La Compagnie d'approvisionnement, de transport et de crédit SA, v Commission of the European Communities (65/69)

I —Facts and procedure

The facts of the case and the procedure followed may be summarized as follows :After the devaluation of the French franc, the Council of the European Communities decided on 11 August 1969, first, not to change the value of the unit of account and, secondly, to issue a regulation containing measures designed to ensure that the adaptation to the situation thus created, which would affect the French prices of products subject to a common organization of the market, should not be too abrupt. To this end Regulation No 1586/69 of the Council (OJ L 202 1969 p. 1) provides in particular that, for a limited period, the intervention prices payable by the French authorities (in units of account) may be reduced by 11.11 % (Articles 1 and 2). So as to avoid trade difficulties which might result from this situation, Article 3 provides that France shall grant import subsidies and levy compensatory amounts on exports. However, Article 8 gives the Commission the powers necessary to lay down the methods of applying these provisions, methods which include ‘in particular the fixing of the amounts of the import subsidies and of the compensatory amounts charged for on exports.’The subject of the present dispute is Regulation No 1670/69 of 22 August 1969 (OJ L 214 p. 7), whereby the Commission laid down implementing measures with regard to the cereals and rice sectors, and in particular Article 2, which states: ‘The subsidies granted for imports and the compensatory amounts charged for exports by France shall be fixed in the annex hereto.’ The applicant has made an application directed against the fixing in the annex provided for in Article 2 of Regulation No 1670/69 of the subsidy on imports of common wheat and mesiin at 58.49 FF per metric ton. It states that in fixing this subsidy — the only matter at issue in the present proceedings — at 58.49 FF per metric ton, the Commission took into consideration the fact that wheat prices did not rise in France but failed to take into account the fact that at the same time the price CIF-Antwerp and the CIF-mill-Paris transport costs have increased in such a way as to make the rise in the cost of imported wheat greater than it would have been solely as a result of the devaluation of the French franc, that is to say, the price rose, not to 68.29 FF as the Commission had calculated, but to 70.22 FF per quintal. As a result the Commission infringed Regulations Nos 1586/69 of the Council and 1670/69 of the Commission as well as the principle that parties must be treated equally, which is enshrined in the Treaty.The application was lodged at the Court Registry on 22 October 1969.An interlocutory application was made to the Court by the defendant on 26 November 1969 raising an objection on the grounds of inadmissibility, based on the second paragraph of Article 173 of the EEC Treaty, with a request that Article 91 of the Rules of Procedure be applied.On 19 December 1969 the applicant presented its submissions on the objection.After hearing the report of the Judge-Rapporteur and the views of the Advocate-General the Court decided to open the oral procedure with regard to the objection of inadmissibility.The parties presented their oral arguments at the hearing on 17 February 1970.The Advocate-General delivered his opinion at the hearing on 11 March 1970.

II —Conclusions of the parties

The applicant claims that the Court should :— annul the contested decisions with all the consequences that that entails in law and as regards costs ;— order the Commission to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment to be delivered with the same consequences in law;— further, order all the necessary measures of inquiry for the purposes mentioned above.In its interlocutory application the defendant claims that the Court should :deciding in accordance with Article 91 of the Rules of Procedure on the inadmissibility of the original application, and without going into the substance of the case :— declare the original application inadmissible;— order the applicant to pay the costs of the proceedings.In its submissions in response to the interlocutory application the applicant contends that the Court should :— dismiss the objection raised in the interlocutory application and declare the original application admissible;— on that ground refer the case for final judgment in accordance with the provisions of Article 91 (4) of the Rules of Procedure;— order the Commission to pay the costs of the interlocutory application.

III —Submissions and arguments of the parties as to admissibility

The submissions and arguments of the parties as to the admissibility of the application may be summarized as follows. The defendant first alleges that, taken as a whole, Regulation No 1670/69 has general application in that it determines, for products subject to a common organization of the market in the rice and cereals sectors, the provisions for giving effect to the rules introduced by Regulation No 1586/69 of the Council. Consequently the question raised by the present application is whether the contested provision constitutes an exception in this respect, in that its nature is not primarily legislative, so that it may be regarded as a decision of direct and individual concern to the applicant. It is from this viewpoint that the defendant develops its arguments.After describing the situation which resulted from, on the one hand, the devaluation of the French franc and on the other hand from the adoption by the Council of Regulation No 1568/69, the defendant concludes that the fixing of the amounts of the subsidies for imports and of the compensatory amounts charged for on exports in respect of common wheat and mesiin is an integral part of the mechanism established by Regulation No 1586/69 of the Council and put into effect by Regulation No 1670/69 of the Commission. Moreover, according to the defendant, that the provision fixing the amount of the subsidy on imports has general application in view of the following considerations :— the provision in question applies to objectively determined situations ;— it has legal consequences for categories of persons (and of transactions) which are viewed in a general and abstract manner with reference to their share in the market for the product in question.It also follows from the last consideration that the applicant has no grounds for claiming that the fixing of the amount of the import subsidies is of individual concern to it, since there is nothing to distinguish it in this respect from the other participants in the market in question.Considering it unnecessary to establish whether the contested provision is of direct concern to the applicant, the defendant thereby concludes that the application is inadmissible.The applicant alleges, first, that the contested provision should be examined to see whether it is of direct and individual concern to it without first stopping to conduct an examination of the nature of the provision in abstracto. In this respect it refers to the judgment of the Court in Case 40/64 (Sgarlata and Others v Commission of the EEC, [1965] E.C.R. 215 et seq.)It is next pointed out by the applicant that it has no objection whatsoever to the principle of fixing the amount of the subsidies for imports of common wheat and mesiin, but solely to the fixing of that subsidy at 58.29 FF per metric ton. According to the applicant there can be no doubt that this provision is of direct and individual concern to it because the consequence of setting the sum at this figure has been a loss for it of 19.30 FF per metric ton imported, or 1.93 FF per quintal. It is obvious that the rise in the CIF-mill prices is not the same for all the various undertakings importing wheat and that costs must necessarily vary according to the geographical location of the factory. Thus, even though the amount has to be fixed at a flat rate, it must take into account that increase in the cost price. In any event it cannot be considered as affecting all the undertakings concerned in a similar fashion and this alone, according to the applicant, is sufficient to destroy the argument on the point set out in the interlocutory application. Next the applicant claims that the case-law of the Court reveals that the concept of individuality does not imply that only one natural or legal person may be concerned by the measure in question; it can equally well support the proposition that more than one person can be affected, provided that such persons are clearly identifiable and that their activities are carried out in the same marketing centre. That is precisely the case here, the undertakings affected having been recognized as such by the Commission on the date of the contested measure, the only date relevant in the present instance. On the other hand the contested provision also concerns the applicant directly by virtue of the losses it has suffered consequent upon the fixing of the subsidy at 58.49 FF per metric ton.

Costs