C-38/83

on the interpretation of certain provisions of Council Regulation (EEC) N o 1134/68 of 30 July 1968 laying down rules for the implementation ol Regulation (EEC) N o 653/68 on conditions for alterations to the value ot the unit of account used for the common agricultural policy (Otricial Tournai, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 396), and of Commission Regu- lation (EEC) N o 1054/78 of 19 May 1978 laying down detailed rules for the application of Regulation (EEC) N o 878/77 on the exchange rates to be applied in agriculture and replacing Regulation (EEC) N o 937/77 (Official Journal L 134, p. 40), as amended by Commission Regulation (LLC) N o 1509/78 of 30 June 1978 (Official Journal L 178, p. 50),

T H E C O U R T (Third Chamber)

composed of: Y. Galmot, President of Chamber, U. Everling and C. Kakouris, Judges,

Advocate General: C O . Lenz Registrar: J. A. Pompe, Deputy Registrar

gives the following

VREELAND v HOOFDPRODUKTSCHAP VOOR AKKERBOUWPRODUKTEN

1. The Community rules in question " 1 . In the case of an alteration to the value of the unit of account or an Council Regulation No 653/68 of 30 adjustment of agricultural prices May 1968 on conditions for alterations pursuant to the fourth paragraph of to the value of the unit of account used Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No for the common agricultural policy 653/68: (Official Journal, English Special Edition 1968 (I), p. 121) determines all the (a) The amounts which contain the conditions under which the value of the elements determined on the basis unit of account applicable for the of prices on international purposes of the common agricultural markets, listed in the annex to policy under Council Regulation No 129 this regulation under items 1 to of 23 October 1962 (Official Journal, 5, shall where necessary be English Special Edition 1959-1962, p. recalculated and refixed without 274) may be altered. Such alteration may delay by the Commission in be made only when one or more accordance with the procedure Member States alter the parity of their applicable in each case, using the currencies. In such cases the Council new value of the unit of account may, moreover, subject to certain and, where appropriate, the new conditions and by way of derogation agricultural prices; from existing agricultural regulations, (b) .. . adopt in the general economic interest limited measures to adjust certain agri- (c) . . . cultural prices "if the particular and exceptional nature of the situation 2. In cases where the provisions of created by the alteration of the parity paragraph 1 (a) apply, any amounts relationship between the currencies of referred to therein which have been Member States makes such measures fixed in advance for a transaction seem appropriate" (fourth paragraph of still to be carried out after the Article 3). alteration in the value of the unit of account or adjustment of agricultural Article 1 of Council Regulation No prices shall where necessary be re- 1134/68 of 30 July 1968 laying down calculated and refixed by the rules for implementation of Regulation Commission in like manner as laid

For transactions to be carried out under The consequences of an alteration in the the common agricultural policy Council relationship between the parity of the Regulation (EEC) No 878/77 of 26 currency of a Member State and the April 1977 on the exchange rates to be value of the unit of account are laid applied in agriculture (Official Journal down in Article 4 (1), which provides L 106, p. 27) replaced the official parities ' inter alia as follows : of the national currencies by so-called representative rates ("green rates"), which are fixed by the Council and are independent of the real rates of the national currencies. Article 4 provides " 1 . In the case of an alteration of the that the provisions of the aforesaid Regu- relationship between the parity of lation No 1134/68 shall also apply to the currency of a Member State and alterations in the representative rates, the value of the unit of account, the subject to the following conditions: Member State concerned, using the new parity relationship and without prejudice to the application of Article 1 (2), shall adjust the "1. The provisions of Regulation (EEC) following amounts, given in units of No 1134/68 in respect of an account, if they appear in national alteration of the relationship bet- currency in the documents or cer- ween the parity of the currency of a tificates issued in pursuance of the Member State and the value of the common agricultural policy or the unit of account shall apply. special trade systems for goods pro- cessed from agricultural products: 2. However, the second subparagraph of Article 4 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1134/68 shall apply only if the (a) Amounts which have been fixed application of the new representative in advance for a transaction or rates is disadvantageous to the party part of a transaction still to be concerned.

