C-134/78

1. The requirements of Article 190 of 2. Consideration of the question raised the Treaty are satisfied when the has disclosed no factors of such a statement of the reasons on which a kind as to affect the validity of Article regulation adopted by an institution is 11 of Commission Regulation (EEC) based explains in essence the measure No 76/76 setting up a system linking in question; a statement of the reasons on which a regulation is based imports of beef and veal products cannot be required to cover effected by way of protective specifically all the often very measures with the sale of beef held by numerous details which may be intervention agencies. contained in such a measure.

In Case 134/78

REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Hessisches Finanzgericht (Finance Court, Hesse) (VIIth Senate) in the proceedings pending before that court between

1 — Language of the Case: German.

JUDGMENT OF 22. 3. 1979 — CASE 134/78

FIRMA E. DANHUBER

gives the following

JUDGMENT

Facts and Issues

The facts of the case, the course of the it appeared that the normal machinery of procedure and the observations the market organization was clearly submitted under Article 20 of the inadequate to attain the objectives of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of common organization of the market in Justice of the EEC may be summarized beef and veal set up by Regulation as follows: (EEC) No 805/68, the Commission had recourse to protective measures in the field of external trade.

I — Facts and procedure

From 1974 surpluses of beef and veal on the world market led to a sharp fall in prices on the Community market. When

To alleviate the ever-growing increase in Applicants whose application had been beef and veal surpluses in the internal rejected could subsequently submit a market, the Commission sought to fresh application or choose a cash refund restrict imports and encourage more (Article 6 (2)). exports of those products by its Regu­ Regulation No 1090/75 was amended lation No 1090/75 of 23 April 1975 on several times. the issue by way of protective measures When at the end of 1975 and beginning of import licences for certain beef and of 1976 it became possible to envisage veal products (EXIM) (Official Journal relaxing these import restrictions, the 1975, L 108, p. 1). Under that Regu­ Commission adopted Regulation No lation imports were allowed only in 76/76 of 16 January 1976 setting up a quantities equivalent to those which the system linking imports with the sale of imponer had previously taken off the beef held by intervention agencies internal market by way of exports. (Official Journal 1976, L 10, p. 21). At the same time the EXIM system Under that system, which replaced the (export and import system) was intended EXIM procedure, import licences were to replace the cash refunds normally paid issued to traders who had previously on exportation. Not only could those bought an equivalent quantity of who exported beef or veal without intervention meat. Export no longer refund apply for an import licence for an played any rôle at all. equivalent quantity, but waiving the Within the framework of the EXIM refund was also financially compensated procedure, the last applications for for by a reduction in import levies the import licences could be submitted up to amount of which was too high in view of 15 December 1975 by virtue of Article 2 the bad situation of the market (6th of Regulation No 3170/75 of the Recital in the preamble to Regulation Commission (Official Journal 1975, No 1090/75). L 314, p. 13). They were accepted subject to a minimum levy of 42.998 For administrative reasons the necessary units of account per 100 kilograms of licences were issued monthly according beef or veal in carcase (see Article 1 of to a sort of tendering procedure. the Commission Decision of 19 Applications had to be submitted at the December 1975 — Official Journal of 10 beginning of each month, it being January 1976, L 5, p. 35). understood that the applicant was to state the amount of levy which he was prepared to pay (Article 3 (1) (b) and Article 4 (1)). Only those applications were accepted which related to a quantity of at least 10 tonnes and for which proof of export without refund was given by an accompanying certificate of the agency responsible for paying refunds. The Commission then compared the offers with the market information at its disposal, and determined the minimum rate of levy (Article 4 (3)). The Member State issued licences to applicants who had offered at least that minimum amount, and all applications proposing a lower levy were rejected (Article 4 (4)).

