C-328/00

1 — Original language: German. 2 —OJ 1993 L 56, p. 18. 'A Community reference amount for oil- 3 —OJ 1991 L 356, p. 17. seeds is set at ECU 384 per hectare'.

I - 1463

OPINION OF MRS STIX-HACKL — CASE C-328/00

This relates to a theoretical value which lation differs by more than 8% from the represents the projected average amount of projected reference price, the final regional the compensatory payment per hectare reference amount is to be calculated by within the Community. adjusting the projected regional reference price in proportion to the variation in question. Pursuant to Article 3(6), the publication of the amounts in the Official Journal must also be accompanied by a succinct explanation of the calculations 5. The amount of the compensatory pay- made. In addition, in accordance with ment to be paid to producers is established Article 6(2) of Regulation No 3766/91 the in two stages. final regional reference price is to be reduced if the area planted with oilseeds exceeds the maximum guaranteed area fixed in Article 6(1).

I - 1464

WEBER

and sunflower seed in the 1992/93 market- tative port areas. The prices and quotations ing year. 4The projected regional reference were recorded during the period July 1992 amount for Bavaria was fixed at ECU to January 1993. Wherever possible, 517.42 (DEM 1 218.10) per hectare. account was taken of both the current month and the term delivery prices of the transactions and quotations.

11. On 8 March 1993 the Commission adopted Regulation (EEC) No 525/93 establishing the value of the final regional reference amounts for soya beans, rape seed, colza seed and sunflower seed for the 1992/93 marketing year. 5 Annex II to that The values of the observed reference prices regulation shows that the final regional are such that no adjustment of the pro- reference amount for Bavaria was also jected regional reference amounts, pursuant fixed at ECU 517.42 (DEM 1 218.10) per to the provisions of Article 3(4) of Regu- hectare. lation No 3766/91, is necessary.

12. Annex I to Regulation No 523/93 pro- vides the following explanation of the calculation of the final regional reference The latest estimates of the areas of eligible amounts: oilseed sowings have been calculated.

'An observed reference price which repre- sents the average price recorded on the world market during the 1992/93 market The sizes of the areas calculated are such year has been determined separately for that no adjustment of the projected each oilseed. regional reference amounts pursuant to the provisions of Article 6(2) of Regulation No 3766/91 is necessary.

I I I— Facts and main proceedings the view of the Court of First Instance, the action was not inadmissible on the ground that the partnership lacked legal person- 13. On 29 May 1992 Martin Weber ality under German law because, in the GdBR, a firm constituted under German particular circumstances, the action had law, Martin and Maria Weber being the been brought by Martin and Maria Weber. sole partners in it, applied to the Amt für The applicants were not, however, individ- Landwirtschaft und Bodenkultur (Office ually concerned by the regulation at issue. for Agriculture and Arable Farming, 'the Office') Regensburg for direct payments to oilseed producers for the 1992 harvest in respect of an area of 6.37 hectares on which rape seed was cultivated. By notice of 23 September 1992 the Office agreed to make an advance payment (50% of the 15. By Notice of 4 December 1997, the projected regional reference amount) of Regierung der Oberpfalz (Upper Palatine DEM 3 879.65. The calculation was based government) dismissed the objection. The on the amount of land specified in the decision based on Commission Regulation application at a rate of DEM 609.05 per No 525/93 of 8 March 1993 was ulti- hectare for Bavaria. The firm lodged an mately definitive and lawful. The actual objection contesting the assessment, claim- calculation and the Commission's reasons ing that the losses resulting from the fall in why it was not necessary to adapt the prices were not covered by the advance projected regional reference amounts pur- payment. By notice of 28 April 1993 the suant to Article 6(2) of the basic regulation Office awarded a total support of DEM could not be reconstructed and could not 7 759.29 (final reference amount per hec- therefore be reviewed. The submission that tare for Bavaria: DEM 1 218.10), at the Regulation No 525/93 infringed the duty of same time taking into account the advance the EU institutions under Article 253 of the payment already made. An objection was EC Treaty to state the reasons on which lodged against that notice as well, with a their measures are based could not be request that a ruling should not be given on denied. However, the agriculture adminis- it until the Court of Justice of the European tration was bound by the EU rules. Communities had delivered judgment in the action which was to be brought before it.

