Oberhausener Kraftfutterwerk Wilhelm Hopermann GmbH v Bundesanstalt für landwirtschaftliche Marktordnung (C-358/88)

Contents

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber)2 May 1990^noteIn Case C-358/88REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Verwaltungsgericht (Administrative Court) Frankfurt am Main for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court betweenOberhausener Kraftfutterwerk Wilhelm Hopermann GmbH, Oberhausen,andBundesanstalt für landwirtschaftliche Marktordnung, Frankfurt am Main,THE COURT (Third Chamber)composed of: M. Zuleeg, President of Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida and F. Grévisse, Judges,Advocate General: G. TesauroRegistrar: H. A. Rühl, Principal Administratorafter considering the observations submitted on behalf of— the applicant in the main proceedings, by Jürgen Gündisch, of the Hamburg Bar,— the Commission of the European Communities, by Jürgen Grunwald, a member of its Legal Department, acting as Agent,having regard to the Repon for the Hearing,after hearing the oral observations made by the applicant in the main proceedings and by the Commission, represented by Jürgen Grunwald, acting as Agent, at the hearing on 23 November 1989,after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General delivered at the sitting on 23 January 1990,gives the following

Judgment

1By an order of 10 November 1988, which was received at the Court on 12 December 1988, the Verwaltungsgericht (Administrative Court) Frankfurt am Main referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty a question on the interpretation of Article 22(1) of Commission Regulation No 2192/82 of 6 August 1982 laying down detailed rules for the application of the special measures for peas and field beans (Official Journal 1982, L 233, p. 5), as amended by Commission Regulation No 3322/82 of 10 December 1982 (Official Journal 1982, L 351, p. 27).

2That question arose during litigation concerning the refusal by the Bundesanstalt für landwirtschaftliche Marktordnung (hereinafter referred to as the ‘the Bundesanstalt’) to grant to Oberhausener Kraftfutterwerk Wilhelm Hopermann GmbH (hereinafter referred to as ‘Hopermann’), in respect of certain quantities of peas, the aid provided for in Article 3 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1431/82 of 18 May 1982 laying down special measures for peas and field beans (Official Journal 1982, L 162, p. 28).

3The Bundesanstalt based its refusal on the failure by Hopermann to observe the obligation, laid down in Article 22(1) of Regulation No 2192/82 as amended by Regulation No 3322/82, to lodge the application for aid not later than one working day after the application for placing under supervision is lodged, whereas in the case before the national court the application for aid was not lodged until several months later.

4Hopermann appealed against that decision to the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main, which decided to stay the proceedings until the Court had given a preliminary ruling on the following question :‘Is the period for making application for aid under Article 22(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2192/82 of 6 August 1982 (Official Journal 1982, L 233, p. 5) or Article 22 as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3322/82 (Official Journal 1982, L 351, p. 27) of 10 December 1982 a preclusive time-limit?’

5Reference is made to the Report for the Hearing for a fuller account of the facts of the case, the course of the procedure and the written observations submitted to the Court, which are mentioned or discussed hereinafter only in so far as is necessary for the reasoning of the Court.

6By the preliminary question the national court is seeking to ascertain whether the grant of the aid provided for in Article 3 of Council Regulation No 1431/82 is subject to observance of the period set by Article 22(1) of Commission Regulation No 2192/82, as amended by Regulation No 3322/82.

7Hopermann argues in the first place that Council Regulation (EEC) No 2036/82 of 19 July 1982 adopting general rules concerning special measures for peas and field beans (Official Journal 1982, L 219, p. 1), and in particular Article 5 thereof, does not make the grant of the aid in question subject to compliance with the obligation to lodge the application for aid at the latest one working day after the application for placing under supervision is lodged. Nor is that obligation provided for in Commission Regulation No 2192/82, Article 29(2) of which contains an exhaustive list of the conditions governing the grant of aid. Consequently, the belated submission of the application for aid should only result in the later payment of the aid.

8According to the Court's case-law, the Commission is authorized, in the exercise of the powers conferred on it by the Council with a view to implementing a common organization of the markets in the agricultural sector, to adopt all the detailed rules of application necessary for the proper functioning of the system of aid provided for, so long as they are not contrary to the basic regulation or the implementing rules of the Council (see, most recently, the judgment of 18 January 1990 in Case C-345/88 Butterabsatz [1990] ECR I-159). The duty of management and supervision with which the Commission is thus entrusted entails the power to fix periods and to provide for appropriate penalties for their non-observance which may go as far as the total loss of the right to aid if observance of those periods is necessary for the proper functioning of the scheme in question.

9In that connection, it should be pointed out that compliance with the obligation at issue, namely to lodge the application for aid at the latest on the first working day following the application for placing under supervision, provided for in Article 22(1) of Regulation No 2192/82 as amended by Regulation No 3322/82, is essential in order to ensure the proper functioning of the scheme of aid in question.

10Since, by virtue of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 2036/82, the amount of aid to be granted is that in force on the date on which the application for aid is lodged, certain operators could be reminded — if the period laid down for the submission of the applications were not mandatory in nature — to wait for a more favourable moment for doing so, thereby obtaining an unjustified advantage.

11Even if Article 22(1) of Regulation No 2192/82, as amended by Regulation No 3322/82, does not mention the possibility of a penalty or the kind of penalty which might be imposed for failure to observe the period thus laid down, it is nevertheless clear from the objective pursued by that obligation that the consequence of a failure to observe the abovementioned period can only be loss of entitlement to the aid.

12Hopermann argues, secondly, that non-compliance with the obligation in question is not of such a nature as to jeopardize the objective of the aid, namely to guarantee adequate price levels to producers and to dispose of expensive vegetable products on the national market. Thus, it is a secondary obligation whose non-observance does not automatically entail loss of entitlement to the aid, otherwise there would be a risk of infringing the principle of proportionality.

13On that point, the Court has consistently held that, in order to determine whether a provision of Community law is consonant with the principle of proportionality, it is necessary to establish, in the first place, whether the means it employs to achieve its aim correspond to the importance of the aim and, in the second place, whether they are necessary for its achievement (see, in particular, the judgment of 22 January 1986 in Case 266/84 Denkavit France v FORMA [1986] ECR 149, paragraph 17).

14As has been stated above, the obligation to lodge the application for aid not later than one working day after the application for placing under supervision is lodged, which is imposed by Article 22(1) of Regulation No 2192/82 as amended by Regulation No 3322/82, is essential for the proper functioning of the scheme of aids established.

15In those circumstances, loss of entitlement to the aid, which flows from non-compliance with that obligation, is not disproportionate in relation to the objective which the Community legislature has sought to attain.

16The reply to be given to the question raised should therefore be that the grant of the aid provided for in Article 3 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1431/82 of 18 May 1982 laying down special measures for peas and field beans is dependent upon observance of the period set by Article 22(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2192/82 laying down detailed rules for the application of the special measures for peas and field beans, as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3322/82.

Costs

17The costs incurred by the Commission of the European Communities, which submitted observations to the Court, are not recoverable. Since these proceedings are, in so far as the parties to the main action are concerned, in the nature of a step in the proceedings pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court.

Operative part

On those grounds,THE COURT (Third Chamber),in answer to the question referred to it by the Verwaltungsgericht, Frankfurt am Main, by order of 10 November 1988, hereby rules: The grant of the aid provided for in Article 3 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1431/82 of 18 May 1982 laying down special measures for peas and field beans is dependent upon observance of the period set by Article 22(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2192/82 laying down detailed rules for the application of the special measures for peas and field beans, as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3322/82.

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 2 May 1990.