C-52/72

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 13 DECEMBER 19721

Walzenmühle Magstadt Karl-Heinz Kienle v Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel2 (Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hessischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof)

Case 52/72

Summary

Agriculture — Common organization of the market — Common wheat, rye of bread-making quality and maize — Carry-over payments within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation No 120 — Conditions of grant — Absolute limitation period for making an application (Regulation No 963/69 of the Commission, Article 3)

The time-limit laid down in the first indent or telegram sent not later than 7 June 1969, of Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 963/69 his intention of obtaining the carry-over of the Commission of 27 May 1969, under payment referred to in Article 9 of the terms of which the applicant must have Regulation No 120/67/EEC of the Council, declared by registered letter, telex message is an absolute limitation period.

1 — Language of the Case: German.

JUDGMENT OF 13. 12. 1972 — CASE 52/72

THE COURT

composed of: R. Lecourt, President, R. Monaco (Rapporteur) and P. Pescatore, Presidents of Chambers, A. M. Donner, A. Trabucchi, J. Mertens de Wilmars and H. Kutscher, Judges.

Advocate-General: K. Roemer

Registrar: A. Van Houtte

— have declared to the aforementioned 2. The competent authorities of Member competent authority, by registered letter, States shall adopt all supplementary

WALZENMÜHLE MAGSTADT v EINFUHR- UND VORRATSSTELLE GETREIDE

' telex message or telegram sent not later than 7 June 1969, his intention to apply 2. Walzenmühle Magstadt Karl-Heniz where appropriate to be granted the carry Kienle (hereinafter referred to as 'Walzen over payment, is this mühle Magstadt'), which carries on a milling business, stated by a letter (form), (a) an absolute limitation period, that is ante-dated 6 June 1969, to the Einfuhr- to say, a period the non-observance und Vorratsstelle für Getreide und Futter of which always leads to the loss of the mittel, Frankfurt am Main (hereinafter right to the carry-over payment, or referred to as 'the EVGF') its intention of only an ordinary time-limit, that is to claiming a carry-over payment for the say, a time-limit the non-observance 1968/1969 marketing year in respect of of which may, in certain circumstances, stocks of common wheat and of rye (first not have the effect of the loss of the indent of Article 3 of Regulation No right to the carry-over payment? 963/69).

period. Walzenmühle Magstadt disputed 3. The order making the reference was that decision of rejection before the received at the Court Registry on 19 July Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main, 1972. claiming that the time-limit in question is Walzenmühle Magstadt, represented by in the nature of an ordinary time-limit and Karl-Heinz Kienle, and the Commission, not that of an absolute limitation period. represented by its Legal Adviser, Peter It also stated that the owner of the under Kalbe, acting as Agent, submitted their taking who should have made the declara written observations in accordance with tion returned on 9 June 1969 from a holiday Article 20 of the Protocol on the Statute of journey abroad and that in any case the the Court of Justice. forms for the declaration of intention had The Court, on hearing the report of the only been sent to him on 8 June 1969. Judge Rapporteur and the views of the the V erwaltungsgericht the On the Verwaltungsgericht rejecting the Advocate-General, decided to open the application as unfounded by a judgment oral procedure without any preparatory inquiry

JUDGMENT OF 13. 12. 1972 — CASE 52/72

It is for that reason extended to 12 August 1969 'becuase of that the target, intervention and threshold the hot weather', the EVGF would not prices were subject, during that marketing have been able, after having expressly year, to a certain number of monthly mentioned the time-limit of 7 June 1969 increases (Article 6 of Regulation No and that of 5 August 1969 as absolute 120/67) which in May reached their highest limitation periods, to have made such an level in respect of wheat and rye.

There follows from these Recalling, in addition, that the EVGF had rules a motive for holders of cereals to later asked for the reasons justifying the produce for intervention during May the lateness of the declaration, Walzenmühle old stocks still remaining towards the end Magstadt finds it surprising that decisions of the marketing year, although the market concerning the grant or refusal of the may still absorb them. It was precisely to carry-over payment had been taken even discourage this tendency that the carry before information concerning the reasons over payments were introduced.

cereal harvest. Practice showed that in the 31 July, in addition to the opportunity for region of the undertaking in question intervention, compensation for costs at deliveries made by producers may vary least equal to the difference between the from 140 to 340 tonnes because of bad target price in force in the last month of weather. the marketing year and that in force in the first month of the new marketing year. Walzenmühle Magstadt submits that it Having thus recalled the structure and the would never be possible seriously to essential purpose of this system, the Com consider absolute limitation periods for mission adds that the necessary measures making the declaration, and that the time- for its implementation had to be as simple limit in the first indent of Article 3 of as possible, for administrative reasons and Regulation No 963/69 must be regarded to ensure uniform application in all the as a non-compulsory time-limit.

