C-103/63
ECLI:EU:C:1964:56
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61963CJ0103
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 2 JULY 1964
Rhenania, Schiffahrts- und Speditions-Gesellschaft mbH and Others
v Commission of the European Economic Community
Case 103/63
In Case 103/63
Rhenania, SCHIFFAHRTS- UND Speditions-Gesellschaft MBH Mannheim, ,
represented by its managers, Messrs Freimuth, Scharlach and Hans Voight,
Rhenus, Gesellschaft fur Schiffahrt, Spedition UND LAGEREI MBH, Frankfurt on Main, Hafenstraße 1, represented by its managers, Messrs Wilhelm Kirchgässer and Ludwig Rössing,
Westfälische Transport-Aktiengesellschaft , Dortmund, Malinckrodt
strasse 320, represented by its directors, Messrs Friedrich G. Müller, Managing Director, and Wolfgang Dix, assisted by Messrs. Dres, Modest, Heeman, Mensen, Gündisch, Binder and Brändel, Advocates of Hamburg 39, Sierichstraße 78, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Felicien Jansen, Huissier de Justice, 21 rue Aldringer, applicants,
v
Commission of the European Economic Community , represented by Claus-Dieter Ehlermann, Member of the Legal Department of the European
Executives, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Henri Manzanarès, Secretary of the Legal Department of the European Executives, 2 place de Metz, defendant,
Application concerning the possible default of the Commission in failing to put into operation as respects the Federal Republic of Germany the pro
cedure laid down in Article 169 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community concerning the fixing of derived intervention prices of cereals,
1 — Language of the Case: German. 2 — CMLR.
JUDGMENT OF 2.7.1964 — CASE 103/63
THE COURT
composed of: A. M. Donner, President, Ch. L. Hammes and A. Trabucchi, Presidents of Chambers, L. Delvaux, R. Rossi, R. Lecourt (Rapporteur), and W. Strauß, Judges,
Advocate-General: K. Roemer
Registrar: A. Van Houtte
gives the following
JUDGMENT
Issues of fact and of law
I — Facts the marketing centre of the area with the largest surplus, on the
The Council of the EEC on 4 April 1962 other hand, exceeds 5%, the Mem adopted Regulation No 19 providing ber States shall determine, on the
for the progressive establishment of a basis of the basic target price
in for in de common organization of the market provided paragraph 1, cereals (Official Journal of 20 April rived target prices in the important
1962, pp. 933/62 et seq.). Article 5 of regional marketing centres, ac
this Regulation provides, in its first two cording to differences of price due paragraphs, that: to the natural conditions of price formation.' 1. The Member States shall fix an
nually for each of the products The beginning of Article 7 of the same mentioned in Article 4, at the Regulation provides that:
wholesale-buying stage, a basic 1. In order to guarantee to producers
target price, applicable for the sales at a price as near as possible
marketing centre of the area with to the target prices, taking into the greatest deficit, for a specific account market fluctuations, the
standard quality, taking into ac Member States shall fix for the
count the price to be obtained by beginning of the marketing year producers within the framework of intervention prices for the products the decisions of the Council con which are the subject of fixed
cerning the fixing of prices. This target prices. These intervention
price, to be fixed before the winter prices shall be equal to the target
sowing, shall enter into force at the prices less a fixed percentage,
beginning of the marketing year. determined by each Member State, It shall be notified to the other between a minimum of 5% and a Member States to the Com maximum of 10%. and
mission. 2. Nevertheless Member States may 2. Where, owing to the natural con fix, in centres other than the centre ditions of price formation on the of the region with the largest
market, the difference between the deficit, intervention prices at a
market price in the marketing higher level than intervention
centre of the area with the largest prices which would have been
deficit, on the one hand, and in fixed taking into account derived
RHENANIA v COMMISSION
target prices. This increase in of the Commission and signed L.-G. intervention prices shall not ex Rabot'. ceed, in the centre where the This letter acknowledged receipt of the derived target price is the lowest, letter and the telegram mentioned above 50% of the difference between the and went on:
target the intervention 'After your letter of 31 July price and 1963, the price fixed in accordance with departments of the Commission began paragraph 1. In the immediate consideration of the question which
