CELEX: C1995/208/02
Language: en
Date: 1995-08-12 00:00:00
Title: Appeal by the Associazione Agricoltori della Provincia di Rovigo, Cirillo Brena, Associazione Polesana Coltivatori Diretti di Rovigo and Consorzio Cooperative Pescatori del Polesine against the order of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 21 February 1995 in Case T-117/94, Associazione Agricoltori della Provincia di Rovigo, Consorzio Cooperative Pescatori del Polesine, Cirillo Brena, Mauro Girello and Greguoldo Daniele against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-142/95 P)

12 . 8 . 95            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 208/ 1
                                                                   I
                                                            (Information)
                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                         COURT OF JUSTICE
References for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura                  Agricoltori della Provincia di Rovigo, Cirillo Brena,
Circondariale di Torino by orders of that court of 10 March           Associazione Polesana Coltivatori Diretti di Rovigo and
1995 and 18 April 1995 in criminal proceedings pending                Consorzio Cooperative Pescatori del Polesine, represented
        before that court against unidentified persons                by Yvone Cacciavillani , with an address for service in
                ( Cases C-74/95 and C-129/95 )                        Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alain Lorang, 51 Rue
                                                                      Albert l er, against the order of the Court of First Instance of
                          ( 95/C 208/01 )
                                                                      the European Communities of 21 February 1995 in Case
                                                                      T-l 17/94 against the Commission of the European
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                Communities .
European Communities by orders of the Pretura
Circondariale ( District Magistrate's Court ), Turin, of
10 March 1995 and 18 April 1995 , which were received at              The appellants claims that the Court should :
the Court Registry on, respectively, 30 March 1995 and
20 April 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the criminal              ( a ) annul the order of the Court of First Instance of
proceedings pending before that court against unidentified                  21 February 1995 in Case T-l 17/94 ( 1 ), which declared
persons on a question concerning the interpretation of                      inadmissible the appellant's action under Article 173 of
Council Directive 90/270/EEC (') on the minimum safety                      the EC Treaty;
and health requirements for work with display screen
equipment and, in particular, of Article 2 ( c ), Article 9(1 )       ( b ) declare the action admissible:
and ( 2 ), Article 4 and Article 5 in conjunction with
Article 2 ( b ) and (c ), and of Article 4 and Article 5 in           (c ) reimburse the appellant's costs , as provided for by
conjunction with Sections 2 and 3 of the Annex to the                       law .
Directive .
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
(M OJ No L 156 , 29 . 5 . 1990 , p . 14 .
                                                                      The appellants allege error of law, infringement of the
                                                                      second paragraph of Article 173 of the EC Treaty, and error
                                                                      in the premise that the conditions for an action were not
                                                                      met. By its contested decision, the Commission of the
Appeal by the Associazione Agricoltori della Provincia di             European Communities financed a programme of actions
Rovigo, Cirillo Brena, Associazione Polesana Coltivatori              instrumental in creating a Po Delta park . Such measures,
Diretti di Rovigo and Consorzio Cooperative Pescatori del             which affected only the delta and were expressly aimed at
Polesine against the order of the Court of First Instance of          preserving its habitat in anticipation of the future park,
the European Communities of 21 February 1995 in Case                  required that agricultural interests, or at least the
T-l 17/94 , Associazione Agricoltori della Provincia di               organizations most representative of such interests, should
                                                                      be consulted .
Rovigo, Consorzio Cooperative Pescatori del Polesine,
Cirillo Brena, Mauro Girello and Greguoldo Daniele
  against the Commission of the European Communities                  Although there is no specific provision expressly requiring
                                                                      the state to consult the economic and social interests
                       ( Case C-142/ 95 P )                           concerned , there can nevertheless be no doubt as to the
                          ( 95 /C 208/02 )                            existence of qualities which are peculiar to them or of
                                                                      factual situations which differentiate them from all other
An appeal was brought before the Court of Justice of the              persons, sufficient to confer an interest in bringing an action
European Communities on 4 May 1 995 by the Associazione               under Article 173 of the EC Treaty.
