Case C-150/10: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles (Belgium)) — Bureau d’intervention et de restitution belge (BIRB) v Beneo-Orafti SA (Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Sugar — Nature and scope of transitional quotas allocated to an undertaking producing sugar — Possibility for an undertaking receiving restructuring aid for the marketing year 2006/2007 to use the transitional quota allocated to that undertaking — Calculation of the amount to be recovered and of the penalty to be applied in the case of non-compliance with commitments entered into under the restructuring plan — Ne bis in idem principle)
Date: 2011-07-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: aid for restructuring, common agricultural policy, interpretation of the law, production quota, reimbursement of aid, sugar industry








C_2011269EN.01001301.xml










10.9.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 269/13





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles (Belgium)) — Bureau d’intervention et de restitution belge (BIRB) v Beneo-Orafti SA
(Case C-150/10) (1)

(Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Sugar - Nature and scope of transitional quotas allocated to an undertaking producing sugar - Possibility for an undertaking receiving restructuring aid for the marketing year 2006/2007 to use the transitional quota allocated to that undertaking - Calculation of the amount to be recovered and of the penalty to be applied in the case of non-compliance with commitments entered into under the restructuring plan - Ne bis in idem principle)
2011/C 269/20
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Bureau d’intervention et de restitution belge (BIRB)

Defendant: Beneo-Orafti SA

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles — Interpretation of Article 9 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 493/2006 of 27 March 2006 laying down transitional measures within the framework of the reform of the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector, and amending Regulations (EC) No 1265/2001 and (EC) No 314/2002 (OJ 2006 L 89, p. 11) — Interpretation of Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 of 20 February 2006 establishing a temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry in the Community and amending Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2006 L 58, p. 42) — Interpretation of Articles 26 and 27 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 968/2006 of 27 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 establishing a temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry in the Community (OJ 2006 L 176, p. 32) — Nature and scope of the transitional quotas allocated to an undertaking engaged in the production of sugar — Whether the grant of a transitional quota to an undertaking in receipt of restructuring aid for the marketing year 2006/2007 is compatible with the legislation of the European Union — Calculation of the amount to be recovered and of the penalty to be applied in the case of failure to meet commitments entered into under the restructuring plan

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 3(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 of 20 February 2006 establishing a temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry in the Community and amending Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy must be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘quota’ in that provision also includes the transitional quotas within the meaning of Article 9 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 493/2006 of 27 March 2006 laying down transitional measures within the framework of the reform of the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector, and amending Regulations (EC) No 1265/2001 and (EC) No 314/2002.










2.


Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation No 320/2006 must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the commitment to renounce the quota for the production of sugar, isoglucose and inulin syrup that has been allocated to an undertaking and assigned by it to one or more of its factories, referred to in that provision, takes effect on the date when, having regard to the information that is communicated to it or that is published in the Official Journal of the European Union, the undertaking that makes that commitment is in a position to know, as a reasonably diligent undertaking, that, in the view of the competent authorities, the conditions for obtaining the restructuring aid set out in Article 5(2) of that regulation have been fulfilled.










3.


Articles 26(1) and 27 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 968/2006 of 27 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation No 320/2006 and Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector must be interpreted as meaning that a production such as that at issue in the main proceedings, on the assumption that it is contrary to the commitment to renounce the quota for the production of sugar, isoglucose and inulin syrup that has been allocated to an undertaking and assigned by it to one or more of its factories, referred to in Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation No 320/2006, may give rise to recovery of the aid, the imposition of a penalty and the collection of the levy on surpluses, as respectively set out in those provisions. With regard to the penalty under Article 27(3) of Regulation No 968/2006, it is for the referring court to assess whether, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the non-compliance can be regarded as having been committed intentionally or as a result of grave negligence. The principles of ne bis in idem, proportionality and non-discrimination must be interpreted as not precluding the cumulative application of those measures.










4.


Article 26(1) of Regulation No 968/2006 must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, if an undertaking has complied with its commitment partially to dismantle the production facilities of the factories concerned but not its commitment to renounce the quota for the production of sugar, isoglucose and inulin syrup that has been allocated to it and assigned by it to one or more of its factories, referred to in Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation No 320/2006, the amount of the aid to be recovered is equal to the part of the aid corresponding to the commitment that has not been complied with. That part of the aid must be determined on the basis of the amounts laid down in Article 3(5) of Regulation No 320/2006.






(1)  OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.