J. Slob v Productschap Zuivel (C-236/02)

Contents

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber)12 February 2004^noteIn Case C-236/02,REFERENCE to the Court under Article 234 EC by the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court betweenJ. SlobandProductschap Zuivel,THE COURT (Sixth Chamber),composed of: C. Gulmann, acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, J.-P. Puissochet, F. Macken and N. Colneric (Rapporteur), Judges,Advocate General: F.G. Jacobs,Registrar: M.-F. Contet, Principal Administratorafter considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:— the Netherlands Government, by H.G. Se venster, acting as Agent,— the Commission of the European Communities, by T. van Rijn, acting as Agent,having regard to the Report for the Hearing,after hearing the oral observations of J. Slob, represented by G. van der Wal, advocaat, of the Netherlands Government, represented by N.A.J. Bel, acting as Agent, and of the Commission of the European Communities, represented by T. van Rijn, at the hearing on 26 June 2003,after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 18 September 2003,gives the following

Judgment

1By decision of 12 June 2002, received at the Court on 27 June 2002, the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Administrative court for trade and industry) referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC a question on the interpretation of Article 7(1)(f) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 536/93 of 9 March 1993 laying down detailed rules on the application of the additional levy on milk and milk products (OJ 1993 L 57, p. 12).

2That question was raised in the course of proceedings between Mr Slob, a milk producer, and the Productschap Zuivel (‘Productschap’) concerning the stock accounts which milk producers in possession of an individual reference quantity for the direct sale of milk had to keep in the 1996/97 levy period.

Relevant provisions

Community legislation

3Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December 1992 establishing an additional levy in the milk and milk products sector (OJ 1992 L 405, p. 1) extended by seven new consecutive periods of twelve months commencing on 1 April 1993 the additional levy scheme for milk introduced by Council Regulation (EEC) No 856/84 of 31 March 1984 amending Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products (OJ 1984 L 90, p. 10).

4According to the sixth recital in the preamble to Regulation No 3950/92, if the total guaranteed quantities are overrun, the consequence for the Member State is that ‘the producers who contributed to the overrun must pay the levy’.

5Article 2(1) of Regulation No 3950/92 provides:‘The levy shall be payable on all quantities of milk or milk equivalent marketed during the 12-month period in question in excess of the relevant quantity referred to in Article 3. It shall be shared between the producers who contributed to the overrun....’

6Under Article 9(c) and (h) of Regulation No 3950/92:(c) “producer” means a natural or legal person or a group of natural or legal persons farming a holding within the geographical territory of the Community:— selling milk or other milk products directly to the consumer,and/or— supplying the purchaser;...(h) “milk or milk equivalent sold directly for consumption” means milk or milk products converted into milk equivalent, sold or transferred free without going through an undertaking treating or processing milk or other milk products.’

7According to the second recital in the preamble to Regulation No 536/93, the provisions of the regulation concern, among other things, ‘the rules on checks permitting verification of proper collection of the levy’.

8Article 1 of Regulation No 536/93 is worded as follows:‘For the purposes of calculating the additional levy introduced by Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92:1. within the meaning of Article 2(1) of that Regulation “quantities of milk or milk equivalent marketed” in a Member State means all quantities of milk or milk equivalent which leave any holding in the territory of that Member State....2. the equivalence formulae to be used shall be:...— 1 kg butter = 22,5 kg milk....’

9Article 4(1) of Regulation No 536/93 provides:‘In the case of direct sales, at the end of each of the periods referred to in Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92, the producer shall make a declaration summarising by product the quantities of milk and/or other milk products sold directly for consumption and/or to wholesalers, cheese maturers and the retail trade....’