Before the date of application of the On application by Member States new rate it may be decided to offset the Commission shall supply the this disadvantage by an appropriate information necessary for calculating measure. In this case, advance fixing the disadvantage. and the certificate or document attesting thereto may not be cancelled." 2. Cancellation of an advance fixing and of the relevant document or certificate, provided for in the last Article 1 of Commission Regulation subparagraph of Article 4 (1) of (EEC) No 1054/78 of 19 May 1978 Regulation (EEC) No 1134/68, may laying down detailed rules for the be requested only if application of Regulation (EEC) No 878/77 on the exchange rates to be (a) the representative rate of the applied in agriculture and replacing currency concerned has been Regulation (EEC) No 937/77 (Official altered, and Journal L 134, p. 40), as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No (b) if, in the case of simultaneous 1509/78 of 30 June 1978 (Official alteration of the representative Journal L 178, p. 50), defines "disad- rate and of the price level in vantage" for the purposes of Article 4 of units of account, the disad- the aforesaid Regulation No 878/77 as vantage resulting from the follows: alteration in the representative rate outweighs any advantage afforded by the effect of the " 1 . For the purposes of Article 4 of alteration in the price level on Regulation (EEC) No 878/77, there the amount to be granted or shall be a disadvantage where, levied on the goods. following the application of the new representative rate, the alteration in terms of national currency in the 3. . . . " sum total, or where appropriate the balance, of the amounts applicable to a particular transaction results in: Finally, Council Regulation (EEC) No 652/79 of 29 March 1979 on the impact — the levying of a greater amount, of the European Monetary System on or the common agricultural policy (Official Journal L 84, p. 1) replaced the unit of account by the ECU by providing that — the granting of a lesser amount the amounts fixed in units of account for the purposes of the common agricultural than that applicable before entry into policy should thenceforth be expressed in force of the said rate. ECU by means of a specific coefficient.

events led to a relative devaluation of the were also fixed as from 6 April 1981 for Netherlands guilder against the ECU the 1981/82 milk year. That measure of 2.4906%. Conversely, the ECU was the subject of Council Regulation increased for the Netherlands from HFL No (EEC) No 851/81 of 1 April 1981 2.74632 to HFL 2.81318. fixing the target price for milk and the intervention prices for butter, skimmed- milk powder and Grana Padano and Those alterations in the value of the Parmigiano Reggiano cheeses for the national currencies in relation to the 1981/82 milk year (Official Journal ECU brought about a simultaneous L 90, p. 6). alteration in the relationships between the exchange ' rates of those currencies and their "green" values, which had Export refunds were fixed for the remained unchanged in the present case. products in issue with effect from the Thus in the case of the Netherlands the same date by Commission Regulation rate of exchange before 23 March 1983 (EEC) No 922/81 of 3 April 1981 fixing was 1.80% above and from 23 March the export refunds on milk and milk 0.690% below the "green" value, with products (Official Journal L 93, p. 10). the result that the positive monetary compensatory amounts for the Nether- lands ought to have been reduced to zero in view of the threshold of 1% (Article 2 (1) (a) of Regulation No 3. Facts and procedure before the national 974/71). Nevertheless, pending an court alteration in the representative rates by the Council, the Commission by Regu- lation (EEC) N o 801/81 of 27 March 1981 concerning monetary compensatory On 30 December 1980, 2 January 1981 amounts and differential amounts and 5 January 1981 the defendant in the (Official Journal L 82, p. 17) "froze" the main action, the Hoofdproduktschap monetary compensatory amounts appli- voor Akkerbouwprodukten, issued the cable for the week 30 March to 5 April plaintiff in the main action, the limited 1981 at the level they were on 23 March liability company BV Verwerkings 1981. Industrie Vreeland, with three certi- ficates relating to the export to non- member countries of three consignments The adjustment of the representative of butter with a fat content by weight of rates was made with effect from 6 April 82% (PG 6) in the form of goods falling 1981 in respect of dairy products by under tariff headings 21.07 G VII (a) Council Regulation (EEC) No 850/81 of and 21.07 G VIII (a). The certificates 1 April 1981 amending Regulation fixed in advance the refund applicable on (EEC) N o 878/77 on the exchange rates the day of issue, that is HFL 402.30 per to be applied in agriculture (Official 100 kg in the three cases, and were valid Journal L 90, p. 1). The representative until 31 May 1981 and 30 June 1981 rate of the Netherlands guilder was respectively. fixed at the central rate in force since 23 March 1981 (one ECU = HFL 2.81318). By a telex message of 21 April 1981 BV Verwerkings Industrie Vreeland The target prices for milk and the requested the Hoofdproduktschap to intervention prices for milk products cancel the said advance fixing and the

