1 BY THIS APPLICATION, MADE ON 24 AUGUST 1972, WUENSCHE HANDELSGESELLSCHAFT OF HAMBURG REQUESTS THAT THE COMMISSION BE ORDERED TO PAY COMPENSATION FOR LOSSES WHICH IT CLAIMS TO HAVE SUFFERED FOLLOWING THE INTRODUCTION OF A SYSTEM OF MINIMUM PRICES FOR TOMATO CONCENTRATES IMPORTED FROM GREECE, ADOPTED BY REGULATION NO 1643/71 OF THE COMMISSION OF 28 JULY 1971, IN PARTICULAR ARTICLE 2;
2 THE APPLICANT FURTHER CLAIMS THAT THIS REGULATION IS ILLEGAL AND THAT BY ITS ENACTMENT, THE COMMISSION HAS MADE THE COMMUNITY LIABLE UNDER THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 215, OF THE EEC TREATY; LIABILITY ON THE PART OF THE COMMUNITY IN RESPECT OF DETRIMENT SUFFERED BY INDIVIDUALS AS THE RESULT OF A LEGISLATIVE MEASURE INVOLVING CHOICES AS TO ECONOMIC POLICY COULD ONLY BE INCURRED AS A RESULT OF A SUFFICIENTLY SERIOUS BREACH OF A MAJOR RULE OF LAW PROTECTING INDIVIDUALS; THE VALIDITY OF ARTICLE 2 OF REGULATION NO 1643/71 HAS ALREADY BEEN EXAMINED BY THE COURT IN CASE 40/72, ON A REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT ( VERWALTUNGSGERICHT ) OF FRANKFURT-AM-MAIN, IN PROCEEDINGS BETWEEN I . SCHROEDER KG, HAMBURG, AND THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY CONCERNING THE SAME PLEAS AS IN THIS CASE; IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 7 FEBRUARY 1973 IN THE ABOVE CASE, THE COURT DECIDED THAT EXAMINATION OF THE QUESTIONS PUT BY THE NATIONAL COURT HAD SHOWN NOTHING WHICH COULD CAST DOUBT ON THE VALIDITY OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE ABOVE REGULATION, AND THAT NEITHER ARTICLE 2 ( 1 ) OF REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 1428/71 OF THE COUNCIL OF 2 JULY 1971, NOR ARTICLE 41 OF THE AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING AN ASSOCIATION BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY AND GREECE, OF 9 JULY 1961 CREATES AN ORDER OF PRIORITY BETWEEN THE MEASURES PROVIDED FOR THEREIN;
3 IN NEVERTHELESS PURSUING THIS ACTION THE APPLICANT WISHED TO BRING EVIDENCE IN ADDITION TO THAT ALREADY PRODUCED IN CASE 40/72 AND TO STRESS CERTAIN POINTS WHICH IT CLAIMS HAD NOT BEEN SUFFICIENTLY EMPHASIZED IN THAT CASE; THE APPLICANT HAS THUS ALLUDED TO THE ALLEGED INEFFICIENCY OF THE SYSTEM OF MINIMUM PRICES ADOPTED, THE CHOICE MADE BY THE COMMISSION OF THIS SYSTEM IN PREFERENCE TO OTHER SYSTEMS RESTRICTING IMPORTS, AND THE LEVEL OF MINIMUM PRICES FIXED, WHICH IT ALLEGES WERE TOO HIGH;
4 EVEN IF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHICH THE APPLICANT IN THIS CASE HAS PRODUCED OR OFFERED TO PRODUCE WERE ACCEPTED, IT WOULD NOT BE SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH THE EXISTENCE OF A SUFFICIENTLY SERIOUS BREACH OF A MAJOR RULE OF COMMUNITY LAW PROTECTING INDIVIDUALS;
5 IT MUST BE CONCLUDED, THEREFORE, THAT THE CONDITIONS IN WHICH THE COMMUNITY MAY INCUR LIABILITY UNDER THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 215 ARE NOT PRESENT, AND THAT THE APPLICATION MUST BE REJECTED;