Konservenfabrik Lubella Friedrich Büker GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Cottbus.
Date: 1996-10-17
17 As the Court has already indicated on several occasions, the need for a uniform interpretation of Community regulations makes it impossible for a given piece of legislation to be considered in isolation and requires that, in case of doubt, it should be interpreted and applied in the light of the versions existing in the other official languages (Case 9/79 Koschninske v Raad van Arbeid [1979] ECR 2717, paragraph 6, and Case C-372/88 Cricket St Thomas v Milk Marketing Board of England and Wales [1990] ECR I-1345, paragraph 19).
24 In those circumstances, the Commission did not commit a manifest error of assessment by concluding that there were risks of serious disturbances of the market which might endanger the objectives set out in Article 39 of the Treaty (see Case C-205/94 Binder [1996] ECR I-0000, paragraph 22).
The legal basis of the measures adopted
27 The Court has already pointed out, with regard to provisions similar to those at issue in the main proceedings, that, although the imposition of a countervailing charge was not expressly contemplated by those provisions, it cannot be concluded that such a measure was precluded. On the contrary, since those provisions authorized total or partial suspension of imports, it was to be inferred that the Commission was authorized to introduce a less rigid scheme, namely a minimum price with a countervailing charge. Since the Commission was entitled to take protective measures leading to a complete suspension of imports from non-member countries, it was entitled a fortiori to adopt less restrictive measures (see Joined Cases 41/70 to 44/70 International Fruit Company and Others v Commission [1971] ECR 411, paragraph 65, with regard to the rules applicable to the common organization of the markets in fruit and vegetables prior to the adoption of Regulation No 1035/72; Case 345/82 Wuensche Handelsgesellschaft v Germany [1984] ECR 1995, paragraph 23; Case 77/86 National Dried Fruit Trade Association [1988] ECR 757, paragraph 26, and Case 291/86 Central-Import Muenster v Hauptzollamt Muenster [1988] ECR 3679, paragraph 39 regarding the rules then in force on the common organization of the market in products processed from fruit and vegetables).
The proportionality of the protective measures
31 According to settled case-law of the Court, since the Community institutions enjoy a degree of latitude in the choice of the means needed to achieve their policies, traders cannot entertain a legitimate expectation that an existing situation which is capable of being altered by decisions taken by those institutions within the limits of their discretion will be maintained (see in particular Case 245/81 Edeka Zentrale v Germany [1982] ECR 2745, paragraph 27, and Case 52/81 Faust v Commission [1982] ECR 3745, paragraph 27). In this case the fact that shortly before the adoption of the contested regulation the Commission had established a system of import licences prompted by unfavourable market developments means that there is even less reason for upholding a claim of breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.
Inadequate statement of the reasons on which the contested regulation was based
33 According to settled case-law of the Court, the statement of reasons required by Article 190 of the EC Treaty must be appropriate to the nature of the legal measure in dispute. It must disclose in a clear and unequivocal fashion the reasoning followed by the Community institution which adopted the measure in question in such a way as to make the persons concerned aware of the justification for the measure and enable the Court to exercise its power of review (Binder, cited above, paragraph 25).