certificates thereof in so far as the certi- New export refunds for milk and ficates had not yet been used. milk products were introduced by Regulation (EEC) N o 922/81 as from 6 April 1981? By decision of 18 June 1981 the Hoofdproduktschap rejected the request. By a decision of 25 August it also 2. Article 4 (1) of Regulation (EEC) rejected a further application for the No 1134/68 enables cancellation of partial cancellation of the same certifi- the advance fixing and of the cates. relevant certificate to be obtained 'in the case of an alteration of the On 16 July and 27 August 1981 BV relationship between the parity of Verwerkings Industrie Vreeland brought the currency of a Member State and an action before the College van Beroep the value of the unit of account'. voor het Bedrijfsleven challenging the Upon a proper construction of above-mentioned decisions. It bases its Article 4 (1), was there such a case claim on several provisions, including when the value of the ECU changed Council Regulation No 1134/68 and on 23 March 1981? Commission Regulation No 1054/78. The Hoofdproduktschap, on the other hand, puts forward a different interpret- 3. Upon a proper construction of ation of those provisions in support of its Article 1 (1) of Regulation (EEC) decisions rejecting the claim. No 1054/78, must the monetary compensatory amounts not fixed in advance also be taken into In order to facilitate its consideration of consideration for the purposes of those aspects of the case the College van calculating the disadvantage referred Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven stayed the to in Article 1 (1) when comparing proceedings by order of 25 February the situation of the person concerned 1983 as amended by it on 27 April 1983 before and after the new rates and and referred the following questions to prices came into force? the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty: 4. Upon a proper construction of Article 1 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1054/78, must the purchase " 1 . Article 1 (2) of Regulation (EEC) price also be taken into con- No 1134/68 enables cancellation of sideration for the purposes of calcu- the advance fixing and the relevant lating the disadvantage referred to in certificate to be obtained 'in cases Article 1 (1) when comparing the where the provisions of paragraph situation of the person concerned (1) (a) apply'. Upon a proper con- before and after the new rates and struction of that paragraph, was prices came into force?" there such a case when :

Pursuant to Article 20 of the Protocol on 1134/68 since the ECU is the unit of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the account used in the common agricultural EEC written observations were lodged policy pursuant to Regulation N o by the limited liability company BV 652/79. Verwerkings Industrie Vreeland, rep- resented by B. H. ter Kuile of the Hague Although Regulation No 1134/68 Bar, by the Hoofdproduktschap voor entered into force before the intro- Akkerbouwprodukten, represented by duction of the ECU it is still applicable. E. R. Kleijwegt, acting as Agent, and The Community legislature has not by the Commission of the European systematically replaced the expression Communities, represented by its Legal "unit of account" by " E C U " in the Adviser, Robert Caspar Fischer, acting as various texts. Moreover, the equitable Agent. rule established by the provision under consideration still serves to protect Upon hearing the report of the Judge- traders against the consequences of Rapporteur and views of the Advocate certain financial events such as an General the Court, by order of 1 alteration of the monetary compensatory February 1984, decided to assign the amounts. case to the Third Chamber pursuant to Article 95 of the Rules of Procedure and As regards the second condition, BV to open the oral procedure without any Verwerkings Industrie Vreeland takes preparatory inquiry. the view that an adjustment of agri- cultural prices occurred as a result of the alteration in the representative rates brought about by Regulation No 850/81 II — W r i t t e n o b s e r v a t i o n s and by the increase in intervention prices as a result of Regulation No 851/81. 1. First question In consequence the first question should be answered as follows : (a) BV Verwerkings Industrie Vreeland considers that the first question calls for an answer in the affirmative since Article "Article 1 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1 (2) of Regulation N o 1134/68 must be 1134/68 must be interpreted as having regarded as applicable. been applicable when:

negative. The possibility of cancelling Moreover, the provision had a specific advance fixing provided for in Article 1 role to play in the system in force at the (2) of Regulation No 1134/68 depends time in which alterations in the parities on whether Article 1 (1) thereof is of national currencies or in the unit of applicable. The alteration of the value of account, or both, had direct reper­ the ECU which occurred on 23 March cussions on agricultural prices, but it has 1981 does not fall within the scope of become superfluous under the present the latter provision. system in which as a result of the "green" rates and the monetary com­ pensatory amounts the trend in agri­ In that respect the Hoofdproduktschap cultural prices is no longer linked to that considers that Article 1 of Regulation of currencies and which, moreover, is no No 1134/68 refers indirectly, through longer based on fixed parities. Regulation N o 653/68, to a special situation in which the Council decided in exceptional circumstances to adjust the Finally, it is incorrect to speak of an agricultural prices at a time other than alteration in the value of the ECU since the beginning of a marketing year. In the the ECU has no fixed parity but present case, however, the new prices in expresses the relative rates between the the milk sector and the new refunds were currencies of the Member States. fixed at the beginning of the new milk marketing year. The second case for applying Article 1 (1) is also irrelevant under the present Therefore the first question should be system. The adjustment in agricultural answered as follows: prices referred to by the provision is that which the Council may decide to make when considering an alteration in the "The alteration of the value of the ECU value of the unit of account following an on 23 March 1981 does not give rise to alteration in the parity of the currency the application of Article 1 of Regulation of one or more Member States. Such (EEC) N o 1134/68." matters must, moreover, be considered within three days of the date on which a Member State first announces ań (c) The Commission takes the same alteration in parity. In the present case view as the Hoofdproduktschap and all the decisions on prices which were considers that the first question should taken in April 1981 were made on the be answered in the negative. In the basis of agricultural regulations as part present case there was no "alteration to of the annual review of agricultural the value of the unit of account" or prices and were therefore independent of "adjustment of agricultural prices" the currency events of 23 March 1981. within the meaning of Article 1 (1) of Regulation N o 1134/68. In conclusion the Commission proposes that the first question should be There was no alteration in the value of answered as follows: the unit of account since the unit of account had in the meantime been replaced by the ECU and the "An alteration in the relationship Community legislature did not expressly between the central rates of the cur­ provide that Article 1 of Regulation No rencies of Member States inter se and in 1134/68 should apply where there was relation to the ECU, whether or not it is an alteration in the value of the ECU. followed by an adjustment in the repres-

Article 4 (1) of Regulation No 1134/68 Consequently the second question should must be regarded as still applicable for be answered as follows: the reasons already set out in relation to the first question. That interpretation is "The alteration of the value of ECU supported in particular by the fact that which occurred on 23 March 1981 does even after the introduction of the not enable advance fixing to be cancelled European monetary system it is still pursuant to Article 4 (1) of Regulation necessary to speak of an alteration in the (EEC) No 1134/68. relationship between the unit of account and the parity, that is to say the real Under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No value, of the currency in question as 878/77 such a possibility of cancellation regards currencies which are not part of requires at least an alteration of the the money "snake", which include the representative rate." pound sterling, and for which therefore a central rate does not exist. (c) The Commission agrees with the Hoofdproduktschap in considering that Consequently the second question should the second question should be answered be answered as follows: in the negative.

"Article 4 (1) of Regulation (EEC) N o Article 4 (1) of Regulation N o 1134/68 1134/68 must be interpreted as meaning is no longer applicable as such because that that article was applicable to the under the common agricultural policy alteration in the value of the ECU in the official parities of the' national relation to the central rates or to the currencies are replaced by the rep- parities of the currencies of the Member resentatives rates.

Article 4 of Regulation No 878/77, Netherlands guilders by application of however, states that the said provision is the representative rate and the monetary applicable to alterations of the rep- coefficient and, on the other hand, the resentative rates subject to the following monetary compensatory amounts. Those conditions: on the one hand the second amounts must be levied or paid in all subparagraph of Article 4 (1) of Regu- cases and are therefore applicable to a lation No 1134/68 applies only if the transaction in all circumstances. application of the new representative rates is disadvantageous to the party Moreover, the disadvantage may arise concerned; on the other, there can be no precisely because the monetary com- cancellation if before the date of ap- pensatory amounts are not fixed in plication of the new rate it is decided to advance. That was recognized inter alia offset the disadvantage by an appropriate by Commission Regulation (EEC) No measure. 908/81 of 3 April 1981 on the advance fixing of monetary compensatory Article 4 (1) of Regulation No 1134/68 amounts in the tender system for the is therefore not applicable to the export of sugar (Official Journal L 91, monetary events of 23 March 1981, p. 9). The regulation was intended to which concern neither the representative compensate for the disadvantages caused rates nor parities, but the central rates. by the monetary events of 23 March 1981 to holders of certificates by giving In conclusion the Commission proposes them the possibility of having the that the second question should be monetary compensatory amounts fixed in answered as follows: advance even after lodging a request for an export licence. "The combined provisions of Article 4 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1134/68 In consequence the third question should and Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No be answered as follows: 878/77 are not applicable to the consequences of alterations of the central "Article 1 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No rates of the Member States in their 1054/78 must be interpreted as meaning relationship inter se or in their that for the purposes of calculating the relationship to the ECU; they apply disadvantage referred to therein when solely to the consequences of alterations comparing the situation of the person to the representative rates in the circum- concerned before and after the new rates stances laid down in Article 4 (2) of and prices came into force account must Regulation (EEC) No 878/77." also be taken of the monetary compensatory amounts not fixed in advance." 3. Third question (b) The Hoofdproduktschap voor Akker- (a) B V Verwerkings Industrie Vreeland bouwprodukten proposes that the third considers that the third question should question should be answered in the be answered in the affirmative. negative.

