C-30/67

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 13 MARCH 1968 1

Industria Molitoria Imolese and others

v Council of the European Communities

Case 30/67

Summary

1. Measures adopted by an institution — Proceedings instituted by individuals — Regulation — Possibility of measures of individual concern contained in a regulation (EEC Treaty, Article 173, second paragraph, Article 189, second paragraph)

(4) Corticella Industria Molini E PASTIFICI SpA, having its registered office at Bologna, represented by its chairman, Giorgio Veggetti;

1 — Language of the Case: Italian.

JUDGMENT OF 13. 3. 1968 — CASE 30/67

(5) Eugenio BIANCHI , in his capacity as owner of the undertaking Molino a Cilindri e Magnimificio Bianchi Giovanni ed Eugenio, Osimo (Ancona);

(6) Angelo Vancini , a partnership, having its head office at Bologna, represented by Giulano Vancini, a partner;

(7) Molino San Donato , a partnership, having its head office at Bologna, re­ presented by Ferdinando Miglioli, a partner.

THE COURT

composed of: R. Lecourt, President, A. M. Donner and W. Strauß, Presidents of Chambers, A. Trabucchi and R. Monaco (Rapporteur), Judges,

Advocate-General: K. Roemer

Registrar: A. Van Houtte

gives the following

MOLITORIA IMOLESE v COUNCIL

I — Facts and Procedure tained in a measure which, in other respects, may properly be described as a regulation. The applicants, milling undertakings sit Accordingly, the reply to the question uated in the provinces of Bologna and whether the contested measure, taken as a Ancona, lodged their application at the whole, is in fact in the nature of a regulation Court Registry on 18 August 1967. or is merely a decision adopted in the form On 25 September 1967 the Council of the of a regulation is unnecessary for the pur European Communities, the defendant, pose of deciding upon the admissibility of submitted an objection of inadmissibility an application, as the Court has held in based upon the second paragraph of Article Case 40/64. 173 of the Treaty and requested that Article In the defendant's view, therefore, it is 91 of the Rules of Procedure be applied. sufficient, in this case, to examine whether The applicants submitted their observations the provisions at issue are such as to be of on this objection on 2 November 1967. direct and individual concern to the appli After hearing the opinion of the Advocate- cants. In this respect the established case- General, the Court decided to open the oral law of the Court specifies that an act can procedure on the objection of inadmissibil only be of individual concern to the insti ity. gator of an application if it affects him 'by The parties presented their oral observa reason of certain attributes which are tions at the hearing on 17 January 1968. peculiar to [him], or by reason of circum The Advocate-General delivered his opin stances in which [he is] differentiated from ion at the hearing on 8 February 1968. all other persons, and by virtue of these factors distinguishes [him] individually just II — Submissions and arguments of as in the case of the person addressed'.

JUDGMENT OF 13. J. 1968 — CASE 30/67

level'. This assurance is guaranteed by the stuffs in question. Although the mechanism activity of the intervention agencies, refer of the reference price is not identical to that red to in Article 7 of the same regulation, under discussion in this case, it is neverthe which are obliged, in the event of certain less comparable and is directed to ends conditions materializing, to buy in at the which are broadly similar. intervention price ruling for the marketing What is more, the fact that the application centre at which the cereal is offered. is directed not against all intervention The fixing of intervention prices is therefore prices but against the derived intervention one of those operations which are necessary prices for the Bologna and Ancona market to ensure the proper functioning of one of ing centres does not affect the legal argu the principal mechanisms of the common ment set out above. The persons to whom organization of the market, that of inter the contested measure was addressed are vention by agencies designated by the nevertheless abstractly defined and not

It in the regions around those centres, who are notes, finally, that according to this case- protected by the fixing of intervention law, once it is established that the measure prices against falls in market prices below a at issue is not of individual concern to the certain level, and finally to the various applicants it is not necessary to ascertain categories of industralists and traders whether it is of direct concern to them. whose operations are influenced by the It mentions, nevertheless, that the inter existence of a guaranteed minimum market vention price is paid to producers by the price. intervention agencies and that it is therefore The defendant, while recognizing that the only indirectly, for example through the applicants belong to one of these last cat influence which it exerts on the market egories, in that they are industrial milling price, that this price may possibly be of undertakings situated at the marketing concern to undertakings in the processing centres concerned, adds that the line of category: argument indicated above clearly shows In their observations on the objection of that the measure for the fixing of prices is inadmissibility the applicants reply that the not of individual concern to them. In effect, interpretation of the second paragraph of the applicants are adversely affected by the Article 173 of the EEC Treaty advanced by provisions at issue by reason only of a com the defendant would, if taken to its logical mercial activity which, at any given mo conclusion, lead to the negation of that

provision itself. They allege that the defend undertaking. The applicants consider, with ant states, on the one hand, that the regula the support of legal doctrine, that there is tion is addressed to a category of persons, general agreement on the fact 'that the but, on the other hand, claims that member essential scope both of the second para ship of that category is a factor of no graph of Article 33 of the ECSC Treaty and importance, because it is the consequence of of the second paragraphs of Article 173 of an activity which may be undertaken by any the EEC Treaty and Article 146 of the person at any time. This argument leads to EAEC Treaty is the same for practical the conclusion 'that, under Community purposes and that the adjectives "direct" law, the distinction between the legal or and "individual" are intended to specify the natural person as such and such person as necessity for the existence of a direct and characterized by the activities he pursues immediate interest on the part of the appli becomes immaterial in the sense, which is cant'. They believe they have demonstrated, clearly contradictory, that such person is in the light of the arguments expounded superseded by the category to which he above, that the Court cannot accept the belongs and which is in turn transcended by Council's argument that the individuality of the fact that all persons may belong to it'. the applicants' situation, arising from the The applicants further state that, since the existence of a direct and immediate interest provisions of the Treaty create rights and on their part, does not exist because the obligations in respect of any interested per activity which distinguishes them is such son who is directly subject to the rules which that it may be undertaken by others.

