CELEX: 52013PC0527
Language: en
Date: 2013-07-17
Title: Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION fixing the production levies in the sugar sector for the marketing years 2001/2002, 2002/2003, 2003/2004, 2004/2005, 2005/2006, the coefficient required for calculating the additional levy for the marketing years 2001/2002 and 2004/2005 and the amounts to be paid by sugar manufacturers to beet sellers in respect of the difference between the maximum amount of the levies and the amount of these levies to be charged for the marketing years 2002/2003, 2003/2004 and 2005/2006

|
			
		
		
		52013PC0527
		
			Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION fixing the production levies in the sugar sector for the marketing years 2001/2002, 2002/2003, 2003/2004, 2004/2005, 2005/2006, the coefficient required for calculating the additional levy for the marketing years 2001/2002 and 2004/2005 and the amounts to be paid by sugar manufacturers to beet sellers in respect of the difference between the maximum amount of the levies and the amount of these levies to be charged for the marketing years 2002/2003, 2003/2004 and 2005/2006 /* COM/2013/0527 final - 2013/0252 (NLE) */
			
				
		
		
			
			   	EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM
1.           CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL
On 27 September 2012, the Court of Justice
delivered its judgment in joined cases C-113/10, C-147/10 and C-234/10, Zuckerfabrik
Jülich AG v Hauptzollamt Aachen, British Sugar plc v Rural Payments Agency,
Tereos v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects (the “Jülich-II”
judgement) by which it annulled Commission Regulation (EC) No 1193/2009 of 3
November 2009 correcting Regulations (EC) No 1762/2003, (EC) No 1775/2004, (EC)
No 1686/2005, (EC) No 164/2007 and fixing the production levies in the sugar
sector for the marketing years 2002/2003, 2003/2004, 2004/2005, 2005/2006.
Regulation (EC) No 1193/2009, annulled in
its entirety by the judgement of 27 September 2012, retroactively corrected the
production levies for the marketing years 2002/2003, 2003/2004, 2004/2005, 2005/2006
as previously fixed by the Commission following the annulment by the Court of
Regulations (EC) Nos 1762/2003, 1775/2004, 1686/2005 and 164/2007, with its
judgement of 8 May 2008 in Joined Cases C-5/06, and C-23/06 to C-36/06,
Zuckerfabrik Jülich and Others (‘Jülich I’) and subsequent order of 6 October
2008, in Joined Cases C-175/07 to C-184/07, SAFBA and Others ('SAFBA').
The levies for the marketing years in
question were originally set by the Commission pursuant to Council Regulation
(EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in
the sugar sector ('the basic regulation'), which provided, for the marketing
years 2001/2002, 2002/2003, 2003/2004, 2004/2005, 2005/2006, for a
self-financing system of the sugar sector by flexible production levies. 
Under Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001,
the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector was based on the
principle that producers should bear full financial responsibility for the
losses incurred each marketing year from disposing of that part of Community
production under quota which is surplus to the Community's internal consumption
and on a differentiation of price guarantees for disposal, reflecting the
production quota allocated to each undertaking.
The principle of financial responsibility
was assured by producers being charged a basic production levy on all
production of A and B sugar, limited to 2% of the intervention price for white
sugar and a B levy charged on the production of B sugar up to a limit of 37.5%
of that price. When those levies did not allow achieving the objective of
self-financing of the sector each marketing year, the basic regulation provided
for an additional levy to be charged to producers. Article 15 of the basic
regulation provided for the elements to be taken into consideration for the
calculation of the levies.
In its above mentioned judgements, the
Court did not put into question the production levy system and the principle by
which the sugar producers had to bear the full financial responsibility for the
losses incurred in each marketing year by disposing of that part of production
under quota which is surplus to the Union's internal consumption and were accordingly
liable to a levy on their production under quota, to be fixed by the Commission
with a view to covering the losses incurred during the marketing years from
2001/2002, 2002/2003, 2003/2004, 2004/2005, 2005/2006.
The Court has ruled, however, that the Commission
has repeatedly erred in calculating the annual levies set for the period in
question pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001. Lastly, it found
that the method used by the Commission in its Regulation (EC) No 1193/2009 to
