CELEX: C1999/160/20
Language: en
Date: 1999-06-05 00:00:00
Title: Case C-101/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division (Crown Office) (England & Wales), by order of that court of 26 February 1999, in the case of The Queen against Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce, ex parte: British Sugar plc.

5.6.1999               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 160/9
3.     Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 2799/98 reserves a                 2. If the answer to question 1 is ‘yes’, was Article 4 of
particularly favourable treatment, in terms of compensatory                   Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2630/81 on special
aid, for certain products. Firstly, unlike the remaining prices               detailed rules for the application of the system of import
and amounts, the reduction is set at 0,5 % rather than at 2,6 %;              and export licences in the sugar sector (2), of 10 September
secondly, it constitutes a ‘de minimis’ limit rather than an                  1981 (now replaced by Article 5 of Commission Regu-
abatement percentage; thirdly, application of such a reduction                lation (EC) No 1464/95 on special detailed rules for the
is dependent on a discretionary choice by the Member States.                  application of the system of import and export licences in
Finally, under Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2800/99, the                the sugar sector (3), of 27 June 1995) ultra vires and void
Community contribution for the first year amounts to 100 %.                   for the reason that it imposed a requirement which is not
                                                                              found in or justified by Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81,
                                                                              namely, that an export licence for C sugar may only be
There is no legal basis or valid reason for the abovementioned
                                                                              issued after the manufacturer in question has provided the
disparity of treatment, specifically so far as concerns the setting
                                                                              competent agency with proof that the quantity for which
of a reduction for a lower amount applicable under conditions                 the licence is requested, or an equivalent quantity has
which are by far more favourable to producers.                                actually been produced in excess of the A and B quotas of
                                                                              the undertaking concerned?
Moreover, the favourable treatment reserved for the products
and the aid in question amounts to penalisation of Mediterrane-           3. If the answer to question 1 or question 2 is ‘no’, in the
an agriculture, which is altogether contrary to the rules and                 circumstances of this case, is the National Authority in
principles of the Treaty, and is furthermore vitiated by lack of              maintaining that the sugar exported as C sugar was A or B
essential procedural requirements and misuse of powers.                       quota sugar and/or in then seeking to impose a charge
                                                                              pursuant to Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EEC)
                                                                              No 2670/81, laying down detailed implementing rules in
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2799/98 (OJ L 349, 24.12.1998,                 respect of sugar production in excess of the quota (4), of
    p. 1).                                                                    14 September 1981 for the failure to dispose of C sugar
    Council Regulation (EC) No 2800/98 (OJ L 349, 24.12.1998,                 outside the EC, in breach of one or more of the following
    p. 8).                                                                    general principles of Community law:
    Commission Regulation (EC) No 2808/98 (OJ L 349, 24.12.1998,
    p. 36).
    Commission Regulation (EC) No 2813/98 (OJ L 349, 24.12.1998,              (a) the principle of Legitimate Expectations,
    p. 48).
    with particular regard to the provisions complained of,                   (b) the principle of Legal Certainty,
                                                                              (c) the principle of Non Discrimination,
                                                                              (d) the principle of Proportionality,
                                                                              (e) the principle of the Proper Use of Powers;
                                                                          with the effect that the demand for the charge in the present
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of                   case is void and unenforceable?
Justice, Queen’s Bench Division (Crown Office) (England
& Wales), by order of that court of 26 February 1999, in                  4. Further or alternatively, if the answer to question 1 is ‘no’:
the case of The Queen against Intervention Board for
      Agricultural Produce, ex parte: British Sugar plc.                      (a) Does the National Authority have a discretion to vary
                                                                                   the amount of the charge to be imposed pursuant to
                                                                                   Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EEC)
                         (Case C-101/99)                                           No 2670/81?
                         (1999/C 160/20)                                      (b) If the answer to 4 (a) is ‘yes’, what factors may the
                                                                                   National Authority take into account in exercising
                                                                                   such a discretion in the light, in particular, of the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                             circumstances of this case?
European Communities by an order of the High Court of
Justice, Queen’s Bench Division (Crown Office) (England &                     (c) If the answer to 4 (a) is ‘no’, is Article 3(1) of Regulation
Wales), of 26 February 1999, which was received at the Court                       (EEC) No 2670/81 void to the extent that it requires a
Registry on 18 March 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the                         National Authority to levy a charge even when the
case of The Queen against Intervention Board for Agricultural                      amount of sugar disposed of on the internal market
Produce, ex parte: British Sugar plc, on the following questions:                  does not, in practice, exceed the sum of the relevant
                                                                                   manufacturer’s A and B quotas?
