CELEX: 61989CC0248
Language: en
Date: 1991-03-21 00:00:00
Title: Joined opinion of Mr Advocate General Mischo delivered on 21 March 1991. # Cargill BV v Commission of the European Communities. # Action for the annulment of Commission Regulation (EEC) Nº 1358/89 of 18 May 1989 amending, with retroactive effect, the annex to Commission Regulation (EEC) Nº 735/85 of 21 March 1985 fixing the amount of the subsidy for processing oil seeds. # Case C-248/89. # Cargill BV v Produktschap voor Margarine, Vetten en Olien. # Reference for a preliminary ruling: College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven - Netherlands. # Validity of Commission Regulation (EEC) Nº 1358/89 of 18 May 1989 amending Regulation (EEC) Nº 735/85 of 21 March 1985 fixing the amount of the subsidy on oil seeds. # Case C-365/89.

Important legal notice

|

61989C0248

JOINED OPINIONS OF MR ADVOCATE GENERAL MISCHO DELIVERED ON 21 MARCH 1991.  -  CARGILL BV V COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES.  -  CASE C-248/89.  -  CARGILL BV V PRODUKTSCHAP VOOR MARGARINE, VETTEN EN OLIEN.  -  REFERENCE FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING : COLLEGE VAN BEROEP VOOR HET BEDRIJFSLEVEN - NETHERLANDS.  -  CASE C-365/89.  

European Court reports 1991 Page I-02987

Opinion of the Advocate-General

++++Mr President,  Members of the Court,  1. In Case C-248/89, Cargill BV (hereinafter "Cargill") has brought a direct action seeking the annulment of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1358/89 of 18 May 1989 amending Regulation (EEC) No 735/85 fixing the amount of the subsidy on oil seeds (Official Journal 1989 L 135, p. 22). The admissibility of the action is not disputed nor is it open to dispute.  2. In Case C-365/89, on the other hand, the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven, the Hague (Netherlands), seeks a preliminary ruling from the Court on the validity of the same regulation, No 1358/89, the validity of Regulation No 735/85, and the consequences which would stem from the invalidity of either or both of those regulations.  3. The sole purpose of Regulation No 1358/89 is to amend Annex III to Regulation No 735/85,( 1) which contains a material error concerning the exchange rates of the ECU.  4. The Commission became aware of that error at once and, the following day, adopted Regulation (EEC) No 756/85( 2) suspending advance fixing of the subsidy.  5. The same national court had already made a reference to the Court, which, in its judgment in Case 201/87 Cargill ([1989] ECR 489), ruled as follows:  "1. Having regard to Article 8(1) of Council Regulation No 1594/83, Commission Regulation No 756/85 is invalid.  2. So long as Commission Regulation No 735/85 has not been declared to be invalid, the invalidity of Commission Regulation No 756/85 means that the Produktschap must issue to Cargill BV with retroactive effect the advance-fixing certificates applied for on 22 March 1985 and pay it the subsidy in the sum fixed by Commission Regulation No 735/85."  6. In the version applicable at the material time, Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1594/83( 3) provided as follows:  "If the situation on the Community seed market is abnormal, and in particular if the volume of applications for advance fixing of the subsidy does not appear to be related to normal outlets for seeds harvested in the Community, it may be decided, if the certificate referred to in Article 4 has not yet been issued, to alter the amount of the subsidy and to suspend the advance fixing of this amount, to the extent necessary to restore the balance between the Community market and the world market."  7. The Court considered that Regulation No 756/85 was invalid for the following reasons:  "... the Commission could validly decide to suspend advance fixing only if there was in fact an abnormal situation on the Community market in oil seeds" (paragraph 17);  "... a material error does not of itself constitute an abnormal market situation and does not of itself necessarily entail the risk of such a situation occurring, as the present case shows" (paragraph 18).  8. The Court added, obiter, that:  "As regards Commission Regulation No 735/85 which, according to the parties, contains a material error, it must be deemed to be valid until such time as it is declared invalid. The question of the validity of the latter regulation has not been raised in these proceedings" (paragraph 21).  9. The dispute pending before the national court is still concerned with the obligation for the national body to issue to Cargill with retroactive effect the advance-fixing certificates applied for on 22 March 1985 and to pay it the subsidy at the level specified in the annexes to Regulation No 735/85.  10. I consider it appropriate to deal first of all with the question of the validity of Regulation No 735/85 (the second question submitted for a ruling), and then to address the question of the validity of Regulation No 1358/89. That approach is based on the concern to observe the chronological order of events and on the fact that the validity of Regulation No 1358/89 may depend, at least in part, on the possible invalidity of Regulation No 735/85.  