Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 September 1985. - The Queen, ex parte E. D. & F. Man (Sugar) Ltd v Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce (IBAP). - Reference for a preliminary ruling: High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division - United Kingdom. - Export refunds - Forfeiture of security - Principle of proportionality. - Case 181/84.
European Court reports 1985 Page 02889
Summary
Parties
Subject of the case
Grounds
Decision on costs
Operative part
Keywords
1 . COMMUNITY LAW - PRINCIPLES - PROPORTIONALITY - PRIMARY OBLIGATION AND SECONDARY OBLIGATION - SAME PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO FULFIL - NOT ACCEPTABLE
2 . AGRICULTURE - COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKETS - SUGAR - EXPORTS TO NON-MEMBER COUNTRIES - STANDING INVITATION TO TENDER - SECURITY LODGED BY THE SUCCESSFUL TENDERER - APPLICATION FOR EXPORT LICENCE - FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH TIME-LIMIT - FORFEITURE OF ENTIRE SECURITY - PRINCIPLE OF PROPORTIONALITY - BREACH
( COUNCIL REGULATION NO 1785/81 , ART . 13 ; COMMISSION REGULATION NO 1880/83 , ART . 6 ( 3 ) AND 12 ( B ))
Summary
1 . IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH WHETHER A PROVISION OF COMMUNITY LAW IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF PROPORTIONALITY IT IS NECESSARY TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE MEANS WHICH IT EMPLOYS ARE APPROPRIATE AND NECESSARY TO ATTAIN THE OBJECTIVE SOUGHT . WHERE COMMUNITY LEGISLATION MAKES A DISTINCTION BETWEEN A PRIMARY OBLIGATION , COMPLIANCE WITH WHICH IS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO ATTAIN THE OBJECTIVE SOUGHT , AND A SECONDARY OBLIGATION , ESSENTIALLY OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE NATURE , IT CANNOT , WITHOUT BREACHING THE PRINCIPLE OF PROPORTIONALITY , PENALIZE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE SECONDARY OBLIGATION AS SEVERELY AS FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE PRIMARY OBLIGATION .
2 . ALTHOUGH , WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE STANDING INVITATION TO TENDER ORGANIZED BY REGULATION NO 1880/83 , IN ORDER TO DETERMINE LEVIES AND/OR REFUNDS ON EXPORTS OF WHITE SUGAR , THE OBLIGATION IMPOSED ON SUCCESSFUL TENDERERS TO APPLY WITHIN A SHORT PERIOD FOR AN EXPORT LICENCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 12 ( B ) OF THAT REGULATION PERFORMS A USEFUL ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTION FROM THE COMMISSION ' S POINT OF VIEW , IT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED THAT THAT OBLIGATION IS AS IMPORTANT AS THE OBLIGATION TO EXPORT , WHICH REMAINS THE ESSENTIAL AIM OF THE COMMUNITY LEGISLATION IN QUESTION .
ARTICLE 6 ( 3 ) OF REGULATION NO . 1880/83 IS INVALID INASMUCH AS IT PRESCRIBES FORFEITURE OF THE ENTIRE SECURITY AS THE PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE TIME-LIMIT IMPOSED FOR THE SUBMISSION OF APPLICATIONS FOR EXPORT LICENCES . THAT PENALTY , IMPOSED IN RESPECT OF AN INFRINGEMENT SIGNIFICANTLY LESS SERIOUS THAN THE FAILURE TO FULFIL THE PRIMARY OBLIGATION , WHICH THE SECURITY ITSELF IS INTENDED TO GUARANTEE , IS TOO DRASTIC IN RELATION TO THE EXPORT LICENCE ' S FUNCTION OF ENSURING THE SOUND MANAGEMENT OF THE MARKET IN QUESTION .
Parties
IN CASE 181/84
REFERENCE TO THE COURT UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY BY MR JUSTICE GLIDEWELL OF THE