C-162/86
ECLI:EU:C:1987:450
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61986CC0162
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
LIVESTOCK SALES TRANSPORT v INTERVENTION BOARD FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE
OPINION OF MR ADVOCATE GENERAL LENZ delivered on 21 October 1987 *
Mr President, Johnson, brought proceedings before the Members of the Court, High Court of Justice for a declaration that it was not obliged to pay clawback in respect of the exported consignment on the ground that the provisions of Community A — Facts law relied on by The Intervention Board were invalid.
1. The question of the charging of clawback on sheepmeat products in respect 3. The High Court of Justice thereupon of which no variable slaughter premium has referred the following question to the Court been granted has come before the Court not of Justice for a preliminary ruling: only in the form of a direct action brought by the United Kingdom against the Commission, 1 on which I have just submitted my views, but also in the form of a reference for a preliminary ruling by the 'Are Commission Regulation (EEC) No High Court of Justice of England and 3451/85 of 6 December 1985 and Wales. Commission Regulation (EEC) No 9/86 of 3 January 1986, each amending Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1633/84 laying down detailed rules for applying the variable The facts of the main proceedings before slaughter premium for sheep, invalid in so the High Court were as follows. far as they require clawback pursuant to Article 9 (3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1837/80 to be charged in respect of products which are not eligible for variable slaughter premium?' 2. In February 1986 P. M. Johnson and Son (hereinafter referred to as 'Johnson') sold to Livestock Sales Transport Limited [here inafter referred to as 'LST'] for exportation sheepmeat products which were not eligible B — Analysis for variable slaughter premium. The meat was duly exported. Subsequent to its exportation the Intervention Board for Agri cultural Produce, which is responsible in the United Kingdom for charging clawback, 4. The submissions of the applicants in sought to recover from LST an amount the main proceedings, the United Kingdom equivalent to the variable slaughter and the Commission of the European premium. As a result, LST, supported by Communities, are largely identical to those which were put forward in Case 61/86. For * Translated from the German. an appraisal of those submissions I refer to 1 — Case 61/86 [1988] ECR 431. the Opinion I delivered in that case.
OPINION OF MR LENZ —CASE 162/86
5. Consequently, in the context of these regions of the Community, the Commission proceedings for a preliminary ruling, only is certainly correct in its view that the two one legal point, raised by the applicants in situations are not comparable. these proceedings alone, remains to be considered, namely the question of breach 9. Sheepmeat producers in region 5 receive of the principle of non-discrimination. the benefit of part of the premium intended for them at an earlier date than the other 6. The applicants in the main proceedings sheepmeat producers in the Community. consider that the principle laid down in They therefore have a competitive Article 40 (3) of the EEC Treaty has been advantage over the latter so that the infringed in so far as sheepmeat producers situation of producers in region 5 is not in region 5 (Great Britain), who were not comparable with that of producers in other granted a slaughter premium in respect of regions of the Community. their products, were nevertheless subject to the charging of clawback whereas sheepmeat producers in other regions of the 10. As the Court has consistently held, 2the Community who were similarly not granted principle of non-discrimination laid down in a slaughter premium did not have to pay Article 40 of / the EEC Treaty does not clawback. prevent similar situations from being treated differently if the differentiation is objec 7. The Commission, however, takes the tively justified. In addition, it is clear, in view that the principle of non-discrimination view of the objective differences which has not been infringed because variable characterize the legal provisions and the slaughter premium is granted in region 5 economic conditions in the markets alone and, consequently, sheepmeat (regions) concerned, that sheepmeat producers in that region are in a different producers in region 5 are not in the same situation from that of sheepmeat producers situation as producers in other regions of in other regions. the Community.
8. If a general comparison is made between 11. Consequently,, the prohibition of the situation of sheepmeat producers in discrimination has not been infringed in this region 5 and that of producers in other case.
C — Conclusion
12. In view of my conclusions in Case 61 / 86 , I propose that the Court of Justice should reply to the question referred to it for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice as follows :
2 — Sec, most recently, its judgment of 11 March 1987 in Joined Cases 279, 280, 285 and 286/84, Walter Rau Leben- smittelwerke and Others v European Economic Community, [1987] ECR 1069.
LIVESTOCK SALES TRANSPORT v INTERVENTION BOARD FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE
'Consideration of Commission Regulation No 3451/85 of 6 December 1985 and Commission Regulation No 9/86 of 3 January 1986 has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of those regulations with regard to the charging of an amount equivalent to the variable slaughter premium on products in respect of which no such premium has been granted.'
13. In addition, a copy of the Opinion and of the Court's judgment in Case 61/86, to which reference has been made in this case, should be forwarded to the High Court of Justice.