The validity of Regulation No 735/85  11. The second question in Case C-365/89 is worded as follows:  "Is Commission Regulation (EEC) No 735/85 of 21 March 1985 invalid on account of any incorrectness in the rates laid down therein for conversion into the currency of the processing Member State when the latter is a country other than the country of production and can it therefore not be used as the basis for granting subsidy, as requested by the plaintiff?"  12. As is clear from the relevant part of the judgment cited above, the Court, in its answer to the second question in Case 201/87, expressly left open the question of the validity of Regulation No 735/85, while stating, obiter, that, according to the parties, that regulation contains a material error (paragraph 21). The existence of that material error may thus be deemed to have been established. It has been confirmed in the course of these proceedings that the error is to be found in Annex III to the regulation, entitled "Exchange rate of the ECU to be used for converting final aids into the currency of the processing country when the latter is a country other than the country of production".  13. It is important to bear in mind here that Article 33 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2681/83 of 21 September 1983 laying down detailed rules for the application of the subsidy system for oil seeds (Official Journal 1983 L 266, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1814/84 of 28 June 1984 (Official Journal 1984 L 170, p. 44), imposes the following obligations on the Commission:  "2. The Commission shall publish in the 'L' series of the Official Journal of the European Communities as soon as they are fixed:  - the amount of the subsidy in ECU;  - the amount of the final subsidy resulting from the conversion into each of the national currencies of the above amount plus or minus the differential amount;  to be granted per 100 kg of seeds.  The amount of the final subsidy expressed in the currency of a Member State shall apply to seeds harvested and processed in that Member State.  3. At the same time as the amounts of the final subsidy, the Commission shall publish in the 'L' series of the Official Journal of the European Communities the spot and forward exchange rates for the ECU in national currencies, calculated in accordance with Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1813/84. Forward rates shall be determined for the months following the current month for which the subsidy may be fixed in advance.  4. Where seeds are harvested in one Member State and processed in another, the subsidy to be granted shall be equal to the final subsidy expressed in the currency of the producing Member State as referred to in paragraph 2, converted into the currency of the processing Member State on the basis of the bilateral rate derived from the exchange rates referred to in paragraph 3.  The exchange rates to be used shall be ... those valid ..."  14. In the circumstances, the amount of the subsidy as such, established in accordance with paragraph 2 above and published, as far as sunflower seed is concerned, in Annex II to Regulation No 735/85, has not really been disputed, notwithstanding the observations submitted by Cargill concerning what it considers to be the excessive margin of discretion enjoyed by the Commission in arriving at the "world market price" within the meaning of Article 27 of Council Regulation No 136/66/EEC of 22 September 1966 on the common organization of the market in fats( 4) (hereinafter "the basic regulation").  15. I can thus begin by assuming that that subsidy was in conformity with Article 27(1) of the basic regulation, which is worded as follows:  "Where the target price in force for a species of seed is higher than the world market price for that seed determined in accordance with the provisions of Article 29, a subsidy shall be granted for seed of that species harvested and processed within the Community. Subject to exceptions ... this subsidy shall be equal to the difference between these prices."  16. On the other hand, when the seed is harvested in one Member State and processed in another Member State, reference is made to the exchange rates established in accordance with Article 33(3) and (4), and published in Annex III to the regulations fixing the amount of the subsidies. When these rates are fixed incorrectly, the subsidy obtained by the trader no longer corresponds to the difference between the target price and the world market price, and Article 27(1) of the basic regulation is infringed.  17. This is what happened in the present case, where the exchange rates set out in Annex III were not adopted in accordance with the requirements of Article 33 of Regulation No 2681/83.  