T-482/93

WEBER v COMMISSION

J U D G M E N T O F T H E C O U R T O F FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) 10 July 1996*

In Case T-482/93,

Martin Weber and Maria Weber, residing at Hemau (Germany),

Martin Weber GdbR, a firm constituted under German law, established at Hemau,

represented by Hartwig Schneider, Rechtsanwalt, Pacellistraße 8, Munich,

JUDGMENT OF 10. 7.1996 — CASE T-482/93

A P P L I C A T I O N for the annulment of Commission Regulation (EEC) N o 525/93 of 8 March 1993 establishing the value of the final regional reference amounts for producers of soya beans, rape seed, colza seed and sunflower seed for the 1992/93 marketing year (OJ 1993 L 56, p. 18),

T H E C O U R T O F FIRST INSTANCE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (Second Chamber, Extended Composition),

composed of: H . Kirschner, President, B. Vesterdorf, C. W. Bellamy, A. Kalog- eropoulos and A. Potocki, Judges,

Registrar: H . Jung,

having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 13 March 1996,

its only members. It operates an agricultural holding of 42 hectares in Bavaria which is used in part for the cultivation of colza.

The support system for oilseeds

2 Council Regulation (EEC) N o 3766/91 of 12 December 1991 establishing a sup- port system for producers of soya beans, rape seed and colza seed and sunflower seed (OJ 1991 L 356, p. 17, hereinafter 'Regulation N o 3766/91') introduced a sys- tem based on the principle of direct compensatory payment to producers of a fixed sum per hectare, varying according to the average yields of the different regions of the Community. The procedures for implementing that system were established by Commission Regulation (EEC) N o 615/92 of 10 March 1992 laying down detailed rules for a support system for producers of soya beans, rape seed, colza seed and sunflower seed (OJ 1992 L 67, p. 11, hereinafter 'Regulation N o 615/92').

3 Article 3(1) of Regulation N o 3766/91 provides: 'A projected reference price for oil-seeds is set at E C U 163 per tonne'. According to the explanations provided by the Commission, that price represents an estimate of the projected short-term ref- erence price for oilseeds on a stabilized world market.

4 Article 3(2) of that regulation provides: 'A Community reference amount for oil- seeds is set at E C U 384 per hectare'. According to the Commission, that sum is a theoretical value representing the projected average amount of the compensatory payment per hectare within the Community.

II-613

9 It follows that, if the observed reference price established pursuant to Article 3(4) of Regulation N o 3766/91 differs by more than 8% from the projected reference price, the final regional reference amount is to be established by adjusting the pro- jected regional reference amount in proportion to the variation in question. In addition, in accordance with Article 6(2) of Regulation N o 3766/91, the final regional reference amount is to be reduced if the area planted to the seed in ques- tion exceeds the maximum guaranteed area fixed in Article 6(1).

II - 614

WEBER v COMMISSION

io According to Article 4(1) of Regulation N o 3766/91, only producers established in the Community who sow and intend to harvest the products listed in Article 1 of that regulation are to be entitled to apply for a regionalized system of direct pay- ments. Under Article 4(2), in order to qualify for any payment a producer must, by the date specified for the region in question, have sown the seed and have lodged an application. Article 4(3) states that applications may only be made in respect of arable land cultivated during the period 1989/90 to 1990/91.

n Entitlement to receive direct payments is granted only in respect of areas meeting the criteria laid down by Article 3(1) of Regulation N o 615/92. Applications must contain the data and declarations required by Article 3(2) of, and Annex II to, that regulation.

i2 Article 4(5) of Regulation N o 3766/91 provides that producers who apply are to be entitled to an advance payment of no more than 50% of the projected regional reference amount, and that the Member States are to carry out the necessary checks to ensure that entitlement to the advance is justified.

