Karl Spagl v Hauptzollamt Rosenheim.

• Jurisdiction: European Union
• Celex Number: 61989CJ0189
• ECLI: ECLI:EU:C:1990:450
• Date: 11 December 1990
• Docket Number: C-189/89
• Court: Court of Justice (European Union)
• Procedure Type: Reference for a preliminary ruling

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 December 1990. - Karl Spagl v Hauptzollamt Rosenheim. - Reference for a preliminary ruling: Finanzgericht München - Germany. - Additional levy on milk. - Case C-189/89.

European Court reports 1990 Page I-04539

Summary Parties Grounds Decision on costs Operative part

Keywords

++++

1 . Agriculture - Common organization of the markets - Milk and milk products - Additional levy on milk - Allocation of reference quantities exempt from the levy - Producers who have suspended deliveries under the system of non-marketing or conversion premiums - Grant of a special reference quantity - Limitation of those qualifying to receive it by the subsequent fixing of a cut-off date for the expiry of the non-marketing or conversion period - Whether permissible - Choice of a date which excludes producers whose undertaking expired during the reference year but before the cut-off date - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations - Infringement

( Council Regulations Nos 1078/77 and 857/84, Arts 2 and 3a(1 ) )

2 . Agriculture - Common organization of the markets - Milk and milk products - Additional levy on milk - Allocation of reference quantities exempt from the levy - Producers who have suspended deliveries under the system of non-marketing or conversion premiums - Grant of a special reference quantity - Calculated according to the volume of deliveries in the year preceding that in which the application was made for the non-marketing or conversion premium - Rate of reduction to be applied - Choice of a rate which penalizes the producers concerned - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations - Infringement

( Council Regulations Nos 1078/77 and 857/84, Arts 2 and 3a(2 ) )

Summary

1 . The first indent of Article 3a(1 ) of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984, as amended by Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 764/89 of 20 March 1989, is invalid in so far as it excludes from the grant of a special reference quantity under that provision producers whose period of non-marketing or conversion, pursuant to the undertaking given under Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1078/77, expired before 31 December 1983 or, in some cases, 30 September 1983 .

Although the Community legislature was able validly to set a cut-off date by reference to the expiry of the period of non-marketing or conversion of the persons concerned, with a view to excluding from the benefit of Article 3a those producers who had not delivered milk during the whole or part of the reference year for reasons unconnected with the undertaking as to non-marketing or conversion, the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations required that the cut-off date should not be set in such a way that it had the effect of also excluding from the benefit of Article 3a producers whose failure to deliver milk for the whole or part of the reference year derived from the fulfilment of an undertaking given under Regulation No 1078/77 .

2 . Article 3a(2 ) of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984, as amended by Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 764/89 of 20 March 1989, is invalid in so far as it restricts the special reference quantity provided for in that provision for milk producers who were unable to deliver milk in the reference year pursuant to an undertaking given under Regulation No 1078/77 to 60% of the quantity of milk delivered or the quantity of milk equivalent sold by the producer during the 12 calendar months preceding the month in which the application for the non-marketing or conversion premium was made .

Although the Community legislature could validly apply to the quantity of those deliveries, a rate of reduction designed to ensure that the producers bound by such an undertaking were not accorded an undue advantage by comparison with those, covered by Article 2 of Regulation No 857/84 who continued to deliver milk during the reference year, the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations precluded the rate of reduction from being fixed at such a high level, by comparison with those applicable to the latter producers, that its application amounted to a restriction which specifically affected the producers concerned by very reason of the undertaking given by them under Regulation No 1078/77 . A rate of reduction of 40%, being more than double the highest total of the rates applicable to the producers covered by Article 2 of Regulation No 857/84, was unacceptable from that point of view .

Parties

In Case C-189/89,

REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Finanzgericht Muenchen ( Finance Court, Munich ), Federal Republic of Germany, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between

Karl Spagl

and

Hauptzollamt ( Principal Customs Office ) Rosenheim,

on the validity of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for the application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation ( EEC ) No 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector ( Official Journal 1984 L 90, p . 13 ), as amended by Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 764/89 of 20 March 1989 ( Official Journal 1989 L 84, p . 2 ),

THE COURT ( Fifth Chamber ),

composed of : J . C . Moitinho de Almeida, President of Chamber, G . C . Rodríguez Iglesias, Sir Gordon Slynn, F . Grévisse, M . Zuleeg, Judges,

Advocate General : F . G . Jacobs

Registrar : J . A . Pompe, Deputy Registrar,

after considering the observations submitted on behalf of

Mr Spagl, the plaintiff in the main proceedings, represented by U . Numberger, a Rechtsanwalt in Munich,

the Irish Government, represented by L . J . Dockery, Chief State Solicitor, acting as Agent,

the Council of the European Communities, represented by A . Brautigam, Principal Administrator in the Council' s Legal Department, acting as Agent,

the Commission of the European Communities, represented by D . Booss, and by K.-D . Borchardt, members of its Legal Department, acting as Agents,

having regard to the Report for the Hearing

after hearing oral argument presented by the plaintiff in the main proceedings, represented by E . H . Pijnacker Hordijk, the Irish Government, represented by H . Whelehan, SC, and E . Honohan, barrister, the Council and the Commission, at the sitting on 26 June 1990,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General delivered at the...