18. As the Commission points out,( 5)  "As regards the spot rates for the ECU, the figures published on 21 and 22 March in the 'C' Series of the Official Journal of the European Communities( 6) unambiguously highlight the manifest error contained in Annex III to Regulation No 735/85. The rate for converting the ECU into French francs as published, and therefore as known to every trader in the Community, was in the region of FF 6,82 per ECU, while the rate set out in Annex III was FF 6,02; in other words there was an error of more than 10%. The loss claimed by Cargill follows directly and exclusively from this manifest error in the rate for converting the ECU into French francs, since the amounts of the subsidy fixed in Annex II were correct. In accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 33(4) of Regulation 2681/83, the amount of the subsidy resulting from the application of that incorrect rate amounts to:  FF 120,69, or HFL 52,04, per 100 kg (120,69 : 6,025 x 2,598150 = 52,04), while the application of the correct rate entitles it to a subsidy of:  FF 120,69, or FL 44,68, per 100 kg  (120,69 : 6,802180 x 2,51827 = 44,68).  That difference between the incorrect amount of the final aid and the correct amount thereof, namely HFL 7,36 or ECU 2,92 (7,36 : 2,51827 = 2,923), is considerable."  19. The Commission adds that, for a firm such as Cargill, that difference must have been almost equivalent to the cost of processing the seed in question. Annex III to Regulation No 735/85 was therefore unlawful and its application would consequently have led to subsidies which were themselves illegal.  20. However, Cargill also claims that even if Regulation No 735/85 was invalid, that would be of no consequence in the proceedings before the national court, since a public authority (here, the Produktschap) may not rely on the invalidity of rules which it has adopted itself or, where appropriate, of rules which are applicable to it, as against a person who is asking the authority to comply with those rules. That line of reasoning obviously cannot be accepted, since a regulation is necessarily invalid erga omnes.  21. As far as the second question submitted by the College van Beroep is concerned, therefore, I have come to the conclusion that Annex III to Regulation No 735/85 is invalid and that it cannot therefore constitute a basis for granting the subsidy applied for by the plaintiff, which would in fact have involved the use of the exchange rates set out in that annex.  22. Having described the magnitude of the error, I now wish to proceed further along that path and examine whether Cargill must necessarily have been aware of that error or whether, on the other hand, it was entitled to rely on the figures set out in Annex III.  23. In that regard, it is appropriate to point out that, in Annex III to the regulation which had immediately preceded Regulation No 735/85, namely Regulation No 672/85 (Official Journal 1985 L 74, p. 79), the spot rate for the French franc in relation to the ECU had been fixed at 6,799470. The difference between this rate and the incorrect rate set out in Regulation No 735/85, namely 6,025450, could only be explained if, in the meantime, the French franc had been devalued by approximately 11%. That would have been a "competitive devaluation", much greater than all those which had occurred in the course of previous monetary movements. All the agents of Cargill responsible for making purchases and sales must have known that there had been no such devaluation of the French franc, or even a lesser devaluation, since the previous week. It could thus not have escaped them that Annex III to Regulation No 735/85 contained significant errors, and that its application must necessarily have led to the grant of amounts of the subsidy which were incompatible with the criteria laid down by the Community rules relating to that sector. Furthermore, the Commission stated that the representatives of several firms, including an employee of Cargill-Amsterdam, had telephoned to point out the errors and to ask it what action it was proposing to take. In view of the situation, certain other firms seem to have refrained from applying for an advance-fixing certificate on 22 March 1985 and those which did apply appear not to have instituted proceedings when they failed to receive one.  24. Cargill, for its part, submitted applications for advance fixing of the subsidy in respect of 10 000 tonnes of sunflower seed. It claims to have concluded, on that same day, not only contracts of purchase, but also contracts of sale covering some 10 700 tonnes.  25. In my view, it follows from the foregoing that the serious defects in Annex III were so obvious to any trader as to rule out the possibility that any company could have been led to rely on the lawfulness of that measure.  26. In addition, every commercial company must have known that the submission of an application for an advance-fixing certificate does not of itself confer the right to the subsidy: that right arises only upon the issue of the certificate. Furthermore, the rules expressly provide for the possibility of suspending advance fixing. Thus, no prudent, sensible trader will conclude contracts of purchase or sale before actually obtaining the advance-fixing certificate applied for. He will refrain from doing so a fortiori where the published rates for the ECU are indicative of a massive devaluation when none has been reported.  