C-374/92
ECLI:EU:C:1993:864
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61992CC0374
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
IRSFELD
OPINION OF MR ADVOCATE GENERAL GULMANN delivered on 27 October 1993 *
Mr President, the end of the agreed period should not take Members of the Court, place prior to the expiry of a specified mini mum storage period.
1. The Hessischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Higher Administrative Court, Hesse) has referred to the Court for a preliminary rul ing a question on the interpretation of Com 4. The Commission regulation provided that mission Regulation (EEC) No 2267/84 pro aid could be granted for the storage of viding for the grant of private storage aid carcases, half-carcases, hindquarters and fixed at a standard rate in advance in respect forequarters. It also provided that the meat of carcases, half-carcases, hindquarters and could be boned prior to storage. Boning forequarters of beef. 1 involves the cutting of the meat into separate portions such as ribs, breast, shanks and thin flanks. The advantage of boning is that it reduces storage space.
2. For an appreciation of the background to the question referred, it is sufficient to set out the following facts.
5. Article 4 (2) of the regulation provides 3. The supply of beef on the common mar that a trader may limit the amount stored ket is sometimes disproportionately large. to 90% of the quantity of beef for which the That supply can be reduced if traders store contract was concluded, subject to a propor the beef, and the Community can encourage tionate reduction in aid. such storage by providing financial aid to that end. The purpose of the above regula tion is to provide such aid. The grant of aid is subject to compliance with certain condi tions, which include the conditions that stor age should be for a specified period, that it should involve sufficiently large quantities of 6. The present case involves the storage by a beef and that removal from storage before German undertaking, with Community aid, of a large consignment of boned forequar ters. The storage originally involved the full * Original language: Danish. amount in respect of which aid had been 1 — OJ19S4L20S,p. 31. promised.
I-303
OPINION OF MR GULMANN — CASE C-374/92
Before the expiry of the minimum storage 9. It was with a view to resolving that dis period, however, the undertaking wished to pute that the Hessischer Verwal- remove part of the stored beef in accordance tungsgerichtshof referred the abovemen- with the 90% rule mentioned above. The tioned question to the Court for a prelimi undertaking pointed out that Article 4 (2) of nary ruling. the regulation provided the necessary author ization for such subsequent removal from storage, a view with which, according to the documents on the case-file, the German 10. Article 4 (2) of the regulation provides as authorities are in agreement. The Commis follows: sion has also accepted that view.
'If the quantity stored unboned, or, if cut or 7. The problem in the case arose because the boned, the quantity of unboned meat undertaking did not remove whole boned employed, is less than the quantity for which forequarters, but only portions of such fore- the contract was concluded and: quarters. As already mentioned, a forequar- ter consists of various portions such as ribs, breast, shanks and thin flanks. The undertak ing did not remove the shanks and thin flanks. (a) not less than 90% of that quantity, the amount of aid referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 1 (1) shall be reduced proportionally; 8. The German authorities argue that the undertaking failed to comply with the 90% rule contained in Article 4 (2), which in their view must be interpreted as meaning that only whole boned forequarters may be (b)less than 90% of that quantity, private removed. They accordingly refused to grant storage aid shall not be paid.' aid. The undertaking has contested that interpretation of Article 4 (2) of the regula tion. 11. The German authorities have not made any submissions to the Court, but the grounds on which they base their opinion It is not disputed in this case that the under are clear from the order making the refer taking will have complied with the 90% rule ence. According to the German authorities, only if it is immaterial, for the calculation of the storer is under an obligation to place in the 90%, which parts of the stored beef have store whole forequarters. The possibility of been removed from storage. It is also not placing boned meat in store should be avail disputed that only 89.9% of the beef can be able solely with a view to saving storage regarded as remaining in storage if the beef space. The meat portions placed in storage removed is to be treated as including the after boning must accordingly be capable of shank and thin flank portions which belong constituting whole forequarters during the to it but which were not removed. full period of storage and removal from stor-
I-304
IRSFELD
age, which is permitted by way of authoriza that Article 4 (2) cannot be interpreted as tion under Article 4 (2), can therefore also requiring the undertaking to remove whole only relate to whole forequarters. In this forequarters from storage if it makes use of way, according to the German authorities, it the opportunity to remove a smaller portion is possible to ensure that it is not simply the of the meat placed in storage, in accordance less valuable portions of forequarters that are with the 90% rule. Such a requirement does put in storage, while the more valuable cuts not follow from the wording of the of meat, which can profitably be sold on the provision and cannot be read into it. The common market, are not placed in storage. objective of the regulation and the context of the provision do not provide an adequate basis for the interpretation proposed by the German authorities, which would involve a 12. The undertaking and the Commission restriction on the freedom of traders to dis argue for a different interpretation of the pose of their products. On the contrary, as provision. In my opinion, the view which pointed out by the Commission, it may be they take is the correct one. While it is presumed that the requirement runs counter undoubtedly correct, as the German authori to the objective of the regulation, which ties contend, that Article 4 (1) in principle is to ensure the maximum possible amount means that storage must relate to whole of storage, and it is in any event correct to boned forequarters, one must agree with the point out that the administration of such a view of the undertaking and the Commission requirement would be problematic.
Conclusion
13. I therefore propose that the Court should answer the question as follows:
Article 4 (2) of Regulation No 2267/84 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event that portions of boned forequarters of beef are removed from storage prior to the expiry of the minimum storage period , aid may still be claimed on condition that the portions of beef remaining in storage together make up at least 90 % of the contractual amount , irrespective of whether or not the remaining portions of beef are capable of constituting whole boned forequarters.
I-305