fix the levies was incorrect because it led to an over-estimation of the costs
to be covered and to consequently over-charging sugar producers.
As a result of the invalidity of Regulation
(EC) No 1193/2009, the Court held that individuals are entitled to
reimbursement of the excess sums unduly paid in respect of the invalid
production levies collected by the Member States over the period in question as
well as to the payment of interest on such sums. 
The judgement has left a legal void as to
the exact amount of the levies for the marketing years 2002/2003, 2003/2004,
2004/2005, 2005/2006. Therefore, to comply with the judgement, the levies set
for these marketing years should be replaced by new ones, calculated according
to the method validated by the Court, with retroactive effect. 
2.           RESULTS OF CONSULTATIONS
WITH THE INTERESTED PARTIES AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS
The Commission has presented to the Member
States various working documents relating to the determination of the corrected
sugar levies and the follow-up to the Court's judgement of 27 September 2012.
Those working documents were presented at the Management Committee for the
Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets on 6 December 2012, on 20 December
2012, on 24 January 2013 and a consolidated version on 28 February 2013.
A number of Member States (DE, BE, LV, IT,
FR, NL, UK, CZ) called the Commission to prepare a legal act correcting the
levies, which should include the reimbursement by the Union budget of interest on
reimbursements made or to be made to the sugar producers who paid excess levies
in the relevant years, by the concerned Member States. Some delegations also
suggested that interest should be calculated at a uniform rate at the European
level.
3.           LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE
PROPOSAL
Pursuant to Article 266 TFEU 'The
institution whose act has been declared void …shall be required to take the
necessary measures to comply with the judgement of the Court of Justice of the
European Union.'. Therefore, following the annulment of Regulation (EC)
No 1193/2009, new levies for the period in question are to be fixed.
Since, with effect from the marketing year
2006/2007, Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 was repealed and replaced by Council
Regulations (EC) No 318/2006, on the common organisation of the markets in the
sugar sector, and further replaced by (EC) No 1234/2007 establishing a common
organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain
agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation), Council Regulation (EC) No
1260/2001 can no longer serve as the legal basis for correcting the levies. The
Commission is therefore not empowered to adopt the corrective legal act necessary
to implement the judgement. 
Pursuant to Article 43(3) TFEU 'The
Council, on a proposal from the Commission, shall adopt measures on fixing …
levies.'. In view of the nature of the proposed Regulation,
Article 43(3) appears to be the appropriate legal basis to fix the corrected
sugar levies for the marketing years in questions.
Although the Court did not invalidate
Regulation (EC) No 1837/2002, fixing the production levies for the marketing
year 2001/2002, taking into consideration that the same method invalidated by
the Court has been used for setting the levies for the marketing year 2001/2002,
the levies set for that marketing year are to be considered incorrect as well.
Therefore, new levies for that marketing year should be fixed and included in
the corrective legislative act.
In its above mentioned judgements, the
Court has clarified all the elements that have to be taken into consideration
for the calculation of the 'average loss', within the meaning of Article 15 of
the basic regulation, which has to be used for estimating the 'overall loss' to
be covered by the production levies. In particular, the 'average loss' is to be
calculated by dividing the actual total refunds paid (lower than that
calculated by the Commission in the annulled Regulation (EC) No 1193/2009) by
the total exported quantities, regardless whether they were exported with or
without a refund. The 'exportable surplus' is also calculated by using all
exports, whether a refund has been paid or not. The application of the new
method indicated by the Court leads to a substantial decrease of the 'average
loss' and the 'overall loss' to be covered by the levies for the period in
question.
Therefore, the proposed Regulation will
establish the sugar production levies for the marketing years 2001/2002, 2002/2003,
2003/2004, 2004/2005, 2005/2006, re-calculated on the basis of the methodology
clarified by the Court. This will allow Member States to calculate the
reimbursement due to sugar producer in respect of the excess levies that they