27. Cargill further contends, in paragraph 27 of its reply in Case  C-248/89, that  "the Commission' s statements concerning the extent to which its error would become apparent on a first reading of the Official Journal are, moreover, irrelevant, since those who, in undertakings such as Cargill, carry out accounting tasks do not rely on what is published in the Official Journal (which in any event appears too late), but on the publications of the national implementing bodies, in which the Commission' s rates are set out. Thus, on each occasion, MVO publishes a summary of the 'amounts of net subsidies in the Netherlands' calculated by MVO on the basis of the rates of the subsidy and the exchange rates referred to in the Official Journal. Those who carry out accounting tasks rely on that summary. The amounts of the subsidies mentioned in that summary regularly fluctuate to a substantial extent. The amount of the subsidy in HFL published on 22 March 1985 was considerably higher than the amount previously applicable. However, the difference was by no means dramatic or exceptional".  28. In that regard, in must be borne in mind that according to the case-law traders must not rely on certain documents, such as the customs tariff manual in use in Germany, which are published in certain Member States, but are supposed to verify the information set out therein by comparing it with that in the Official Journal.( 7)  29. Moreover, the document annexed to Cargill' s reply shows not only the net amounts of the subsidies mentioned above relating to seed purchased in France and processed in the Netherlands, but also, in a separate table, the incorrect rates of the ECU as set out in Annex III to Regulation No 735/85. On establishing that the net amounts of the subsidy in HFL for certain seeds were surprisingly high, therefore, Cargill was in a position to determine, even by consulting the Dutch publication alone, that those amounts could be explained only by the incorrect exchange rates, which were also set out.  30. It is thus quite clear that in these cases Cargill may not rely on the principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations.  The validity of Regulation No 1358/89  31. In its the direct action, Cargill seeks the annulment of Regulation No 1358/89. Furthermore, the first question submitted by the College van Beroep is worded as follows:  "Is Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1358/89 of 18 May 1989 invalid in the light of the considerations set out in this judgment?"  32. Cargill puts forward three submissions challenging the validity of that regulation, namely infringement of Article 8 of Regulation No 1594/83, misuse of powers and infringement of the principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations.  Infringement of Article 8 of Regulation No 1594/83  33. So far as concerns the arguments put forward by Cargill in support of this allegation, I would refer to the Report for the Hearing relating to the reference for a preliminary ruling (Case C-365/89, II, Question 1, paragraph 1).  34. Cargill' s main argument is that, since the amendment of Article 8 in 1986, when the passage concerning the alteration of the subsidy was repealed, the only remedy available to the Commission when it makes a material error in the amounts of the subsidies which it publishes is the suspension of advance fixing. According to Cargill, the Commission is not justified in adjusting the amounts of the subsidies in any circumstances.  35. It should first of all be borne in mind that the first two paragraphs of the new version of Article 8 are worded as follows:( 8)  "1. In the case of an abnormal situation which results or could result in a disturbance on the Community market for oil seeds, it may be decided to suspend the advance fixing of the subsidy for the period necessary to re-establish the balance in the market.  2. The suspension referred to in paragraph 1 may be extended to the advance-fixing parts of the certificate referred to in Article 4 which have been requested and have not yet been issued in the case:  (a) where there is a material error in the amount of the subsidy which is published;  (b) where certain factors may create a monetary distortion between Member States;  and when these cases may create a discrimination between interested parties."  36. Accordingly, it follows from that provision that, if there is a material error in the amount of the subsidy and if certain other conditions are satisfied, suspension of advance fixing may be extended to certificates applied for and not yet issued. Does this also mean that the Commission is never entitled to rectify a material error, in particular when the error does not concern the amount of the subsidy as such, but the exchange rates of the ECU published in Annex III?  37. I do not think so. Let me point out first of all that the three tables annexed to the regulation at issue contain a column headed "Current month" which establishes the subsidy to be granted or the exchange rate of the ECU to be used on that same day, that is in cases where no advance fixing is applied for. The suspension of advance fixing cannot in any circumstances compensate for the adverse consequences arising from an error affecting the columns headed "Current month".  