 ---pagebreak--- No C 208/2              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      12 . 8 . 95
Under Community case-law, the applicant associations                          seed , colza seed and sunflower seed for the 1994/95
were individually concerned by the contested decision, since                  marketing year (*);
the capacity to negotiate in Community matters in relation
to a given policy constitutes sufficient capacity for an                ( b) order the Commission to pay the costs.
association representing a category of persons to challenge a
Community decision which is not addressed to it
individually but which concerns that policy.                            Contentions       and principal      arguments     adduced       in
                                                                        support:
I 1 ) OJ No C 146 , 28 . 5 . 1994 , p . 8 .
                                                                        — As regards the reduction by 20 % of the amount of the
                                                                            compensatory payment to be made to the Portuguese
                                                                             producers of sunflower seeds (Annex I, II ( 2 ) of the
                                                                            contested Regulation ): miscalculation of the overshoot
                                                                             of the maximum guaranteed area ( MGA ) by the
                                                                             Portuguese producers of sunflower seeds:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Toulouse Police
Court by order of that court of 4 April 1995 in the case of                 — The reduction of the basic EC-12 area resulting from
            Ministere Public v. Jean-Louis Maurin                                set-aside was not applicable to the Portuguese
                         ( Case C-144/95 )                                       producers who, in the 1994/95 marketing year,
                            ( 95/C 208/03 )                                      qualified for different treatment, as prescribed by the
                                                                                 Act of Accession . Thus, the overshoot by the
                                                                                 Portuguese producers of the MGA for the growing of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                           sunflower seeds should have been determined by the
European Communities by an order of the Toulouse Police                          Commission by reference to the MGA of 122 000
Court of 4 April 1995 , which was lodged at the Court                            hectares and not by the method adopted by the
Registry on 10 May 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the                        Commission, namely on the basis of that area subject
case of Ministere Public ( Public Prosecutor's Office ) v.                       to a deduction of 15 % in respect of set-aside .
Jean-Louis Maurin on the following question :
                                                                             — In any event, the Commission miscalculated the area
Is the procedure for establishing whether an offence has                         on which, in that marketing year, the Portuguese
been committed , as laid down by the Law of 1 August 1905                        producers could grow sunflowers without being
on frauds and falsifications relating to products or services                    penalized . Under the Blair House Agreement, which
concerning the labelling and presentation of food products,                      was transposed into Community legislation, the area
and, more particularly, the fact that a report is not signed by                  within the Community territory sown by small
the person concerned by an investigation, compatible with                        producers cannot be taken into account by the
 the general principles of law elicited by the Court of Justice,                 Commission in calculating the overshoot of the
such as observance of the rights of the defence and of the                       National Reference Areas : account should be taken
adversarial nature of proceedings ?                                              only of the area cultivated by producers operating
                                                                                 under the general regime ('professional' producers ).
                                                                                 Since the Portuguese 'professional ' producers
                                                                                 cultivated 103 875 hectares rather than the 103 700
                                                                                 hectares ( 122 000 less 15 % in respect of set-aside )
                                                                                 which could be cultivated without penalty, there was
                                                                                 practically no overshoot of the MGA.
 Action brought on 12 May 1995 by the Portuguese Republic
              against the European Commission
                                                                             — Even if the Commission had grounds for not
                          ( Case C-l 50/95 )
                                                                                 excluding the areas sown by small producers from
                             ( 95/C 208/04 )                                     the calculation of the overshoot of the MGA
                                                                                 attributed to Portugal in respect of the cultivation of
                                                                                 sunflowers, it was incumbent on the Commission to
 An action against the European Commission was brought                           deduct from the MGA an area of 21 397 hectares,
 before the Court of Justice on 12 May 1995 by the
                                                                                 that is to say the area actually farmed by small
 Portuguese Republic, represented by Dr Joao de Mota                             producers exempted from the set-aside requirement,
 Campos and Dr Luis Ines Fernandes, acting as agents, with                       in order to determine such area as might be subject to
 an address for service in Luxembourg at the Portuguese                          set-aside . Thus, the maximum level of the penalty to
 Embassy, 33 Allee Scheffer.
                                                                                 which the Portuguese producers could as a whole
                                                                                 have been liable is 17% rather than the 20%
 The applicant claims that the Court should :                                    calculated by the Commission.
 (a ) declare null and void Commission Regulation (EC )                      — The applicant expressly alleges that the provisions of
       No 307/95 establishing corrected final regional                            Council Regulations (EEC ) No 1765/92 ( 2 ) and
       reference amounts for producers of soya beans, rape                        (EEC ) No 232/94 ( 3 ) are illegal for breach of the