C-16/62

object and content.

In Joined Cases 16 and 17/62

16/62

1­ . CONFÉDÉRATION NATIONALE DES PRODUCTEURS DE FRUITS ET LÉGUMES­ , an

association declarée with its head office in Paris, represented by its board in office,

2. FÉDÉRATION NATIONALE DES PRODUCTEURS DE FRUITS­ , an association

for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Georges all with an address

Margue, 20 rue Philippe-II, assisted by Pierre de Font-Réaulx, Advocate of the Paris Cour d'Appel,

applicants,

supported by

ASSEMBLÉE PERMANENTE DES PRÉSIDENTS DE CHAMBRES D'AGRICULTURE­ , a

public organization with its head office in Paris, represented by its President in office, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of

Application for annulment of Regulation No 23 of the Council of the

European Economic Community, and in particular the provisions of

Article 9 thereof,

THE COURT

composed of: A. M. Donner, President, L. Delvaux and R. Rossi (Presidents of Chambers), O. Riese (Rapporteur), Ch. L. Hammes, A. Trabucchi and R. Lecourt, Judges,

Advocate-General: M. Lagrange Registrar: A. Van Houtte

etseq., a Regulation 'on the progressive — In Article 9, which is particularly at

establishment of a common organization issue in this case:

of the market in fruit and vegetables'. 1. Quantitative restrictions on imports This Regulation, based mainly on and measures having equivalent

Articles 42 and 43 of the EEC Treaty, effect shall be abolished in trade

provides as folows: between Member States in products

JUDGMENT OF 14. 12. 1962 — JOINED CASES 16 AND 17/62

44 of the Treaty in respect of the the substance of the aplicatons; same quality classes on the same in any case rule that the present applica­

dates.' tions are admissible; 2. On 19 June 1962 the applicants annul Regulation No 23 of the Council lodged at the Court Registry applica­ of the European Economic Community, tions for annulment of the said Regula­ in particular Article 9; tion. These applications were supported order the Council of the European

by 'supplementary lodged Economic Community to the statements'

all pay on 2 July 1962. costs'.

3. On 1 September 1962 the defendant The intervener in its statement filed raised in both cases a preliminary objec­ on 12 November 1962 claims that the

tion of inadmissibility under Article 91 preliminary objections of inadmissibility of the Rules of Procedure of the Court. should be dismissed.

by Order dated 6 November 1962. vitiated by the four flaws enumerated in

6. On 20 November 1962 there was a Article 173 of the EEC Treaty and that

hearing of the Court restricted to the it is likely to occasion the most serious preliminary objection of inadmissibility. loss to French fruit and vegetable

producers (the applicant in Case 17/62 II — Conclusions of the parties adds 'and particularly to the producers of table grapes').

In their applications and supplementary state­ (a; The natural economic and social

ments the applicants claim that the Court conditions affecting the products in should: question are very different, Italy on the 'annul Regulation No 23 of the Council one hand being a country situated

added that 'Italian cost prices are lower ment of the Treaty, which could only than French prices, especially because of occur through the well-known pro­

the importance of the element of labour cedures, including in particular ratifica­

in the products in question, and the tion by the Parliaments ofall the Member well-known difference between actual States. Italian wages and actual French wages', 2. The defendant in the main action takes

and that the availability of labour also issue only on the question of admissibil ty.

varies from one country to the other. According to the Council, it follows These conditions necessarily have reper­ from the second paragraph of Article cussions on prices and will continue to do 173 of the EEC Treaty that the applica­

so aslong as the harmonization measures tions are inadmissible since the measure

But the harm referred to does not members of those organizations. 'extra' affect only the producers of quality. In fact the price of this quality On points (a) and (b) is a ceiling below which the prices of the other qualities extend downwards. Under the terms of Article 173, a

(b) In the disputed measure, the Council private individual can contest a Regula­ decided that Member States should tion of the Council only when there is a dispense with recourse to the provisions question of a decision having been taken of Article 44 of the Treaty, which have in the form of a regulation; it is necessary an essential importance within the gener­ furthermore for this decision to be of

al structure of the Treaty. The applicants individual concern to the applicant. In refer particularly to the first paragraph fact the authors of the Treaty clearly of thisArticle which provides for pro­ wished to prevent any action by those tective measures in cases where the other than the Member States and the

abolition of customs duties and quantita­ Institutions against measures of general tive restrictions between Member States application. This also follows from a

'may result in prices likely to jeopardize comparison between the above-

the attainment of the objectives set out mentioned Article and Article 33 of the in Article 39'. The products in question ECSC Treaty, which, under certain

this case a matter of a genuine

Regulation and, accordingly, of a meas­ more widely drafted than the corres­ ure of general application. In fact the ponding expressions in Article 173. measure 'establishes clearly a legislative The application of these considerations

principle, the conditions of application to the present case shows that the

of which it defines in an abstract man er: applicants are not directly concerned by whoever the importers or exporters, the disputed Regulation. This finding present or future, may be, and whatso­ would be equally valid if the abandon­

ever the country of origin or of destina­ ment of the application of minimum

tion, etc., all quantitative restrictions prices contained in Article 9 of this

according to the quality of the products, prices only through the measures which this differentiation does not, in the light the Member States take in implementa­ law of the tion'

of the case Court, affect the of this abandonment.

general nature of the said Regulation. AH the same, even accepting that the

The Regulation in question cannot be above interpretation as regards the direct

regarded as a bundle of individual nature of the relationship between the

decisions addressed to all the private measure and the applicant is not accepted, individuals in the Member States carry­ the producers in question would not

the measure creates, modifies the applications

or abolishes rights or obligations, when, whatever the nature of the disputed in brief, the effect of the measure on the measure. I t could be considered that these person in question is direct and not associationsare only affected indirectly

mediate. This condition is not fulfilled 'by the intermediary of, and through where that measure takes effect only (their) members'. The EEC Treaty does