In consequence the third question should Moreover, in the present case the be answered as follows : abolition of the monetary compensatory amounts in respect of the Netherlands was not the result of an alteration of the "The monetary compensatory amounts "green" rate of the guilder but of the not fixed in advance are not to be taken alteration of the central rate which into account in calculating the disad- occurred on 23 March 1981. That vantage referred to in Article 1 (1) of consideration is not altered by the fact Regulation (EEC) N o 1054/78 when that the "green" rate itself was altered comparing the situation before and after on 6 April 1981, for that adjustment was the new rates and prices came into made precisely for the purpose of force." eliminating the actual negative monetary disparity between the central rate and (c) The Commission agrees with the the "green" rate and thus avoiding Hoofdproduktschap in considering that any negative monetary compensatory the third question should be answered in amounts. the negative. In conclusion the Commission proposes The definition of "disadvantage" con- that the third question should be tained in Article 1 (1) of Regulation No answered as follows: 1054/78 falls within the scope of the basic provisions, namely Article 4 (2) of "In calculating the disadvantage within Regulation N o 878/77 and Article 4 (1) the meaning of Article 4 of Regulation of Regulation No 1134/78. Under those (EEC) No 878/77 pursuant to Article 1 provisions the refunds and other (1) of Regulation (EEC) N o 1054/78 it amounts fixed in advance and the cer- is necessary to take account only of the tificates thereof may be cancelled only if amounts fixed in advance relating to the the application of the new representative transaction concerned." rate entails a disadvantage for the person concerned. 4. Fourth question The first paragraph of Article 1 (1) of Regulation N o 1054/78 must therefore be understood as covering all amounts (a) BV Verwerkings Industrie Vreeland fixed in advance, to which the new considers that the fourth question also representative rate is applied and which calls for an answer in the affirmative in relate to the transaction in question, to that when calculating the disadvantage in the exclusion of all other amounts not accordance with Article 1 (1) of Regu- fixed in advance relating thereto. On the lation No 1054/78 it is necessary to take other hand the second paragraph of account of an alteration in prices caused, Article 1, which states that "the dis- as a result of an increase in the advantage shall be determined by intervention prices, by an alteration in comparing the situation of the interested the representative rates.

"Article 1 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1054/78 must be interpreted as meaning that' for the purpose of calculating the (c) The Commission considers that the answer to the fourth question is implied disadvantage referred to therein when in the reply to the third question, in that comparing the situation of the person for the purposes of Article 1 (1) of Regu- concerned before and after the new rates lation No 1054/78 it is necessary to take and prices came into force account must account only of the amounts fixed in also be taken of the increase in prices advance to which the new "green" rate caused by the increases in the is applied. intervention prices which are the result of alterations in the representative rates." In any event Article 1 (2) of the regu- lation, which applies in the present case, (b) The Hoofdproduktschap voor Akker- states, that in the case of simultaneous bouwprodukten proposes that the fourth alteration of the representative rate and question should be answered in the of the price level in units of account negative. (now in ECU), cancellation may be requested only if the disadvantage resulting from the alteration in the Article 1 (1) of Regulation No 1054/78 representative rate . outweighs any refers only to an alteration which results advantage afforded by the effect of the in "the levying of a greater amount, or alteration in the price level on the the granting of a lesser amount". In amount to be granted or levied on the conjunction with Article 4 of Regulation goods.

