C-139/73
ECLI:EU:C:1973:128
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61973CJ0139
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF 22 NOVEMBER 1973 1
Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle fur Getreide und Futtermittel
v Eugen Munch (preliminary ruling requested by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Hessen)
'Periods and Time limits'
Case 139/73
Summary
1. Period, date and time limit — Meaning (Regulation of the Council No 1182/71, Article 3)
2. Agriculture — Common wheat — Carry-over payments — Grant — Conditions — No period or date within the meaning of Regulation No 1182/71 of the Council (Regulation of the Commission No 1196/71, Article 3)
1. It appears from the context of Article the concept of a time limit as 3 of Regulation No 1182/71 of the provided by Articles 4 and 5 of Council that the concept of a period Regulation No 1182/71 and is not to is to be interpreted as meaning an be interpreted as a period within the interval of time expressed in hours, meaning of Article 3 of that days, weeks, months or years, Regulation. without reference to a given date or event. 2. Article 3, last indentation, of The mention of a specified final date Regulation No 1196/71 lays down upon which an event must occur or neither a period nor a date within the an action be effected corresponds to meaning of Regulation No 1182/71.
In Case 139/73
Reference to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Hessischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof for a preliminary ruling in the action pending before that court between
1 — Language of the Case: German.
JUDGMENT OF 22. 11. 1973 — CASE 139/73
EINFUHR- und Vorratsstelle für Getreide UND FUTTERMITTEL, Frankfurt am-Main, Adickesallee 1,
and
Eugen Munch, Getreidemühle, Horgen, Unterbergstraße 38,
on the interpretation of Article 3 of Regulation No 1196/71 of the Commission of 8 June 1971 (OJ L 125, 9. 6. 1971, p. 12), on the requirements for the grant of carry-over payments for common wheat, and of Article 3 of Regu lation No 1182/71 of the Council of 3 June 1971 (OJ L 124, 8. 6. 1971, p. 1), laying down the rules for periods, dates and time limits.
THE COURT
composed of: R. Lecourt, President, A. M. Donner and M. Sørensen, Presi dents of Chambers, R. Monaco, J. Mertens de "Wilmars (Rapporteur), P. Pescatore, H. Kutscher, C. Ó Dálaigh, A. J. Mackenzie Stuart, Judges,
Advocate-General: G. Reischl Registrar: A. Van Houtte
gives the following
JUDGMENT
Issues of fact and of law
The facts of the case, the purpose of the action at first instance, respondent reference and the observations submitted before the national court, claimed the under Article 20 of the Statute of the grant of a carry-over payment of DM Court of Justice may be summarized as 764-28 for 33 100 kg of common wheat, follows: held in stock at the end of the 1970/71 marketing season. This claim was rejected by the 'Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle', the defendant in the I — Facts and procedure action at first instance and appellant before the national court, on the By a communication dated 7 August grounds that according to Article 3 of 1971, despatched on Monday, 9 August Regulation No 1196/71 of the 1971, Firma Munch, plaintiff in the Commission of 8 June 1971 it should
EINFUHR- UND VORRATSSTELLE GETREIDE v MÜNCH
have been despatched on 7 August 1971 open the oral procedure without any at the latest. preparatory inquiry. Firma Munch and Firma Münch filed a suit in the the Commission submitted written observations. Frankfurt Verwaltungsgericht claiming the grant of the carry-over payment The respondent in the main action, previously requested. represented by Me Preuss, Rechtsanwalt, The claim was upheld at first instance; of the Mannheim Bar, and the the national court was of the opinion Commission, represented by Mr that pursuant to Article 3 (4), first Wägenbauer, as agent, made oral paragraph, of Regulation No 1182/71 of observations at the hearing on 23 October 1973. the Council of 3 June 1971, the period did not expire until 9 August 1971, 7 The Advocate-General delivered his August 1971 being a Saturday. opinion at the hearing on 7 November 1973. The defendant in the main action appealed against this judgment to the Hessischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof on the basis of Article 3 (4), second II — Observations submit paragraph, of Regulation No 1182/71. ted under Article 20 of By order of that court of 11 May 1973 the Statute of the Court the following questions were referred to the Court of Justice: of Justice