centres, the difference between you have raised. It has not yet been target prices and intervention possible to complete this considera
prices must increase to the extent tion, since it has proved necessary to to which the level of derived target consider at the same time the applica prices becomes closer to that ap
tion of the provisions of Article 5 (2) plicable in the area with the deficit.' of Regulation No 19. greatest As soon as the results of this examina T he applicants considered that the tion are known they will be sent to present state of German legislation did Regula you. not conform to the provisions of tion No 19. In particular, this legislation In respect of the request included in
excludes from the transitional regula your letter and your telegram, we
tions all harbour installations, have pointed out that an undertaking, purely which would cause, in centres with within the meaning of the third para
purely harbour installations, a graph of Article 175 of the EEC difference between the derived target Treaty, is justified in making an price and the derived intervention price application to the Court of Justice of a than the dif European Communities of percentage greater the under
ference between these same prices in the the first and second paragraphs of
marketing centre of the area with the Article 175, only if a Community greatest deficit. institution has, in respect of that T he applicants advocate, in conse undertaking, failed to adopt any act
quence, asked the Commission by letter other than a recommendation or an
of 31 July 1963: opinion.
in accordance with Article 155 of the We are unable to ascertain from
Treaty establishing the EEC, to en your letter and your telegram what in sure that the government of the your opinion is the act that the Com Federal Republic of Germany carries mission has omitted to adopt. The out the obligation imposed upon it measures which the Commission may by Article 7 (2) of Regulation No 19 be led to take within the framework by eliminating without delay any of the abovementioned Regulation discrimination in respect of purely do not appear to us in any case to be harbour installations in the Commis fixing of capable of resulting in the
intervention in prices.'
sion's an act respect of adopting By telegram of 21 November 1963, the the applicants. In consequence we do for this letter how for applicants'
advocate asked not see the conditions the
to be considered and stressed the neces application of the second paragraph fulfilled.'
sity for a reply. of Article 175 have been The applicants then made an applica Lastly, during the proceedings and by tion which was lodged at the Court letter of 23 April 1964 addressed to the
Registry on 29 November 1963. Federal Republic of Germany, the
T he same day the applicants received a Commission commenced the procedure
letter dated 25 November 1963 from provided for in Article 169 of the
the Directorate-General of Agriculture Treaty.
JUDGMENT OF 2.7.1964 —
CASE 103/63
II — Conclusions of the parties seq.), applying Regulation No 19 (cereals) of the Council of The applicants have in their application the EEC, the Federal Repub asked the Court: lic of Germany has fixed, in 1. To hold that the defendant in contravention of the third sen
fringed Article 155 of the Treaty tence of Article 7 (2) of Regu establishing the EEC and the lation No 19 of the Council of third sentence of Article 7 (2) of the EEC of 4 April 1962, Regulation No 19 of the Council derived intervention prices for EEC of 4 April the 1962, purely harbour installations pro of
viding for the progressive establish on its territory connected di ment of a common organization of rectly by waterway with the
the markets in the cereals sector centre of the area with the
(OJ 1962, pp. 933 et seq.), in that greatest deficit (Duisburg) and it failed: to inform the applicants of the
(a) to consider the request of the measures taken against the
applicants of 31 July 1963 and Federal Republic of Germany; to take a decision in respect of 2. To order the Commission to pay costs.'
them on the question whether the
the Federal Republic of Ger The defendant in a statement raising the
many had infringed the Treaty objection of inadmissibility contends
of25 March 1957 instituting that the Court should:
the European Economic Com decide, without considering the sub
munity, by fixing the derived stance of the case, on the admissibility intervention prices for purely of the application in accordance with harbour installations in its Article 91 of the Rules of Procedure, declare be in territory connected directly by the application to
waterway with the centres of admissible and order the applicants
the area with the largest deficit to bear the costs.'