JUDGMENT OF 27. 9. 1984 — CASE 38/83

That provision confirms, first, that the Ill — Oral procedure advantages or disadvantages of decisions Verwerkings Industrie Vreeland, rep- on prices adopted under the agricultural resented by H. J. Bronkhorst of The policy may not be taken into account in Hague Bar, and the Commission of the calculating the "disadvantage" resulting European Communities, represented by from an alteration of the "green" rate; and secondly that provision makes it R. C. Fischer, acting as Agent, presented necessary to balance such a disadvantage oral argument at the sitting on 22 March against any advantages resulting from 1984. decisions on agricultural prices. The Advocate General delivered his opinion at the sitting on 30 May 1984.

VREELAND v HOOFDPRODUKTSCHAP VOOR AKKERBOUWPRODUCTEN

3 On 23 March 1981 the Italian lire was devalued by 6% and the pound sterling revalued by 22.64%, which led to a relative devaluation of the Netherlands guilder in relation to the ECU of 2.4906%. Those alterations brought about at the same time an alteration in the relation between the exchange rates of the currencies concerned and their representative rates, which remained unchanged in the present case. In the case of the Netherlands guilder, in particular, the new central rate was less than its representative rate. Nevertheless, the Commission did not abolish the positive monetary compensatory amounts it had previously applied to the Netherlands; on the contrary, in expectation of an adaptation of the rep- resentative rates, it kept the amounts unchanged until 5 April 1981 pursuant to Regulation N o 801/81 of 27 March 1981 (Official Journal L 82, p. 17).

4 It was not until 6 April 1981 that the Council adjusted the representative rates by means of Regulation N o 850/81 of 1 April 1981 (Official Journal L 90, p. 1). In the case of the Netherlands guilder the representative rate was fixed at the level of the new central rate.

s Likewise with effect from 6 April 1981, the target prices for milk and the intervention prices for milk products were fixed for the 1981/82 milk year by Council Regulation No 851/81 of 1 April 1981 (Official Journal L 90, p. 6), and the new export refunds in the milk and milk products sector were fixed by Commission Regulation No 922/81 of 3 April 1981 (Official Journal L 93, p. 10).

3. Upon a proper construction of Article 1 ( 1 ) of Regulation (EEC) No 1054/78, must the monetary compensatory amounts not fixed in advance also be taken into consideration for the purposes of calculating the disadvantage referred to in Article 1 (1) when comparing the situation of the person concerned before and after the new rates and prices came into force?

4. Upon a proper construction .of Article 1 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1054/78, must the purchase price also be taken into consideration for the purposes of calculating the disadvantage referred to in Article 1(1) when comparing the situation of the person concerned before and after the new rates and prices came into force?"

T h e first a n d s e c o n d q u e s t i o n s

s With the first and second questions, which it is convenient to take together, the national court seeks essentially to know whether, and if so subject to what conditions, Articles 1 and 4 (1) of Council Regulation N o 1134/68 of

VREELAND v HOOFDPRODUKTSCHAP VOOR AKKERBOUWPRODUCTEN

30 July 1968 gives a right to cancellation of the advance fixing of export refunds and the certificate thereof in the event on the one hand of an alteration in the value of the currencies composing the ECU inter se and in their relation to the ECU and on the other of a fresh fixing of the target and intervention prices and the export refunds in the sector concerned.

io The Hoofdproduktschap voor Akkerbouwprodukten and the Commission on the other hand, consider that the terms "unit of account" and "parity" are no longer relevant. The unit of account, based on the concept of fixed parities and defined in relation to a specific quantity of fine gold, has been replaced by the ECU which expresses the relative rates between the currencies of the Member States fluctuating inter se within certain margins. In addition, monetary events no longer directly affect agricultural prices, which are fixed under the present system by means of representative rates. Further, the concept of adjustment of agricultural prices within the meaning of Article 1 of Regulation No 1134/68 covers only an adjustment which the Council decides to make when dealing with an alteration in the value of the unit of account following an alteration in the parity of the currency of one or more Member States. That concept thus does not cover decisions in relation to prices such as those taken on 6 April 1981 on the basis of the agricultural regulation as part of the annual review of agricultural prices.

JUDGMENT OF 27. 9. 1984 — CASE 38/83

n In that respect it must be remembered that Article 1 of Regulation N o 1134/68 gives a right to cancellation of the advance fixing of inter alia export refunds and the relevant certificate in two cases, namely on die one hand "in the case of an alteration to the value of the unit of account" and on the other in the case of "an adjustment of agricultural prices pursuant to the fourth paragraph of Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) N o 653/68". Article 4 (1) thereof gives a right to cancellation moreover "in the case of an alteration of the relationship between the parity of the currency of a Member State and the value of the unit of account".

