Federal Republic of Germany v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 2003-09-30
33. The Court requested the parties to state their views on the effects of any annulment of the disputed provision and on the admissibility of the application in the light of the case-law according to which partial annulment of a Community act is possible only if the elements whose annulment is sought may be severed from the remainder of the act (see, in particular, Case C-29/99  Commission  v  Council  [2002] ECR I-11221, paragraphs 45 and 46).
34. In the light of the observations submitted in that respect, it must be held that the disputed provision is severable from the remainder of the provisions of the contested regulation, because the annulment of that provision would not alter the substance of the regulation.
35. As the Advocate General states in points 45 and 46 of his Opinion, the substance of the contested regulation consists in the establishment of a special purchase scheme for beef in order to respond to the BSE crisis.  As confirmed by both the German and Danish Governments and the Commission, partial annulment of the contested regulation, in so far as Article 5(5) thereof requires each Member State concerned to finance 30% of the price of the meat purchased, would leave the substance of that regulation completely intact, since it would give rise only to financial compensation as between the Community and the Member States concerned.
36. Admittedly, the Commission argues that without the disputed provision it would probably not have adopted the other provisions of the contested regulation in their current version, in particular Article 10 which, according to the Commission, forms a whole with the disputed provision from a financial point of view.
37. However, as the Advocate General points out in point 48 of his Opinion, whether partial annulment would alter the substance of the contested measure is an objective criterion, and not a subjective criterion linked to the political intention of the authority which adopted the measure at issue.
38. It follows from the foregoing that the application is admissible.
The first plea
Arguments of the parties
54. It must be stated at the outset that, according to settled case-law, it is clear from the Treaty context in which Article 211 EC must be placed and also from practical requirements that the concept of implementation must be given a wide interpretation. Since only the Commission is in a position to keep track of agricultural market trends and to act quickly when necessary, the Council may confer on it wide powers in that sphere. Consequently, the limits of those powers must be determined by reference amongst other things to the essential general aims of the market organisation (see Case C-478/93  Netherlands  v  Commission  [1995] ECR I-3081, paragraph 30, and the case-law cited).
Thus, the Court has held that, in matters relating to agriculture, the Commission is authorised to adopt all the implementing measures which are necessary or appropriate for the implementation of the basic legislation, provided that they are not contrary to such  legislation or to the implementing legislation adopted by the Council (see, in particular, Case 121/83  Zuckerfabrik Franken  [1984] ECR 2039, paragraph 13;  Netherlands  v  Commission , cited above, paragraph 31, and Case C-356/97  Molkereigenossenschaft Wiedergeltingen  [2000] ECR I-5461, paragraph 24).
72. Second, as regards the introduction in Commission Regulation No  2777/2000 of compulsory co-financing by the Member States of the market support measures provided for by that regulation, suffice it to state that that precedent is not such as to enable the Commission to derogate from a rule of law to which it is subject (see, by analogy, Case C-426/93  Germany  v  Council  [1995] ECR I-3723, paragraph 21).
78. It must be recalled, in that regard, that it is for the Court, in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 231 EC, to give a decision on the consequences of an annulment without being bound by the proposals formulated to that end by the parties (see Case C-284/90  Council  v  Parliament  [1992] ECR I-2277, paragraph 36). In this case, contrary to the German Government ' s submissions, annulment of the disputed provision does not affect the rights of those traders from whom the beef was purchased pursuant to the contested regulation.