C-55/87

Mr President, working day following the day on which the Members of the Court, application is lodged, unless special measures are taken during that period' (emphasis added). In BALM's view, Regulation No 387/84 was to be understood as a measure 1. The Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am of this kind. Main requests the Court to interpret the provisions of two regulations relating to import and export transactions in beef and veal and to rule upon the validity of a third measure by which the Commission tempo­ Since Saturdays could not be taken into rarily suspended the advance fixing of account in calculating the five working export refunds on such goods. days, the fifth day was Friday 17 February, and thus fell within the period of suspension provided for by Regulation No 387/84. Hence the rejection of the applications On Friday 10 February 1984, Moksel, a lodged by Moksel, which challenged the German company, lodged with the Bundes­ decision before the Frankfurt Verwaltungs­ anstalt für landwirtschaftliche Markt­ gericht. That court, acting pursuant to ordnung in Frankfurt am Main (hereinafter Article 177 of the EEC Treaty, referred referred to as 'BALM') 155 applications for four questions to the Court of Justice, the issue of the same number of export which may be summarized as follows: licences for beef, with advance fixing of export refunds and monetary compensatory amounts. By decision of 14 May 1984 BALM rejected these applications under (1) May applications for advance fixing Regulation No 387/84 of 15 February 1984 lodged before a period of suspension, (Official Journal 1984, L 46, p. 39), which but in respect of which the date of issue entered into force on 17 February 1984. falls within such a period, be properly Pursuant to that measure, which was rejected? adopted under the procedure in cases of urgency, the Commission had suspended the advance fixing of refunds for the period from 17 to 21 February 1984. (2) If so, may Saturdays be excluded from the calculation of the five-day period provided for by Regulation No In accordance with Article 8a (2) of Regu­ 2377/80? lation No 2377/80 of 4 September 1980 (Official Journal 1980, L 241, p. 5) — a provision which was inserted by Regulation No 2798/81 of 28 September 1981 (Official (3) Can Regulation No 387/84 be regarded Journal 1981, L 275, p. 24) — the licences as valid from the point of view of the in question were to be issued 'on the fifth obligation to state reasons and, if so,

In this regard I should point out that in a case identical in law and in fact to this one, In the present proceedings, Moksel and the except that it concerned dairy products, the Commission of the European Communities Court held as follows: 'a measure submitted written observations and appeared suspending the advance fixing of export at the hearing. refunds [adopted by the Commission in accordance with the conditions laid down in Community law] must be regarded [within the meaning of the legislation in force] as a 2. Let me first give a brief outline of the "special measure". Consequently ... [once relevant Community legislation. The legal the measure has been adopted], an basis of Regulation No 387/84 — whereby, application for advance fixing submitted as I have said, the Commission suspended prior to the suspension but on which a the advance fixing of refunds — is Article decision is to be taken during the waiting 5 (4) of Regulation No 885/86 of 28 June period must be rejected in the same way as 1968 (Official Journal, English Special applications submitted during the period of Edition 1968 (I), p. 237), as amended by suspension' ( judg ment of 27 October 1983 Regulation No 1504/76 of 21 June 1976 in Case 276/82 De Beste Boter [1983] ECR (Official Journal 1976, L 168, p. 7). In 3331, at paragraphs 11 and 16). accordance with this provision, in a case of 'extreme urgency' the Commission may derogate from the usual procedure, which provides for the 'Management Committee' to be consulted first (see Article 27 of Regu­ lation No 805/68 of 27 May 1968, Official Despite the doubts and reservations Journal, English Special Edition 1968 (I), p. expressed by the national court with regard 187), and suspend 'after examination to that judgment, there is nothing to justify of . ..all the information available to it' the a different or contrary solution in this case. advance fixing of refunds for a maximum of Indeed, as is clear from that judgment and three working days. from the opinion of Advocate General Verloren van Themaat, the system of 'suspension of the application of the provisions for the advance fixing of levies Finally, I should observe that this same and export refunds in different sectors of provision states in its last subparagraph that the common organization of the applications 'lodged during the period of market .. . was set up "in the interest of suspension shall be rejected.' It is, however, stable trading conditions". The possibility of silent as regards the treatment of pending adopting special measures tends ... to avoid applications. "in cases of abnormal resort to this system

