C-203/86
ECLI:EU:C:1988:100
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61986CC0203
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
OPINION OF MR DARMON — CASE 203/86
OPINION OF MR ADVOCATE GENERAL DARMON delivered o n 25 F e b r u a r y 1988 *
Mr President, 3. The grounds pleaded by the applicant Members of the Court, State for the annulment of these regulations may be divided into the following two categories of infringement: the infringement of the Treaty, or of any rule of law relating to its application, and the infringement of 1. The Kingdom of Spain seeks a essential procedural requirements. declaration that two Council Regulations of 6 May 1986 are void: Regulation N o 1335/86 1 amending Regulation (EEC) N o 804/68 on the common organization of the market in milk and milk products 2 and I — Submissions directed against both regu- Regulation N o 1343/86 3 amending Regu- lations lation (EEC) No 857/84 adopting general rules for the application of the levy referred to in Article 5 c of Regulation (EEC) N o 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector. 4 Some of the applicant State's 4. The submission based on infringement of complaints are directed against both these the Treaty or of any rule of law relating to regulations, while others concern only one its application comprises three parts: of them.
(i) infringement of Article 39 (1) (b) 2. The contested regulations were adopted according to which one of the in connection with efforts undertaken by the objectives of the common agricultural Community institutions to slow down the policy is to ensure a fair standard of increase in the surpluses in milk and milk living for the agricultural community; products. They provide, inter alia, for a 3 % reduction of the total guaranteed quantities, to take effect uniformly throughout the Community. For Spain, these regulations mean a reduction of the total quantities for (ii) breach of the principle of non-discrimi- deliveries to dairies and for direct sales to nation as laid down generally in Article consumers, as provided for in the Act of 7 of the Treaty and repeated, with Accession which amended, on this point, reference to the common agricultural Regulations Nos 856/84 5and 857/84. policy, in the second subparagraph of Article 40 (3). Under this provision, * Translated from the French. the common organization of the 1 — OJ L 119, 8.5.1986, p. 19. 2 — OJ L 148, 28.6.1968, p. 13. market 'shall be limited to pursuit of 3 — OJ L 119, 8.5.1986, p. 34. the objectives set out in Article 39 and 4 — OJ L90,1.4.1984, p. 13. shall exclude any discrimination 5 — Amending Regulation N o 804/68 on the common organ- between producers or consumers ization of the market in milk and milk products, OJ L 90, 1.4.1984, p. 10. within the Community';
SPAIN v COUNCIL
(iii) breach of the principle of legitimate 6. As regards the breach of the principle of expectations. non-discrimination, the applicant State stresses the specific situation of the Spanish milk sector and submits that, by not taking this into account, the regulations in 5. With regard to the alleged infringement question, which impose a uniform reduction of Article 39, the reduction of the total of total quantities throughout the quantities effected under the contested Community, are unlawful. In other words, a regulations was decided in accordance with uniform reduction applying to all milk the procedure laid down by the Council producers in the Community is said to Regulations of 31 March 1984, Nos 856/84 constitute a breach of the principle of and 857/84, whose lawfulness has not been equality and of non-discrimination challenged by the Kingdom of Spain. In inasmuch as, by not taking into addition, it has not been established that the consideration the specific nature of the effects on the milk production in Spain of Spanish milk sector, different situations are the contested regulations must necessarily treated alike. be those described by the applicant State. In order to determine the lawfulness of these regulations in relation to Article 39 of the Treaty: 7. The specific nature of the aforesaid sector, as described and relied on by the applicant State but contested by the (i) regard must be had, in the first place, to Council, appears in any event immaterial in all the relevant Community legislation. relation to the lawfulness of the contested As the Council and Commission stress, regulations. In this respect mention should the possible effects of the reduction of be made of the Court's decisions, cited by milk production must be considered in the Council, in which it is held that the light, in particular, of Council measures taken by the Community Regulation No 1336/86 of 6 May 1986 institutions in the context of the common fixing compensation for the definitive organization of the markets cannot make discontinuation of milk production; 6 any distinction between the territories of the Member States. 7In addition, as the Council explains, the structural differences between the different regions of the Community (ii) secondly, it is necessary to draw were taken into consideration when the attention to the fact that the reduction regulations introducing the additional levy imposed by the regulations in question were adopted and the equilibrium of this takes effect progressively over a period system was maintained when they were of two years, and a period does not amended by the Act of Accession. begin to run until a year after their publication.