have been charged over the same period.
Moreover, the revision of the production
levies for the marketing years 2001/2002, 2002/2003, 2003/2004, 2004/2005, 2005/2006
will impact on the complement price that the sugar producers had to pay to beet
growers in respect of the difference between the maximum amount of the A or B
levy and the amount of these levies charged for the marketing years 2002/2003,
2003/2004 and 2005/2006.
Indeed, according to the common
organisation of the markets in the sugar sector in force until 2006, the levies
were paid by sugar manufacturers but the latter recovered 60% of these costs
from beet growers, by paying a lower beet price. When the amounts of the levies
were set below the maximum level for the A or B levies (i.e. 2% and 37.5% of
the intervention price for white sugar respectively), Article 18(2) of the
basic regulation provided that sugar manufacturers have to pay beet sellers 60%
of the difference between the maximum amount of the levy in question and the
amount of the base levy or the B levy actually charged. 
Therefore, this corrective legal act establishes
the revised complement prices that sugar producers should pay back to beet
sellers. Only the difference between the old and the new complement prices
should be reimbursed to beet sellers.
The reimbursement of the sugar levies constitutes
a correction of the sugar levies originally paid in the EU own resources.
Member States have to establish the new sugar levies entitlements based on the
new levies within four months following the entry into force of the current
act.
4.           BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS 
The revision of the sugar production levies
for the marketing years 2001/2002, 2002/2003, 2003/2004, 2004/2005, 2005/2006
will result in a negative correction of EUR 295 541 212, to be charged to the
own resources of the EU budget. Besides the said amount, Member States could
claim from the Commission the reimbursement of the interest effectively paid by
them, in accordance with their national law, in reimbursing the excess levies
collected for the relevant years. The latter expenditure shall be separately charged
to the EU budget by the concerned Member States upon presentation of the corresponding
proofs of payment.
5.           OPTIONAL ELEMENTS 
The Commission will issue a declaration accompanying
the present proposal for a Council Regulation, in order to clarify certain
elements related to the reimbursement of the principal and interest, the
reimbursement to the beet sellers, the accounting procedure and monitoring of the
reimbursement process.
2013/0252 (NLE)
Proposal for a
COUNCIL REGULATION
fixing the production levies in the sugar
sector for the marketing years 2001/2002, 2002/2003, 2003/2004, 2004/2005,
2005/2006, the coefficient required for calculating the additional levy for the
marketing years 2001/2002 and 2004/2005 and the amounts to be paid by sugar
manufacturers to beet sellers in respect of the difference between the maximum
amount of the levies and the amount of these levies to be charged for the
marketing years 2002/2003, 2003/2004 and 2005/2006
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 43(3) thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the
European Commission,
Whereas:
(1)       Council Regulation (EC) No
1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the
sugar sector[1],
and in particular Article 15(8) first indent, Article 16(5), and Article 18(5)
thereof, empowered the Commission to adopt detailed rules on the amounts of the
levies to be collected, the coefficient for the additional levy and the
repayment to beet sellers.
(2)       The Commission established
the production levies for the marketing years 2001/2002[2], 2002/2003[3], 2003/2004[4], 2004/2005[5] and 2005/2006[6]. 
(3)       Article 18(2) of Regulation
(EC) No 1260/2001 provided that when basic production levy is lower than the
maximum amount referred to in Article 15(3) or when the B levy referred to in that
Article is lower than the maximum amount referred to in Article 14(4) of that
Regulation, adjusted, where necessary, in accordance with paragraph 5 of that
Article, sugar manufacturers had to pay back beet sellers 60% of the difference
between the maximum amount of the levy concerned and the amount of the levy to
be charged. 
(4)       In accordance with Article
9(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 314/2002 of 20 February 2002 laying down
detailed rules for the application of the quota system in the sugar sector[7], the amounts to be paid by
sugar manufacturers to beet sellers in respect of the difference between the
maximum amount of the basic levy and the B levy and the amounts of that levies charged,
were set for the marketing years 2002/2003[8],
2003/2004[9]
and 2005/2006[10].