(Duisburg), in contravention The applicants claim in their observa
of the third sentence of Article tions on this objection that the Court 7 (2) of Regulation No 19 of should:
the Council of the EEC of 1. Dismiss the application of the
4 April defendant for deci 1962, when drafting a preliminary paragraph 1 together with sion on the admissibility of the
Schedule 4 of the Law of application; 19 July 1963 (BGB 1. I, pp. 2. Alternatively, suspend a decision 493 implementing et seq.), on the application of the defendant
Regulation No 19 (cereals) of for a preliminary decision until the the Council of the E C; defendant, within a time-limit laid (b) To use, in respect of the Fe down by the President, has pro
deral Republic of Germany, duced a statement in reply con
by it case.'
the power conferred on cerning the substance of the Article 169 of the EEC Treaty in accordance with its obliga III —
Procedure tions'
under Article 155 of the
EEC Treaty and to decide The Court heard the oral arguments of whether, in drafting para the parties at the hearing on 14 May graph 1 together with Sche 1964 on the objection of inadmissibility
dule 4 of the Law of 19 July raised by the defendant. In the course of 1963 (BGB1. I, pp. 493 et this hearing new facts were submitted
RHENANIA v COMMISSION
which led the applicants to declare that The Advocate-General presented his the object of their requests in the main reasoned oral opinion at the hearing on action had been achieved. 4 June 1964.
Grounds of judgment
During the oral procedure the applicants first of all explained that the letter which the defendant sent to them on 25 November 1963 had satisfied their
first principal request, which was that the Commission should consider their letter of 31 July 1963 and inform them of the result of such consideration.
The applicants were thus in fact informed on 25 November 1963 that the Commission's departments had begun to consider the questions raised on 31 July 1963 and that the result of such consideration would be sent to them later.
In the second place, during the oral procedure and after the defendant's oral address, the applicants stated that they had achieved the object of their second principal request, proceedings having been instituted under Article 169 by the Commission against the Federal Republic of Germany in respect of the matter in dispute.
It thus follows from the foregoing that the principal requests of the appli cants have no further purpose and consequently that there is no need to adjudicate upon them.
Costs
In addition to the principal requests, the application asks that the de fendants be ordered to bear the costs. The applicants stated that they would not withdraw their application in order to allow the Court to decide upon this question.
In accordance with the wording of Article 69 (5) of the Rules of Procedure the costs shall be in the discretion of the Court where a case does not pro ceed to judgment.
Without having to consider to what extent the application was admissible and well founded, the Court finds, given the circumstances of the case and the course taken by the proceedings, sufficient ground to decide that the parties must bear their own costs.
OPINION OF MR ROEMER — CASE 103/63
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-General; Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Com munity:
Having regard to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the
European Communities, especially Article 69;
THE COURT
hereby rules:
1. The issues in the case have been disposed of;
2. The parties shall bear their own costs.
Donner Hammes Trabucchi Delvaux Rossi Lecourt Strauß
Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 2 July 1964.
A. Van Houtte A. M. Donner Registrar President
OPINION OF MR ADVOCATE-GENERAL ROEMER 1 DELIVERED ON 4 JUNE 1964
Mr President, No 19 of the Council of the EEC as set Members of the Court, out on 19 July 1963 (BGBl. I, pp. 493 et seq.). They consider that this law In this case the applicants are German infringes the third sentence of Article 7 companies carrying on undertakings (2) of Regulation No 19 to the extent
dealing with transport, chartering, that it set derived intervention prices at
trans-shipment and storage of German too low a level for the purely harbour and foreign cereals. centres of the Federal Republic, that is They consider that they have suffered to say the localities connected directly commercial loss as a result of the by waterway with the marketing centre German law implementing Regulation of the area with the largest deficit. This
1 — Translated from the German.