CELEX: 61979CJ0049
Language: en
Date: 1980-03-04 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court of 4 March 1980. # Richard Pool v Council of the European Communities. # Common organization of the market agricoles - 'green pound system'. # Case 49/79.

Avis juridique important

|

61979J0049

Judgment of the Court of 4 March 1980.  -  Richard Pool v Council of the European Communities.  -  Common organization of the market agricoles - 'green pound system'.  -  Case 49/79.  

European Court reports 1980 Page 00569 Greek special edition Page 00295

SummaryPartiesSubject of the caseGroundsDecision on costsOperative part
Keywords

1 . NON-CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY - CONDITIONS - ILLEGALITY - DAMAGE - CHAIN OF CAUSALITY  ( EEC TREATY , ART . 215 , SECOND PARAGRAPH )   2 . AGRICULTURE - COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKETS - BEEF AND VEAL - PRICE SYSTEM - RIGHT OF PRODUCERS TO PRECISE PRICE LEVELS OF COMMUNITY RULES - NONE   ( REGULATION NO 805/68 OF THE COUNCIL )    

Summary

1 . THE NON-CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY OF THE COMMUNITY UNDER THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 215 OF THE EEC TREATY DEPENDS ON THE COINCIDENCE OF A SET OF CONDITIONS AS REGARDS THE UNLAWFULNESS OF THE ACTS ALLEGED AGAINST THE INSTITUTION , THE FACT OF DAMAGE , AND THE EXISTENCE OF A DIRECT LINK IN THE CHAIN OF CAUSALITY BETWEEN THE WRONGFUL ACT AND THE DAMAGE COMPLAINED OF .     2 . THE PRICE SYSTEM WHICH IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKET IN BEEF AND VEAL - ESTABLISHED BY REGULATION NO 805/68 - DOES NOT HAVE THE EFFECT OF GUARANTEEING TO INDIVIDUAL TRADERS THAT THEIR PRODUCE WILL BE DISPOSED OF AT THE PRECISE PRICE LEVEL DETERMINED BY COMMUNITY RULES . THAT LEVEL , EXPRESSED IN UNITS OF ACCOUNT , DOES NOT THEREFORE CONSTITUTE A VALUE WHICH COULD BE USED AS A BASIS FOR COMPARISON WITH THE PRICES OBTAINED BY A PRODUCER ON THE MARKET WITH A VIEW TO DEMONSTRATING THAT CERTAIN DAMAGE HAS BEEN CAUSED .    

Parties

IN CASE 49/79 RICHARD POOL , FARMER , OF HIGHER TRAYNE , ILFRACOMBE , DEVONSHIRE , ENGLAND , REPRESENTED BY ANDREW DURAND OF THE MIDDLE TEMPLE , BARRISTER , INSTRUCTED BY W . H . HADFIELD & SON , SOLICITORS , FARNHAM , WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG C/O SHIRLEY WARD , RESIDENCE BELLE-VUE , 79 RUE DU KIEM , STRASSEN ,   APPLICANT ,   V  COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES , REPRESENTED BY DANIEL VIGNES AND BERNHARD SCHLOH , DIRECTOR AND ADVISER RESPECTIVELY IN THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT OF THE COUNCIL , WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE OFFICE OF J . N . VAN DEN HOUTEN , DIRECTOR OF THE LEGAL DEPARTEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN INVESTMENT BANK , 2 PLACE DE METZ ,   DEFENDANT ,    