1. Must the requirement in Article 3 — last indentation — of EEC Regulation A — Observations submitted by the No 1196/71 of the Commission dated Commission 8 June 1971 (OJ L 125, 9. 6. 1971, p. 12) be interpreted as fixing a period After recalling that according to the case within the meaning of Article 3 of law of the Court (Case 32/72, Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No Wasaknäcke, Rec. 1972, p. 1186 and 1182/71 of the Council dated 3 June Case 52/72, Walzenmühle Magstadt, 1971 (OJ L 124, 8. 6. 1971, p. 1)? Rec. 1972, p. 1272), the period fixed pursuant to Article 9 of Regulation No 2. If it does fix such a period, is the 120/67 EEC for the despatch of claims definition in Article 3 (4), first for carry-over payments is absolute, the paragraph, of Regulation (EEC, Commission raises the question whether Euratom) No 1182/71 applicable, or Regulation No 1182/72 of the Council, does Article 3 (4), second paragraph, determining the rules applicable to of the last-mentioned Regulation periods, dates and time limits, applies to apply? Regulation No 1196/72. Article 1 of 3. If (1) is answered in the negative, Regulation No 1182/71 in fact allows must the requirement in Article 3 — derogations from the rules it lays down last indentation — of EEC Regulation and it is conceivable that Regulation No No 1196/71 be interpreted as fixing a 1196/71 involves such a derogation. date within the meaning of Article 5 If Regulation No 1182/71 is taken to of Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No apply in this case then it must be 1182/71? conceded that Article 3 — last indentation — of Regulation No This order was registered at the Court 1196/71 does not contain a 'period' on 4 June 1973. within the meaning of Articles 2 and 3 of Upon hearing the report of the Regulation No 1182/71 but rather a date Judge-Rapporteur and the opinion of the or time limit within the meaning of Advocate-General, the Court decided to Article 5 of the same Regulation. The
JUDGMENT OF 22. 11. 1973 — CASE 139/73
concept of a 'period' ('délai') in fact appears, both from the preamble to presupposes the indication of a defined Regulation No 1182/71 and from the amount of time, which is not the case distinction drawn between the calcula here. tion of the period and its establishment, The first question should accordingly be that the authors of the Regulation also answered in the negative; this would had in mind periods which are expressed make it unnecessary to answer the in terms of dates for beginning and second question, while the third question ending, and which can therefore be should be answered in the affirmative. applied without any further calculation. Article 3 (4) and (5), allowing the If this is a period within the meaning of extension of 'periods', does not therefore Article 3 of Regulation No 1182/71, the apply. first and not the second paragraph of Article 3 (4) of that Regulation should be applied, so that the period should be B — Observations submitted by Firma extended to the next working day, that Munch it, 9 August 1971. Accordingly it is unnecessary to answer The respondent shares the opinion of the the third question, since the case covered Frankfurt Verwaltungsgericht that by Article 5 of Regulation No 1182/71, Article 3 of Regulation No 1196/71 of namely that where an action is to be the Commission provides for a period effected at a specified moment, at a within the meaning of Articles 2 and 3 of specified date or within a given number Regulation No 1182/71 of the Council. of days following the moment when an The reference to the Court of Justice for event occurs or another action takes a preliminary ruling was occasioned place, is not the present case. Moreover solely by the fact that it had not clearly Article 5 is only concerned with specific been established whether periods, the acts, that is, in all probability, acts of the beginning and end of which were public bodies and institutions of the expressed as dates, were to be Member States with regard to the understood as periods within the Community, since only those institutions meaning of Regulation No 1182/71. It can perform acts of a legal nature.
Grounds of judgment
1 By order of 11 May 1973, lodged at the Registry of the Court on 4 June 1973, the Hessischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof referred three questions pursuant to Article 177 of the Treaty establishing the EEC as to the interpretation of Article 3 — last indentation — of Regulation No 1196/71 of the Commission of 8 June 1971 (OJ L 125, 9. 6. 1971, p. 12) on the requirements for the grant of carry-over payments for certain cereals held in stock at the end of the 1970/71 marketing season, and of Articles 3 and 5 of Regulation No 1182/71 of the Council of 3 June 1971 (OJ L 124, 8. 6. 1971, p. 1) determining the rules applicable to periods, dates and time limits.
