The Queen, on the application of British Sugar plc v Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce.

• Jurisdiction: European Union
• Court: Court of Justice (European Union)
• Writing for the Court: Colneric
• ECLI: ECLI:EU:C:2004:108
• Docket Number: C-329/01
• Date: 19 February 2004
• Procedure Type: Reference for a preliminary ruling

Case C-329/01


The Queen, on the application of British Sugar plc
v
Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce


(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court))

«(Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Sugar – Regulation (EEC) No 2670/81 – Proof of export – Regulation (EEC) No 3719/88 – Correction of an export licence – Obvious inaccuracy – Principle of proportionality)»

Opinion of Advocate General Stix-Hackl delivered on 10 September 2003

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 19 February 2004

Summary of the Judgment

1..

Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Sugar – Production in excess of the quota (C sugar) – Export licence stating a quantity of sugar lower than that actually exported or having expired – Proof of export – None – Licence extract endorsed by customs authorities – No effect

(Commission Regulation No 2670/81, Art. 2(2)(a))

2..

Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Import and export licences – Correction by the competent authorities of statement made in the licence or an extract therefrom – No inaccuracy in those documents – Not permissible

(Commission Regulation No 3719/88, Art. 24(2))

3. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Import and export licences – Correction by the competent authorities – Breach of the principle of proportionality – None – Interference with protected interests – None

(Commission Regulation No 3719/88, Art. 24(2))

4. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Sugar – Production in excess of the quota (C sugar) – Alteration of the charge to be paid – Discretion of the national court or the competent authorities – No evidence of wrongful conduct – None

(Commission Regulation No 2670/81, Art. 3)

5. Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Sugar – Production in excess of the quota (C sugar) – Export carried out after the expiry of the export licence – Obligation to pay the charge due in respect of sugar disposed of on the internal market

(Commission Regulation No 2670/81, Art. 3)

1.

The proof provided for in Article 2(2)(a) of Regulation No 2670/81 laying down detailed implementing rules in respect of sugar production in excess of the quota, as amended by Regulation No 158/96, has not been supplied in respect of a quantity of C sugar actually exported where that quantity exceeds the total quantity stated on the export licence or where the export takes place after the period of that licence's validity has expired. The fact that the C sugar concerned did actually leave the Community's customs territory is not conclusive in that respect. The same is true where the customs authorities have endorsed the licence extract for a quantity applied for, but which does not reflect the manufacturer's real intentions having regard to a customs declaration in a corrected form corresponding to the amount actually exported. see paras 49-50, 52, operative part 1

2.

On a proper construction of Article 24 of Regulation No 3719/88 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of import and export licences and advance-fixing certificates for agricultural products, as amended by Regulation No 1199/95, the competent authority is not permitted to carry out a correction of the tonnage stated on the export licence or extract therefrom where there is no inaccuracy in the entries made in those documents themselves. see para. 56, operative part 2

3.

Examination of Article 24 of Regulation No 3719/88, laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of import and export licences and advance fixing certificates for agricultural products, as amended by Regulation No 1199/95, has disclosed nothing which might affect its validity. In order to establish whether a provision of Community law complies with the principle of proportionality, it must be ascertained whether the means which it employs are suitable for the purpose of achieving the desired objective and whether they do not go beyond what is necessary to achieve it. It cannot be maintained that rules which do not themselves interfere with protected interests are capable of infringing the principle of proportionality. The sole purpose of Article 24(2), as is made clear by the 17th recital in the preamble to that regulation, is to allow errors attributable to the issuing agency or to obvious inaccuracies to be corrected. Such a provision does not give rise to any interference with the manufacturers' interests and it cannot, therefore, constitute a breach of the principle of proportionality. see paras 58-60, 63, operative part 3

4.

Where there is no evidence of wrongful conduct on the part of the national authorities, their refusal to correct licence extracts where there is no inaccuracy in the entries made in those documents cannot permit either the national court or the competent authority to enjoy any discretion to vary downwards the charge to be paid pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation No 2670/81 laying down detailed implementing rules in respect of sugar production in excess of the quota, as amended by Regulation No 158/96. see paras 66-67, operative part 4

5.

Article 3 of Regulation No 2670/81, laying down detailed implementing rules in respect of sugar production in excess of the quota, as amended by Regulation No 158/96, is to be interpreted as applying to an export of C sugar effected after the corresponding export licence has expired, if the export was made after the expiry of the corresponding export licence. see para. 73, operative part 5

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber)
19 February 2004 (1)

((Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Sugar – Regulation (EEC) No 2670/81 – Proof of export – Regulation (EEC) No 3719/88 – Correction of an export licence – Obvious inaccuracy – Principle of proportionality))

In Case C-329/01, REFERENCE to the Court under Article 234 EC by for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) between The Queen, on the application of British Sugar plc,

and

Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce, on the interpretation of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2670/81 of 14 September 1981 laying down detailed implementing rules in respect of sugar production in excess of the quota (OJ 1981 L 262, p. 14), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 158/96 of 30 January 1996 (OJ 1996 L 24, p. 3), and on the interpretation and validity of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3719/88 of 16 November 1988 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of import and export licences and advance-fixing certificates for agricultural products (OJ 1988 L 331, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1199/95 of 29 May 1995 (OJ 1995 L 119, p. 4),

THE COURT (Sixth Chamber),,

composed of: V. Skouris, acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, F. Macken and N. Colneric (Rapporteur), Judges, Advocate General: C. Stix-Hackl,
Registrar: R. Grass,

after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:

─

British Sugar plc, by T. Sharpe QC and D. Jowell, Barrister, instructed by A. Lidbetter and D. Green, Solicitors,

─

the United Kingdom Government, by J.E. Collins, acting as Agent, and K. Parker QC and R. Haynes, Barrister,

─

the Commission of the European Communities, by M. Condou-Durande and K. Fitch, acting as Agents,

having regard to the report of the Judge-Rapporteur,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 10 September 2003,

gives the following

Judgment

1

By order of 20 July 2001, received at the Court on 4 September 2001, the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court), referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC seven questions on the interpretation of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2670/81 of 14 September 1981 laying down detailed implementing rules in respect of sugar production in excess of the quota (OJ 1981 L 262, p. 14), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 158/96 of 30 January 1996 (OJ 1996 L 24, p. 3), and on the interpretation and validity of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3719/88 of 16 November 1988 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of import and export licences and advance-fixing certificates for agricultural products (OJ 1988 L 331, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1199/95 of 29 May 1995 (OJ 1995 L 119, p. 4, the contested regulation).

2

Those questions were raised in proceedings between British Sugar plc ( British Sugar) and the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce ( IBAP) concerning the latter's decision to demand payment from the former of a charge pursuant to Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2670/81 on the ground that British Sugar had failed to supply the requisite proof that certain quantities of sugar had been exported.

The relevant provisions

3

In connection with the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector, Council Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 of 30 June 1981 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (OJ 1981 L 177, p. 4), as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 3290/94 of 22 December 1994 (OJ 1994 L 349, p. 105, the basic regulation), seeks to maintain the necessary guarantees in respect of employment and standards of living for producers of basic products such as European Community sugar-beet producers and to ensure the continuous supply of sugar to...