CELEX: 61980CJ0179
Language: en
Date: 1982-10-19
Title: Judgment of the Court of 19 October 1982. # SA Roquette Frères v Council of the European Communities. # Isoglucose - Production quotas. # Case 179/80.

Avis juridique important

|

61980J0179

Judgment of the Court of 19 October 1982.  -  SA Roquette Frères v Council of the European Communities.  -  Isoglucose - Production quotas.  -  Case 179/80.  

European Court reports 1982 Page 03623

PartiesSubject of the caseGroundsDecision on costsOperative part
Keywords

APPLICATION FOR A DECLARATION OF NULLITY - APPLICATION DIRECTED AGAINST A REGULATION WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY ANOTHER REGULATION ADOPTED DURING THE PROCEEDINGS - DISMISSAL AS UNFOUNDED OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED IN THE MEANTIME AND DIRECTED AGAINST THE NEW REGULATION - CONTINUATION OF PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE FIRST REGULATION DEVOID OF PURPOSE - DECISION ON THE POINT AT ISSUE UNNECESSARY  ( EEC TREATY , ART . 172 )    

Parties

IN CASE 179/80 SA ROQUETTE FRERES , WHOSE REGISTERED OFFICE IS SITUATED IN LESTREM ( PAS-DE-CALAIS ), REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER , GERARD ROUSSEAUX , ASSISTED BY MARCEL VEROONE , OF MESSRS VEROONE , FREVRIA , LETARTRE , PAILLUSSEAU , HOSTE AND DUTAT , OF THE LILLE BAR , WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE CHAMBERS OF MR LOESCH , ADVOCATE , 2 RUE GOETHE ,   APPLICANT ,       V  COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES , REPRESENTED BY DANIEL VIGNES , A DIRECTOR IN ITS LEGAL DEPARTMENT , ASSISTED BY ARTHUR BRAUTIGAM , AN ADMINISTRATOR IN THAT DEPARTMENT , WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE OFFICE OF DOUGLAS FONTEIN , DIRECTOR OF LEGAL AFFAIRS AT THE EUROPEAN INVESTMENT BANK ,   DEFENDANT ,   AND  COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES , REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL ADVISER , PETER GILSDORF , ASSISTED BY JACQUES DELMOLY , A NEMBER OF ITS LEGAL DEPARTMENT , WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE OFFICE OF MARIO CERVINO , LEGAL ADVISER TO THE COMMISSION , JEAN MONNET BUILDING , KIRCHBERG ,   INTERVENER ,    

Subject of the case

APPLICATION FOR A DECLARATION THAT COUNCIL REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 1592/80 OF 24 JUNE 1980 ON THE APPLICATION OF THE SYSTEM OF PRODUCTION QUOTAS IN THE SUGAR AND ISOGLUCOSE SECTORS DURING THE PERIOD 1 JULY 1980 TO 30 JUNE 1981 ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL 1980 , L 160 , P . 12 ) IS VOID IN SO FAR AS IT EXTENDS THE VALIDITY OF THE SYSTEM OF PRODUCTION QUOTAS FOR ISOGLUCOSE ESTABLISHED BY COUNCIL REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 1111/77 OF 17 MAY 1977 LAYING DOWN COMMON PROVISIONS FOR ISOGLUCOSE ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL 1977 , L 134 , P . 4 ), AS SUBSEQUENTLY AMENDED ,  

