C-357/88
ECLI:EU:C:1990:28
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61988CC0357
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
OPINION OF MR TESAURO —CASE C-357/88
O P I N I O N OF MR ADVOCATE GENERAL TESAURO delivered on 23 January 1990 *
Mr President, 19 July 1982 Regulation (EEC) No 2036/82 Members of the Court, adopting general rules concerning special measures for peas and field beans. 4
1. By two separate orders for reference, received at the Court Registry on 12 December 1988, the Verwaltungsgericht Under Article 5(1) of that regulation, the (Administrative Court) Frankfurt am Main aid is granted to any user provided that he is asking the Court to interpret two lodges an application with the agency provisions contained in Commission Regu- appointed by the Member State, together lation (EEC) N o 2192/82 of 6 August 1982 with a certificate confirming that the laying down detailed rules for the producer has obtained at least the minimum application of the special measures for peas price and that the quantity indicated in the and field beans, 1 as amended by certificate has in fact been used, after having Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3322/82 been placed under supervision, in the under- of 10 October 1982. 2 taking itself.
As will be seen, the two questions raised are essentially connected and the provisions to Placing under supervision is in its turn be interpreted fall within a single legislative defined in Article 3(4) as the operation framework. Reasons of economy therefore whereby the competent agency in the prompt me to deliver a single opinion in Member State, at the request of the user of both cases. the products, determines on the user's premises, the quantity and quality of the products to be used for human or animal consumption. 2. The legislative framework. Council Regulation (EEC) No 1431/82 of 18 May 1982 laying down special measures for peas and field beans 3 provides for the grant of aid for products harvested in the Article 11(2) provides, finally, that the Community and used in the manufacture of products are to be weighed and sampled animal feed (Article 3(1)). when they reach the undertakings where they are actually used.
3. On the basis of Article 3(5) and Article 4 of that regulation, the Council adopted on 4. In pursuance of Article 3(7) of Regu- * Original language: Italian. lation No 1431/82, the Commission 1 — OJ 1982, L 233, p. 5. 2 — OJ 1982, L 351, p. 27. 3 — OJ 1982, L 162, p. 28. 4 — OJ 1982, L 219, p. 1.
I - 1676
HOPERMANN
adopted Regulation No 2192/82 on whose 5. In these references for a preliminary interpretation the dispute turns. ruling the national court is essentially asking the Court to construe the nature of the obli- gations laid down in Article 18(1) and Article 18 of the latter regulation, in the Article 22(1) of Regulation No 2192/82, as version in force at the time of the facts amended by Regulation No 3322/82. underlying these questions, provided that, on the entry of the products into the under- taking, the party concerned was immediately to notify the competent agency More specifically, in Case 357/88 the of the Member State in writing. That notifi- cation was to constitute an application for Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main is placing under supervision. asking whether observance of the period for notifying the entry of the products into the undertaking provided for in Article 18(1) is a condition for the grant of the aid, whilst However, the possibility was provided for in Case 358/88 the national court is asking the person concerned to delay the placing whether the period for lodging an under supervision of the products entering application for aid under Article 22(1) is a into the undertaking. In such a case, the preclusive time-limit. operator had a further period of 30 working days to inform the competent agency of the quantity which he in fact wished to place under supervision and thus to use within the undertaking. 6. I will first reply to the latter question, by observing that the mandatory nature of the time-limit laid down in Article 22(1) is demonstrated with sufficient clarity by the Under Article 29(2) as amended by Article general context of the relevant legislation. 1(13) of Regulation No 3322/82, the aid had to be paid to the user making an application therefor, provided that he had lodged with the agency appointed by the Member State the certificate attesting the It should be pointed out above all in this payment of the minimum price to the connection that it is only when the producer and prior verification by the application for aid is lodged that the user agency responsible for supervision of the states whether the aid is applied for under fact that the quantity stated was in fact used Article 3(1) (use in the manufacture of within the period of 150 days of the date on animal feed) or Article 3(2) (use in the which the application for placing under manufacture of products for human supervision was lodged. consumption) of Regulation No 1431/82 (see Article 22(3) of Regulation No 2192/82). Finally, Article 22(1) of Regulation No 2192/82, in the version in force at the time of the events which led to the present case, provided that the application for aid Moreover, the amount of the aid to be referred to in Article 5(1) of Regulation No granted is to be the amount in force on the 2036/82 had to be lodged not later than the day the person concerned lodges the day on which the application to place application (see Article 6(1) of Regulation products under supervision was lodged. No 2036/82).