It was for the same practical reasons that Regulations Nos 1504/76 and 798/81 (Articles 5 (4) and 8a respectively) were Those remarks cannot be upheld. As to the adopted in the beef and veal sector. It is first point, I should observe that according clear from all these provisions that the to the first recital in the preamble to the possibility in certain situations of suspending regulation, it was decided to suspend the advance fixing of levies and refunds is advance fixing on account of the price intended to 'protect the operation of the 'uncertainty' prevailing on the beef market. system ... against sudden, massive and very In those circumstances, it goes on, 'the often speculative exports' (paragraph 14 of reduction in refunds ... from 11 February the judgment). It is true that Article 5 (4) 1984 could lead to speculative advance provides that only applications lodged fixing of refunds' (emphasis added). Regard during the period of suspension are to be being had to the nature and purpose of the rejected. However, for the reasons which measure in question, it seems to me that have just been mentioned it is clear that 'the these explanations 'show . .. unequivocally effectiveness of the suspension would be the reasoning of the Community severely impaired' if the provision for authority ... so as to inform the persons rejection could not also be extended to concerned of the justifications for the applications made before that period. It measure ... and to enable the Court to follows that, as the Court concluded in De exercise its power of review' (judgment of Beste Boter, 'the rejection of such 28 October 1982 in Joined Cases 292 and applications is not contrary to Article 5 (4)' 293/81 Lion and Loiret & Haentjens v (paragraph 19). FIRS [19Z2] ECR 3887, at paragraph 18). I may add that the Court reached a similar conclusion as regards Regulation No 2993/80, which had a statement of reasons and substantive provisions similar, mutatis mutandis, to those of the measure now before us (De Beste Boter, paragraph 10). The first question should therefore be answered in the affirmative.

That increase naturally gave rise to an Here again, the answer must be in the adjustment downwards of the abovemen- affirmative. I should point out that under tioned amount, promptly effected by the Article 2 (2) of Regulation No 1182/71, 'all adoption of Regulation No 355/84 of 10 days other than holidays, Sundays and February 1984 (Official Journal 1984, L 40, Saturdays ... ' are deemed to be 'working p. 18), which entered into force on the days' and that under Article 8 a the issue of following day. export licences must take place at the latest 'on the fifth working day following the day on which the application is lodged.' Whilst it is true that in the German and Spanish versions of those regulations the disputed The information supplied by the term is rendered by two different words Commission indicates, moreover, that in ('Arbeitstage' and 'Werktage'; 'dias habiles' spite of the promptness with which that and 'dia laborable') the fact remains that the action was taken, on 10 February alone, the Danish, English, French, Italian, Dutch and last day on which certificates at the 'old' Portuguese texts use the same term (more favourable) rate of refunds could be (arbejdsdage/arbejdsdag; working days/ obtained, applications for export licences working day; jours ouvrables/jour ouvrable; with advance fixing were lodged in respect giorni lavorativi/giorni lavorativo; of a total of 15 880 tonnes of meat, that is werkdagen/werkdag; dias úteis/dia útil). to say 10 or 20 times greater than the usual tonnage. The Commission, furthermore, was not aware of these applications and of those lodged between Friday 10 and Monday 13 February 1984 until Monday 13 February at 16.00 hours. In such circum­ stances, suspension would appear to be the That said, it is well known that where the only effective means afforded to the language versions of a Community provision Commission by Community law in order to differ 'the need for a uniform application of protect the system of advance fixing against Community law and the pinciple of equality 'sudden, massive and ... speculative require that ... a provision . . . which makes exports', to which market situations like that no express reference to the law of the described give rise. The adoption of such a Member States for the purpose of deter­ measure is therefore fully justified. mining its meaning and scope must normally be given an independent and uniform interpretation throughout the Community. . . (which) must take into account the context of the provision and the purpose of the relevant regulations' In its second question, the national court (judgment of 18 January 1984 in Case wishes to know whether the term 'Werktag' 327/82 Ekro v Produktschap voor Vee en (Article 8a) should be given the same Vlees [1984] ECR 107, at paragraph 11). meaning as the word 'Arbeitstag', which appears in Regulation No 1182/71 of 3 June 1971 determining the rules applicable to periods, dates and time limits in Community instruments (Official Journal, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 354). If that were the case, Saturday would have to It cannot be disputed that in fixing a be excluded from the calculation of the mandatory period of five days for the issue five-day period provided for in Article 8 a. of the certificates in question Article 8 a

(c) An examination of the questions referred to the Court has not revealed any factor of such a nature as to affect the validity of Commission Regulation No 387/84 of 15 February 1984.