10Article 7(1) and (3) of Regulation No 536/93 state:1. Member States shall take all the verification measures necessary to ensure payment of the levy on quantities of milk and milk equivalent marketed in excess of any of the quantities referred to in Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92. To that end:...(f) producers with reference quantities for direct sales shall keep available to the competent authority of the Member State for at least three years stock accounts by 12-month period with details of the quantities, per month and per product, of milk and/or milk products sold directly for consumption and/or to wholesalers, cheese maturers and the retail trade, together with registers of livestock held on holdings and used for milk production, in accordance with Article 4(1) of Council Directive 92/102/EEC..., and supporting documents enabling such stock accounts to be verified.3. Member States shall physically verify the accuracy of the accounting with regard to the quantities of milk and milk equivalent marketed and, to that end, shall check milk transport during collection at farms and shall, in particular, check:...(b) at the premises of the producers with a reference quantity for direct sales, the credibility of the declaration referred to in Article 4(1) and the stock accounts referred to in paragraph 1(f)....’

11Commission Regulation (EC) No 1392/2001 of 9 July 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 establishing an additional levy on milk and milk products (OJ 2001 L 187, p. 19) has repealed Regulation No 536/93 with effect from 31 March 2002. The first paragraph of Article 6(1) is identical to the first paragraph of Article 4(1) of Regulation 536/93.

12The second subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation No 1392/2001 provides:‘The Member State may require producers with reference quantities for direct sales to declare that they have not sold any milk during the period concerned, where such is the case.’

13Article 4(1)(a) of Council Directive 92/102/EEC of 27 November 1992 on the identification and registration of animals (OJ 1992 L 335, p. 32) is worded as follows:1. Member States shall ensure that:(a) any keeper of bovine or porcine animals listed in Directive 64/432/EEC and contained in the list provided for in Article 3(1)(a) keeps a register stating the number of animals present on the holding.This register shall include an up-to-date record of all births, deaths and movements (numbers of animals concerned by each entering and leaving operation) at least on the basis of aggregate movements, stating as appropriate their origin or destination, and the date of such movements.The identification mark applied in conformity with Articles 5 and 8 shall be stated in all cases....’

National legislation

14Articles 4, 26, 29 and 31 of the Regeling superheffing 1993 (Dutch order of 1993 on additional levies, Nederlandse Staatscourant 1993 No 60, p. 18; ‘the Regeling superheffing’), which introduced in the Netherlands the additional levy scheme for milk, provides:‘Article 41. With regard to the direct sale for consumption of a quantity of milk or milk equivalent that exceeds his reference quantity the producer shall be liable to pay a levy.2. The provisions of Article 2(2) shall apply mutatis mutandis.Article 26The Productschap shall be responsible for the setting, imposition and collection of the levies referred to in Articles 2... and 4.Article 291. The producer referred to in Article 4 shall provide particulars to the Productschap, in accordance with the provisions of Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 536/93 and in accordance with the rules adopted by the Productschap in this regard, of the quantity of milk or other milk products that he has delivered directly to the consumer... in the previous levy period, specified per product....Article 311. The... producer who either is or may be liable to pay a levy pursuant to Articles... 4, shall be obliged to keep records in accordance with the provisions of Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 536/93 and in accordance with the rules adopted by the Productschap.2. The productschap may, acting on its own initiative, determine the quantity delivered if the obligations laid down in the first paragraph and in Article 27(2) and Article 29(1) are either not or, in the opinion of the Productschap, incompletely performed.’

15With effect from 31 March 2002, the Kingdom of the Netherlands exercised its right, referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 6(2) and in conjunction with Article 29(7) of the Regeling superheffing, to require producers with reference quantities for direct sales to declare that they have not sold any milk during the period under consideration, where such is the case.

16Article 11(1) of the Zuivelverordening 1994, Uitvoering regeling superheffing (Order of 1994 implementing in the Netherlands the regulation on additional levies, PBO-blad 1994, p. 26; hereinafter ‘the Zuivelverordening’) reads as follows:‘The producer shall be obliged to keep records of everything regarding his business or holding in such a manner as to enable the production, stock and the quantities received or delivered of processed or manufactured milk, together with the financial data relating thereto, to be ascertained at all times, and to keep such records and data for a period of at least three years.’

