Agrana Zucker GmbH v Bundesminister für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft.
Date: 2011-07-28
26. In that regard, it should be noted that, as emerges from recital 1 to Regulation No 320/2006, the Council of the European Union considered it necessary, in order to bring the Community system of sugar production and trading into line with international requirements and to ensure its competitiveness in the future, to launch a profound restructuring process of the sector leading to a significant reduction of unprofitable production capacity in the Community. To that end, it established, by that regulation, a separate and autonomous temporary scheme for the restructuring of the sugar industry in the Community (Case C-33/08 Agrana Zucker , paragraph 34).
27. Within the framework of that temporary scheme, Regulation No 320/2006 established, as described in recital 5 thereto, an economic incentive in the form of restructuring aid, intended for undertakings with the lowest productivity and designed to encourage them to give up their quota production. To that effect, Article 3 of that regulation provides for restructuring aid for four marketing years – the years 2006/2007 to 2009/2010 – with the aim of reducing production to the extent necessary to reach a balanced market situation in the Community (Case C‑33/08 Agrana Zucker , paragraph 35).
28. In order to finance that restructuring aid, as well as the aid for diversification and the transitional aid referred to in Articles 6 to 9 of Regulation No 320/2006, the Council set up a temporary restructuring fund and in particular decided that, as is stated in recital 4 to that regulation, the financing for those measures would be ensured by raising temporary amounts from those sugar, isoglucose and inulin syrup producers which will eventually benefit from the restructuring process. The proceeds resulting from its collection are considered to be ‘assigned revenue’ for the purposes of Council Regulation No 1605/2002 (Case C-33/08 Agrana Zucker , paragraph 36).
29. Intended, accordingly, to contribute to the restructuring of the sugar industry in the Community, the raising of the temporary amount is a common agricultural policy measure lawfully adopted on the basis of Article 37 EC (see, by analogy, Case 265/87 Schräder HS Kraftfutter  [1989] ECR 2237, paragraph 9, and Case C‑8/89 Zardi  [1990] ECR I‑2515, paragraph 9).
31. First, the legality of an EU measure must be assessed on the basis of the facts and the law as they stood at the time when the measure was adopted (see Joined Cases 15/76 and 16/76 France  v Commission  [1979] ECR 321, paragraph 7) and cannot in particular depend on retrospective considerations relating to its efficacy (Case C-449/98 P IECC  v Commission  [2001] ECR I‑3875, paragraph 87 and the case-law cited).
42. In that regard, it should be recalled that, in accordance with the principle of proportionality, which is one of the general principles of EU law, the acts adopted by EU institutions must not exceed the limits of what is appropriate and necessary in order to attain the legitimate objectives pursued by the legislation in question; where there is a choice between several appropriate measures, recourse must be had to the least onerous; and the disadvantages caused must not be disproportionate to the aims pursued (Case C-33/08 Agrana Zucker , paragraph 31 and the case-law cited).
43. As regards judicial review of the implementation of that principle, in view of the wide discretion enjoyed by the EU legislature where the common agricultural policy is concerned, the lawfulness of a measure adopted in that sphere can be affected only if the measure is manifestly inappropriate in relation to the objective which the competent institution is seeking to pursue (see Case C-33/08 Agrana Zucker , paragraph 32 and the case-law cited).
44. Thus, what must be ascertained is not whether the measure adopted by the legislature was the only measure possible or the best measure possible, but whether it was manifestly inappropriate (Case C-33/08 Agrana Zucker , paragraph 33 and the case-law cited).
45. In addition, it should be recalled that, as is stated in paragraph 31 above, the lawfulness of an EU measure must be assessed on the basis of the facts and the law as they stood at the time when the measure was adopted and cannot in particular depend on retrospective considerations of its efficacy. Where the EU legislature is obliged to assess the future effects of rules to be adopted and those effects cannot be accurately foreseen, its assessment is open to criticism only if it appears manifestly incorrect in the light of the information available to it at the time when the rules in question were adopted (Joined Cases C‑267/88 to C‑285/88 Wuidart and Others  [1990] ECR I‑435, paragraph 14; Joined Cases C‑133/93, C‑300/93 and C‑362/93 Crispoltoni and Others  [1994] ECR I‑4863, paragraph 43; and Case C‑189/01 Jippes and Others  [2001] ECR I‑5689, paragraph 84).
46. In the present case, it follows from what is stated in paragraphs 26 to 28 above that the purpose of the temporary amount provided for in Article 11 of Regulation No 320/2006 is the financing, by the producers, of the temporary scheme for restructuring the sugar industry in the European Union, which implies that there must be a budgetary balance between the expenses incurred and the revenue raised during the four marketing years in question (see Case C-33/08 Agrana Zucker , paragraph 37).
53. However, a claim for restitution based on unjust enrichment of the European Union requires, in order to succeed, proof of an enrichment on the part of the European Union for which there is no legal basis and of impoverishment on the part of the applicant which is linked to that enrichment (see, to that effect, Case C‑47/07 P Masdar (UK)  v Commission  [2008] ECR I‑9761, paragraphs 46 and 49).