Subject of the case

APPLICATION FOR DAMAGES UNDER THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 215 OF THE EEC TREATY ,  

Grounds

1 BY AN APPLICATION OF 28 MARCH 1979 THE APPLICANT , WHO IS A CATTLE BREEDER ESTABLISHED IN THE UNITED KINGDOM , SOUGHT COMPENSATION UNDER THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 215 OF THE TREATY IN THE SUM OF POUNDS  9 504 FOR THE DAMAGE WHICH THE COUNCIL WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE CAUSED HIM WHEN IT DETERMINED THE CONVERSION RATE FOR THE POUND STERLING IN REGULATION NO 2498/74 OF THE COUNCIL OF 2 OCTOBER 1974 FIXING REPRESENTATIVE CONVERSION RATES TO BE APPLIED IN AGRICULTURE ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL L 268 , P . 6 ) AND THE SUBSEQUENT REGULATIONS ON THE SAME SUBJECT .    2 THE APPLICANT TAKES THE VIEW THAT AS A RESULT OF THE COUNCIL ' S IMPROPER DETERMINATION OF THE CONVERSION RATE FOR THE POUND STERLING FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY ( HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO BY THE TERM ' ' GREEN RATE ' ' ) HE DID NOT , WHEN SELLING HIS PRODUCE , OBTAIN THE PRICES WHICH HE SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKET IN BEEF AND VEAL ( REGULATION NO 805/68 OF 27 JUNE 1968 , OFFICIAL JOURNAL , ENGLISH SPECIAL EDITION 1968 I , P . 187 ) IF THE ' ' GREEN RATE ' '  FOR THE POUND STERLING USED TO CONVERT AGRICULTURAL PRICES FIXED IN EUROPEAN UNITS OF ACCOUNT INTO THE NATIONAL CURRENCY OF THE UNITED KINGDOM HAD BEEN DETERMINED BY THE COUNCIL IN THE PROPER WAY . HE CONSIDERS THAT WHEN DETERMINING THE CONVERSION RATE THE COUNCIL MANIFESTLY INFRINGED THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 40 ( 3 ) OF THE TREATY WHICH REQUIRES THE COMMON ORGANIZATIONS OF THE MARKET TO EXCLUDE ANY DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN PRODUCERS OR     CONSUMERS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY AND PROVIDES THAT ANY COMMON PRICE POLICY SHALL BE BASED ON COMMON CRITERIA AND UNIFORM METHODS OF CALCULATION .    3 THE APPLICANT THINKS THAT THE COUNCIL , WHEN DETERMINING THE CONVERSION RATE APPLICABLE TO THE POUND STERLING UNDER THE COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY , OVERVALUED THAT CURRENCY IN PARTICULAR , SO THAT AGRICULTURAL PRICES IN THE UNITED KINGDOM WERE FIXED AT AN APPRECIABLY LOWER LEVEL THAN THAT OF PRICES GUARANTEED TO AGRICULTURE IN THE OTHER MEMBER STATES . USING THE MONETARY CONVERSION RATES APPLICABLE AT THE TIME AS THE BASIS FOR CALCULATION , HE COMES TO THE CONCLUSION THAT AGRICULTURAL PRICES IN THE UNITED KINGDOM WERE 30 % LOWER THAN THE HIGHEST PRICES EXISTING IN THE COMMUNITY , 23 % LOWER THAN THE AVERAGE PRICES RULING IN THE MEMBER STATES AND 21 % LOWER THAN PRICES GUARANTEED TO IRISH FARM PRODUCERS . THE DISPARITY IN THE LATTER CASE SEEMS TO HIM TO BE PARTICULARLY FLAGRANT BECAUSE AT THE TIME UNDER CONSIDERATION THE UNITED KINGDOM AND IRELAND WERE PART OF THE SAME MONETARY SYSTEM .    4 THE APPLICANT , APPARENTLY CONSIDERING THE CONVERSION RATE FOR IRELAND AS HAVING BEEN DETERMINED SATISFACTORILY , SUBMITS THAT AN APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF DAMAGES WOULD BE SUCH AS TO PUT HIM IN THE SAME POSITION AS IF HE HAD SOLD HIS PRODUCE IN THE REPUBLIC OF IRELAND . UPON COMPARING THE PRICES WHICH HE RECEIVED DURING A PERIOD FROM 7 OCTOBER 1974 TO 1 MARCH 1979 TO THE PRICES WHICH HE COULD HAVE OBTAINED DURING THE SAME PERIOD IN IRELAND , HE ESTIMATES THAT HIS LOSS AMOUNTS TO POUNDS  9 504 FOR WHICH HE SEEKS AN AWARD OF DAMAGES FROM THE COMMUNITY .    