Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) 10 January 2002 in Case C-101/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Crown Office): The Queen v Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce, ex parte: British Sugar plc (Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Sugar — Attribution as "C sugar" of a quantity of sugar produced during a given marketing year — Charge payable in respect of sugar disposed of on the internal market — Levied in the case of export with an export licence — Export refunds)
Date: 2002-04-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: common organisation of markets, export licence, import licence, interpretation of the law, sugar

6.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 84/1

I

(Information)

COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT OF JUSTICE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

10 January 2002

in Case C-101/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s
Bench Division (Crown Office): The Queen v Intervention
Board for Agricultural Produce, ex parte: British Sugar
plc (1)

(Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets —
Sugar — Attribution as ‘C sugar’ of a quantity of sugar
produced during a given marketing year — Charge payable
in respect of sugar disposed of on the internal market —
Levied in the case of export with an export licence — Export
refunds)

(2002/C 84/01)

(Language of the case: English)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-101/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the High Court of
Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division, for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
between The Queen and Intervention Board for Agricultural
Produce, ex parte: British Sugar plc, on the interpretation of
Council Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 of 30 June 1981 on the
common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (OJ
1981 L 177, p. 4), as amended by Council Regulation (EEC)
No 305/91 of 4 February 1991 (OJ 1991 L 37, p. 1), on the

validity of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2630/81 of 10
September 1981 on special detailed rules for the application
of the system of import and export licences in the sugar sector
(OJ 1981 L 258, p. 16), on the interpretation and validity of
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 1981 L 262, p. 14),
as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3559/91 of
6 December 1991 (OJ 1991 L 336, p. 26), and on the
interpretation of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87
of 27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for
the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural
products (OJ 1987 L 351, p. 1),the Court (Sixth Chamber),
composed of: F. Macken, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric
(Rapporteur), C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet and J.N. Cunha
Rodrigues,
J. Mischo, Registrar:
H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on
10 January 2002, in which it has ruled:

Judges, Advocate General:

1. Article 24(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 of
30 June 1981 on the common organisation of the markets in
the sugar sector, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC)
No 305/91 of 4 February 1991, requires an undertaking to
have in fact produced a volume of sugar equal to the sum of its
A and B quotas before it may attribute sugar as C sugar.

2. As a matter of principle the competent national authority is not
authorised to demand that an undertaking pay a charge
pursuant to Article 3(1) of 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, as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC)

C 84/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

6.4.2002

3.

No 3559/91 of 6 December 1991, where it has not informed
the undertaking of that requirement within the period prescribed
by Article 3(2) of that regulation. Exceeding the time-limit
may be permissible where the competent national authority,
without negligence on its part, did not know the details of the
undertaking’s sugar production and where that lack of knowl-
edge may reasonably be attributed to the undertaking, because
it has not acted in good faith and has not complied with all the
relevant provisions.

The competent national authority may, without infringing
Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Regulation (EEC)
No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common
detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds
on agricultural products or the general principles of Community
law, refuse to accept
retrospectively an export declaration
presented for the purpose of obtaining export refunds and of
extending the period allowed for supplying proof of export
where, because the undertaking has applied for and obtained
from that authority a C sugar export licence for sugar which it
was impossible to regard as C sugar, the undertaking has
neither applied for nor obtained the export refunds to which it
would have been entitled if the sugar had been exported as A or
B sugar.

amendments to the indicative allocation of Community initiat-
ives, communicated to the Italian Republic by letter of
19 January 1999 from the Secretary-General of the Com-
mission, and of all measures underlying or linked to that
decision, the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: N. Colneric,
President of the Second Chamber, acting for the President of
the Sixth Chamber, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur),
Judges, Advocate General:
R. Schintgen and V. Skouris,
J. Mischo, Registrar: H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, has
given a judgment on 30 January 2002, in which it:

1. Annuls the Commission’s decision of 16 December 1998
approving amendments to the indicative allocation of Com-
munity initiatives, communicated to the Italian Republic by
letter of 19 January 1999 from the Secretary-General of the
Commission;

2. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay

the costs;

3. Orders Ireland and United Kingdom of Great Britain and

Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.

(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

30 January 2002

(Sixth Chamber)

24 January 2002

in Case C-107/99: Italian Republic v Commission of the
European Communities (1)

(Structural funds — Financing of Community initiatives —
Alteration of indicative allocations)

in Case C-118/99: French Republic v Commission of the
European Communities (1)

(Clearance of accounts — EAGGF — 1995 financial year
— Arable crops)

(2002/C 84/02)

(Language of the case: Italian)

(2002/C 84/03)

(Language of the case: French)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-107/99, Italian Republic (Agent: U. Leanza, assisted
by I. M. Braguglia), v Commission of the European Communi-
ties (Agents: E. de March, K. Simonsson and H. Speyart)
supported by Ireland (Agent: J. Payne, assisted by D. McGuin-
ness, SC, and E. Kent, solicitor) and by United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: J. E. Collins, assisted
by D. Wyatt, QC,): Application for the annulment of the
Commission’s decision of 16 December 1998 approving

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-118/99, French Republic (agents:
J.-F. Dobelle,
K. Rispal-Bellanger and C. Vasak), Republic of Finland
(agent:T. Pynnä) v Commission of the European Communities
(agent: P. Oliver): Application for partial annulment of Com-
mission Decision 1999/187/EC of 3 February 1999 on the
clearance of the accounts presented by the Member States in