C-38/64

In Case 38/64

GETREIDE-IMPORT GESELLSCHAFT MBH,with a registered office in Duisburg, represented by its managers, Wilhelm Specht and Wilhelm Breder, assisted by Kurt Redeker of the Bonn Bar, with an address for service in Luxem­ bourg at the Chambers of Georges Reuter, 7 avenue de l'Arsenal,

applicant,

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 Manzanares, Secretary of the Legal Department of the European Executives, 2 place de Metz,

defendant,

gives the following

JUDGMENT

Issues of fact and of law

I — Facts Month of importation: The facts may be summarized as fol­ June July August September lows: 1964 1964 1964 1964 The applicant company is an importer Rates of levy in of Cereals and fodder of all kinds; it is, DM per metric ton: in this field, one of the largest under­ 208.70 192.20 192.20 194:30 takings in the Federal Republic. By its own account it is the most important These rates of levy, given in DM per importer of fodder into the Federal Re­ 1 000 kg, for the 'unloading of sorghum public of Germany. Sorghum is one of originating in the United States during the month of June', are based on the the fodders which for several years the applicant has imported in large quan­ c.i.f. price of 51 dollars fixed by the tities into the Federal Republic. Decision of the Commission of 25 June 1964 taken pursuant to Article 10 of On 26 June 1964 the applicant applied Regulation No 19 and valid until 26 for an import licence for 1 000 metric June 1964. tons of sorghum originating in the United States at rates of levy deter­ On 24 August 1964 the company made mined in advance, pursuant to Article an application against the said Decision of the Commission of 25 June 1964. In 17 (2) of Regulation No 19 of the Council of the European Economic the alternative, the company also con­ tests the earlier Decisions of the Com­ Community on the progressive estab­ lishment of a common organization of mission of 23 and 24 June concerning the market in cereals (Official Journal the 'c.i.f price', by which the Commis­ of 20 April 1962, pp. 933 et seq.), here­ sion fixed the c.i.f. price for sorghum at inafter referred to as 'Regulation No 19'. 51.20 dollars for the period from 23 to 25 June 1964. In accordance with this application the applicant obtained import licence No II — Conclusions of the 540 140/17 810. This gives, for 1 000 kg of sorghum originating in the United parties States, the following rates of levy: In its application instituting the proceed-

of 23 and 24 June 1964 fixing the c.i.f. dividual concern to the applicant. prices of cereals, flour, groats and meal 1. In analysing the nature of the De­ (in this instance: 'sorghum') (Official cisions determining c.i.f. prices, the de­ Journal, Agricultural Supplement of 1 fendant makes the following statements: July 1964, pp. 499 and 500).' A. The Decisions on the c.i.f price de­ In its statement of defence presented on termine the amounts of the levy as re­ 29 September 1964, the Commission gards third countries for all products contends that the Court should: governed by Regulation No 19. (a) C.i.f. prices were fixed for all the 'Give a preliminary ruling on the admis­ products referred to in Article 1 (a), (b) sibility of the application under Article 91 of the Rules of Procedure; and (c) of Regulation No 19, that is, for cereals, flour, groats and meal. For each dismiss the application as inadmissible; of these products the amount of the order the applicant to pay the costs.' In its reply of 30 November 1964, the levy as regards third countries is in principle equal to the threshold price in applicant contends that the Court should: the importing Member State after de­ duction of the c.i.f. price fixed for that 'Dismiss the application under Article 91 Member State. of the Rules of Procedure for a pre­ The amount of the levy thus fixed for liminary ruling on the admissibility of a specific day is charged on all imports the application.' from third countries which take place on that date; it is moreover a factor in de­ III — Submissions and argu­ termining the amount of the levy fixed ments of the parties in advance (that is, one which will con­ on admissibility cern only future imports) for applica­ tions presented on the same day. The The defendant claims that the applica­ c.i.f. price is also one of the two factors tion, based on the second paragraph of used in the calculation of the premiums Article 173 of the EEC Treaty, is inad­ which are added to the amount of the missible in that the procedural require­ levy fixed in advance. ments which under this Article must (b) No c.i.f price was fixed for the pro­ exist before an application for annul­ cessed products referred to in the Annex ment may be lodged by any natural or to Regulation No 19, hereinafter refered legal person are not fulfilled in this to as 'processed products'. The amounts case. of the levies on these products applic­ The defendant claims that: able to third countries are also deter­ Under the terms of the second para­ mined by the c.i.f. prices. The amounts graph of Article 173 a natural or legal of the levies on processed products are person may only institute proceedings made up of a variable component and against a decision addressed to that per­ of a fixed component. The variable son or against a decision which, although component must correspond to the in the form of a regulation or a decision charge imposed on the cereal used in