5 THE COURT ASKED THE APPLICANT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE WRITTEN PROCEDURE TO EXPLAIN PRECISELY THE REASONS LEADING HIM TO BELIEVE THAT THE CONVERSION RATE FOR THE POUND STERLING HAD BEEN DETERMINED IMPROPERLY IN RELATION TO THE VALUE OF NOT ONLY THE IRISH POUND , BUT ALSO THE CURRENCIES OF THE OTHER MEMBER STATES . THE APPLICANT HOWEVER CONFINED HIMSELF TO REPEATING THE ARGUMENTS PUT FORWARD IN HIS APPLICATION ; HE CONFIRMED THAT HE ONLY INTENDED TO MAKE THE COMPARISON BETWEEN THE GREEN POUND STERLING AND THE GREEN IRISH POUND SINCE HE REGARDED THE DETERMINATION OF THE RATE FOR THE IRISH POUND TO BE MORE ' ' REPRESENTATIVE OF THE REAL MONETARY RELATIONSHIP ' '  THAN THE     RATE DETERMINED FOR THE POUND STERLING AND BECAUSE IN HIS OPINION THIS COMPARISON ILLUSTRATED THE DISCRIMINATION MOST CLEARLY .    6 THE APPLICATION CALLS IN QUESTION SEVERAL COUNCIL REGULATIONS RELATING TO FAIRLY FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS OF ECONOMIC AND MONETARY POLICY IN THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR . ESSENTIALLY , BY MAKING CHOICES IN THE DETERMINATION OF THE CONVERSION RATE FOR THE POUND STERLING IN RELATION TO THE UNIT OF ACCOUNT , THE COUNCIL ALLEGEDLY INCURRED LIABILITY TO THE APPLICANT .    7 WITH A VIEW TO DEALING WITH THIS CLAIM , IT IS APPROPRIATE TO RECALL THE CONDITIONS UPON WHICH THE LIABILITY OF THE COMMUNITY MAY ARISE UNDER THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 215 . AS THE COURT HAS ALREADY INDICATED IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 2 JULY 1974 , HOLTZ & WILLEMSEN V COUNCIL AND COMMISSION ( CASE 153/73 , ECR 675 ), COMMUNITY LIABILITY DEPENDS ON THE COINCIDENCE OF A SET OF CONDITIONS AS REGARDS THE UNLAWFULNESS OF THE ACTS ALLEGED AGAINST THE INSTITUTION , THE FACT OF DAMAGE , AND THE EXISTENCE OF A DIRECT LINK IN THE CHAIN OF CAUSALITY BETWEEN THE WRONGFUL ACT AND THE DAMAGE COMPLAINED OF .    8 IT IS IN THE LIGHT OF THOSE CRITERIA THAT THE SUBSTANCE OF THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE EXAMINED . THE APPLICANT WAS MAINLY INTENT UPON DEMONSTRATING IN THE LIGHT OF THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 40 ( 3 ) OF THE TREATY THE UNLAWFULNESS OF THE COUNCIL REGULATIONS DESIGNED TO DETERMINE THE CONVERSION RATE FOR THE POUND STERLING IN THE CONTEXT OF THE COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY . HOWEVER , BEFORE ENTERING INTO THESE ARGUMENTS , IT IS APPROPRIATE TO ASK WHETHER THE APPLICANT HAS PROVED , IF ONLY PRIMA FACIE , THAT HE HAS IN REALITY SUFFERED THE DAMAGE FOR WHICH HE CLAIMS COMPENSATION .    9 IN ORDER TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF THE DAMAGE WHICH HE CLAIMS HE HAS SUFFERED , THE APPLICANT HAS PUT BEFORE THE COURT STATISTICS MEANT TO SHOW THE COMPARATIVE TREND OF SALE PRICES FOR CATTLE IN THE DIFFERENT MEMBER STATES FOLLOWING A SYSTEM OF HIS OWN , USING BOTH MONETARY EXCHANGE RATES AND THE AGRICULTURAL EXCHANGE RATES DETERMINED BY THE DISPUTED REGULATIONS . HE HIMSELF ADMITS THAT THESE CALCULATIONS HAVE AN ILLUSTRATIVE VALUE ONLY ; IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS THE PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE AND THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGE ALLEGED RESTS EXCLUSIVELY UPON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE LEVEL OF PRICES IN THE UNITED KINGDOM AND THAT OF PRICES IN IRELAND . THIS ATTEMPTED PROOF IS NOT CONVINCING FOR TWO REASONS .        