Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.
Date: 1984-02-07
5 IN THE MEANTIME THE COURT , IN REPLY TO A QUESTION SUBMITTED FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING THE TRIBUNALE AMMINISTRATIVO REGIONALE PER IL VENETO ( REGIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL FOR VENETO ) IN CONNECTION WITH A DISPUTE CONCERNING THE APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 11 OF THE LAW , DELIVERED A JUDGMENT ON 6 NOVEMBER 1979 ( CASE 10/79 TOFFOLI V REGIONE VENETO ( 1979 ) ECR 3301 ) IN WHICH IT HELD THAT IT WAS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKET IN MILK AND MILK PRODUCTS ESTABLISHED BY REGULATION NO 804/68 FOR A MEMBER STATE TO FIX DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY THE PRODUCER PRICE FOR MILK . PARAGRAPH 12 OF THAT JUDGMENT READS AS FOLLOWS : ' ' IN SECTORS COVERED BY A COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKET , A FORTIORI WHEN THAT ORGANIZATION IS BASED ON A COMMON PRICE SYSTEM , MEMBER STATES CAN NO LONGER TAKE ACTION , THROUGH NATIONAL PROVISIONS TAKEN UNILATERALLY , AFFECTING THE MACHINERY OF PRICE FORMATION AT THE PRODUCTION AND MARKETING STAGES ESTABLISHED UNDER THE COMMON ORGANIZATION . IT FOLLOWS THAT NATIONAL LEGISLATION DESIGNED TO PROMOTE AND ENCOURAGE , BY ANY METHOD , THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A UNIFORM PRODUCER PRICE FOR MILK , BY AGREEMENT OR BY AUTHORITY , AT THE NATIONAL OR REGIONAL LEVEL IS , BY ITS NATURE , OUTSIDE THE BOUNDS OF THE POWERS GIVEN TO MEMBER STATES AND RUNS CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPLE ESTABLISHED BY REGULATION NO 804/68 , IN PARTICULAR ARTICLE 3 THEREOF , OF ATTAINING A TARGET PRODUCER PRICE FOR THE MILK SOLD BY COMMUNITY PRODUCERS DURING THE MILK YEAR ON THE COMMUNITY MARKET AND ON EXTERNAL MARKETS . ' '
10 FOLLOWING THAT EXCHANGE OF LETTERS , THE COMMISSION BROUGHT THE PRESENT ACTION ON 4 JUNE 1982 . IN ITS APPLICATION IT AGAIN QUOTED PARAGRAPH 12 OF THE ABOVE-MENTIONED JUDGMENT . IN ADDITION , IT REFERRED TO THE CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING THE DRAFT LAW AND ARGUED THAT MERELY TO LAY A DRAFT LAW BEFORE THE NATIONAL PARLIAMENT WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO PUT AN END TO THE INFRINGEMENT , THAT THE ITALIAN GOVERNMENT HAD NOT ADOPTED ANY MEASURE CAPABLE OF GUARANTEEING THAT ARTICLE 11 OF LAW NO 306/75 WOULD NOT BE APPLIED PENDING ITS FORMAL REPEAL AND THAT THE AMENDMENT PROPOSED IN THE DRAFT LAW WAS NOT SUCH AS TO REMOVE THE INFRINGEMENT .
16 IN THAT CONNECTION IT SHOULD BE RECALLED THAT IN A CONSISTENT LINE OF DECISIONS THE COURT HAS HELD THAT THE SCOPE OF AN ACTION BROUGHT UNDER ARTICLE 169 OF THE TREATY IS DELIMITED BOTH BY THE PRELIMINARY ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE PROVIDED FOR BY THAT ARTICLE AND BY THE CONCLUSIONS SET OUT IN THE APPLICATION AND THAT THE COMMISSION ' S REASONED OPINION AND ITS APPLICATION MUST BE FOUNDED ON THE SAME GROUNDS AND SUBMISSIONS .
19 ACCORDING TO THE LETTER FORMALLY INVITING THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC TO SUBMIT ITS OBSERVATIONS , THE FAILURE WITH WHICH IT IS CHARGED RELATES TO ' ' THE MEASURES CONTAINED IN THE ITALIAN LAW WHICH PROVIDE FOR THE FIXING OF REGIONALIZED MILK PRICES ' ' . IN BOTH THE REASONED OPINION AND THE APPLICATION TO THE COURT ,     THE COMMISSION ' S CONCLUSIONS REFER TO THE ' ' MACHINERY FOR FIXING THE PRODUCER SALE PRICE FOR MILK SET UP BY LAW NO 306/75 ' '  AND , IN THE INTRODUCTORY SENTENCE OF THE APPLICATION , THE COMMISSION DEFINES THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE ACTION AS BEING THE ADOPTION AND MAINTENANCE IN FORCE OF ' ' CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF LAW NO 306 OF 8 JULY 1975 CONCERNING THE FORMATION OF THE PRODUCER SALE PRICE FOR MILK ' ' . EVEN IF THOSE PHRASES FAIL TO SPECIFY , AS PRECISELY AS MIGHT HAVE BEEN WISHED , THE PROVISIONS TO WHICH THE PROCEDURE RELATES , THEY NONE THE LESS SUGGEST THAT THE SCOPE OF THE PROCEDURE GOES BEYOND ARTICLE 11 ALONE .
20 IT IS TRUE THAT , AFTER THE DRAFT LAW HAD BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSION , THE DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN THE PARTIES AND THE ARGUMENTS PUT FORWARD BY THE COMMISSION CENTRED ON ARTICLE 11 AND ON THE AMENDMENTS WHICH THE DRAFT WAS DESIGNED TO MAKE TO THAT ARTICLE . HOWEVER , THE REFERENCE WHICH NOT ONLY THE REASONED OPINION BUT ALSO THE APPLICATION MAKES TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF 6 NOVEMBER 1979 , IN PARTICULAR THE QUOTATIONS FROM THE DECISION , DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ACTION IS NOT CONCERNED SOLELY WITH THE FIXING OF PRICES BY PUBLIC AUTHORITIES UNDER ARTICLE 11 BUT EXTENDS TO THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE LAW IN QUESTION , IN SO FAR AS THEY ARE INTENDED TO PROMOTE AND ENCOURAGE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A UNIFORM PRICE BY AGREEMENT .
21 THE FACT THAT THE COMMISSION , IN ITS REPLY , DID NOT EXPRESS ITS OPINION ON THE ALLEGATIONS MADE BY THE ITALIAN GOVERNMENT IN ITS DEFENCE CONCERNING THE LIMITED NATURE OF THE ACTION IS INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE COMMISSION DID INDEED NARROW THE SCOPE OF ITS ACTION , AS ALLEGED .
22 IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES IT MUST BE CONCLUDED THAT THE ACTION RELATES AS FAR AS THE ITALIAN LAW WHICH IS IN FORCE AT PRESENT IS CONCERNED , NOT ONLY TO ARTICLE 11 BUT ALSO TO ARTICLE 10 , INASMUCH THE LATTER PROVIDES FOR THE CONVENING , BY THE REGIONAL AUTHORITY , OF THE PARTIES INVOLVED AND FOR THE PUBLICATION OF THE AGREED PRICE IN THE REGIONAL OFFICIAL GAZETTE . THE COMMISSION ' S OBJECTIONS TO THOSE PROVISIONS SHOULD THEREFORE BE EXAMINED , WHILST THE REMAINDER OF THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE DISMISSED AS INADMISSIBLE .

SUBSTANCE