CELEX: C2002/084/01
Language: en
Date: 2002-04-06 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) 10 January 2002 in Case C-101/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Crown Office): The Queen v Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce, ex parte: British Sugar plc (Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Sugar — Attribution as "C sugar" of a quantity of sugar produced during a given marketing year — Charge payable in respect of sugar disposed of on the internal market — Levied in the case of export with an export licence — Export refunds)

6.4.2002                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 84/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       validity of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2630/81 of 10
                                                                              September 1981 on special detailed rules for the application
                                                                             of the system of import and export licences in the sugar sector
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                     (OJ 1981 L 258, p. 16), on the interpretation and validity of
                                                                             Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2670/81 of 14 September
                                                                             1981 laying down detailed implementing rules in respect of
                         10 January 2002                                     sugar production in excess of the quota (OJ 1981 L 262, p. 14),
                                                                             as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3559/91 of
in Case C-101/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                    6 December 1991 (OJ 1991 L 336, p. 26), and on the
the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s                         interpretation of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87
Bench Division (Crown Office): The Queen v Intervention                      of 27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for
Board for Agricultural Produce, ex parte: British Sugar                      the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural
                                plc (1)                                      products (OJ 1987 L 351, p. 1),the Court (Sixth Chamber),
                                                                             composed of: F. Macken, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric
                                                                             (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet and J.N. Cunha
(Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets —                          Rodrigues, Judges, Advocate General: J. Mischo, Registrar:
Sugar — Attribution as ‘C sugar’ of a quantity of sugar                      H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on
produced during a given marketing year — Charge payable                      10 January 2002, in which it has ruled:
in respect of sugar disposed of on the internal market —
Levied in the case of export with an export licence — Export
                              refunds)
                          (2002/C 84/01)
                   (Language of the case: English)                           1.    Article 24(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 of
                                                                                   30 June 1981 on the common organisation of the markets in
                                                                                   the sugar sector, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                   No 305/91 of 4 February 1991, requires an undertaking to
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                   have in fact produced a volume of sugar equal to the sum of its
                                                                                   A and B quotas before it may attribute sugar as C sugar.
In Case C-101/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the High Court of
Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division, for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
between The Queen and Intervention Board for Agricultural                    2.    As a matter of principle the competent national authority is not
Produce, ex parte: British Sugar plc, on the interpretation of                     authorised to demand that an undertaking pay a charge
Council Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 of 30 June 1981 on the                         pursuant to Article 3(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC)
common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (OJ                         No 2670/81 of 14 September 1981 laying down detailed
1981 L 177, p. 4), as amended by Council Regulation (EEC)                          implementing rules in respect of sugar production in excess of
No 305/91 of 4 February 1991 (OJ 1991 L 37, p. 1), on the                          the quota, as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC)
 ---pagebreak--- C 84/2                   EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                           6.4.2002
      No 3559/91 of 6 December 1991, where it has not informed               amendments to the indicative allocation of Community initiat-
      the undertaking of that requirement within the period prescribed       ives, communicated to the Italian Republic by letter of
      by Article 3(2) of that regulation. Exceeding the time-limit           19 January 1999 from the Secretary-General of the Com-
      may be permissible where the competent national authority,             mission, and of all measures underlying or linked to that
      without negligence on its part, did not know the details of the        decision, the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: N. Colneric,
      undertaking’s sugar production and where that lack of knowl-           President of the Second Chamber, acting for the President of
      edge may reasonably be attributed to the undertaking, because          the Sixth Chamber, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur),
      it has not acted in good faith and has not complied with all the       R. Schintgen and V. Skouris, Judges, Advocate General:
      relevant provisions.                                                   J. Mischo, Registrar: H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, has
                                                                             given a judgment on 30 January 2002, in which it:
3.    The competent national authority may, without infringing
      Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Regulation (EEC)
      No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common                      1.    Annuls the Commission’s decision of 16 December 1998
      detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds           approving amendments to the indicative allocation of Com-
      on agricultural products or the general principles of Community              munity initiatives, communicated to the Italian Republic by
      law, refuse to accept retrospectively an export declaration                  letter of 19 January 1999 from the Secretary-General of the
      presented for the purpose of obtaining export refunds and of                 Commission;
      extending the period allowed for supplying proof of export
      where, because the undertaking has applied for and obtained            2.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay
      from that authority a C sugar export licence for sugar which it              the costs;
      was impossible to regard as C sugar, the undertaking has
      neither applied for nor obtained the export refunds to which it        3.    Orders Ireland and United Kingdom of Great Britain and
      would have been entitled if the sugar had been exported as A or              Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.
      B sugar.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.
(1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Sixth Chamber)                                                            (Sixth Chamber)
                           30 January 2002
                                                                                                      24 January 2002
in Case C-107/99: Italian Republic v Commission of the
                    European Communities (1)                                 in Case C-118/99: French Republic v Commission of the
                                                                                                European Communities (1)
(Structural funds — Financing of Community initiatives —
               Alteration of indicative allocations)                         (Clearance of accounts — EAGGF — 1995 financial year
                                                                                                       — Arable crops)
                            (2002/C 84/02)
                                                                                                       (2002/C 84/03)
                     (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                                 (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-107/99, Italian Republic (Agent: U. Leanza, assisted
by I. M. Braguglia), v Commission of the European Communi-
ties (Agents: E. de March, K. Simonsson and H. Speyart)                      In Case C-118/99, French Republic (agents: J.-F. Dobelle,
supported by Ireland (Agent: J. Payne, assisted by D. McGuin-                K. Rispal-Bellanger and C. Vasak), Republic of Finland
ness, SC, and E. Kent, solicitor) and by United Kingdom of                   (agent:T. Pynnä) v Commission of the European Communities
Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: J. E. Collins, assisted           (agent: P. Oliver): Application for partial annulment of Com-
by D. Wyatt, QC,): Application for the annulment of the                      mission Decision 1999/187/EC of 3 February 1999 on the
Commission’s decision of 16 December 1998 approving                          clearance of the accounts presented by the Member States in