(5)       In the framework of the
reform of the common market organisation for the sugar sector, Council
Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 on the common organisation of
the markets in the sugar sector[11]
has repealed and replaced Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 as of the marketing year
2006/2007. Regulation (EC) No 318/2006, subsequently repealed and incorporated
into Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007
establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific
provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation)[12], has replaced the variable
sugar production levy system of self-financing the production quota regime by a
new production charge aimed at contributing to the financing of the expenditure
occurring in the sugar sector under the common market organisation for sugar.
(6)       On 8 May 2008 the Court of
Justice declared invalid[13]
Commission Regulations (EC) No 1762/2003 of 7 October 2003
fixing the production levies in the sugar sector for the 2002/2003 marketing
year[14]
and (EC) No 1775/2004 of 14 October 2004 setting the production
levies in the sugar sector for the 2003/2004 marketing year[15]. In its judgment, the Court
held that all the quantities of sugar in exported products, regardless of
whether or not refunds have actually been paid, are to be taken into account
for the purpose of calculating the estimated average loss per tonne of product.

(7)       The Court also declared
invalid[16]
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1686/2005 of 14 October 2005 setting the
production levies and the coefficient for the additional levy in the sugar
sector for the 2004/2005 marketing year[17].
(8)       In order to comply with the
Court’s rulings, the Commission adopted Regulation (EC) No 1193/2009 correcting
Regulations (EC) No 1762/2003, (EC) No 1775/2004, (EC) No 1686/2005, (EC) No
164/2007 and fixing the production levies in the sugar sector for the marketing
years 2002/2003, 2003/2004, 2004/2005, 2005/2006[18].
(9)       On 29 September 2011 the
General Court delivered its judgment in case T-4/06, in which it stated that
there was no proper legal basis for a differentiated coefficient for the
additional levy in the sugar sector and annulled Article 2 of Regulation (EC)
No 1686/2005 as replaced by Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No
1193/2009. 
(10)     On 27 September 2012 the
Court declared invalid Regulation (EC) No 1193/2009, stating that
Article 15(1)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 was to be
interpreted as meaning that the total amount of refunds should have included
the total amounts paid, for the purpose of calculating the estimated average
loss per tonne of product[19].