The main proceedings

17Mr Slob is a milk producer in possession of an individual reference quantity of 647910 kilograms for the direct sale of milk in the 1996/97 levy period.

18At the time of an inspection of his holding in December 1997, the Algemene Inspectiedienst (General Inspection Service; ‘the AID’) of the Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij (Netherlands Ministry of agriculture, nature management and fisheries) determined among other things that there was a difference of approximately 250000 kilograms of milk between production capacity, calculated on the basis of the size of the dairy herd kept by Mr Slob on his holding in the 1996/97 levy period on the one hand, and sales, as shown on the declaration made to the Productschap by Mr Slob, on the other.

19Mr Slob acknowledged that difference and explained that he had processed the 250000 kilograms of milk in question into butter in order to obtain buttermilk which he used to manufacture cheese. He claimed to have destroyed the butter produced in this way, 10000 kilograms, immediately after production, by throwing it in a manure pit. He did not keep any stock accounts in relation to that production and destruction since such accounts were required only in relation to the cheese obtained at the end of the process.

20By decision of 1 October 1999, the Productschap, acting on its own initiative pursuant to Article 31(2) of the Regeling superheffing, determined the quantities of milk and other milk products which Mr Slob delivered for consumption during the 1996/97 levy period and informed the latter that he was liable for a sum of NLG 180976.77 of additional levy in accordance with Article 4(2) of Regulation No 536/93.

21Following an objection by Mr Slob, by decision of 4 April 2000 the Productschap reduced the amount of the additional levy. However, it stated that the objections of Mr Slob were unfounded in so far as the abovementioned difference was concerned. In that decision it determined that no accounts had been kept for approximately 250000 kilograms of milk. It concluded that Mr Slob had not kept a correct and complete record for the 1996/97 levy period of the production, stock and delivery of milk and milk products, as prescribed by Article 7 of Regulation No 536/93, in conjunction with Article 31(1) of the Regeling superheffing and Article 11 of the Zuivelverordening 1994.

22Mr Slob lodged an appeal against the decision of 4 April before the referring court. The parties are divided over the question of what happened to the 10000 kilograms of butter in question. To Mr Slob's mind, the Productschap is wrong to submit that, in the absence of records relating to the destruction of the butter, that quantity has also been sold.

23Mr Slob takes the view that, in the light of the applicable Community legislation, he was not required to keep records in relation to the products which had not been sold and had been destroyed. He claims that the quantity of butter in question remained on his holding and that, for that reason, the obligation to keep records did not apply to that butter and that therefore an additional levy was wrongly imposed.

24The Productschap contends that Mr Slob was required to keep records regarding the milk in question.

The question referred

25The national court points out that the producer's obligation under Article 4(1) and (2) of Regulation No 536/93 relates exclusively, in view of its wording, to the quantities of milk and/or milk products sold during the period concerned and does not appear to relate to non-delivered quantities. However it is uncertain whether the producer's obligations referred to in Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation No 536/93 also relate to unsold quantities of milk products and, more specifically, whether the passage ‘details of the quantities, per month and per product, of milk and/or milk products sold directly for consumption...’ must be regarded as regulating exhaustively what the stock accounts must include, or whether that passage is meant to indicate that stock accounts must also mention the data in question here.

26According to the national court, it is conceivable that the obligation to maintain a stock account must be understood in the sense that the producer is required to record every operation relating to his production so that any difference between the actual production and the recorded deliveries is made transparent for the national inspection and implementing authorities. The fact that the checks for which the Member States are responsible under Article 7(3)(b) of Regulation No 536/93 are simplified would militate in favour of that interpretation.

27On the other hand, from the viewpoint of legal certainty, there could be objections to the acceptance of an obligation on the producer which is not stated in so many words in the applicable legislation, particularly since the Productschap, on the basis of Article 31(2) of the Regeling superheffing, attaches serious financial consequences to non-fulfilment of that obligation.