By virtue of Article 11 (1) (b) of Regu disadvantageous situation in relation to lation No 76/76, traders who had pre those exporters who were able to obtain viously exported beef or veal but had not proof of exportation without refund observed the time-limit were entitled to within the stipulated period and submit their applications for import therefore were able to produce such licences until 2 February 1976. Those proof by 15 December. licences had to be issued to them so long Before the national court Danhuber as they were prepared to pay a minimum argued that the fixing of the rates of levy levy of 50.320 units of account per 100 in Article 11 of Regulation No 76/76 kilograms fixed in advance in Article 11 violates the principle of non-discrimi (1) (a). nation and the principle of legal On 29 December 1975 Firma certainty, so that that provision must be E. Danhuber, Munich, submitted to the regarded as being invalid in that respect. Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle für Schlacht On the other hand, the Bundesanstalt für vieh, Fleisch und Fleischerzeugnisse Landwirtschaftliche Marktordnung (Import and Storage Agency for Fat (Federal Bureau for regulating agri Stock, Meat and Meat Products), the cultural markets) (formerly the Einfuhr- German institution competent at the und Vorratsstelle für Schlachtvieh, time, certain applications, accompanied Fleisch und Fleischerzeugnisse), the by the required proof of exportation, for defendant before the national court, import licences for beef and veal within took the view that Article 11 of Regu the framework of the EXIM lation No 76/76 was directly applicable arrangements. and therefore must be applied by it. The German institution complied with By an order of 17 May 1978, the those applications by issuing on Hessisches Finanzgericht (VIIth Senate) 12 February 1976 two import licences for stayed the proceedings and asked the boned or boneless beef and veal and two Court of Justice to give a preliminary import licences for live domestic bovine ruling under Aricle 177 of the EEC animals, and by fixing the rate of levy Treaty on the following question: applicable per 100 kilograms at DM "Is Article 11 of Commission Regulation

In accordance with Article 20 of the On 18 June 1976 Danhuber commenced Protocol on the Statute of the Court of proceedings against this decision before Justice of the EEC written observations the Hessisches Finanzgericht, on the were submitted by the plaintiff in the grounds that it was prevented by the main action and by the Commission of dilatoriness of the German authorities, in the European Communities. particular the Hauptzollamt (Principal Upon hearing the report of the Judge- Customs Office) Hamburg-Jonas, from Rapporteur and the views of the providing within the stipulated period, that is to say by 15 December 1975, proof of exportation without refund.

DANHUBER v BUNDESANSTALT FÜR LANDWIRTSCHAFTLICHE MARKTORDNUNG

Advocate General the Court decided to The plaintiff claims that the question open the oral procedure without any asked by the national court should be preparatory inquiry. answered as follows:

JUDGMENT OF 22. 3. 1979 — CASE 134/78

After considering the question of the III — Oral procedure validity of Aritcle 11 of Regulation No 76/76 also from the point of view of the At the hearing on 7 February 1979 the protection of legitimate expectation and from the point of view of abuse of plaintiff in the main action, represented powers, the Commission concludes that by F. Modest, Advocate at the Hamburg the validity of the transitional Bar, and the Commission of the arrangements laid down in that article European Communities represented by cannot validly be called in question its Agent, P. Kalbe, presented oral either on grounds of protection of argument. legitimate expectation or in reliance upon the principle of non-discrimination The Advocate General delivered his or abuse of powers. opinion at the hearing on 6 March 1979.

Decision

1 By order of 17 May 1978 which was received at the Court Registry on 12 June 1978, the Hessisches Finanzgericht (VIIth Senate) asked a question, under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty, on the validity of Article 11 of Commission Regulation No 76/76 of 16 January 1976 setting up a system linking imports of beef and veal products effected by way of protective measures with the sale of beef held by the intervention agencies (Official Journal 1976, L 10, p. 21).

2 The question was raised in the context of proceedings brought before that court by the plaintiff in the main action, in which it contested the validity of Article 11 of Regulation No 76/76 in so far as that provision fixes the rate of levy to be paid on importation into the Community at 50.32 units of account per 100 kilograms of beef or veal in carcase instead of 43 units of account per 100 kilograms.

6 The requirements of Article 190 of the Treaty are satisfied when the said statement of reasons explains in essence the measure taken in regulations by the institutions.

A statement of reasons for a regulation cannot be required to cover specifically all the often very numerous details which may be contained in such a measure.

The validity of Regulation No 76/76 cannot therefore be doubted by reason of any defect in the statement of reasons since it appears, and in this case it is not contested, that the statement of reasons in the said regulation sets out as a whole the situation which led to its adoption and the general objectives which it seeks to attain.

7 It is alleged, secondly, that the Commission by fixing in the provision at issue a rate of levy higher than the minimum rate of levy fixed by its Decision of

JUDGMENT OF 22. 3. 1979 — CASE 134/78

19 December 1975 discriminated against inter alios operators who through no fault of their own were unable to take pan in the last "EXIM" tendering procedure.

DANHUBER v BUNDESANSTALT FÜR LANDWIRTSCHAFTLICHE MARKTORDNUNG

Costs

11 The costs incurred by the Commission of the European Communities which submitted observations to the Court are not recoverable.

As these proceedings are, in so far as the parties to the main action are concerned, in the nature of a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court.

On those grounds,

THE COURT

Registrar President