(11)     Consequently, the levies
should be fixed at the appropriate level. The 'average loss' within the
meaning of Article 15(1)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 should be
calculated by dividing the refunds paid by the exported quantities, whether a
refund is paid or not, for exports defined in accordance with Article 6(5) of
Commission Regulation (EC) No 314/2002 of 20 February 2002 laying down detailed
rules for the application of the quota system in the sugar sector[20]. The 'exportable surplus' within
the meaning of Article 15(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 should
also be calculated by using all exports, whether a refund has been paid or not.
(12)     Considering that the same
method invalidated by the Court was used to calculate the levies for the
marketing year 2001/2002, the production levies and the coefficient for the
additional levy for the marketing year 2001/2002 should also be corrected
accordingly. 
(13)     It follows from the Court's
judgement that the corrected levies should apply from the same dates as the levies
which were declared invalid.
(14)     As a consequence of the
fixing of the sugar levies according to the new method referred to in recital
(11), the amounts payable by sugar manufacturers to beet sellers in respect of
the difference between the maximum amount of the base levy and the amount of
the levies chargeable for the marketing years 2002/2003, 2003/2004 and
2005/2006 should also be newly set, with retrospective effect. 
(15)     For the 2001/2002 marketing
year, the uncovered overall loss recalculated following the method referred to
in recital (11) amounts to EUR 14.123.937. The coefficient referred to in
Article 16(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 should be set accordingly and be
applicable for that marketing year. 
(16)     For the 2002/2003 marketing
year, the application of the method referred to in recital (11) results in 2%
for the basic levy and 16,371% for the B levy, which should be applicable for
that marketing year with retrospective effect. The recalculated overall loss is
covered in its entirety by the receipts from the basic production levy and the
B levy. Therefore, there is no need to fix the additional coefficient referred
to in Article 16(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 for that marketing year.
(17)     For the 2002/2003 marketing
year, Commission Regulation (EC) No 1440/2002 of 7 August 2002 revising the
maximum amount for the B production levy and amending the minimum price for B
beet in the sugar sector for the 2002/03 marketing year[21] set the maximum amount of the
B levy at 37,5% of the intervention price for white sugar while the B levy
revised according to the method referred to in recital (11) applicable for that
marketing year is 16,371 % of the intervention price for white sugar. This
difference requires that the amount payable by sugar manufacturers to beet
sellers should be fixed per tonne of beet of standard quality for that marketing
year, in accordance with Article 18(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001. 
(18)     For the 2003/2004 marketing
year, the application of the new calculation method referred to in recital (11)
results in 2% for the basic levy and 17,259% for the B levy. The recalculated overall
loss is covered in its entirety by the receipts from the basic production levy
and the B levy. Therefore, there is no need to fix the additional coefficient
referred to in Article 16(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001, for that
marketing year.
(19)     For the 2003/2004 marketing
year, Regulation (EC) No 1440/2002 set the maximum amount of the B levy at 37,5%
of the intervention price for white sugar while the B levy revised according to
the method referred to in recital (11) applicable for that marketing year is
17,259 % of the intervention price for white sugar. This difference requires that
the amount payable by sugar manufacturers to beet sellers should be fixed per
tonne of beet of standard quality for that marketing year, in accordance with
Article 18(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001.
(20)     For the 2004/2005 marketing
year, the application of the method referred to in recital (11) does not change
the basic levy and the B levy. For that marketing year, the uncovered overall
loss calculated following the new method amounts to EUR 57.648.788. The
coefficient referred to in Article 16(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 should
therefore be set. It follows from the Court's judgement referred to in recital (9)
that the coefficient should be uniform for the Member States of the Union as
constituted on 30 April 2004 and the Member States of the Union as constituted
on 1 May 2004. 
(21)     For the 2005/2006 marketing
year, the application of the method referred to in recital (11) results in an
amount of 1.2335% for the basic levy without the need for a B levy. The recalculated
overall loss is covered in its entirety by the receipts from the basic
production levy and there is no need to fix the additional coefficient referred
to in Article 16(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001, for that marketing year.
(22)     For the 2005/2006 marketing
year, Commission Regulation (EC) No 1296/2005 of 5 August 2005 revising the
maximum amount for the B production levy and amending the minimum price for B
beet in the sugar sector for the 2005/06 marketing year[22] set the maximum amount of the
B levy at 37,5% of the intervention price for white sugar. While the basic levy,
revised in accordance with the method referred to in recital (11) applicable
for that marketing year, is 1,2335 % of the intervention price for white sugar,
there is no need for any B levy to be fixed. Due to these differences, it is necessary
to fix the amounts per tonne of beet of standard quality payable by sugar
manufacturers to beet sellers for that marketing year, in accordance with
Article 18(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001.
(23)     For reasons of legal
certainty and to ensure uniform treatment of the concerned operators in
different Member States, it is necessary to set a common date upon which the levies
fixed by this Regulation should be established within the meaning of the second
subparagraph of Article 2(2) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000
of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 2007/436/ (EC, Euratom) on the system of
the Communities' own resources[23],

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
1.           The production levies in
the sugar sector for the marketing years 2001/2002, 2002/2003, 2003/2004,
2004/2005, 2005/2006 are set out in point (1) of the Annex.
2.           The coefficients required
for calculating the additional levy for the marketing years 2001/2002 and
2004/2005 are set out in point (2) of the Annex.
3.           The amounts payable by
sugar manufacturers to beet sellers in respect of the A or B levies for the marketing
years 2002/2003, 2003/2004 and 2005/2006 are set out in point (3) of the Annex.
Article 2
The date of establishment, referred to in
the second subparagraph of Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000,
of the levies fixed by this Regulation, shall be the last day of the fourth month
following the day of entry into force of this Regulation, at the latest. 
Article 3
This Regulation shall enter into force on
the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the
European Union.
Article 1(1) shall apply from:
–                        
16 October 2002 for the marketing year 2001/2002,