16 O n 24 May 1992 Martin Weber GdbR lodged with the competent national authorities an application under Article 4(2) of Regulation N o 3766/91 and Article 3 of Regulation N o 615/92, signed by Martin Weber, for a direct payment for the 1992/93 marketing year.

i7 O n 23 August 1992 Martin Weber GdbR sent the competent national authorities its harvest declaration, signed by Martin Weber, in accordance with Article 5 of Regulation N o 615/92. That declaration shows that Martin Weber GdbR cultivated 6.37 hectares of colza and harvested 27.4 tonnes. It states that the final net price obtained after cleaning and drying the colza amounted to DM263.10, equivalent to E C U 111.76, per tonne.

is By decision of 23 September 1992 the Amt für Landwirtschaft und Bodenkultur Regensburg (Office for Agriculture and Soil Cultivation, Regensburg) granted Martin Weber GdbR an advance payment of D M 3 879.65 (ECU 1 648.11) pursu- ant to Article 4(5) of Regulation N o 3766/91 and Article 4 of Regulation N o 615/92.

II - 616

WEBER v COMMISSION

i9 On 5 March 1993 the Commission adopted Regulation (EEC) N o 515/93 estab- lishing the value of the projected regional reference amounts for producers of soya beans, rape seed, colza seed and sunflower seed for the 1992/93 marketing year (OJ 1993 L 55, p. 43, hereinafter 'Regulation N o 515/93'). The projected regional reference amount for Bavaria was fixed at E C U 517.42 (DM 1 218.10) per hectare.

quotations were recorded during the period July 1992 to January 1993. Wherever possible, account was taken of both the current month and the term delivery prices of the transactions and quotations.

The values of the observed reference prices are such that no adjustment of the pro- jected regional reference amounts, pursuant to the provisions of Article 3(4) of Regulation (EEC) N o 3766/91, is necessary.

The latest estimates of the areas of eligible oil-seed sowings have been calculated.

The sizes of the areas calculated are such that no adjustment of the projected regional reference amounts, pursuant to the provisions of Article 6(2) of Regu- lation (EEC) N o 3766/91, is necessary.

For the 1992/93 marketing year the final regional reference amounts are confirmed as being of the same value as the projected regional reference amounts, and are set out in Annex II.'

22 By decision of 28 April 1993 the Amt für Landwirtschaft und Bodenkultur Regensburg granted Martin Weber GdbR a direct total payment corresponding to the product of the final regional reference amount as determined for Bavaria according to the area cultivated, in the sum of:

25 By application lodged at the Registry of the Court of Justice on 11 May 1993 and registered under case number C-273/93, Martin Weber GdbR brought the present proceedings. The application was accompanied by a letter of authority signed by the two members, Martin and Maria Weber.

26 By separate document, lodged on 28 May 1993, the Commission raised an objec- tion of inadmissibility, maintaining, first, that Martin Weber GdbR did not have locus standi and, second, that the contested regulation was not of 'individual con- cern' to the applicant within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 173 of the E E C Treaty.

27 By order of 27 September 1993, the Court of Justice referred the case to the Court of First Instance in accordance with Council Decision 93/350/Euratom, ECSC,

II-619

JUDGMENT OF 10. 7.1996 — CASE T-482/93

E E C of 8 June 1993 amending Decision 88/591/ECSC, EEC, Euratom establishing the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (OJ 1993 L 144, p. 21). It was registered in the Court of First Instance under case number T-482/93.

II - 620

WEBER v COMMISSION

Forms of order sought

32 The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the contested regulation as regards the final regional reference amounts for producers of soya beans, rape seed, colza seed and sunflower seed for the 1992/93 marketing year;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

JUDGMENT OF 10. 7.1996 — CASE T-482/93

regulation, thereby avoiding any increase in the direct payments to producers. They argue that the contested regulation does not in any way reflect actual market conditions during the period under consideration. The Commission wrongly took account of prices for the months of February and March 1993, contrary to Article 3(4) of Regulation N o 3766/91. It also wrongly added to the observed price for Hamburg the hypothetical costs of transportation to Rotterdam. At the hear- ing, the applicants relied, in support of their claims, on the figures provided to the Court by the Commission (see paragraph 30 above).

35 The Commission contends, as its principal argument, that the action is inadmis- sible or, in the alternative, unfounded.

Admissibility

36 The defendant raises two pleas of inadmissibility. First, Martin Weber GdbR does not have locus standi. Second, the contested regulation was not of 'individual con- cern' to it within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 173 of the EEC Treaty.