Moreover, this light, the objective purpose of the the fact that, apart from the present appli measure is expressed in the obligation cants, there were other millers at Ancona imposed upon the millers of Bologna and and at Bologna is of no importance, since Ancona to pay a specified and unchangeable membership of a class is not a specific producer price. The miller is. concerned attribute but merely generic. In fact, the directly, first, by reason of the geographical necessary relationship specified by the location, secondly, because it is he who economic provisions of the contested meas must pay the price out of his own funds and, ure exists not between millers as a class and finally, because between him and the pro the producer, but between each miller taken ducer there is no intermediate third party, in individually and the producer. the sense that the contested provision Finally, the applicants adduce an argument directly determines the economic value of from the text of the second paragraph of the obligation which arises as between the Article 173 of the EEC Treaty, noting that miller as transferee and the producer as it envisages, at the same time as the hypoth transferor. esis of a measure having the form of a The applicants further note that the Court regulation, that of a measure adopted in has made an analysis, in relation to Article relation to a particular person which is of 33 of the ECSC Treaty, of the concept 'of individual concern to a different person.

JUDGMENT OF 13. 3. 1968 — CASE 30/67

because of the fact that he has an individual to other persons or to that of a measure interest which is directly injured by the having the form of a regulation, and that it measure. The applicants allege that the cannot be accepted that the significance of words 'direct and individual' refer either to one and the same expression can alter the case of a decision adopted with regard according to the cases to which it refers.

Grounds of judgment

The applicants have instituted proceedings against Regulation No 128/67 of the Council fixing the prices and principal marketing centres for cereals for the 1967— 1968 marketing year. More particularly, they request the annulment of Articles 2 and 3 of the said regulation and of Annexes A and B thereto, to the extent to which those provisions fix derived intervention prices for common wheat at the Bologna and Ancona marketing centres.

Under Article 91 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, the defendant has raised an objection of inadmissibility against the application, submitting that the above- mentioned provisions of Regulation No 128/67 are not of direct and individual concern to the applicants.

Under the second paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty, individuals are empower­ ed to institute proceedings for annulment only against decisions addressed to them or against decisions which, although in the form of regulations or of decisions addressed to other persons, are of direct and individual concern to them. In the present case it is necessary to examine, in application of that Article, whether the provisions which are the subject of the application are merely in the form of a regulation and in fact constitute a decision of direct and individual concern to the applicants. It is accordingly necessary to ascertain, in relation to the stated criteria, the true legal nature of the measure entitled Regulation No 128/67 and, more particularly, of Articles 2 and 3 of that regulation as well as certain parts, specified in the application, of Annexes A and B to the Regulation.

tion prices. With a view in particular to stabilizing markets and guaranteeing the free movement of cereals within the Community, Regulation No 120/67 provides for the fixing of intervention prices derived from the basic price, the effect of which is to enable surpluses in production areas to be offset against requirements in deficit areas. For the purposes of such offsetting, the necessary intervention measures must be standardized and the circumstances justifying those measures must be assessed not on the basis of a locality or sector but at Community level. The proper working of the system thus set up could not be guaranteed in the absence of a correlation, effected by the fixing of threshold prices, between the price system and the levy system. It is clear from the above that the fixing of derived intervention prices and threshold prices is an integral part of the price system which is held to be indispensable in ensuring the progressive establishment of a common organization of the market in cereals in accorance with Regulation No 120/67 and the objectives of Article 39 of the Treaty. The state of interdependence between these prices is moreover demonstrated by the fact that , both intervention prices and threshold prices are fixed in relation to a common target price which allows producers to settle their plans for cultivation accordingly.

Accordingly, it cannot be contested that the measure of which the provisions at issue form an integral part is in the nature of a regulation.

On those grounds,

Upon reading the pleadings; Upon hearing the report of the Judge-Rapporteur; Upon hearing the opinion of the Advocate-General; Having regard to Articles 173 and 189 of the Treaty establishing the EEC; Having regard to the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC; Having regard to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Communities;

THE COURT

hereby:

1. Dismisses Application No 30/67 as inadmissible;

2. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

Mr President, fixed the prices and principal marketing Members of the Court, centres for cereals for the 1967-1968 marketing year. More precisely, they feel The applicants in the case on which I have aggrieved by Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation now to give you my opinion are in the No 128/67 and Annexes A and B thereto, in milling business—either as companies or so far as these fix the derived intervention partnerships—in the region of Bologna and prices for common wheat for the Bologna Ancona. They obtain at least part of their and Ancona marketing centres, that is to raw material from that region. say, the levels below which, in the interests They feel aggrieved by Regulation No 128/­ of producers, market prices must not fall. 67 of 13 June 1967 (Official Journal of 21 In the applicants' view these levels, taking June 1967), in which the Council, on the into account average transport costs in basis of Regulation No 120/67 (on the com­ deficit areas, are too high. mon organization of the market in cereals), Accordingly, they instituted proceedings for

1 — Translated from the German.