C-394/85
ECLI:EU:C:1987:99
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61985CC0394
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
OPINION OF SIR GORDON SLYNN — CASE 394/85
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL SIR GORDON SLYNN delivered on 24 February 1987
My Lords, it was paid in the first place by purchasers of milk; and an option as to the reference year by which individual quantities were to be measured: 1981, 1982, or 1983. In 1984 substantial surpluses of milk products, with attendant serious financial burdens and marketing difficulties for the Community, led the Council to impose, for A discretion was given to adjust quantities an initial five-year period, an additional levy in respect of specified categories of on quantities of milk delivered beyond a producers and to pay compensation to guarantee threshold. The Council's aim was producers who undertook to discontinue to curb the increase in milk production and their production indefinitely. Provision was to permit the necessary adjustments to be also made for the grant of additional quan made to regulate and stabilize the market. tities within the limits laid down by the first regulation.
Two regulations were made by the Council. The first, Regulation No 856/84 (Official Journal 1984, L 90, p. 10), amended the The machinery to collect the levy had to be basic regulation on the common organ set up by Member States. Producers were ization of the market in milk and milk required to register and to disclose their products (Regulation No 804/68, Official 1981 sales; purchasers were required to Journal English Special Edition 1968 (I), p. show the amount by which they had 176); the second, Regulation No 857/84 exceeded the reference quantities. Dates (Official Journal 1984, L 90, p. 13), adopted were specified in the course of 1984 and general rules for the application of the new 1985 for the various steps to be taken and levy. A further regulation, Regulation No for the Commission to be so notified. 1371/84, was made by the Commission which laid down detailed rules for the application of the levy (Official Journal 1984, L 132, p. 11). On 27 November 1984 the Commission informed the Italian Minister for Agri culture that it appeared that the steps required to be taken by Italy at that stage The basic structure was that maximum had not been taken. Certainly, the quantities of production were fixed and Commission had not been informed that Member States were required to implement they had been taken. The Minister accepted the scheme. Basically, they had a choice that no national measures had been taken to between two formulae, one called formula implement the scheme apart from a Minis A, where the level was payable by milk terial Decree of 8 November 1984 dealing producers, and the other, formula B, where with compensation to producers ceasing
COMMISSION v ITALY
production. Accordingly, the Commission It is, however, equally clear and is admitted issued a reasoned opinion under Article 169 that at the time proceedings were brought of the Treaty and on 2 December 1985 and today provisions other than those which these proceedings were brought for a I have mentioned have not been declaration that Italy was in breach of its implemented, and in particular reference obligations under the Treaty, since by that quantities have not been attributed to the time all the relevant dates had passed. union or to producers not members of an association.
The scheme was obviously a very complex In the meantime, Italy sought to persuade one likely to cause administrative diffi the Council and the Commission to amend culties. The Italian Government has shown the scheme because of the difficulties which the extent to which the difficulties were it faced in applying the scheme. Some accentuated by the structure of the industry amendments were made by Council Regu in Italy and, in particular, by the large lations made in 1985, numbered 590, 591 number of producers with a very small and 1305 (Official Journal 1985, L 68, number of cows. It was difficult for Italy to pp. 1 and 5, and L 137, p. 12). The last- collect the statistics for the purposes of allo mentioned permitted associations of cating quotas, at any rate until the relevant producers to be recognized for the allo groups or associations could be recognized. cation of reference quantities and also made The Italian Government has also relied a specific exemption for Italy to postpone upon its efforts to pursuade the Council and for three years the application of Article the Commission to amend the scheme, 3(3) of Regulation No 857/84 which gave efforts which were not entirely successful, producers the right to choose a different and upon the fact that in 1984 the quantities reference year if their production had been of milk produced had decreased from the affected by exceptional events. level produced in 1983 so that it is said that the quantity guaranteed was not exceeded, a fact not necessarily accepted by the Commission.
It is clear that Italy has taken some steps. By decree of 8 November 1984, it provided compensation for producers who ceased The Court has consistently ruled that production. By a further decree of 30 administrative difficulties in the implemen September 1985, it adopted formula A and tation of regulations do not provide a certain reference quantities were allocated defence under Article 169. It does not seem to producers and to associations once they to me that it is possible or right for the were recognized to have legal personality. Court to be involved in assessing the Moreover, the Court has been told this different degrees of difficulty which are put morning that by a decree of 22 December forward to explain why regulations have not 1986 (not yet published) a union of been implemented. That may be a factor for producers was recognized for the purpose the Commission in deciding when or of implementing the regulation. Enquiries whether to bring proceedings. It is sufficient were also set in motion to obtain the for the Court to find that they have not necessary statistics. been implemented.
OPINION OF SIR GORDON SLYNN — CASE 394/85
Accordingly, it seems to me that the Court's earlier decisions should be followed and it should be declared that, in failing to implement Council Regulations No 856/84 and No 857/84 and Regulation No 1371/84 of the Commission (as amended by Council Regulations Nos 590/85, 591/85 and 1305/85), save as to the measures taken in the Ministerial Decrees of 8 November 1984 (to compensate producers ceasing production), 30 September 1985 and 22 December 1986, Italy is in breach of its Treaty obligations.
The Commission asks for a further declaration that Italy is also in breach of Article 5 of the Treaty in failing to carry out the measures necessary to give effect to the regulations. On what has been said in this case, it does not seem to me that such a request adds anything to the request for a declaration that the regulations have not been implemented.
In my view, Italy should pay the costs of the Commission in these proceedings.