2.As to the infringement of the common system of prices Denkavit refers to the case-law of the Coun from which it is clear that Member States may no longer, by means of unilateral provisions, intervene in the machinery of price formation as it exists following the common organization of markets (see judgment of the Coun of 18 October 1979 in Case 5/79 Procureur General v Buys and Others [1979] ECR 3203). The amount of the aid in question may not be influenced either directly or indirectly by measures adopted unilaterally by a Member Sute.Denkavit maintains that the charging of fees for the costs of inspection in fact reduces the amount of the aid granted, thus threatening the objective of the Community which is to fix the aid according to economic criteria laid down by Article 2a of Regulation No 986/68 as inserted bv Regulation No 666/74 (Official Journal 1974, L 85, p. 58). As a result the net price of skimmed-milk powder intended for feed for animals is higher in the Federal Republic of Germany than in the other Member Sutes where no such system exists.The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany considers that the present case does not involve a direct challenge to the system of prices. Therefore the judgment of the Court of 23 January 1975 in Case 31/74 (Galli [1975] ECR 47 at paragraph 15) is not relevant to the case. At the most there is no more than an indirect impediment which can hardly be said to have even nominal importance. In point of fact the fees relating to inspection costs amount to 0.03% of the total of the aid in question.Nor was there a breach of the principle of equality laid down by Article 40 (3) of the EEC Treaty since the fees in question were charged according to uniform criteria. The fact that other Member States charge no like fee or no fee at all does not amount to any kind of a breach of the principle of equality but merely demonstrates that the Member States have power to provide national rules relating to the cost of inspections until harmonization has been achieved in that field.The Commission recalls the judgment given in Case 31/78 Bussone, mentioned above, according to which the discretion conceded to Member States as regards the means of regulating administrative costs may not be exercised in such a way as to put at risk the objectives of the rules conferring such discretion. The amount of the inspection charges in this case is not such as to put at risk the objective of the aid, namely the maintenance of the target price. Given the relation between the amount of the inspection charges (DM 329.90) and the amount of the aid (DM 1.7 million) it cannot be claimed that the imposition of charges might hamper the achievement of the objectives of the aid. The relationship in this case between those two amounts may moreover be considered to be representative.
Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.