38. On the other hand, an institution always has the power to amend one of its measures in compliance with the principle of "parallel procedures", as the Commission has done in this case. Regulation No 1358/89 is not in any way based on Article 8 of Regulation No 1594/83; it is based on the same provisions as those on which Regulation No 735/85, which fell to be rectified, was based. A problem arises only where such an amendment has a retroactive effect: in that case, the legitimate expectations of those concerned must be fulfilled, provided that they are capable of being relied upon. As we have seen, that is not so in the present case.  39. Accordingly, the argument concerning the infringement of Article 8 of Regulation No 1594/83 cannot be upheld.  Misuse of powers  40. In the second place, Cargill charges the Commission with seeking to maintain, by adopting Regulation No 1358/89, the legal situation which it had created by Regulation No 756/85. In its view, there is absolutely no basis on which the Commission can now attain, by other means, the same result as that which it had sought to attain by the regulation suspending advance fixing, which was declared invalid. The conduct of the Commission thus constitutes nothing other than an attempt to deprive the judgment of the Court in Case 201/87 of its effectiveness; hence the Commission is guilty of a misuse of powers, as a result of which Regulation No 1358/89 is null and void.  41. In its recent judgment in Case C-331/88 Fedesa ([1990] ECR I-4023), the Court recalled the definition of a misuse of powers:  "... the Court has consistently held (see, in particular, the judgments in Joined Cases 140, 146, 221 and 226/82 Walzstahl- Vereinigung and Thyssen v Commission, [1984] ECR 951, paragraph 27, and in Case 69/83 Lux v Court of Auditors [1984] ECR 2447, paragraph 30) that a decision may amount to a misuse of powers only if it appears, on the basis of objective, relevant and consistent factors, to have been taken with the exclusive purpose, or at any rate the main purpose, of achieving an end other than that stated or evading a procedure specifically prescribed by the Treaty for dealing with the circumstances of the case" (paragraph 24).  42. Let us consider, in the first place, whether the ends pursued by Regulation No 1358/89 are different from those stated.  43. The ends stated are those set down in the preamble to that regulation, where the reasoning is essentially as follows: a substantive error in the conversion rates for the ECU, contained in Annex III to Regulation No 735/85, would have led to the granting to certain traders of excessively high subsidies; in order to prevent that improper and discriminatory advantage, the Commission adopted the following day Regulation No 756/85 suspending advance fixing and Regulation No 755/85 fixing the correct conversion rates;( 9) as the latter regulation did not enter into force until 23 March 1985, and as Regulation No 756/85 was annulled by the Court, it was necessary to re-establish the correct conversion rates for applications lodged on 22 March 1985, once again in order to prevent certain traders from obtaining an unwarranted subsidy.  44. Cargill has not disputed in any way whatsoever that those were the grounds which led the Commission to adopt Regulation No 1358/89. In other words, there was no difference between the "ends stated" and the ends actually pursued.  45. The question remains whether the Commission sought to evade "a procedure specifically prescribed by the Treaty for dealing with the circumstances of the case" or, in the present case, a procedure specifically prescribed by the regulations applicable in that sector. In that regard, there is no doubt that the Commission sought to attain, by altering the exchange rates of the ECU, the same end as that which it had pursued by the suspension of advance fixing, namely preventing traders from being able to obtain a higher subsidy than that to which they were entitled.  46. However, it is untrue to say that in so doing it deprived the judgment of the Court in Case 201/87 of its effectiveness. In that judgment, the Court criticized only the measure suspending advance fixing. That measure is and remains null and void. On the other hand, the Court did not rule on the validity or otherwise of Regulation No 735/85, because that question had not been raised by the national court. The Commission was thus entitled to consider that regulation as (in part) invalid and to make use of the second means available to it, namely amendment of the measure with retroactive effect or withdrawal of part of the measure and replacement thereof, in order to remedy the defect.  47. As I have already pointed out, any institution is always entitled to amend one of its acts, in complicance with the principle of parallel procedures, and to rectify the act with retroactive effect while taking care not to frustrate the legitimate expectations of those concerned.  