The plea alleging that Martin Weber GdbR does not have locus standi

39 In the alternative, Mr and Mrs Weber request the Court to regard them as the applicants in the present case. They point out that it was they who signed the letter annexed to the application authorizing the institution of the proceedings, and that they are the only members of Martin Weber GdbR.

Findings of the Court

40 It is apparent from page 2 of the application, and from the statutes of Martin Weber GdbR annexed thereto, that its only members and representatives are Mar- tin Weber and his wife, Maria Weber. Furthermore, the authority granted to the lawyer who initiated the proceedings, which is also annexed to the application, is signed by Martin and Maria Weber in their own names. In those circumstances, the application initiating the proceedings must be construed as having been made not only on behalf of Martin Weber GdbR but also by Martin and Maria Weber.

II - 623

JUDGMENT OF 10. 7.1996 — CASE T-482/93

4i Since the proceedings involve a single application, there is no need to consider the locus standi of Martin Weber GdbR before the Community judicature (see the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Joined Cases T-480/93 and T-483/93 Antillean Rice Mills and Others v Commission [1995] ECR 11-2305, paragraph 79).

WEBER v COMMISSION

and Geldermann v Council [1987] ECR 941 and Case C-309/89 Codorniu v Coun- cil [1994] ECR 1-1853, and the order of the Court of Justice in Case C-131/92 Arnaud and Others v Council [1993] ECR 1-2573).

45 The contested regulation fixes the final regional reference amount in accordance with objective criteria laid down by Regulation N o 3766/91, in particular Article 4 thereof, which are applicable to all producers qualifying for aid, irrespective of individual data concerning persons lodging an application. Furthermore, Regula- tions Nos 3766/91, 515/93 and 525/93 together form a corpus of provisions of a legislative nature.

46 It is only because the determination of the final amount of aid must reflect actual market conditions as closely as possible that the final regional reference amounts were required to be fixed at a time when all the recipients had already been identi- fied. In cases where the Court of Justice has acknowledged the existence of an individual interest in bringing proceedings on the ground that the applicants con- cerned belonged to a 'closed class', the legislation in issue specifically affected firmly established legal positions which, by contrast with the present case, had already been settled definitively, and not merely provisionally. In the present case, the final amount of the aid was not known until after the regional reference amounts had been finally fixed.

47 The adjustment provided for by Article 6(2) of Regulation N o 3766/91 (see para- graph 9 above) does not bear out the applicants' argument, since the maximum guaranteed area is fixed not in relation to individual producers but on a Community-wide basis, and any reduction made is applicable irrespective of the identity of the producer responsible for that area having been exceeded.

52 Since, by virtue of having already lodged their application, the applicants had acquired a firmly established legal position, the fact that a large number of other producers of oilseeds had likewise attained the same legal position is immaterial in

II - 626

WEBER v COMMISSION

law. The reason for which the regional reference amounts at issue were not fixed until after the applications had been lodged by the various producers, including the applicants, is also immaterial.

53 Similarly, the contested regulation took account of the conduct of producers of oilseeds, in that Article 6(2) of Regulation N o 3766/91 requires them not to exceed the maximum guaranteed area.

54 Lastly, the defendant's alternative argument, to the effect that only the final regional reference amount established for Bavaria is of individual concern to the applicants, is unfounded, because the various regional reference amounts are cal- culated on the basis of the same final reference price as the one in issue in the present case.

57 In the present case, the contested regulation establishes, for all regions of the Com- munity and for all Community producers of the oilseeds concerned, the final regional reference amounts for the 1992/93 marketing year, as provided for in Article 3(4) and (5) of Regulation N o 3766/91. Those final regional reference amounts are established in accordance with three factors, namely the projected regional reference amounts provided for in Article 3(3) of Regulation N o 3766/91, the 'reference price' referred to in Article 3(4) of that regulation, and, where appropriate, the extent to which the maximum guaranteed area laid down in Article 6(1) and (2) of that regulation is exceeded.