10 FIRST , THE APPLICANT FAILS TO SEE THE LEGAL NATURE OF PRICES DETERMINED UNDER THE COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKET FOR BEEF AND VEAL . HE COULD ESTABLISH DAMAGE ONLY IF THE DETERMINATION OF CERTAIN LEVELS OF PRICES IN THE CONTEXT OF THE COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKET HAD THE EFFECT OF GIVING PRODUCERS THE RIGHT TO DISPOSE OF THEIR PRODUCE AT A GUARANTEED PRICE LEVEL . ONLY IN THAT CASE IN FACT COULD A PRODUCER ESTABLISH THAT DAMAGE WAS CAUSED , ASCERTAINABLE FROM THE LEVEL OF PRICES DETERMINED UNDER THE COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKET AND FROM THE LEVEL OF PRICES RULING AS A RESULT OF MONETARY MEASURES ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL . THAT IS NOT THE EFFECT OF THE PRICE SYSTEM ESTABLISHED UNDER THE APPLICABLE RULES . THOSE PRICES ARE TO DETERMINE ON THE ONE HAND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE VARIOUS MEASURES OF INTERVENTION IN THE MARKET , AND ON THE OTHER TO ADJUST THE LEVEL OF LEVIES AND REFUNDS APPLICABLE IN TRADE WITH NON-MEMBER STATES . BY VIRTUE OF THAT MACHINERY THE COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKET GIVES THE COMMUNITY PRODUCERS THE ADVANTAGE OF A LEVEL OF PRICES SUBSTANTIALLY HIGHER THAN THE LEVEL OF PRICES PREVAILING ON THE WORLD MARKET . IT IS TRUE THAT THE PRICES OBTAINED BY INDIVIDUAL PRODUCERS ARE INDIRECTLY DETERMINED BY THE COMBINATION OF INTERVENTION IN THE MARKET AND THE ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE COMMUNITY ' S EXTERNAL TRADE , BUT IN SPITE OF THAT IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO TAKE THE VIEW THAT THE PRICE SYSTEM GUARANTEES TO INDIVIDUAL TRADERS THAT THEIR PRODUCE WILL BE DISPOSED OF AT THE PRECISE PRICE LEVEL DETERMINED BY COMMUNITY RULES . AS A RESULT , THAT LEVEL , EXPRESSED IN UNITS OF ACCOUNT , DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A VALUE WHICH COULD BE USED AS A BASIS FOR COMPARISON WITH THE PRICES OBTAINED BY A PRODUCER ON THE MARKET WITH A VIEW TO DEMONSTRATING THAT CERTAIN DAMAGE HAS BEEN CAUSED .    11 IT SHOULD MOREOVER BE OBSERVED THAT THE DEMONSTRATION UNDERTAKEN BY THE APPLICANT TO PROVE THAT HE HAS REALLY SUFFERED DAMAGE IS BASED UPON AN UNREAL COMPARISON . HE ASKS , IN FACT , TO BE PLACED IN THE SAME POSITION AS IF HE HAD SOLD HIS PRODUCE ON THE IRISH MARKET . IN ACTUAL FACT HE CARRIES ON HIS ACTIVITY AS A CATTLE BREEDER IN THE UNITED KINGDOM AND HAS SOLD HIS PRODUCE ON THE MARKET THERE . IF HE HAD SOLD HIS PRODUCE ON THE IRISH MARKET , HE WOULD HAVE BEEN LIABLE TO THE PAYMENT OF MONETARY COMPENSATORY AMOUNTS ON IMPORT INTO IRELAND SO THAT THE PRICES OBTAINED BY HIM WOULD IN PRINCIPLE NOT HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT FROM THOSE WHICH HE OBTAINED BY DISPOSING OF HIS PRODUCE ON THE UNITED KINGDOM MARKET . IF HE HAD LIVED IN IRELAND , HIS PRODUCE WOULD HAVE BEEN DEPENDENT UPON THE ECONOMIC CONDITIONS FOR PRODUCTION PREVAILING IN THAT STATE .        12 IT FOLLOWS FROM THE FOREGOING THAT THE APPLICANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF THE DAMAGE WHICH HE CLAIMS TO HAVE SUFFERED ; THIS IS SUFFICIENT FOR THE DISMISSAL OF HIS APPLICATION WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY NEED TO ENTER INTO THE QUESTION OF THE LAWFULNESS OF THE MONETARY MEASURES CRITICIZED BY THE APPLICANT .    

Decision on costs

13 UNDER ARTICLE 69 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE THE UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY MUST BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS .    14 SINCE THE APPLICANT HAS FAILED IN HIS SUBMISSIONS , HE MUST BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS .    

Operative part

ON THOSE GROUNDS , THE COURT  HEREBY  1 . DISMISSES THE APPLICATION ;   2 . ORDERS THE APPLICANT TO PAY THE COSTS .