Grounds

1 BY APPLICATION LODGED AT THE COURT REGISTRY ON 21 AUGUST 1980 , ROQUETTE FRERES , A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER FRENCH LAW , INSTITUTED PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 173 OF THE EEC TREATY FOR A DECLARATION THAT COUNCIL REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 1592/80 OF 24 JUNE 1980 ON THE APPLICATION OF THE SYSTEM OF PRODUCTION QUOTAS IN THE SUGAR AND ISOGLUCOSE SECTORS DURING THE PERIOD 1 JULY 1980 TO 30 JUNE 1981 ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL 1980 , L 160 , P . 12 ) WAS PARTIALLY VOID . MORE PRECISELY , THE APPLICANT     ASKED THE COURT TO DECLARE INVALID ARTICLE 2 OF THE SAID REGULATION AS WELL AS ANNEX II THERETO . ARTICLE 2 ( 1 ) EXTENDS THE VALIDITY OF THE SYSTEM OF PRODUCTION QUOTAS FOR ISOGLUCOSE WHICH WAS INCORPORATED , FOR THE PERIOD BETWEN 1 JULY 1979 AND 30 JUNE 1980 , IN COUNCIL REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 1111/77 OF 17 MAY 1977 LAYING DOWN COMMON PROVISIONS FOR ISOGLUCOSE ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL 1977 L 134 , P . 4 ) BY REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 1293/79 OF 25 JUNE 1979 ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL 1979 , 162 , P . 10 , AS RECTIFIED BY A CORRIGENDUM IN OFFICIAL JOURNAL 1979 , L 176 , P . 37 ). UNDER ARTICLE 2 ( 2 ), THE BASIC QUOTA FOR EACH ISOGLUCOSE PRODUCING ENTERPRISE FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1 JULY 1980 TO 30 JUNE 1981 WAS TO BE THAT APPLICABLE DURING THE PERIOD FROM 1 JULY 1979 TO 30 JUNE 1980 .  2 IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT COUNCIL REGULATION NO 1592/80 WAS ADOPTED WHILE THE PROCEEDINGS WERE PENDING WHICH LED TO THE COURT ' S DECLARATION , IN ITS JUDGMENTS OF 29 OCTOBER 1980 IN CASE 138/79 ROQUETTE V COUNCIL ( 1980 ) ECR 3333 AND IN CASE 139/79 MAIZENA V COUNCIL ( 1980 ) ECR 3393 , THAT REGULATION NO 1293/79 WAS VOID ON THE GROUND THAT IT HAD BEEN ADOPTED WITHOUT THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ' S BEING CONSULTED , AS REQUIRED BY ARTICLE 43 OF THE EEC TREATY . IN ITS DECISION IN THE AFORESAID CASES , HOWEVER , THE COURT REJECTED ALL THE SUBSTANTIVE ARGUMENTS DIRECTED AGAINST THE SYSTEM OF PRODUCTION QUOTAS ESTABLISHED FOR ISOGLUCOSE BY THE SAID REGULATION AND , IN PARTICULAR , AGAINST THE FIXING OF BASIC QUOTAS FOR THE APPLICANTS IN BOTH CASES .    3 IN ITS APPLICATION , THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT THE COUNCIL ADOPTED REGULATION NO 1592/80 WITHOUT AWAITING THE PARLIAMENT ' S OPINION . AS REGARDS THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CASE , THE APPLICANT MERELY RESTATES THE ARGUMENTS WHICH IT PUT FORWARD IN CASE 138/79 AND WHICH WERE REJECTED BY THE COURT IN ITS AFOREMENTIONED JUGDMENT IN THAT CASE . IN ITS REPLY , IT ALSO CONTENDS THAT REGULATION NO 1592/80 , IN SO FAR AS IT MERELY EXTENDS THE VALIDITY OF REGULATION NO 1293/79 , IS VOID FOR THE SAME REASONS AS THE LATTER . THE UNLAWFULNESS OF REGULATION NO 1592/80 IS , IT MAINTAINS , A NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE OF THE COURT ' S FINDING IN ITS ABOVE-MENTIONED JUGDMENT THAT REGULATION NO 1293/79 WAS UNLAWFUL . FINALLY , IT STATES THAT IT NO LONGER RELIES ON THE SUBSTANTIVE ARGUMENTS WHICH IT PUT FORWARD IN ITS APPLICATION .    4 IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT ON 10 FEBRUARY 1981 , WHILE THIS CASE WAS PENDING BEFORE THE COURT , THE COUNCIL , AFTER OBTAINING THE PARLIAMENT ' S OPINION ON 4 FEBRUARY 1981 , ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING TWO REGULATIONS :       ( A ) REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 387/81 AMENDING REGULATION NO 1111/77 LAYING DOWN COMMON PROVISIONS FOR ISOGLUCOSE ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL 1981 , L 44 , P . 1 ). REGULATION NO 387/81 REINTRODUCES , BY REFERRING TO THE PROVISIONS OF REGULATION NO 1111/77 , INTER ALIA THE SYSTEM OF PRODUCTION QUOTAS WITH RETROACTIVE EFFECT FROM 1 JULY 1979 .    ( B)REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 388/81 AMENDING REGULATION NO 1592/80 ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL 1981 , L 44 , P . 4 ). REGULATION NO 388/81 , ACCORDING TO THE SECOND RECTIAL IN THE PREAMBLE THERETO , WAS ADOPTED ' ' IN ORDER TO AVOID ANY DOUBTS AS TO THE LEGALITY . . . OF REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 1592/80 ' ' . WITH THAT END IN VIEW , ARTICLE 1 OF REGULATION NO 388/81 PROVIDES THAT ARTICLE 2 OF REGULATION NO 1592/80 IS TO REFER TO ARTICLE 9 OF REGULATION NO 1111/77 , AS AMENDED BY REGULATION NO 387/81 . REGULATION NO 388/81 , ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 2 THEREOF , IS TO APPLY FROM 1 JULY 1980 .     5 IN ITS REJOINDER , THE COUNCIL RAISED A FRESH ISSUE , WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 42 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE , BY CONTENDING THAT THE ACTION HAS BECOME POINTLESS AS A RESULT OF THE ADOPTION OF THE TWO AFORESAID REGULATIONS . THE COUNCIL CONSIDERS , MOREOVER , THAT THE APPLICANT NO LONGER HAS ANY INTEREST IN PROCEEDING WITH ITS APPLICATION AND THAT TO DO SO MAY BE REGARDED AS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS .    6 IN AN ADDITIONAL STATEMENT SUBMITTED IN REPLY TO THE FRESH ISSUE RAISED BY THE COUNCIL , THE APPLICANT POINTS OUT THAT IT HAS NO INTENTION OF WITHDRAWING ITS APPLICATION BUT LEAVES TO THE COURT THE QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT IT IS NECESSARY TO GIVE A DECISION ON THE POINT AT ISSUE .    7 WHILST PROCEEDING WITH ITS ACTION IN THIS CASE , THE APPLICANT INSTITUTED PROCEEDINGS , BY APPLICATION LODGED AT THE COURT REGISTRY ON 7 MAY 1981 , FOR A DECLARATION THAT COUNCIL REGULATIONS NOS 387 AND 388/81 WERE VOID . BY JUDGMENT OF 30 SEPTEMBER 1982 , THE COURT DISMISSED THAT APPLICATION AS UNFOUNDED .    8 IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS , IT MUST BE STATED THAT A DECLARATION THAT REGULATION NO 1592/80 IS VOID IS NO LONGER OF ANY INTEREST TO THE APPLICANT IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE PROVISIONS WHICH IT SEEKS TO HAVE DECLARED VOID HAVE , IN THE MEANTIME , BEEN CONFIRMED BY A REGULATION AGAINST     WHICH AN APPLICATION FOR A DECLARATION OF NULLITY BROUGHT BY THE APPLICANT WAS DISMISSED BY THE COURT AS UNFOUNDED IN ITS AFOREMENTIONED JUDGMENT .    9 CONSEQUENTLY , IT IS UNNECESSARY FOR THE COURT TO GIVE A DECISION ON THE POINT AT ISSUE .    