48. The Commission could, moreover, have given Regulation No 755/85 of 22 March 1985, which rectified Annex III as from 23 March 1985, retroactive effect by one day. The reason why it did not do so remains a mystery. At all events, the fact that it first made use of the possibility of suspending advance fixing did not deprive it of the right to correct the error. By availing itself of the second possibility after the first had proved to be ineffectual, following the Court' s judgment, the Commission did not "evade a procedure", but simply had recourse to another means available to it for the attainment of a lawful purpose.  49. That brings me to the conclusion that the allegation of a misuse of powers must be rejected.  Infringement of the principle of legal certainty  50. Cargill also disputes the validity of the regulation on the ground that, by taking effect retroactively, it infringes the principle of legal certainty.  51. In that regard, it should be borne in mind that the Court has consistently held that  "as a general rule it is contrary to the principle of legal certainty for a Community measure to specify a date prior to its publication as the date on which it is to take effect. It may exceptionally be otherwise where the purpose to be achieved so demands and where the legitimate expectations of those concerned are duly respected( 10)."  52. In those circumstances, however,  "decisions having such effect must include in the statement of the reasons on which they are based particulars which justify the desired retroactive effect( 11)."  53. In the preamble to Regulation No 1358/89, the Commission specifically indicated the reasons which led it to confer retroactive effect on that regulation. Those reasons, namely the need to prevent the grant of an improper advantage, are entirely convincing.  54. As for the second condition laid down by the Court in the aforesaid case-law, namely fulfilment of the legitimate expectations of those concerned, I have already explained, above, the reasons for which I consider that Cargill cannot have considered in good faith that the figures set out in Annex III to Regulation No 735/85 were correct.  55. There are also grounds for taking the view, as the Commission does, that the case-law of the Court which is applicable in the instant case is that concerning the withdrawal of measures, even though that case-law concerns the withdrawal of administrative measures (which are of individual application), and not the withdrawal of measures of general application. It follows that  "the withdrawal of an unlawful measure is permissible, provided that the withdrawal occurs within a reasonable time and provided that the Commission has had sufficient regard to how far the applicant might have been led to rely on the lawfulness of the measure( 12)."  56. I would remind the Court that I have already come to the conclusion that Annex III to Regulation No 735/85 is invalid. Accordingly, we are indeed dealing with the withdrawal of an unlawful measure.  57. Cargill asserts that, by not withdrawing the regulation until four years after it was adopted, the Commission has failed to comply with the criterion of a "reasonable period".  58. However, the Commission had at once adopted a measure to suspend advance fixing in order to prevent traders from being able to exploit the improper advantage which might have arisen from the incorrect exchange rates. It stated, rightly to my mind, that the need for it to take further action arose only after the judgment of the Court in the first Cargill case (201/87). It had, first of all, taken account of the possibility, indirectly suggested by the Court moreover, that the Netherlands court might submit a further question for a preliminary ruling, this time on the validity of Regulation No 735/85. Since a second reference on that point was not made forthwith, the Commission itself drew the appropriate conclusions from the judgment declaring that the regulation suspending advance fixing was invalid, and from the error made in connection with the adoption of Regulation No 735/85, by adopting Regulation No 1358/89 on 18 May 1989. In the light of those circumstances, I am of the opinion that the period to be taken into consideration is not that which elapsed between Regulations No 735/85 and No 1358/89, but the period of slightly less than three months - and therefore of an entirely reasonable duration - separating the adoption of the latter regulation from the judgment of the Court.  59. Finally, a word concerning Cargill' s argument according to which the Commission was wrong to refer, in the final recital in the preamble to the regulation at issue, to the need to prevent traders whose applications for advance-fixing certificates for the subsidy had been suspended pursuant to Regulation No 756/85 from being able to obtain a subsidy which was unwarranted and "discriminatory with respect to the other operators".  