–                        
8 October 2003 for the marketing year 2002/2003,

–                        
15 October 2003 for the marketing year
2003/2004, 
–                        
18 October 2005 for the marketing year 2004/2005,
and 
–                        
23 February 2007 for the marketing year
2005/2006.
Article 1(2) shall apply from:
–                        
16 October 2002 for the marketing year 2001/2002,
and 
–                        
18 October 2005 for the marketing year
2004/2005.
Article 1(3) shall apply from:
–                        
8 October 2003 for the marketing year 2002/2003,
–                        
15 October 2003 for the marketing year 2003/2004,
and 
–                        
23 February 2007 for the marketing year
2005/2006. 
This
Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all
Member States.
Done at Brussels, 
                                                                       For
the Council
                                                                       The
President
ANNEX 
(1) Production levies in the sugar sector referred
to in Article 1(1)
   || 2001/2002 || 2002/2003 || 2003/2004 || 2004/2005 || 2005/2006 
 (a) EUR per tonne of white sugar as the basic production levy on A sugar and B sugar || 12,638 || 12,638 || 12,638 || 12,638 || 7,794 
 (b) EUR per tonne of white sugar as the B levy on B sugar || 236,963 || 103,447 || 109,061 || 236,963 || - 
 (c) EUR per tonne of dry matter as the basic production levy on A isoglucose and B isoglucose || 5,330 || 5,330 || 5,330 || 5,330 || 3,394 
 (d) EUR per tonne of dry matter as the B levy on B isoglucose || 99,424 || 46,017 || 48,261 || 99,424 || - 
 (e) EUR 12,638 per tonne of dry matter equivalent sugar/isoglucose as the basic production levy on A inulin syrup and B inulin syrup || 12,638 || 12,638 || 12,638 || 12,638 || 7,794 
 (f) EUR 236,963 per tonne of dry matter equivalent sugar/isoglucose as the B levy on B inulin syrup. || 236,963 || 103,447 || 109,061 || 236,963 || - 
(2) Coefficients required for calculating
the additional levy referred to in Article 1(2)
Marketing year 2001/2002:      0,01839
Marketing year 2004/2005:      0,07294
(3) Amounts to be paid by sugar manufacturers
to beet sellers in respect of the A or B levies referred to in Article 1(3)
   || 2002/2003 || 2003/2004 || 2005/2006 
 Complement price for A beet* ||   ||   || 0,378 
 Complement price for B beet* || 10,414 || 9,976 || 18,258 
* Complement price in respect of A or B levy per tonne of beet of the
standard quality (EUR). 
 FINANCIAL STATEMENT || FS/13/367494 
 6.2.2013.1 
   || DATE: 15.04.2013   
 1. || BUDGET HEADING: See budgetary forecast below.   Article 1 1 (Levies and other duties provided for under the common organisation of the markets in sugar): 05 07 02 (Settlements of disputes)   || APPROPRIATIONS:       123,4 Mio € 53,4 Mio € 
 2. || TITLE:   COUNCIL REGULATION fixing the production levies in the sugar sector for marketing years 2001/2002, 2002/2003, 2003/2004, 2004/2005, 2005/2006 and fixing the amounts to be paid by sugar manufacturers to beet sellers in respect of the difference between the maximum amount of the levies and the amount of these levies to be charged for the marketing years 2002/03, 2003/04 and 2005/06.   
 3. || LEGAL BASIS:   Article 43(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 
 4. || AIMS: On 27 September 2012, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment in joined cases C-113/10, C-147/10 and C-234/10 (the Jülich-II judgement) by which it annulled Commission Regulation (EC) No 1193/2009 of 3 November 2009. This regulation aims to establish retroactively the sugar production levies for the marketing years from 2001/02 to 2005/06 re-calculated on the basis of the methodology clarified by the Court. 
 5. || FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS || 12 MONTH PERIOD (EUR million) || CURRENT FINANCIAL YEAR 2013] (EUR million) || FOLLOWING FINANCIAL YEAR 2014 (EUR million) 
 5.0 || EXPENDITURE -               CHARGED TO THE EU BUDGET (REFUNDS/INTERVENTIONS) -               NATIONAL AUTHORITIES -               OTHER ||   53,4 Mio € ||   53,4 Mio € ||   n.a. 
 5.1 || REVENUE -               OWN RESOURCES OF THE EU (LEVIES/CUSTOMS DUTIES) – See comments -               NATIONAL ||   -214,1 Mio € ||   -214,1 Mio € ||   n.a 
