CELEX: C2001/108/05
Language: en
Date: 2001-04-07 00:00:00
Title: Cases C-482/00, C-497/00, C-498/00 and C-499/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio by judgments of that court of 6 July 2000 in the cases of Aziende Agricole Ettore Raffa and Others v Azienda di Stato per gli Interventi nel Mercato Agricolo (AIMA) and the Ministry of the Treasury, the Budget and Planning (Case C-482/00); Azienda Agricola Gonal di Gonzato Simone e Stefano (C-497/00), Azienda Agricola Gianluigi Cerati and Maria Ceriali s.s. v AIMA and the Ministry of the Treasury, the Budget and Planning (Case C-498/00), and Musini Nicolò Giovanni Maria v AIMA and the Ministry of the Treasury, the Budget and Planning (Case C-499/00)

7.4.2001               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 108/3
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale                     Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio by order of that                  Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio by judgments of
court of 6 July 2000 in the case of Domenico Buttiglione                that court of 6 July 2000 in the cases of Aziende Agricole
and Others against Azienda di Stato per gli Interventi nel              Ettore Raffa and Others v Azienda di Stato per gli
Mercato Agricolo (AIMA) and the Ministry of Agricul-                    Interventi nel Mercato Agricolo (AIMA) and the Ministry
               tural, Food and Forestry Policies                        of the Treasury, the Budget and Planning (Case C-482/00);
                                                                        Azienda Agricola Gonal di Gonzato Simone e Stefano
                                                                        (C-497/00), Azienda Agricola Gianluigi Cerati and Maria
                        (Case C-481/00)                                 Ceriali s.s. v AIMA and the Ministry of the Treasury, the
                                                                        Budget and Planning (Case C-498/00), and Musini Nicolò
                                                                        Giovanni Maria v AIMA and the Ministry of the Treasury,
                        (2001/C 108/04)                                           the Budget and Planning (Case C-499/00)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 6 July 2000 of the
                                                                            (Cases C-482/00, C-497/00, C-498/00 and C-499/00)
Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio, received at
the Court Registry on 29 December 2000, for a preliminary
ruling in Case C-481/00 Domenico Buttiglione and Others
against Azienda di Stato per gli Interventi nel Mercato Agricolo
(AIMA) and the Ministry of Agricultural, Food and Forestry                                      (2001/C 108/05)
Policies, on the following questions:
(1) May the provisions contained in Articles 1 and 4 of                 References have been made to the Court of Justice of the
     Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 (1) of 28 December             European Communities by judgments of 6 July 2000 of the
     P92 and Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Regulation                  Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio, received at
     (EEC) No 534/93 (2) of 9 March 1993 be interpreted as              the Court Registry on 29 December 2000, for a preliminary
     meaning that it is possible, in cases of administrative or         ruling in the cases of Aziende Agricole Ettore Raffa and Others
     judicial challenge to the relevant measures, to derogate           v Azienda di Stato per gli Interventi nel Mercato Agricolo
     from the time-limits prescribed for the allocation of              (AIMA) and the Ministry of the Treasury, the Budget and
     quotas and the operation of adjustments and levies?                Planning (Case C-482/00); Azienda Agricola Gonal di Gonzato
                                                                        Simone e Stefano (C-497/00), Azienda Agricola Gianluigi
                                                                        Cerati and Maria Ceriali s.s. v AIMA and the Ministry of the
If not:                                                                 Treasury, the Budget and Planning (Case C-498/00), and
                                                                        Musini Nicolò Giovanni Maria v AIMA and the Ministry of the
                                                                        Treasury, the Budget and Planning (Case C-499/00) on the
(2) Are the provisions contained in Articles 1 and 4 of                 following questions:
     Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December
     1992 and Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Regulation
     (EEC) No 534/93 of 9 March 1993 valid, in the light of             (1) May the provisions contained in Articles 1 and 4 of
     Article 33 (ex 39) of the Treaty, in so far as they do not               Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 (1) of 28 December
     provide that derogations may be made from the periods                    1992 and Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Regulation
     prescribed by those provisions for the allocation of                     (EEC) No 534/93 (2) of 9 March 1993 be interpreted as
     individual reference quantities, for adjustments and levies              meaning that it is possible, in cases of administrative or
     in cases of administrative or judicial challenge to those                judicial challenge to the relevant measures, to derogate
     provisions?                                                              from the time-limits prescribed for the allocation of
                                                                              quotas and the operation of adjustments and levies?
(3) May Regulations No 3950/92 and 536/93 be interpreted
     as permitting Member States to determine privileged
     categories of producers who must be compensated in
     priority to others, in particular by placing the ‘disadvan-        If not,
     taged areas’ in a secondary position in relation to
     mountain areas?