28In those circumstances, the national court has decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court for a preliminary ruling:‘Can it be inferred from Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation (EEC) No 536/93 that the producer is obliged to maintain accounts recording, among other things, the availability, production, storage, use, processing and destruction of milk and/or milk products on his holding, such “stock accounts” also being required to contain declarations of the quantity per month and per product of the milk and/or milk products sold, or does that provision only lay down an obligation to record those data as to sales?’

The question referred

29It should be stated at the outset that it is for the national court alone to determine the subject-matter of the questions which it wishes to refer to the Court. The Court cannot, at the request of one party to the main proceedings, examine questions which have not been submitted to it by the national court. If, in view of developments in the proceedings, the national court were to consider it necessary to obtain further interpretations of Community law, it would be for that court to make a fresh reference to the Court (see in particular Case 311/84 CBEM [1985] ECR 3261, paragraph 10, and Case C-189/95 Franzén [1997] ECR I-5909, paragraph 79).

30The issue of whether the Member States are competent to enact legislation imposing reporting obligations on milk producers within their territory that go beyond those in the provision to be interpreted, which was examined at the hearing, is not the subject-matter of the question referred.

31Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation No 536/93 provides that producers with reference quantities for direct sales are to keep both stock accounts and registers of livestock held, in accordance with Article 4(1) of Directive 92/102.

32The wording of Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation No 536/93 states that the stock accounts are to cover the quantities, per month and per product, of milk and/or milk products sold directly. It does not refer to that data by way of example.

33The second paragraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation No 1392/2001 also suggests an interpretation which excludes from stock accounts data on such other matters as the availability, production, storage, use, processing and destruction of those products, in so far as that provision expressly authorises the Member States, from 31 March 2002, to require producers with reference quantities for direct sales to declare that they have not sold any milk during the period concerned, where such is the case.

34It is true that, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, a Member State may have difficulty in adequately and efficiently accomplishing its task of verification under the first sentence of Article 7(1) of Regulation No 536/93.

35However, the scheme of Article 7(1) and (3) is coupled with rules enabling checks to be carried out. Thus, Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation No 536/93 makes it possible, by comparing the register of livestock with the stock accounts, to carry out a first check on the quantities of milk and/or milk products sold directly. Likewise, Article 7(3) provides for on-the-spot checks of the credibility of the stock accounts.

36Moreover, any inadequacies in that verification process, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, cannot be remedied by imposing on producers, by means of a wide interpretation of Community law, with retroactive effect and serious financial consequences, an obligation in the matter of stock accounts which they did not expect.

37Such an interpretation would run counter to the principle of legal certainty. That principle, which is a fundamental principle of Community law, requires in particular that a rule such as the one before the Court, which may lead to the imposition of charges on the economic operators concerned, must be clear and precise, so that they know unequivocally what their rights and obligations are and can take steps accordingly (see, to that effect, Case C-143/93 Van Es Douane Agenten [1996] ECR I-431, paragraph 27, and Case C-354/95 National Farmers' Union and Others [1997] ECR I-4559, paragraph 57).

38It follows from the foregoing considerations that the answer to the question referred must be that the first sentence of Article 7(1) and Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation No 536/93 should be interpreted as meaning that the stock accounts which producers are required to keep need state only the quantities, per month and per product, of milk and/or milk products sold.

Costs

39The costs incurred by the Netherlands Government and by the Commission, which have submitted observations to the Court, are not recoverable. Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court.

Operative part

On those grounds,THE COURT (Sixth Chamber),in answer to the question referred to it by the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven by decision of 12 June 2002, hereby rules: The first sentence of Article 7(1) and Article 7(1)(f) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 536/93 of 9 March 1993 laying down detailed rules on the application of the additional levy on milk and milk products should be interpreted as meaning that the stock accounts which producers are required to keep need state only the quantities, per month and per product, of milk and/or milk products sold.

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 12 February 2004.