(4) If questions 1, 2 and 3 are answered in the affirmative, is Regulation No 525/93 defective as regards its 17. By decision of 30 August 2000 the criteria for calculating the final Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht Regens- regional reference amount in that it burg referred the following questions to fails to state reasons within the mean- the Court of Justice for a preliminary ing of Article 253 (previously ruling: Article 190) of the EC Treaty?

(5) Would that failure to state reasons be so material that it would lead to the '(1) Was the Commission, when establish- nullity, in whole or in part, of the ing the final regional reference amount, regulation?' entitled, notwithstanding the wording of Annex I to Regulation No 525/93, to leave out of account reference prices from months in the period between 1 July 1992 and January 1993, to include in its calculation reference 18. In these proceedings, only the Commis- prices from months after that period, sion has submitted written observations and to replace missing information on under Article 20 of the Statute of the Court reference prices by an estimate? of Justice. There was no oral procedure.

I - 1467

OPINION OF MRS STIX-HACKL — CASE C-328/00

V — The first, second and third questions of the Court of Justice, the Community legislature enjoys a wide discretion in the area of the common agricultural policy.

19. The first three questions essentially concern abusive or arbitrary calculation of the reference price.

I - 1468

WEBER

25. With reference to the third question, the factual and legal position 7 or had the Commission contends that, when it manifestly (and gravely) exceeded the limits calculated the final reference price, it was of its discretion. 8 right not to weight the prices in accordance with quantities actually marketed for any given month, because the necessary data for this was missing. The Commission believes however that in so doing, it did not mani- festly exceed its discretion.

28. In this context, it is necessary to refer to a fundamental principle of the reference price system, namely the establishment (first) of a projected reference amount and (second) of a final reference amount. Under this system of fixing reference prices it is necessary to have regard to the compara- B — Assessment bility of these two amounts. It is therefore only proper that the Commission should apply the same criteria to both amounts.

30. In view of the freedom which the 33. The addition of freight charges was relevant regulation gives to the Commis- therefore necessary, since the Commission sion with regard to the method of calcu- also received information on wholesale lation, it would seem that the calculation prices from Member States. In order to method (and in particular the prices) adjust these prices to the Rotterdam world applied by the Commission in the above market reference prices, they had to be circumstances is 'prima facie a reasonable increased by transport and insurance costs solution', 9or in any case 'does not seem to to Rotterdam. be manifestly inappropriate' 1 0within the meaning of the case-law of the Court.

31. Furthermore, the applicants in the main VI — On the fourth and fifth questions proceedings have not shown that the other prices which could have been taken into consideration in the calculation (for example, wholesale prices, 'free at oil mill' or the 'CIF future terms') were more appropriate. Moreover, this is a question 34. The fourth and fifth questions are of complex facts, in the assessment of concerned with whether the Commission which, according to the case-law of the complied with its obligation under Court, 11 the Commission enjoys a wide Article 253 of the EC Treaty to provide a discretion. statement of reasons.

B — Assessment 39. In the present case the requirements prescribed by the case-law of the Court have been adhered to. The contested regu- lation serves to establish the amounts governed by the basic regulation and thus forms part of the framework of the legis- 36. In accordance with settled case-law of lation as a whole. In addition, Annex I to the Court, the duty to state reasons under the regulation at issue provides an expla- Article 253 of the EC Treaty requires that a nation of the calculation. legal measure (and therefore also the con- tested regulation) must clearly state the essential factual and legal considerations of the Community institution concerned, in order to allow the persons concerned to ascertain the reasons for the measure and to enable the Court to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction. 12 40. Moreover, the reference information necessary to understand the Commission's calculation was clearly available to the persons concerned. Since Article 3(6) of the basic regulation requires only a 'suc- cinct explanation', the Commission was entitled to restrict the information given to 37. According to this case-law there is specific details. however no requirement that the legal measure should go into every relevant point of fact and law. It is sufficient that the contested measure discloses the essential objective pursued by the Commission and the criteria for adopting the measure. This can also take place by a reference being 41. Having regard to the answer I propose made to the basic regulation. 13 to the Court, it is not necessary to consider any further the question of the invalidity, in whole or in part, of the regulation. 12 — Case C-122/94 Commission v Council [1996] ECR I-881, paragraph 29, and Case C-350/88 [1990] ECR I-395, paragraphs 15 and 16. 13 —Case 35/80 Denkavit Nederland [1981] I - 4 5 , 14 —Case 3/83 Abrias v Commission [1985] ECR 1995, paragraph 35. paragraph 30.