8. As far as the alleged disregard of the In these circumstances, it cannot be said principle of legitimate expectations is that the regulations at issue disregard the concerned, it is an established rule that fundamental objective of ensuring a fair economic operators may not properly rely standard of living for the agricultural on such a principle to claim a right to the community. 7 — Inter alia, judgment of 13 July 1978 in Case 8/78 Milac [1978] ECR 1721; judgment of 13 December 1984 in Case 6 — OJ L 119, 8.5.1986, p. 21. 106/83 Sermide [1984] ECR 4209.
OPINION OF MR DARMON — CASE 203/86
maintenance of existing Community legis- effect on their lawfulness. Since the parties lation. Moreover, Article 8 of the Act of to the negotiations for the accession of the Accession, which will be referred to below, Kingdom of Spain to the Communities were rules out the possibility that the operators in agreement regarding the inclusion of concerned may have a legitimate expec- Article 8 in the Act of Accession, the tation in the continued application, for any Council cannot be criticized for using the period whatsoever, of the quantities in force procedure in question. at the time of accession. Finally, the principle of legitimate expectations applies, according to the Court's case-law, only to individual situations and cannot be relied II — Submission concerning solely Regu- upon in circumstances which are, by defi- nition, general in character. lation No 1343/86
9. By the submission alleging infringement 11. Two procedural infringements are of essential procedural requirements, the alleged: the failure to consult the European Kingdom of Spain questions the lawfulness Parliament and the lack of a sufficient of the contested regulations on the ground statement of the reasons on which the regu- that they were adopted notwithstanding its lation is based. own negative vote. In substance, the applicant government claims that the total quantities provided for in the Act of Accession cannot, because of their 12. The Kingdom of Spain relies on the contractual nature, be altered by a unilateral infringement of Article 43 (2) inasmuch as decision taken without the consent of the the European Parliament was not consulted. party concerned. However, as the Council, supported on this point by the Commission, states, Regulation No 1343/86 is an implementing regulation amending Regulation No 857/84, which 10. However, this argument disregards the itself was adopted to implement the basic effect of Article 8 of the Act of Accession Regulation No 804/68. according to which 'provisions of this Act, the purpose or effect of which is to repeal or amend acts adopted by the institutions of the Communities otherwise than as a transi- 13. Regulation No 857/84 was adopted by tional measure, shall have the same status in the Council without being the subject of a law as the provisions which they repeal or consultation of the European Parliament. As amend and shall be subject to the same rules the Court has held, in decisions cited by the as those provisions.' Since the total quan- Council, the procedure laid down in Article tities applicable to Spain and laid down in 43 of the Treaty does not necessarily have the Act of Accession were fixed by the to be followed for the adoption of measures amendment of Community Regulations Nos implementing basic regulations. 804/68 and 857/84, they could be further altered, on the basis of the abovementioned provision, through the Community legis- lative procedure, in this case by a vote 14. Finally, as regards the failure to comply requiring a qualified majority. The Spanish with the obligation to state the reasons on Government's vote when the contested which legislation is based laid down in regulations were adopted has therefore no Article 190 of the Treaty, the applicant
SPAIN v COUNCIL
State's argument to the effect that the lation pursuant to which the contested preamble to the regulations must always measure was adopted is expressly referred to refer to a provision of the Treaty cannot be in the preamble. The mention by the accepted. Where an implementing regu- contested regulation of Regulation No lation is concerned, the requirement of a 804/68, which constitutes its legal basis, is statement of reasons is satisfied, in the in my view such as to make it unnecessary sphere at issue here, provided that the regu- to refer to a specific provision of the Treaty.
15. Consequently I consider that this application for annulment should be dismissed and the Kingdom of Spain ordered to pay the costs.