                                                                        (2) Are the provisions contained in Articles 1 and 4 of
                                                                              Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December
                                                                              1992 and Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Regulation
(1) OJ L 405, 31.12.1992, p. 1.                                               (EEC) No 534/93 of 9 March 1993 valid, in the light of
(2) OJ L 57, 10.3.1993, p. 12.                                                Article 33 (ex 39) of the Treaty, in so far as they do not
                                                                              provide that derogations may be made from the periods
                                                                              prescribed by those provisions for the allocation of
                                                                              individual reference quantities, for adjustments and levies
                                                                              in cases of administrative or judicial challenge to those
                                                                              provisions?
 ---pagebreak--- C 108/4                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         7.4.2001
(3) May Regulations No 3950/92 and 536/93 be interpreted                 Pleas in law and main arguments
      as meaning that the application of the system introduced
      by that legislation excludes the allocation and official
      notification of individual reference quantities for pro-           —     The Court of First Instance manifestly erred in law by
      ducers or does it exclude the official redistribution among              having regard exclusively to the conditions of free
      its producers by the Member State of the global quantity                 competition: where contracts are concluded at the level
      which that State is guaranteed?                                          of prices on the world market, the burden of proof with
                                                                               regard to free competition must be less onerous. There is
(4) May Articles 3 and 4 of Regulation (EC) No 3950/92 be                      no reason to adhere to the clearly formalistic rule
      interpreted as meaning that no official notification of                  requiring competition between at least three undertakings
      individual reference quantities need be given to producers,              independent of each other if that will not lead to markedly
      or does the allocation of an individual reference quantity               different results. The Court of First Instance therefore
      exclude individual notification to those producers?                      displayed an erroneous conception of the law in failing
                                                                               to attach primary importance to the condition relating to
                                                                               the world market price, or at least in not allowing that
(1) OJ L 405, 31.12.1992, p. 1.                                                condition to influence its assessment of the burden of
(2) OJ L 57, 10.3.1993, p. 12.                                                 proof with regard to free competition.
                                                                         —     The Court of First Instance displayed an erroneous
                                                                               conception of the law in ruling that the principle of free
                                                                               competition was not complied with at the time when the
                                                                               riders to the contracts were entered into:
Appeal brought on 22 January 2001 by Glencore Grain                            —     Community law does not require three offers to be
Ltd against the judgment delivered on 8 November                                     made in respect of each contract concluded;
2000 by the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities (Second Chamber) in Joined Cases
T-485/93, T-491/93, T-494/93 and T-61/98 between Glen-
core Grain Ltd and the Commission of the European                              —     in arriving at its conclusion concerning the require-
                          Communities                                                ment of free competition, the Court of First Instance
                                                                                     laid down a rule lacking any foundation as regards
                                                                                     the objective and purpose of both Council Decision
                        (Case C-24/01 P)                                             91/658/EEC (1) (‘the Decision’) and Commission
                                                                                     Regulation (EEC) No 1897/92 (2) (‘the Regulation’).
                                                                                     Neither of those acts requires, for the purposes of
                        (2001/C 108/06)                                              approval pursuant to Article 4 of the Regulation,
                                                                                     that each contract must involve offers from at least
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 8 November                               two other independent suppliers which must be
2000 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communi-                         comparable to the offer accepted;
ties (Second Chamber) in Joined Cases T-485/93, T-491/93,
T-494/93 and T-61/98 between Glencore Grain Ltd and the
Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                                —     without making any express statement to that effect,
M.-J. Jonczy and H. van V1iet) was brought before the Court                          the Court of First Instance nevertheless appears to
of Justice of the European Communities on 22 January 2001                            require each supplier to comply with the obligation
by Glencore Grain Ltd, represented by P.V.F. Bos and J.G.A. van                      imposed on the Russian authorities, in their capacity
Zuuren, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                        as the recipient of the loan, requiring consideration,
the Chambers of M. Loesch, 4 Rue Carlo Hammer.                                       ‘upon being officially notified ... of the new contrac-
                                                                                     tual terms ..., [of] the responses, favourable or
                                                                                     unfavourable, given by at least three independent
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                          undertakings’. That rule was laid down solely in
                                                                                     Annex 2-A to the loan agreement concluded by the
—     rule that, in its judgment of 8 November 2000, the                             Community. That subsequent shifting of obligations
      Court of First Instance infringed Community law and/or                         from one party to the other is wrong in law, since
      procedural rules;                                                              rules of which third parties (such as Glencore in the
                                                                                     present case) are unaware cannot be invoked against
—     rule that the Court of First Instance should have awarded                      those third parties;
      the damages applied for, and accordingly refer the
      case back to the Court of First Instance for further
      consideration, or alternatively itself award the appellant               —     the Court of First Instance erred in its determination
      the damages sought;                                                            of the case by failing to take into account the
                                                                                     Commission’s own administrative practice and the
—     allow, on appeal, the claims made by the appellant.                            obligations flowing therefrom;