58 Each of those factors is determined o n the basis of data of a general and abstract nature, without taking any account of the situation of individual producers such as the applicants.

59 First of all, the projected regional reference amounts, which are updated in due course to form the final regional reference amounts, are calculated by taking into account, first, the Community reference amount of E C U 384 per hectare fixed by Article 3(2) of Regulation N o 3766/91 and, second, the average Community and regional yields for the products in question, in accordance with Article 3(3) of that regulation (see paragraphs 4 and 6 above). The projected regional reference amounts are not referable, therefore, to the situation of individual producers.

II - 628

WEBER v COMMISSION

60 Next, the 'reference price' referred to in Article 3(4) of Regulation N o 3766/91, which is used to calculate the final regional reference amount, is established in respect of the entire Community on the basis of prices which have actually been observed on the Community market during the marketing year in question. It is apparent from the documents before the Court that in the present case the market prices taken into account by the Commission were based on information supplied by the authorities of the Member States in relation to observed wholesale prices and/or 'free at oil mill' prices for various oilseeds in certain Community port areas during the 1992/93 marketing year, disregarding any reference to individual trans- actions and, a fortiori, to the situation of individual producers such as the appli- cants.

64 However, as the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance have consistently held, the general application and hence the general nature of a measure are not called in question by the fact that it is possible to determine more or less precisely the number or even the identity of the persons to whom it applies at any given time, as long as it is established that it applies to them by virtue of an objective legal or factual situation defined by the measure in question (see, for example, the orders of the Court of Justice in Asocarne v Council, cited above, paragraph 30, and CNPAAP v Council, cited above, paragraph 34, as well as the order of the Court of First Instance in Case T-183/94 Cantina Cooperativa fra Produttori Vitivinicole di Torre di Mosto and Others v Commission [1995] ECR11-1941, para- graph 48, and the case-law cited).

65 That is the position in the present case (see paragraphs 57 to 62 above). The 'closed class' invoked by the applicants results from the very nature of the system estab- lished by Regulation N o 3766/91 and concerns the applicants no differently from all other oilseed producers in the same situation.

66 The case-law relied on by the applicants (see paragraph 50 above) cannot be trans- posed to the present case. It relates to certain specific situations concerning either individual applications for import licences lodged during a given period of brief duration and in respect of established quantities (see the judgments cited above in Töpfer v Commission, at p. 411, and International Fruit Company and Others v Commission, paragraphs 16 to 22, together with the judgments of the Court of Justice in Case 62/70 Bock v Commission [1971] ECR 897, paragraph 10 and Case C-354/87 Weddel v Commission [1990] ECR 1-3847, paragraphs 20 to 23; see also, by analogy, the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case 232/81 Agricola Commerciale Olio v Commission [1984] E C R 3881) or established categories of

69 It follows, first, that, prior to the adoption of the contested regulation, the appli- cants had not acquired any right to the direct payment of a precise total amount and, second, that their legal situation did not differ from that of all the other Com- munity producers to whom that regulation applied. In those circumstances, the

II-631

JUDGMENT OF 10. 7. 1996 — CASE T-482/93

mere fact that the applicants lodged the necessary applications and declarations, and that they were already in receipt of an advance payment, is not such as to establish that their specific rights have been adversely affected to such an extent that they must be regarded as individually concerned within the meaning of the judgment in Codorniu v Council.

70 In the present case, the applicants' rights did not assume concrete form until the national authorities adopted their individual decision of 28 April 1993 awarding them a final payment of a specific sum (see paragraph 22 above). Since the appli- cants can contest that decision before the competent national court (see para- graph 24 above), it is open to that court, if necessary, to refer a question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling under subparagraph (b) of the first para- graph of Article 177 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Court of Justice has jurisdiction to rule on the validity and interpretation of acts of the institutions of the Community.

7i It follows from the foregoing that the contested regulation is not of individual concern to the applicants. Consequently, the application must be dismissed as inadmissible.

hereby:

1. Dismisses the application as inadmissible;

2. Orders the applicants jointly and severally to pay the costs.

Kirschner Vesterdorf Bellamy

Kalogeropoulos Potocki

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 10 July 1996.