1. Under the EC Sugar Regime and in particular under Article
     24.1.c of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 on the                 5. Is the National Authority, in the circumstances of this case,
     common organization of the markets in the sugar sector (1),              prevented from levying a charge pursuant to Article 3(1)
     of 30 June 1981, may an undertaking awarded a quota by                   of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2670/81 where it has
     a national authority attribute sugar as C sugar when that                not notified the undertaking of such a charge in accordance
     sugar is produced during a marketing year before the                     with the time limit contained in Article 3(2) of Regulation
     undertaking has actually completed production of a vol-                  (EEC) No 2670/81 before 1 May of the relevant year
     ume of sugar that is equivalent to the sum of its A and B                and/or is the undertaking relieved of any obligations to
     quotas?                                                                  pay such a charge in the above circumstances?
 ---pagebreak--- C 160/10               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        5.6.1999
6. In the circumstances of this case, is the National Authority        Pleas in law and main arguments
     obliged to pay the export refunds which the undertaking
     would have applied for at the time of export and would
                                                                       Under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty, a
     have been payable if the sugar described as C Sugar and
                                                                       directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
     exported under C Sugar Licences had been designated as A
                                                                       each Member State to which it is addressed.
     and B quota sugar, on the grounds that:
     (a) the National Authority can retrospectively accept an          Although the prescribed time-limit expired on 31 December
          export declaration under Article 3 of Commission             1996, the Portuguese Republic has still not submitted to the
          Regulation (EEC) No. 3665/87 of 27 November 1987             Commission the report on the experience gained in the light
          laying down common detailed rules for the application        of Directive 90/313/EEC, as required by Article 8 thereof.
          of the system of export refunds on agricultural prod-
          ucts (5) and the circumstances of the present case
          constitute a reason of force majeure entitling it to         (1) OJ L 158, 23.6.1990, p. 56.
          extend the period for the furnishing of proof under
          Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EEC)
          No 3665/87?
          And/or on the grounds that:
     (b) a refusal to pay such export refunds would constitute
          a breach of the principles of Legitimate Expectations        Appeal brought on 30 March 1999 by Lech-Stahlwerke
          and/or Legal Certainty and/or Proportionality and/or         GmbH against the judgment delivered on 21 January 1999
          Proper Use of Powers?                                        by the Fifth Chamber (Extended Composition) of the
                                                                       Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
                                                                       Joined Cases T-129/95, T-2/96 and T-97/96 between Neue
( 1) OJ L 177, 1.7.1981, p. 4.                                         Maxhütte Stahlwerke GmbH and Lech-Stahlwerke GmbH
( 2) OJ L 258, 11.9.1981, p. 16.                                       supported by the Federal Republic of Germany against
( 3) OJ L 144, 28.6.1995, p. 14.                                       the Commission of the European Communities in Cases
( 4) OJ L 262, 16.9.1981, p. 181.                                      T-2/96 and T-97/96 supported by the United Kingdom of
( 5) OJ L 351, 14.12.1987, p. 1.                                                     Great Britain and Northern Ireland
                                                                                               (Case C-111/99 P)
                                                                                                (1999/C 160/22)
                                                                       An appeal against the judgment delivered on 21 January 1999
Action brought on 26 March 1999 by the Commission                      by the Fifth Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of
of the European Communities against the Portuguese                     First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases
                               Republic                                T-129/95, T-2/96 and T-97/96 between Neue Maxhütte
                                                                       Stahlwerke GmbH and Lech-Stahlwerke GmbH supported by
                                                                       the Federal Republic of Germany against the Commission of
                         (Case C-106/99)                               the European Communities in Joined Cases T-2/96 and
                                                                       T-97/96 supported by the United Kingdom of Great Britain
                         (1999/C 160/21)                               and Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of
                                                                       Justice of the European Communities on 30 March 1999 by
                                                                       Lech-Stahlwerke GmbH, Meitingen-Herbertshofen, Germany,
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before           represented by Rainer Bierwagen of Kemmler Rapp Böhlke &
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 March           Crosby, Rond Point Schuman 9, Bte 9, B-1040 Brussels.
1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Francisco de Sousa Fialho, of its Legal Service,
acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at          The appellant claims that the Court should:
the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre.
                                                                       — set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities of 21 January 1999 in Joined
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                Cases T-129/95, T-2/96 and T-97/96 Neue Maxhütte
                                                                           Stahlwerke GmbH and Lech-Stahlwerke GmbH v. Com-
— declare that, by failing to submit to the Commission within              mission of the European Communities(1) to the extent that
     the prescribed period the report provided for by Article 8            it relates to the appellant,
     of Council Decision 90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990 on the
     freedom of access to information on the environment (1),          — itself give final judgment in the case and declare null and
     the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations          void, to the extent it relates to the appellant, Commission
     under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty             Decision 95/422/ECSC of 4 April 1995 concerning State
     and Article 8 of Directive 90/313/EEC,                                aid that the Freistaat Bayern intends to grant to the ECSC
                                                                           steel undertaking Neue Maxhütte Stahlwerke GmbH and
— order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.                          Lech-Stahlwerke GmbH (OJ L 253, 21.10.1995, p. 22),