C-325/01)

(2001/C 303/18)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 29 August 2001 by the Kingdom of the
Netherlands, represented by H.G. Sevenster, Head of
the
European Law Section in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. Annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 1325/2001 (1) of
29 June 2001 providing for the continued application of
safeguard measures with regard to imports of sugar
sector products with EC/OCT originating status from the
overseas countries and territories for the period 1 July to
1 December 2001;

2. Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceed-

ings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Netherlands refer to the application submitted in Case
C-452/00 (2).

(1) OJ L 177 of 30.6.2001, p. 57.
(2) OJ C 45 of 10.2.2001, p. 12.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court
of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division,
Administrative Court, by order of that court of 20 July
2001, in the case of the Queen on the application of British
Sugar plc against Intervention Board for Agricultural
Produce

(Case C-329/01)

(2001/C 303/19)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the High Court of
Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division, Adminis-
trative Court, of 20 July 2001, which was received at the Court
Registry on 4 September 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of the Queen on the application of British Sugar plc
against Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce, on the
following questions:

1.

In circumstances where:

(a)

(b)

a trader has exported a quantity of C sugar which
exceeds the amount for which export was authorised
by the licence concerned; and/or

a trader has exported C sugar after the expiry of the
validity of the licence authorising the said export;
and

(c)

even if, as a matter of fact, the relevant C sugar left
the Customs territory of the Community;

has the proof required by the first indent of Article 2(2)
of Regulation 2670/81 (1) been furnished in relation to
that export, or that element of the relevant export, which
was not covered by a valid licence?

2.

In the circumstances described in paragraph 1(a) above is
the answer to the above question different in circum-
stances where:

(a)

(b)

the trader presented to the customs authority a
customs declaration form (C88) amended in manu-
script to reflect the amount actually exported; and

the customs authority has endorsed the relevant
licence extract against the trader’s entry in the actual
amount exported?

3.

Is the answer to question 1 above different on the
assumption that the circumstances were as follows:

(a)

the trader intended to apply for an extract for
2 900 tonnes;

(b) owing to an error on the part of the trader, a licence
extract was issued for 2,9 tonnes and this 2,9 tonnes
was recorded in the records of both the Intervention
Board and the trader;

(c)

(d)

(e)

the licence extract was attributed, with the authority
of the trader, by the trader’s agent, accurately to
record
exporting
2 900 tonnes;

intention

trader’s

the

of

that licence extract was subsequently endorsed by
H.M. Customs & Excise to certify the export of
2 900 tonnes of sugar;

the sugar was subject to a Form C88 export licence
for 2 900 tonnes, which was subsequently attributed
and endorsed by H.M. Customs & Excise;

(f)

2 900 tonnes of sugar were in fact exported;

C 303/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

27.10.2001

(g)

licence extracts were subsequently applied for, and
granted, on the basis that only 2,9 tonnes had earlier
been authorized for export;

7.

In the circumstances referred to in paragraphs 33 to 35
above, is a penalty under Article 3 of Regulation 2670/81
properly levied?

(h)

each subsequent licence extract was duly attributed
and endorsed and all sugar tonnages so noted were
in fact exported;

(i)

in the result, 2 897,1 tonnes of sugar were exported
in excess of the volume authorized in the original
licence.

(1) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2670/81 of 14 September
1981 laying down detailed implementing rules in respect of sugar
production in excess of the quota (OJ L 262, 16.9.1981, p. 14).
(2) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3719/88 of 16 November
1988 laying down common detailed rules for the application of
the system of import and export licences and advance fixing
certificates for agricultural products (OJ L 331, 2.12.1988, p. 1).

4. Does Article 24 of the Regulation 3719/88 (2) enable the
competent authority to withdraw the extract or the
licence or certificate as well as any extracts previously
issued and require the competent authority to issue
without delay a corrected licence or extract or any
attribution thereto in circumstances where:

(a)

there is no obvious or manifest error on the face of
the licence or extract itself and where there has been
no error on the part of the issuing agency; and/or

(b)

the amendment is sought to be made after the expiry
of the validity of the relevant extract or head licence?

(c)

does it make a difference if the trader intended to
apply for a licence extract (from a licence already
issued) in respect of a quantity greater than that for
which he called off;

5.

If the answers to the above questions are negative, do the
provisions of Article 24 of Commission Regulation
3719/88 infringe the Community law principles of
proportionality and/or equality in that the absence of any
licence extract or
power to amend the head licence,
attributes thereto may, in the circumstances referred to
above, lead to the imposition of a fine under Article 3 of
Commission Regulation 2670/81?

6.

(a) Does the national court and/or the national auth-
ority have a discretion to vary (downwards) the
amount of the penalty to be imposed under Article 3
of Commission Regulation 2670/81?

(b)

If so, are there any factors in this case which the
Court regards as relevant to the exercise of that
discretion?

Appeal brought on 4 September 2001 by Hortiplant SAT
against the judgment delivered on 14 June 2001 by the
Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-143/99 between Horti-
plant SAT and Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-330/01 P)

(2001/C 303/20)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 14 June 2001 by
the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-143/99 between Hortiplant
SAT and the Commission of the European Communities
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 4 September 2001 by Hortiplant SAT,
represented by C. Ferna´ndez Vicién and I. Moreno-Tapia Rivas,
abogadas, with an address for service at 60 Avenue de
Cortenbergh, 1000 Brussels.

The appellant claims that the Court should:

1.

declare the present case admissible and founded;

2.

3.

4.

set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
14 June 2001 and give a final decision on the dispute;

in the alternative, send the case back to the Court of First
Instance for judgment in accordance with the decision of
the Court of Justice on points of law;

in any event, order the Commission of the European
Communities to pay all the costs arising from these
proceedings,
including those incurred as a result of
proceedings before the Court of First Instance.