I - 1677
OPINION OF MR TESAURO — CASE C-357/88
Accordingly, to hold that the period Observance of the period of 150 days, provided for is merely indicative would which is fixed as the time-limit for the entail making the assumption that the legis- actual use of the products and runs from the lature wished to extend to traders the possi- date on which the application for placing bility of taking a waiting position in order under supervision is lodged would be possibly to profit from price changes, difficult to verify if there was no actual thereby subsequently deriving a profit, certainty as to the initial point of reference, which is patently contrary to the objectives which is precisely the notification of the pursued by the legislation in question, which entry of the products into the undertaking. are to favour the development of the production of peas and field beans, and not 8. In other words, in a system such as that to benefit certain traders. 5 contained in the rules in question, which seeks to ensure the correct utilization of the aid provided for, the time-limits fixed cannot be regarded as being merely of an The particular importance which the legis- indicative nature, since non-compliance lature sought to attribute to observance of therewith deprives the whole procedure of that period is moreover clear from the fact the necessary rigour, which entails serious that Article 23 of Regulation No 2192/82 consequences, not only from the point of fixes the hour by which the application must view of proper administrative management, be made. but also in regard to the effectiveness of supervision and the determination of the amount of aid to be granted.
7. As regards observance of the obligation 9. Moreover, it does not seem to me that of immediate notification of the entry of the such an interpretation of the rules in products into the undertaking, mentioned in question is contrary to the principle of Article 18(1) of Regulation No 2192/82, it proportionality, as stated on several should be pointed out that the failure to occasions by the Court, or that the observe that obligation seriously calls in Commission is in that way being allowed to question observance of the provision laid impose additional conditions for obtaining down in Anicie 11(2) of Council Regulation the aid, thereby exceeding the powers No 2036/82, according to which on entry conferred on it. of the products into the undertaking, the weight must be determined and samples 10. On the first point, it is clear from the taken in order that the quality and the case-law of the Court that, in order to degree of humidity of the products may be ascertain whether a Community provision verified. complies with the principle of propor- tionality, it is first necessary to verify whether the means which it employs are appropriate to achieve the objective pursued Furthermore, it is precisely from that first and whether or not they go beyond what is notification that the period of time for necessary to achieve it. 6 placing under supervision begins to run and therefore the other period laid down for the 6 — See most recently, in particular, the judgments of 30 June 1987 in Case 47/86 Roquette Frères v ONIC [1987] ECR submission of the application for aid. 2889, paragraph 19, of 18 March 1987 in Case 56/86 Société pour l'exportation des sucres [1987] ECR 1423, paragraph 28 and of 14 January 1987 in Case 291/84 5 — See the first recital in the preamble to Regulation (EEC) Zuckerfabrik Bedburg AG v OBEA [1987] ECR 49, No 1431/82. paragraph 36.
I -1678
HOPERMANN
It seems to me to emerge sufficiently clearly bility, by means of a regulation laying down from what has been said that to penalize, by detailed rules of application, of setting the loss of entitlement to aid, additional conditions for the grant of non-compliance with the obligations laid subsidies in relation to those provided for in down in the provisions in question does not Council Regulation No 2036/82, it is constitute for those concerned a dispropor- sufficient to observe — and this is borne out tionate sacrifice, since, as has been shown, by the case-law of the Court — that when strict compliance with those obligations is the Commission exercises its implementing necessary in order to ensure the proper powers in the context of an agricultural functioning of the system of aids provided market, it is authorized to adopt all for by the Community institutions. measures necessary or useful in order to implement the basic regulation, provided they are not contrary to the latter or to the rules for application laid down by the It should also be borne in mind that, with Council. 8 particular reference to the terms of Article 22(1) of Regulation No 2192/82, pres- cription as a result of the late submission of an application is, as a general rule, the normal consequence of the expiry of any In the present case, it appears evident that mandatory time-limit and not a penalty. 7 the fixing of a period for the submission of applications for aid, just like the obligation to notify the competent agency at the correct time of the entry of the products 11. As to the other argument put forward into the undertaking, are not contrary to by the applicant in the main proceedings to the basic provisions adopted by the Council, the effect that, if the periods in question inasmuch as those detailed rules are based were considered preclusive, the result would on the requirement to ensure the func- be to grant to the Commission the possi- tioning of the system of subsidies.
12. In the light of the foregoing considerations, I therefore propose that the C o u r t should reply to the two questions raised by the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main t o the effect that observance of the period referred to in Article 18(1) of Regulation N o 2192/82, laid d o w n in order to inform the competent agency of the entry of the product into the undertaking, is a condition for the grant of the subsidy and that the period mentioned in Article 22(1) of that regulation, for submission of the application for subsidies, is a preclusive time-limit.
8 — See in particular the judgments of 18 January 1990 in Case C-345/88 Firma Butterablalz [1990] ECR I-159, of 14 February 1989 in Case 13/88 Knoeckel [19S9] ECR 337, of 18 October 1988 in Case 121/87 Bayemwald Fnichtever- 7 — See the judgment of 22 January 1986 in Case 266/84 wertung G7nrW[1988] ECR 6273 and of 15 May 1984 in Denkavtl France [1986] ECR 149, paragraph 21 Case 121/83 Zuckerfabrik GmbH[I984] ECR 2039
I - 1679