VREELAND v HOOFDPRODUKTSCHAP VOOR AKKERBOUWPRODUCTEN

unit of account are to apply to alterations in the representative rates, whereas there is no such reference in the rules substituting the ECU for the unit of account for the purposes of the common agricultural policy.

is In the second place, as regards the questions relating to the agricultural decisions taken with effect from 6 April 1981, it suffices to observe that Article 1 of Regulation No 1134/68 is concerned only with an adjustment of agricultural prices pursuant to the fourth paragraph of Article 3 of Regu- lation No 653/68, that is to say, an adjustment necessary as a result of an alteration in monetary matters having a direct effect on the level of agri- cultural prices and effected, in derogation of the existing agricultural regu- lations, outside the normal decisions adopted under the common organ- ization of the markets. That is not so in the present case since the decisions in question have been adopted not as a result of the monetary events of 23 March 1981 but as part of the annual review of prices at the beginning of the new milk marketing year.

i6 That is confirmed by the fact that the measures adjusting the agricultural prices under the fourth paragraph of Article 3 of Regulation N o 653/68 can be adopted only after a lapse of three days following the announcement by the Member State concerned of an alteration in the parity in question. In the present case the target and intervention prices were increased and new refunds established only after the expiry of a period of two weeks following the monetary events of 23 March 1981.

20 The Hoofdproduktschap voor Akkerbouwprodukten and the Commission, on the other hand, maintain that Article 1 (1) of Regulation No 1054/78 defining what constitutes a disadvantage falls within the scope of Article 4 of Regulation N o 878/77. That provision refers only to amounts fixed in advance and applicable to the transaction concerned, to which the new representative rate is applied to the exclusion of any amounts not fixed in advance such as monetary compensatory amounts not fixed in advance and prices.

2i In that respect it must be observed that, as the Hoofdproduktschap and the Commission maintain, Commission Regulation N o 1054/78 must be interpreted in the light of the basic Council Regulation. Article 4 of Council Regulation N o 878/77 states that the provisions of Council Regulation N o 1134/68 on alterations in the relationship between.the parity of the currency of a Member State and the value of the unit of account — in the present case Article 4 (1) thereof — are to apply to alterations in the representative

VREELAND v HOOFDPRODUKTSCHAP VOOR AKKERBOUWPRODUCTEN

rates. As far as the present case is concerned Article 4 applies only to "amounts which have been fixed in advance for transaction". In the light of the relationship between those provisions, neither monetary compensatory amounts not fixed in advance nor the purchase price may be taken into account in calculating the disadvantage as there defined.

22 T h a t consideration is n o t altered by the fact, t o which the plaintiff in the main action referred, that according to Article 1 (1) of Regulation N o 1054/78 as a m e n d e d by Commission Regulation N o 1509/78 " t h e disad- vantage shall be determined by comparing the situation of the interested p a r t y before and after the new rates and prices have t a k e n effect", since it is a p p a r e n t from the place of that provision in the context of the rules in question that it is confined to stating the situations to be c o m p a r e d for the purpose of determining the disadvantage w i t h o u t i n t r o d u c i n g new factors relating t o the basis of that comparison.

T H E C O U R T (Third Chamber)

in answer to the questions submitted to it by the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven, The Hague, by Order of 25 February 1983, hereby rules:

1. Articles 1 and 4 (1) of Council Regulation No 1134/68 of 30 July 1968 give no right to the cancellation of the advance fixing of export refunds and of the certificate attesting thereto either in the case of an alteration in the value of the currencies composing the ECU inter se and in relation to the ECU, or in the case of the fixing afresh of the target and intervention prices or export refunds in the sector concerned in so far as the new rates and prices are fixed as part of the annual review of agricultural prices in the common organization of the markets.

2. In calculating the disadvantage, with a view to cancelling advance fixing, for the purpose of Article 4 of Council Regulation No 878/77 of 26 April 1977 in conjunction with Article 1 (1) of Commission Regulation No 1054/78 of 19 May 1978, no account must be taken either of monetary compensatory amounts not fixed in advance or of the purchase price.

Galmot Everling Kakouris

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 27 September 1984.