G. Spronk v Minister van Landbouw en Visserij.
Date: 1990-07-12
11 Article 3(1 ) has already been interpreted by the Court in its judgment in Joined Cases 196 to 198/88 Cornée and Others v Copall and Others [1989] ECR 2309 . In that judgment the Court interpreted the first indent of the first subparagraph of Article 3(1 ) of Regulation No 857/84, which applies where the development plan is still being implemented, as granting to the Member States a discretionary power to decide whether or not special reference quantities should be allocated to the producers mentioned in that provision and, if so, to determine their size ( paragraph 13 of the judgment ).
12 It must be recognized that the Member States have an identical discretionary power in the situation referred to in the second indent of the first subparagraph of Article 3(1 ) in which, as in the main proceedings, the development plan has been implemented after 1 January 1981 .
13 However, where a Member State chooses to make use of the power to allocate special reference quantities pursuant to this provision, its discretionary power to determine the size of the individual quantities is restricted by requirements which result from the wording of the provision in question, the objective which it is designed to attain and the principle of non-discrimination .
15 Secondly, it should be noted that, as the Court also stated in its judgment in Cornée ( paragraph 12 ), the first indent of the first subparagraph of Article 3(1 ) of Regulation No 857/84 is intended to enable producers holding a milk production development plan approved under Directive 72/159 to enjoy the fruits of the investments which they have made in the implementation of such a plan . Consequently where, as in the main proceedings, the quantities of milk and milk products which the producers concerned have delivered in the year during which the development plan was completed are not representative of the production capacity acquired as a result of the investments carried out, the Member States, who are responsible for implementing the Community rules, are required to ensure that the special reference quantities granted bear some relation to this new production capacity .
17 Lastly, it should be recalled that the Court has consistently held, most recently in its judgment in Cornée ( paragraph 14 ) that the Member States are under a duty, when implementing a common organization of agricultural markets, to observe the prohibition of discrimination between Community producers, laid down in Article 40(3 ) of the EEC Treaty . Consequently, where a Member State allocates special reference quantities under the Community rules at issue, the allocations must be made in such a way that they do not give rise to discrimination between Community producers .
28 In this regard, it must be stated that national rules such as those described above which provide for reductions to vary according to the time which has elapsed between the carrying-out of the investments which give rise to the allocation of a special reference quantity and the entry into force of the additional levy system and, therefore, according to the extent to which the introduction of this system could be foreseen, must be regarded as compatible with the principle of proportionality which requires that the aim in view, in this case to combat the increase in milk production in a market characterized by substantial structural surpluses, should be attained by exercising as little constraint as possible .
29 This view is not altered by the fact that such national rules may mean that no special reference quantity is allocated to a number of producers who have carried out investments or, at least, that the special reference quantity allocated to them is substantially lower than the production capacity acquired as a result of the investments made . Producers who have carried out investments, even as part of a development plan, cannot rely on any alleged legitimate expectation based on the investments carried out in order to claim a special reference quantity allocated precisely because of such investments ( see judgment in Cornée, paragraph 27 ).