Decision on costs

COSTS  10 UNDER ARTICLE 69 ( 5 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE , WHERE A CASE DOES NOT PROCEED TO JUDGMENT , THE COSTS SHALL BE IN THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT .    11 IF THE APPLICANT HAD WITHDRAWN ITS APPLICATION AFTER IT BECAME AWARE OF THE AMENDMENT MADE TO THE CONTESTED REGULATION BY THE TWO REGULATIONS OF 10 FEBRUARY 1981 , THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN GROUNDS FOR FINDING THAT ITS WITHDRAWAL WAS JUSTIFIED BY THE ATTITUDE OF THE COUNCIL AND FOR ORDERING THE LATTER TO PAY THE COSTS .    12 HOWEVER , IT IS CLEAR FROM THE COURT ' S JUDGMENT IN CASE 110/81 THAT THE UNLAWFULNESS RELIED UPON BY THE APPLICANT IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION , EVEN ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT IT HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED , WAS REMEDIED BY THE ADOPTION OF REGULATION NO 388/81 AND THAT THEREAFTER THE APPLICANT NO LONGER HAD ANY INTEREST IN THE PROSECUTION OF THE ACTION .    13 IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THOSE CONSIDERATIONS , IT IS EQUITABLE FOR THE PARTIES TO BEAR THEIR OWN COSTS .    

Operative part

ON THOSE GROUNDS , THE COURT  HEREBY :   1 . DECLARES THAT IT IS UNNECESSARY FOR IT TO GIVE A DECISION ON THE POINT AT ISSUE ;       2.ORDERS THE PARTIES TO BEAR THEIR OWN COSTS .