Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 November 1986. - A. Maas & Co. NV v Bundesanstalt für landwirtschaftliche Marktordnung. - Reference for a preliminary ruling: Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main - Germany. - Forfeiture of security. - Case 21/85.
European Court reports 1986 Page 03537
Summary
Parties
Subject of the case
Grounds
Decision on costs
Operative part
Keywords
1 . COMMUNITY LAW - PRINCIPLES - PROPORTIONALITY - PRINCIPAL OBLIGATION AND SECONDARY OBLIGATION - SAME PENALTY - NOT PERMISSIBLE
2 . AGRICULTURE - COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY - FOOD AID - IMPLEMENTATION - CONTRACT TERMS - CONDITIONS FOR CARRIAGE BY SEA - OBLIGATIONS OF SUCCESSFUL TENDERER REGARDING SHIPMENT PERIOD AND CHOICE OF VESSEL - SCOPE - CONDITIONS REGARDING SECURITY - USE OF A VESSEL NOT CONFORMING EXACTLY TO THE PRESCRIBED CONDITIONS - TOTAL FORFEITURE - PRINCIPLE OF PROPORTIONALITY - BREACH
( COMMISSION REGULATIONS NOS 1974/80 , ARTS 4 ( 4 ) ( D ), 5 ( 1 ) AND 20 ( 1 ), AND 588/81 , ANNEX A , POINT 16 )
Summary
1 . IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER A PROVISION OF COMMUNITY LAW CONTEMPLATING FORFEITURE OF A SECURITY IN ITS ENTIRETY IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF PROPORTIONALITY , IT IS NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH WHETHER THE OBLIGATIONS WHOSE FULFILMENT IT IS INTENDED TO ENSURE MUST BE REGARDED AS PRINCIPAL OBLIGATIONS WHICH ARE OF FUNDAMENTAL IMPORTANCE TO THE PROPER FUNCTIONING OF THE COMMUNITY SYSTEM IN QUESTION AND WHOSE INFRINGEMENT MAY BE PUNISHED BY FORFEITURE OF THE ENTIRE SECURITY , WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY BREACH OF THE PRINCIPLE OF PROPORTIONALITY , OR WHETHER THEY ARE SECONDARY OBLIGATIONS WHOSE INFRINGEMENT SHOULD NOT BE PUNISHED WITH THE SAME RIGOUR AS IS APPLIED TO THE FAILURE TO FULFIL A PRINCIPAL OBLIGATION .
2 . WHERE A SUCCESSFUL TENDERER VERY SLIGHTLY EXCEEDS THE SHIPMENT PERIOD OR USES SHIPS ENGAGED IN LINER TRADING WHICH ARE MORE THAN 15 YEARS OLD BUT ARE SUBSTANTIALLY AS RELIABLE AS SHIPS LESS THAN 15 YEARS OLD , HE DOES NOT THEREBY INFRINGE HIS OBLIGATIONS UNDER POINT 16 OF ANNEX A TO REGULATION NO 588/81 AND ARTICLE 4 ( 4 ) ( D ) OF REGULATION NO 1974/80 ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF FOOD AID .
MOREOVER , THE SECOND INDENT OF ARTICLE 20 ( 1 ) OF REGULATION NO 1974/80 INFRINGES THE PRINCIPLE OF PROPORTIONALITY IN SO FAR AS ITS EFFECT IS THAT THE SECURITY FURNISHED PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 5 OF THE REGULATION IS TO BE DECLARED WHOLLY FORFEIT WHERE THE GOODS IN QUESTION ARE TRANSPORTED IN VESSELS WHICH ARE MORE THAN 15 YEARS OLD AND NOT ENGAGED IN LINER TRADING BUT WHICH ARE LISTED IN THE TOP CLASS IN RECOGNIZED SHIPPING CLASSIFICATION REGISTERS .
Parties
IN CASE 21/85
REFERENCE TO THE COURT UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY BY THE VERWALTUNGSGERICHT ( ADMINISTRATIVE COURT ) FRANKFURT AM MAIN FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING IN THE PROCEEDINGS PENDING BEFORE THAT COURT BETWEEN
A . MAAS & CO . NV , ANTWERP ,
AND
BUNDESANSTALT FUR LANDWIRTSCHAFTLICHE MARKTORDNUNG ( FEDERAL OFFICE FOR