C-215/88
ECLI:EU:C:1989:273
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61988CC0215
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
OPINION OF MR MISCHO — CASE 215/88
OPINION OF MR ADVOCATE GENERAL MISCHO delivered on 28 June 1989 *
Mr President, 4. That text introduced inter alia the Members of the Court, following three rules:
1. In the context of a dispute concerning (a) Private storage aid may be granted only the repayment of private storage aid in the for products derived from animals beef and veal sector, the Bundesverwal slaughtered not more than six days tungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court) previously (Article 2(2)). has submitted to the Court of Justice three questions concerning the interpretation of the relevant legislation. The full text of those questions may be found in the Report (b) Storage must be made under a contract for the Hearing. which may not relate to a quantity of meat which is less than a minimum to be determined by the implementing regu First question lation (Article 2(3)).
2. The first question asks, in substance, (c) The obligation to store the agreed whether the 'quantity placed in store' within quantity is to be considered as fulfilled the meaning of Article 9(3) of Regulation if not less than 90% and not more than (EEC) No 2711/75 of 24 October 1975 on 110% of that quantity has been taken in the granting at a standard rate fixed in store and stored (Article 3(4)). advance of private storage aid for beef' must consist exclusively of meat which satisfies the conditions governing the grant of aid, that is to say, meat from recently 5. It follows from the inclusion of all those slaughtered animals. provisions in one single regulation that they impose conditions which must be satisfied either simultaneously or cumulatively. The expressions 'the agreed quantity' and 'the 3. In order to answer that question, it is, in quantity placed in store' can refer only to my view, advisable to go back to the more products which satisfy the rule regarding the general provisions contained in Regulation date of slaughter. It follows that, when they (EEC) No 1071/68 of the Commission of check to ensure that at least 90 % of the 25 July 1968 which laid down detailed rules agreed quantity has been placed in storage, for granting private storage aid for beef and the competent authorities can take into 2 veal. account only meat which is of the prescribed degree of freshness. (Article 5 of * Original language: French. Regulation No 2711/75 derogated, for the 1 — OJ 1975, L 274, p. 27. duration of its validity, from Article 2(2) of 2 — OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 354. Regulation No 1071/68 in so far as it auth-
CASA FLEISCHHANDEL v BUNDESANSTALT FÜR LANDWIRTSCHAFTLICHE MARKTORDNUNG
orized aid to be granted in respect of store products which did not satisfy the products derived from animals slaughtered conditions governing the grant of the aid. not more than 10 days previously, instead of six days previously).
9. Moreover, I agree entirely with the Commission's arguments based on the aim and the spirit of the legislation and I would 6. That interpretation is confirmed by the propose that the Court's answer to the first provisions of the first and third subpara question should be in the terms suggested graphs of Article 4(2) of Regulation No by the Commission. 2711/75, under which part of the quantity contracted for may be withdrawn from storage after three months, subject to an automatic reduction in the amount of aid. Second question For those reasons, it is clear that the quantity contracted for includes, in the view of the Community legislature, only that meat which qualifies for aid, since any 10. The second question essentially asks reduction in that quantity involves a whether the rule laid down in Article 2(2) of decrease in the amount of aid. Regulation No 1071/68, that is to say, the imposition of a maximum period of six days between slaughter and storage, has been repealed or whether it was applicable to aid granted under Regulation No 1500/76 of 7. Finally, the wording of Article 9(3) of the Commission of 25 June 1976. 3
Regulation No 2711/75 is in no way at variance with that reasoning; indeed, the contrary is the case. The purpose of that provision is to specify the extent to which 11. In that matter, I entirely agree with the storage aid may be affected if the 'quantity opinion expressed by the Commission that placed in store' is less than the quantity the maximum period of six days was indeed contracted for. Article 9(3) first provides applicable. As I have nothing to add to the that aid is to be reduced proportionately if Commission's arguments in support of that the quantity placed in store is between view, I would merely refer to them and, at 100% and 90% of the agreed amount. It the same time, endorse the answer which then goes on to confirm the situation which the Commission proposes for the second already exists under Article 3(4) of Regu question. lation No 1071/68, cited above, namely, that no aid is to be be paid if the quantity placed in store is less than 90 %. Third question
8. The sanction represented by the 12. In view of the suggested answer to the reduction or non-payment of the aid where the quantity stored is too small would be second question, the third question no nugatory if, in order to bring the quantity longer has any purpose. placed in store up to the desired level, the trader could increase it merely by placing in 3 _ OJ 1976, L 167, p. 31
OPINION OF MR MISCHO — CASE 215/88
Conclusion
13. The proposed answers to the questions referred by the Bundesverwaltungs gericht are therefore as follows:
'1 . The concept of 'quantity placed in store' in the first subparagraph of Article 9(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 2711/75 of the Commission must be interpreted as applying only to that quantity which satisfies the conditions governing the grant of aid laid down by the combined provisions of Article 2(2) of Regu lation (EEC) No 1071/68 and Article 5 of Regulation (EEC) No 2711/75 of the Commission.
2. Article 2(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1071/68 of the Commission was not repealed by Regulation (EEC) No 2778/74 or by Regulations Nos 1860/75, 2711/75 or 1500/76. The latter regulations, with the exception of Regulation No 1500/76, merely derogated from Article 2(2) of Regulation No 1071/68 as regards the intervention measures which they introduced and so long as those regulations remained in force. In the case of the intervention measure provided for in Regulation (EEC) No 1500/76, Article 2(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1071/68 remained in force.
3. In view of the answer to the second question, the third question no longer has any purpose.'