60. Cargill points out that other traders, who did not apply for advance fixing, were able to obtain the "subsidy of the day" fixed in Annex III to Regulation No 735/85 ("Current month" column of that annex) and that it is Cargill itself which would be discriminated against with respect to them if that regulation were not applied to it.  61. There is a possibility, in theory, that certain traders may have been able to obtain an unwarranted "subsidy of the day", raising the question of the recovery of undue payments. However, those do not constitute sufficient grounds for extending the same improper advantage to a firm which had applied for advance fixing in respect of the relatively large quantity of 10 000 tonnes. The Commission has emphasized, moreover - without being contradicted - that the subsidy for oil seeds is usually applied for by means of advance fixing.  62. The Commission has also explained that the relevant passage in the final recital in the preamble was intended to refer to traders who had refrained from applying for an advance-fixing certificate on March 22 1985 and had postponed their applications until the following day because of the errors contained in Regulation No 735/85. Those, to my mind, constitute sufficient grounds for concluding that that passage in the preamble to the regulation is not vitiated by a manifest error.  63. For all the reasons set out above, I have arrived at the following conclusions:  - Cargill' s application for the annulment of Commission Regulation No 1358/89 is unfounded;  - examination of the first question submitted by the national court has not disclosed any factor of such a kind as to call in question the validity of that regulation.  The ancillary claims brought before the national court  64. Since, in the proceedings before the national court, Cargill applied for damages together with default interest, the national court has submitted a third question, in two parts, on whether it is for the Court of Justice or the national court to adjudicate on those claims.  65. Both of those questions, however, are based on the assumption that Regulation No 1358/89 must be considered invalid. I have just proposed that the Court should come to the opposite conclusion, and I can scarcely imagine the Court doing otherwise.  66. I shall therefore refrain from adopting a position on those questions, while endorsing, in the alternative, the observations submitted in that regard by the Commission.  Conclusions  67. In the light of all the foregoing considerations, I propose that, with regard to Case C-248/89, the Court dismiss the application for the annulment of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1358/89 of 18 May 1989, and order the applicant to pay the costs.  68. In Case C-365/89, I propose that the Court answer the questions submitted by the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven as follows:  "(1) Examination of the question raised has not disclosed any factor of such a kind as to call in question the validity of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1358/89 of 18 May 1989.  (2) Annex III to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 735/85 of 21 March 1985 is invalid owing to an error in the exchange rate fixed therein, and it cannot therefore constitute a basis for granting the subsidy applied for by the plaintiff.  (3) In the light of the answers given to the first two questions, the third question has become devoid of purpose."  ( *) Original language: French.  ( 1) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 735/85 of 21 March 1985 fixing the amount of the subsidy on oil seeds (OJ 1985 L 80, p. 18).  ( 2) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 756/85 of 22 March 1985 suspending advance fixing of the subsidy for colza, rape and sunflower seed (OJ 1985 L 81, p. 38).  ( 3) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1594/83 of 14 June 1983 on the subsidy for oil seeds (OJ 1983 L 163, p. 44).  ( 4) OJ English Special Edition 1966, p. 221.  ( 5) Paragraph 9 of the defence in Case C-248/89.  ( 6) OJ 1985 C 76, p. 1, and C 77, p. 1.  ( 7) Judgment of the Court in Case 161/88 Binder v Hauptzollamt Bad Reichenhall [1989] ECR 2415.  ( 8) Council Regulation (EEC) No 935/86 of 25 March 1986 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1594/83 on the subsidy for oil seeds (OJ 1986 L 87, p. 5, and Corrigendum published in OJ 1988 L 181, p. 51).  ( 9) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 755/85 of 22 March 1985 fixing the amount of the subsidy on oil seeds (OJ 1985 L 81, p. 36).  ( 10) Judgments in Case 98/78 Racke v Hauptzollamt Mainz [1979] ECR 69 at 86 and Case 99/78 Decker v Hauptzollamt Landau [1979] ECR 101 at 111; judgment in Joined Cases 212/80 to 217/80 Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v Salumi [1981] ECR 2735 at 2751; judgment in Case 84/81 Staple Dairy Products v Intervention Board [1982] ECR 1763 at 1777; judgments in Case 108/81 Amylum v Council [1982] ECR 3107 at 3130, Case 110/81 Roquette Frères v Council [1982] 3159 at 3178 and Case 114/81 Tunnel Refineries v Council [1982] ECR 3189 at 3206; judgment in Case 224/82 Meiko-Konservenfabrik v Germany [1983] ECR 2539 at 2548.  ( 11) Order in Case 1/84 R Ilford v Commission [1984] ECR 423 at 431.  ( 12) Judgment in Case 14/81 Alpha Steel v Commission [1982] ECR 749 at 964.