C-65/69

In Case 65/69

La Compagnie d'Approvisionnement, de Transport et de Crédit, S.A., having its registered office in Paris, assisted by André Vidart, Advocate at the Conseil d'État and at the Cour de Cassation, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 34.B.IV, rue Philippe-II,

applicant,

ν

Commission of the European Communities, represented by Armando Toledano- Laredo acting as Agent, assisted by Jacques H. J. Bourgeois acting as Adviser, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Émile Reuter, 4, boule­ vard Royal,

defendant,

Registrar: A. Van Houtte

gives the following

JUDGMENT

Issues of fact and of law

I —Facts and procedure and levy compensatory amounts on exports. However, Article 8 gives the Commission The facts of the case and the procedure the powers necessary to lay down the followed may be summarized as follows : methods of applying these provisions, After the devaluation of the French franc, methods which include 'in particular the the Council of the European Communities fixing of the amounts of the import sub­ decided on 11 August 1969, first, not to sidies and of the compensatory amounts change the value of the unit of account and, charged for on exports.' secondly, to issue a regulation containing The subject of the present dispute is measures designed to ensure that the Regulation No 1670/69 of 22 August 1969 adaptation to the situation thus created, (OJ L 214 p. 7), whereby the Commission which would affect the French prices of laid down implementing measures with products subject to a common organization regard to the cereals and rice sectors, and of the market, should not be too abrupt. To in particular Article 2, which states: 'The this end Regulation No 1586/69 of the subsidies granted for imports and the Council (OJ L 202 1969 p. 1) provides in compensatory amounts charged for exports particular that, for a limited period, the by France shall be fixed in the annex hereto.' intervention prices payable by the French The applicant has made an application authorities (in units of account) may be directed against the fixing in the annex reduced by 11.11 % (Articles 1 and 2). So provided for in Article 2 of Regulation as to avoid trade difficulties which might No 1670/69 of the subsidy on imports of result from this situation, Article 3 provides common wheat and mesiin at 58.49 FF per that France shall grant import subsidies metric ton. It states that in fixing this

subsidy — the only matter at issue in the — further, order all the necessary measures present proceedings — at 58.49 FF per of inquiry for the purposes mentioned metric ton, the Commission took into above. consideration the fact that wheat prices did not rise in France but failed to take into In its interlocutory application the defendant account the fact that at the same time the claims that the Court should : price CIF-Antwerp and the CIF-mill-Paris deciding in accordance with Article 91 of transport costs have increased in such a way the Rules of Procedure on the inadmissi as to make the rise in the cost of imported bility of the original application, and wheat greater than it would have been solely without going into the substance of the case : as a result of the devaluation of the French franc, that is to say, the price rose, not to — declare the original application in 68.29 FF as the Commission had calculated, admissible; but to 70.22 FF per quintal.

Procedure; sented its submissions on the objection. After hearing the report of the Judge- — order the Commission to pay the costs Rapporteur and the views of the Advocate- of the interlocutory application. General the Court decided to open the oral procedure with regard to the objection of inadmissibility. III — Submissions and arguments The parties presented their oral arguments of the parties as to admissi at the hearing on 17 February 1970. bility The Advocate-General delivered his opin ion at the hearing on 11 March 1970. The submissions and arguments of the parties as to the admissibility of the II — Conclusions of the parties application may be summarized as follows. The defendant first alleges that, taken as a whole, Regulation No 1670/69 has general The applicant claims that the Court should : application in that it determines, for products subject to a common organization — annul the contested decisions with all of the market in the rice and cereals sectors, the consequences that that entails in law the provisions for giving effect to the rules and as regards costs ; introduced by Regulation No 1586/69 of

JUDGMENT OF 16. 4. 1970 — CASE 65/69

It is tion No 1670/69 of the Commission. obvious that the rise in the CIF-mill prices Moreover, according to the defendant, that is not the same for all the various under the provision fixing the amount of the takings importing wheat and that costs must subsidy on imports has general application necessarily vary according to the geo in view of the following considerations : graphical location of the factory. Thus, even though the amount has to be fixed — the provision in question applies to at a flat rate, it must take into account that objectively determined situations ; increase in the cost price.

That is precisely whether the contested provision is of direct the case here, the undertakings affected concern to the applicant, the defendant having been recognized as such by the thereby concludes that the application is Commission on the date of the contested inadmissible. measure, the only date relevant in the The applicant alleges, first, that the con present instance. On the other hand the tested provision should be examined to see contested provision also concerns the whether it is of direct and individual applicant directly by virtue of the losses concern to it without first stopping to it has suffered consequent upon the fixing conduct an examination of the nature of the of the subsidy at 58.49 FF per metric ton.

4 The regulation in question was adopted pursuant to Article 8 of Regulation (EEC) No 1586/69 of the Council of 11 August 1969 relating to certain measures of con­ junctural policy to be taken in the agricultural sector as a result of the devaluation of the French franc (OJ L 202 p. 1) and forms part of a body of provisions designed to adjust the functioning of the intervention mechanism of the common organ­ ization of agricultural markets to the devaluation of the French franc on 8 August 1969.

5 The main purpose of these measures is that certain correcting factors, corresponding to the devaluation of the French franc as against the unit of account, should be applied to certain amounts payable or to be charged by France as a result of the common agricultural policy, and they lay down the amounts of these in French francs for various products.

6+ The applicant acknowledges that these are general measures and therefore in the nature of a regulation, and admits that the fixing of the compensatory amounts for export and of the import subsidies on wheat, flour and mesiin are an integral part of the adjustment process and therefore have, in principle, general application.

7 However, according to the applicant the fixing of the contested rate of 58.49 FF per metric ton of wheat imported affects the undertakings concerned unequally, since it has been calculated without taking into account the differing effects of the in­ crease of certain constituent elements of the cost price, in particular CIF transport costs, which are payable in non-French currency.

12 They are not intended to balance out the advantages and disadvantages of the devaluation of the French franc for dealers so as to ensure that their situation is

unaltered and to nullify the effects of the devaluation in their case.

13 On the contrary, the measures refrain from dealing with the range of effects which the devaluation might have for dealers or groups of dealers, and are intended exclusively to draw the quasi-automatic consequences of the devaluation on the price mechanisms, which are expressed in units of account, and laid down by the common agricultural rules.

14 These measures, including the contested provision, are therefore in the nature of regulations and do not concern the applicant individually.

15 Accordingly the application must be dismissed as inadmissible.

Costs

THE COURT

hereby :

1. Dismisses the application as inadmissible;

2. Orders the applicant to bear the costs.

Lecourt Monaco Pescatore

Donner Trabucchi Strauß Mertens de Wilmars