WALZENMÜHLE MAGSTADT v EINFUHR- UND VORRATSSTELLE GETREIDE

States. ments was established. The fixing of a Taking all these considerations of a prac compulsory time-limit for the lodging of tical and legal nature into account, the that declaration was in this case shown Commission considered in consequence to be necessary for both practical and legal that it was more effective and judicious to considerations. fix a compulsory time-limit in advance for In the first place, it was indispensable, in the lodging of the declaration of intention order to avoid the risk that there might be referred to in the first indent of Article 3 improper declarations of either cereals of Regulation No 963/69, by which the from the new harvest or the same quantity person concerned must at the same timegive of cereals several times, that the declaration notice of the stocks capable of qualilying of intention should be lodged as soon as for the payment in dispute. possible after 31 May 1969. In the second The desire of the legislature to confer on place, from the legal point of view there such a time-limit the nature of an absolute could be no question in the present case limitation period appears, moreover, in a other than the fixing of an absolute clear and precise manner from the very limitation period, that is to say, of a prior wording of the abovementioned provision, concrete condition upon which the right to in which the right to the payment in subject obtain a payment depends. An ordinary to the actual condition that the stocks are procedural time-limit would not in fact have declared at the proper time.

Member States. In order to avoid this Moreover, it is for this reason that Article danger it would have been necessary, 5(2) specifies a little further on that the therefore, at the level of Community law competence to make rules thus left to the to lay down special rules to which the Member States applies to the 'periods of national authorities would have had to time during which the stocks and their conform, for authorizing exceptions or movements are under supervision'. delays. But such rules would have compli Furthermore, it is not possible in order to cated the procedure without, however, support the opposite argument, to rely on preventing a time-limit from being fixed higher principles of every State governed all the same in every case, that is to say, a by the rule of law, claiming that they require new absolute limitation period, differing acceptance of an interpretation 'in ac from that laid down by Regulation No cordance with the Treaty' in the sense 963/69 only by its greater duration. suggested by Walzenmühle Magstadt.

JUDGMENT OF 13. 12. 1972 — CASE 52/72

mental principles limiting the legislative that such declarations hould be submitted power of the Community may be drawn. by means of forms. The forms were simply After adding that the system established consents in respect of Article 5(2) of by Regulation No 963/69 involved no Regulation No 963/69 and the fact that infringement of the fundamental principles they were received belatedly by the person of Community law and especially of the concerned cannot affect the compulsory principle of proportionality of measures, time-limit laid down by Community law. the Commission states that in Community The Commission submits that 'the time- law the illegal situation is not in the least limit for the declaration laid down in the modified by the possibility that the forms first indent of Article 3 of Regulation delivered by the Commission might be put No 963/69 is an absolute limitation period, belatedly at the disposal of those concerned. the failure to observe which, prevents the The validity of the declarations of intention creation of any right to carry-over pay­ was not expressly subject to the condition ments'.

Grounds of judgment

1 By a decision of 28 June 1972 received by the Court on 19 July 1972, the Hessischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof referred to the Court, pursuant to Article 177 of the EEC Treaty, a question concerning the interpretation of the first indent of Article 3 of Regulation No 963/69 of the Commission of 27 May 1969 (JO 1969, L 126) on the conditions for granting carry-over payments for common wheat, rye of bread-making quality and maize in stock at the end of the 1968/1969 marketing year.

WALZENMÜHLE MAGSTADT v EINFUHR- UND VORRATSSTELLE GETREIDE

in intervention prices come to an end, even though a large part of the cereals in store could be sold directly on the market before the beginning of the new marketing year, Article 9 of Regulation No 120/67 makes provision for the opportunity of granting a carry-over payment for cereals harvested in the Community, which are still in stock.

3 Since, however, for certain cereals the new harvest begins before 31 July, the end of the marketing year for cereals, measures had to be taken to prevent the payment under Article 9 from being abused by means of claims in respect of cereals from the new harvest in store at that time. It is precisely for this purpose that Regulation No 963/69 of the Commission lays down that, in order to benefit from the payment in question, the applicant must have made the declaration referred to in the first indent of Article 3 before 7 June 1969 so as to allow the competent national authorities to check the existence of stocks of cereals existing on 31 May 1969, in order to be granted the benefit of the carry-over payment. These objectives require the fixing of a mandatory time-limit for lodging the declaration referred to in the first indent of Article 3. The fact that this declaration gives rise to the grant of a carry-over payment only if it is followed by the request for payment referred to in the second indent of the same article does not detract from the mandatory nature of the time-limit fixed for lodging the declaration. Each of the time-limits referred to in Article 3 has its own function which justifies its strict nature. Furthermore, the necessity of ensuring equality in the conditions for granting carry-over payments requires the application of uniform time-limits.

Upon reading the pleadings; Upon hearing the report of the Judge-Rapporteur; Upon hearing the oral observations of the Commission of the European Com­ munities ; Upon hearing the opinion of the Advocate-General; Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, especially Article 177; Having regard to Regulation No 120/67 of the Council of 13 June (OJ, Special Edition, 1967, p. 33); Having regard to Regulation No 963/69 of the Commission of 27 May 1969 (JO 1969, L 1 26); Having regard to the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Economic Community, especially Article 20; Having regard to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Community,

THE COURT

in answer to the questions submitted to it by the Hessischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof in accordance with the decision given by that court on 28 June 1972, hereby rules:

The time-limit laid down in the first indent of Article 3 of Regulation No 963/69 of the Commission of 27 May 1969, under the terms of which the applicant must have declared, by registered letter, telex message or telegram sent not later than 7 June 1969, his intention to apply where appropriate to be granted the carry-over payment referred to in Article 9 of Regulation No 120/67 of the Council is an absolute limitation period.

Lecourt Monaco Pescatore

Donner Trabucchi Mertens de Wilmars Kutscher