EINFUHR- UND VORRATSSTELLE GETREIDE v MÜNCH
2 The first question asks whether the expression 'despatched on 7 August 1971 at the latest' in Article 3 of Regulation No 1196/71 fixes a period within the meaning of Article 3 of Regulation No 1182/71.
3 According to Article 1 of the last-named Regulation, its provisions apply to acts of the Council and of the Commission which 'have been or will be
passed' pursuant to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Commu nity or the Euratom Treaty.
Therefore, although introduced subsequently to Regulation No 1196/71, it does apply to the latter.
4 Regulation No 1182/71 lays down general, uniform rules with regard to periods, dates and time limits and distinguishes, in this respect, between periods, which are covered by Articles 2 and 3, and dates and time limits, which are covered by Articles 4 and 5.
As regards periods, the Regulation extends those of which the last day falls on a Saturday, a Sunday or a public holiday; this rule is not reproduced in Articles 4 and 5.
The context of Article 3 shows that the concept of a period is to be taken to mean an interval of time expressed in hours, days, weeks, months or years without reference to a specified date or event.
5 The apparent derogation with regard to periods calculated 'retroactively from a given date or event', contained in the second paragraph of Article 3 (4), confirms this interpretation, since such periods cannot be extended and are accordingly equated with dates and time limits within the meaning of Articles 4 and 5.
These last provisions are concerned with actions which must be effected at a specified date or within a specified time following a given date or event.
6 The hypothesis contained in Article 3 of Regulation No 1196/71, whereby an action must be effected before a given date, is not expressly covered by any of the provisions of Regulation No 1182/71.
JUDGMENT OF 22. 11. 1973 — CASE 139/73
However, the reasons for excluding the extension of periods in the event of a period calculated from a given date, are equally valid in the event of an action having to be effected before a given date.
In either case, the element of uncertainty which justifies the extension of periods when these expire on a Saturday, a Sunday or a public holiday is absent.
Accordingly, the mention of a given date of expiry upon which an event must occur or an action must be effected corresponds to the concept of a time limit covered by Articles 4 and 5, and cannot be considered as a period within the meaning of Article 3.
7 Moreover, this interpretation is confirmed by the purpose attributed to the fixing of a final date, which must be adhered to on paid of exclusion, within the context of the system for granting carry-over payments for cereals held in stock which is implemented in Regulation No 1192/71 pursuant to Article 9 of Regulation No 120/67, on the common organization of the market in cereals.
8 The first question having been answered in the negative, the second question does not require to be considered.
9 The third question asks whether the expression 'despatched on 7 August 1971 at the latest' is a date within the meaning of Article 5 of Regulation No 1182/71.
10 Article 5 (1) and (2), first paragraph, covers actions which must be effected at a given moment or at a given date.
This is not the meaning of Article 3 of Regulation No 1196/71.
As stated above, this provision is a legal construction which, although not expressly covered by Regulation No 1182/71, corresponds to the concept of a time limit within the meaning of that Regulation.
Costs
11 The costs incurred by the Commission of the European Communities, which has submitted observations to the Court, are not recoverable and as these
EINFUHR- UND VORRATSSTELLE GETREIDE v MUNCH
proceedings are, insofar as the parties to the main action are concerned, a step in the action pending before a national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court.
Upon reading the pleadings,
Upon hearing the report of the Judge-Rapporteur; Upon hearing the observations of the plaintiff in the main action and the Commission of the European Communities; Upon hearing the opinion of the Advocate-General; Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, especially Article 177; Having regard to Regulations of the Council Nos 120/67 of 13 June 1967 and 1182/71 of 3 June 1971; Having regard to Regulation No 1196/71 of the Commission of 8 June 1971; Having regard to the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Economic Community, especically Article 20; Having regard to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Communities,
THE COURT,
in answer to the questions referred to it by the Hessischer Verwaltungs gerichtshof, hereby rules:
Article 3 — last indentation — of Regulation No 1196/71 does not fix either a period or a date within the meaning of Regulation No 1182/71.
Lecourt Donner Sørensen
Monaco Mertens de Wilmars Pescatore Ó Dálaigh
Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 22 November 1973.
A. Van Houtte R. Lecourt
Registrar President