the manufacture of this product. Where crossing point indicated by each Mem this product contains no cereal, the im ber State. The c.i.f. price will only be pact upon it of the variable component uniform when a single frontier crossing must be sufficient to maintain the re point exists for the whole Community, lationship which experience has shown in accordance with Article 13 (d) of to exist between the price of the product Regulation No 19. in question and that of the competing D. The calculations required by the processed cereal-based product(s). Decision on c.i.f. prices regarding the The amount or the levy applicable to a fixing of the amounts of levies and re processed product, fixed for a specific funds, the fixing and collection of such date on the basis of the variable com levies and the fixing and grant of such ponent determined in this way, is refunds shall be made by the Member charged on all imports from third coun

tion No 19; partly determined according to the — the maximum refunds which may be c.i.f. price of sorghum; granted on exports to Member States — exporters of sorghum: it fixes the for the products referred to in Article maximum refund which may be gran 1 (a), (b) and (c) of Regulation No 19. ted on exports of this product to third countries and to Member C. (a) Each working day the Commis States; sion fixes the c.i.f. prices for the pro — exporters of the above-mentioned ducts referred to in Article 1 (a), (b) processed products; and (c) of Regulation No 19 by means of a Decision addressed to all Member — any potential purchaser from or ven

GETREIDE-IMPORT v COMMISSION

Grounds of judgment

The admissibility of the application

The contested Decisions are addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany.

The second paragraph of Article 173 of the EEC Treaty provides that any natural or legal person may institute proceedings against a decision which is not addressed to that person, on condition that it is of direct and individual concern to that person.

JUDGMENT OF 1. 4. 1965 — CASE 38/64

The defendant maintains that the contested Decision is not of individual concern to the applicant, within the meaning of that provision. Persons other than those to whom a decision is addressed may only claim to be individually concerned if that decision affects them by reason of certain attributes which are peculiar to them or by reason of circumstances in which they are differentiated from all other persons and by virtue of these factors distinguishes them individually just as in the case of the person addressed. The applicant claims to be in a special situation as regards the effects of the contested Decision, in that not only does it belong to a group of importers affected by the said Decision but also that its request for an import licence, made on 26 June 1964, distinguishes it from all other importers. This claim is unfounded.

Having failed in its application, the applicant must be ordered to pay the costs. 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 second paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty estab­ lishing the European Economic Community;

GETREIDE—IMPORT v COMMISSION

Having regard to the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice annexed to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community; Having regard to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, especially Article 69 (2);

THE COURT

hereby orders:

Mr President, able offers on the world market. It also Members of the Court, contends that, contrary to Article 190 of the EEC Treaty, no reasons were Getreide-Import, a trading company in­ given for this Decision. Alternatively corporated under German law with the and on the same grounds, it requests object of carrying on foreign trade and you to annul the Decisions of the Com­ in particular the import of cereals and mission of 23 and 24 June 1964 de­ animal feeding-stuffs, is applying to you termining this price for 24 and 25 June for the annulment of a Decision of the 1964 respectively. Commission of the European Economic As in other similar cases either already Community of 25 June 1964 which, in settled or still pending before you, the the context of Regulation No 19 on the Commission contends that this appli­ progressive establishment of a common cation is inadmissible and has requested organization of the market in cereals, that a decision be given on this pre­ fixed the c.i.f. prices of these cereals, liminary objection under Article 91 of and in particular of sorghum, for 26 the Rules of Procedure of the Court. June 1964. It maintains that, contrary In my opinion, therefore, I will only to the provisions of Article 10 (2) of deal with the problems of admissibility Regulation No 19 and Article 1 (1) of under the second paragraph of Article Regulation No 68, this price was not 173 of the Treaty, which was the only fixed on the basis of the most favour­ question to be discussed at the hearing. 1 Translated from the French.