   ||   || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 
 5.0.1 || ESTIMATED EXPENDITURE ||   ||   ||   ||   
 5.1.1 || ESTIMATED REVENUE ||   ||   ||   ||   
 5.2 || METHOD OF CALCULATION: See Comments 
 6.0 || CAN THE PROJECT BE FINANCED FROM APPROPRIATIONS ENTERED IN THE RELEVANT CHAPTER OF THE CURRENT BUDGET? || No 
 6.1 || CAN THE PROJECT BE FINANCED BY TRANSFER BETWEEN CHAPTERS OF THE CURRENT BUDGET? || Yes 
 6.2 || WILL A SUPPLEMENTARY BUDGET BE NECESSARY? || No 
 6.3 || WILL APPROPRIATIONS NEED TO BE ENTERED IN FUTURE BUDGETS? || See comments. 
 OBSERVATIONS: On 27 September 2012, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment in joined cases C-113/10, C-147/10 and C-234/10 (the Jülich-II judgement) by which it annulled Commission Regulation (EC) No 1193/2009 of 3 November 2009. The Court has ruled that the Commission has repeatedly erred in calculating the annual levies set for the period in question. The Court held that individuals are entitled to reimbursement of the excess sums unduly paid in respect to the invalid production levies collected by the Member States over the period in question and accrued to the Union budget. The corrective legal act retroactively establishes the sugar production levies for the marketing years from 2001/02 to 2005/06 re-calculated on the basis of the methodology clarified by the Court. Following the judgement, the reimbursement to operators has to include interest (based on the national rules and according to the principle of unjust enrichment the EU has to reimburse the Member States on the compensatory interests paid). The total amount to be reimbursed to Member States is the following: Own resources - principal 295,5 Mio € - 10,0 Mio € (already reimbursed in 2009) * 75% = 214,1 Mio € of levies after collection fees. Compensatory interest The compensatory interest claimed is not included in the amounts under own resources. The estimated amount given above is calculated for 100% of the difference between old and new levies. The interest rates will be determined by national law and so the final amount cannot be definitely determined at this point in time. The interest rates used as a basis for estimating the financial impact of 53.4 Mio € are those published in the following regulations: EU Regulation No 2012/2001; EU Regulation No 1852/2002; EU Regulation No 1842/2003; EU Regulation No 1751/2004; EU Regulation No 956/2005; EU Regulation No 1119/2005; EU Regulation No 1668/2005; EU Regulation No 1489/2006; EU Regulation No 981/2007; EU Regulation No 1190/2007; EU Regulation No 999/2008; EU Regulation No 1012/2009; EU Regulation No 974/2010; EU Regulation No 1036/2011; EU Regulation No 938/2012. The amount will be paid under the budget line 05 07 02. In case the Regulation is not adopted in time so that payments can take place in the 2013 budget year, an amount will have to be included in the amending letter for Budget 2014. 
[1]               OJ L 178, 30.6.2001, p. 1. 
[2]               OJ L 278, 16.10.2002, p. 13.
[3]               OJ L 254, 8.10.2003, p. 4.
[4]               OJ L 316, 15.10.2004, p. 64.
[5]               OJ L 271, 15.10.2005, p. 12.
[6]               OJ L 51, 20.2.2007, p. 17.
[7]               OJ L 50, 21.2.2002, p. 40.
[8]               OJ L 254, 8.10.2003, p. 5.
[9]               OJ L 316, 15.10.2004, p. 65.
[10]             OJ L 51, 20.2.2007, p. 16.
[11]             OJ L 58, 20.2.2006, p. 1.
[12]             OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.
[13]             Joined cases C-5/06 and C-23/06
to C-36/06, ECR 2008, I-03231.
[14]             See the reference in footnote 3.
[15]             See the reference in footnote 4.
[16]             Orders of 6 October 2008 in
joined cases C-175/07 to C-184/07, ECR 2008, I-00142, as well as in cases C-466/06, ECR 2008,
I-00140, and C-200/06, ECR 2008,
I-00137.
[17]             See the reference in footnote 5.
[18]             OJ L 321, 8.12.2009, p. 1.
[19]             Joined cases C-113/10, C-147/10
and C-234/10, not yet published.
[20]             OJ L 50, 21.2.2002, p. 40.
[21]             OJ L 212, 8.8.2002, p. 3.
[22]             OJ L 205, 6.8.2005, p. 20.
[23]             OJ L 130, 31.5.2000, p. 1.