Georg Wilkens v Landwirtschaftskammer Hannover.
Date: 1999-01-28
8 As a result of the judgments of the Court of Justice in Case 120/86 Mulder v Minister van Landbouw en Visserij [1988] ECR 2321 and Case 170/86 Von Deetzen v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas [1988] ECR 2355, Council Regulation (EEC) No 764/89 of 20 March 1989 amending Regulation No 857/84 (OJ 1989 L 84, p. 2) inserted a new provision, Article 3a, in Regulation No 857/84 to the effect that under certain conditions a special reference quantity would be granted to that category of producers.
9 Following the judgments of the Court of Justice in Case C-189/89 Spagl [1990] ECR I-4539 and Case C-217/89 Pastätter [1990] ECR I-4585, paragraph 2 of Article 3a of Regulation No 857/84 was amended by Regulation No 1639/91. The second subparagraph of Article 3a(1) of Regulation No 857/84 provides:
`Producers:
- whose period of non-marketing or conversion in performance of the undertaking given under Regulation (EEC) No 1078/77 expired in 1983 ...
shall receive on a provisional basis, on application submitted within a time-limit of three months from 1 July 1991, a special reference quantity on the terms laid down in (a), (b) and (d) above.'
19 Before those questions are addressed, it should be noted that the Court has consistently held that where it is necessary to interpret a provision of secondary Community law, preference should as far as possible be given to the interpretation which renders the provision consistent with the Treaty and the general principles of Community law, and, more particularly as regards Article 3a of Regulation No 857/84, with the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations (Case C-98/91 Herbrink [1994] ECR I-223, paragraph 9).
21 As regards the purpose of the scheme for premiums and special reference quantities, both the rules introduced by Regulation No 1078/77 and those governing the additional levy laid down by Regulation No 857/84 are intended to reduce the surplus of milk and milk products and to restore balance on the milk market by encouraging farmers to abandon the marketing of milk and milk products for a certain period (see, as regards the rules on premiums, Case 119/87 Jensen v Landbrugsministeriet [1988] ECR 5045, paragraph 30, and Case C-127/94 R. v MAFF, ex parte Ecroyd [1996] ECR I-2731, paragraph 47).
23 Nevertheless, the resumption of milk production by that category of producers was envisaged only inasmuch as excluding them had constituted a breach of their legitimate expectation of being able to resume deliveries once their non-marketing or conversion undertaking had come to an end (Mulder and Von Deetzen, paragraphs 26 and 15 respectively).
24 Moreover, the Court has held that only producers who were induced by the rules introduced by Regulation No 1078/77 to suspend milk marketing for a certain period in the general interest and who for that reason made no deliveries during the period of the undertaking may rely on the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations in order to claim a special reference quantity under the second subparagraph of Article 3a(1) of Regulation No 857/84 (Mulder and Von Deetzen, paragraphs 24 and 13 respectively).
25 If non-marketing is therefore an essential requirement of the second subparagraph of Article 3a(1) of Regulation No 857/84 in order to be eligible for a special reference quantity, it is also the essential condition for the grant of a conversion premium and the actual observance of the undertaking given fulfils both the condition and the aim of the rules instituted by Regulation No 1078/77 (Ecroyd, paragraphs 48 and 49).
26 Consequently, breach of the obligation not to market milk and milk products during the period covered by the undertaking entails the loss of the premium granted under Regulation No 1078/77 (Jensen, paragraphs 27 and 30) and also precludes allocation of a special reference quantity under the second subparagraph of Article 3a(1) of Regulation No 857/84.
27 However, loss of the premium is not always the result exclusively of breach of the obligation not to market during the conversation period. Since its purpose is to ensure that the premium scheme is effective, withdrawal of premiums may be attributable not only to failure to comply with the obligation not to market milk or milk products, but also to failure to fulfil other obligations arising from the undertaking given under those rules (Jensen, paragraph 30, and Ecroyd, paragraph 50).
33 Article 177 of the Treaty is based on a clear separation of functions between the national courts and the Court of Justice, so that, when ruling on the interpretation or validity of Community provisions, the latter is empowered to do so only on the basis of the facts which the national court puts before it (see, inter alia, Case C-30/93 AC-ATEL Electronics Vertriebs [1994] ECR I-2305, paragraph 16, and Case C-326/96 Levez [1998] ECR I-7835, paragraph 26).
34 In that context, it is not for the Court of Justice, but for the national court, to ascertain the facts which have given rise to the dispute and to establish the consequences which they have for the judgment which it is required to deliver (Case 17/81 Pabst & Richarz v Hauptzollamt Oldenburg [1982] ECR 1331, paragraph 12, and AC-ATEL Electronics Vertriebs, paragraph 17).
37 Unlike the conversion premium scheme, therefore, under which even partial failure to comply with an undertaking makes the grant and continued enjoyment of the premium unjustified and deprives it of its legal basis (Jensen, paragraph 30), partial failure to comply with the undertaking not to market milk has the result of excluding a milk producer from allocation of a special reference quantity only in due proportion to the extent of the breach of the undertaking. Consequently, the producer may still claim a special reference quantity to the extent that he has complied with his undertaking not to market.