PRODUCTEURS DE FRUITS v COUNCIL

not contain provisions analogous to ings against decisions other than individ­ those of the ECSC Treaty which expressly ual decisions, even if these are described envisage a right of action by associations as regulations. It is sufficient that they of undertakings. are of direct and individual concern to

The defendant emphasizes however that the applicant . . .'.

very assessment of the admissibility of association or group is authorized to

the action it is not possible to pass over in represent. It therefore causes damage to silence the issues of fact and of law which this legal person, which in the light of its are set out therein. nature and purpose is an individual as

The applicants, after all, are opposed to far as the decision is concerned". In the arguments on which the preliminary the present case, all the French pro­

objection inadmissibility of is based. ducers of fruit and vegetables are directly They admit that the measure in dispute and individually injured. is not a decision addressed to the appli­ The argument that the measure in

cants, or a decision addressed to a dispute adversely affects the producers

third party; on the contrary, they only through steps to be taken in believe that it is a matter of a 'decision, implementation by the Member States is

above-mentioned makes no distinction cation of Article 9 of Regulation No 23'. between general decisions and individual 4. The intervener states that it 'associates fully' decisions. Consequently 'any natural or itself with the arguments of the

legal person institute proceed- applicants in the main action. may . . .

Grounds of judgment

I — As to admissibility

1. Under the terms of the second paragraph of Article 173 of the EEC

JUDGMENT OF 14. 12. 1962 — JOINED CASES 16 AND 17/62

Rome lays down more restrictive conditions than does the ECSC Treaty for the admissibility of applications for annulment by private individuals. However, it would not be appropriate for the Court to pronounce on the

merits of this system which appears clearly from the text under examination.

The Court is unable in particular to adopt the interpretation suggested by

one of the applicants during the oral procedure, according to which the term 'decision', as used in the second paragraph of Article 173, could also cover regulations. Such a wide interpretation conflicts with the fact that 'decision' Article 189 makes a clear distinction between the concept of a 'decision' and that of a 'regulation'. It is inconceivable that the term would

be used in Article 173 in a different sense from the technical sense as defined in Article 189. It follows from the foregoing considerations that the present

applications should be dismissed as inadmissible if the measure in dispute

'application' or otherwise of the measure in question.

The essential characteristics of a decision arise from the limitation of the

persons to whom it is addressed, whereas a regulation, being essentially of a legislative nature, is applicable not to a limited number of persons, defined

or identifiable, but to categories of persons viewed abstractly and in their entirety. Consequently, in order to determine in doubtful cases whether one is concerned with a decision or a regulation, it is necessary to ascertain

whether the measure in question is of individual concern to specific

individuals.

However, the applicants maintain that the disputed provision is in fact 'a decision in the form of a regulation'. It is possible without doubt for a

decision also to have a very wide field of application. However, a measure which is applicable to objectively determined situations and which involves immediate legal consequences in all Member States for categories of persons

viewed in a general and abstract manner cannot be considered as constituting a decision, unless it can be proved that it is of individual concern to certain persons within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 173.

In this particular case, the disputed provision involves immediate legal consequences in all Member States for categories of persons viewed in a

general and abstract manner. In fact, Article 9 of the measure in dispute —

the provision particularly at issue in the present dispute — abolishes, for certain products and subject to certain time limits, quantitative restrictions on imports and measures having equivalent effect. It involves in addition the requirement that Member States shall dispense with recourse to the

are concerned by the said provision in the same way as all other agricultural producers of the Community.

Moreover, one cannot accept the principle that an association, in its individ­ capacity as the representative of a category of businessmen, could be

ually concerned by a measure affecting the general interests of that category.

JUDGMENT OF 14. 12. 1962 — JOINED CASES 16 AND 17/62

Such a principle would result in the grouping, under the heading of a single legal person, of the interests properly attributed to the members of a

category, who have been affected as individuals by genuine regulations, and would derogate from the system of the Treaty which allows applications for

Under the terms of Article 69 (2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, the unsuccessful party shall be ordered to pay the costs. In the present case the applicants and the intervener, having failed in their action, must bear the costs of the proceedings.

On those grounds,

Upon reading the pleadings; Upon hearing the report of the Judge-Rapporteur; Upon hearing the parties; Upon hearing the opinion of the Advocate-Gnral;

Having regard to Articles 173 and 189 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community;

Having regard to the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Economic Community;

Having regard to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, especially Articles 69 (2) and 91 (4);

3. Orders the intervener to bear its own costs and those incurred

by the defendant as a result of its intervention.

Donner Delvaux Rossi Riese Hammes Trabucchi Lecourt

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 14 December 1962.

For the President A. Van Houtte L. Delvaux R­egistrar President

OPINION OF MR ADVOCATE-GENERAL LAGRANGE <ap note>1</ap note> DELIVERED ON 20 NOVEMBER 1962­

at the same time by the Court, because only a partial annulment. It is sought to they raise the same point of principle —

annul, first, Article 9 of Regulation now put to the Court for the first time. No 23 —

and the submissions in the

The question concerns the interpretation applications only the last affect sub­

to be given to the provisions of the second paragraph of this Article which concerns

paragraph of Article 173 of the EEC the dispensing by Member States with Treaty, dealing with the conditions recourse to the provisions of Article 44

which are contesting Regulation No who are not also producers.

23 of the Council, on the progressive By an Order dated 24 October 162,

establishment of a common organiza­ the Court allowed the intervention of

tion of the market in fruit and the Assemblée permanente des présidents

vegetables; and de chambres d'agriculture in support of

1 — Translated from the French.