Dulciora SpA v Amministrazione delle finanze dello Stato (95/78)

B —Observations submitted by the Irish Government

The Irish Government refers to its observations in Case 151/77, cited above.It is not correct to say that prior to the adoption of Regulation No 800/77, there had been no disturbances (or threat thereof) on the market in the basic products.In accordance with the judgment in Case 29/77 Roquette [1977] ECR 1835 at p. 1843, separate assessments were made by the Commission for the basic products and the derived products.The expression ‘agricultural products’ in Article 1 (3) of Regulation No 974/71 should be interpreted in a wider sense than that in which it is employed in the Treaty.As to Question 3 (b), the validity of Regulation No 2657/77 cannot be challenged on the ground that the relevant Management Committees did not deliver opinions within the time-limits set by their respective chairmen. To construe the provisions governing the Management Committee procedure to the effect that, although the Commission would have been free to act even if the Committees had delivered opinions which were contrary to its proposals, it was powerless to act in the absence of such opinions within the stipulated time-limits, would not only render the time-limits, meaningless but would also tend to undermine the very purpose of the Management Committee procedure itself.As to the invalidity of Regulation No 2657/77, the allegation that it was drawn up with an inconsistent statement of reasons in infringement of Article 190 of the Treaty is not sustainable. In Case 5/67 Beus [1968] ECR 83 at p. 95, the Court has already held that the extent of the requirement to state the reasons on which measures are based depends on the nature of the measure in question. It cannot be considered that the Commission was inconsistent in its reasoning when in Regulation No 2657/77 it stated that the situation had not greatly changed since the entry into force of Regulation No 800/77.As to Question 4, it should be answered in the affirmative. The very existence of Regulation No 800/77, even in its original form with a terminal date of 31 December 1977, should, having regard to its declared purpose and content, have served in itself as a warning that it might be necessary to prolong its period of application after that date, especially as the preamble to the regulation expressly stated that the situation ‘should be reviewed by the end of the year in the light of the economic situation’ of the products in question. In its decisions in Joined Cases 95 to 98/74 and 100/75 Union Nationale des Coopératives Agricoles de Céréales [1975] ECR 1615, and Case 146/77 British Beef [1978] ECR 1347, the Court stated that the actual right to receive a monetary compensatory amount and the charge resulting from the levying of such an amount are only created by the performance of the import or export transaction as the case may be and only from the moment when that transaction takes place, and that in the absence of an express provision to the contrary (there being no such provision applicable to the present case) the amounts to be paid or levied are those fixed by the rules in force at the moment of the import or export whatever may be the date on which the contract relating to the transaction in question was concluded.