Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung v Deutsches Milch-Kontor GmbH.

• Jurisdiction: European Union
• Court: Court of Justice (European Union)
• Writing for the Court: Murray
• ECLI: ECLI:EU:C:1997:6
• Date: 09 January 1997
• Docket Number: C-272/95
• Procedure Type: Reference for a preliminary ruling

Important legal notice

|

61995C0272

Opinion of Mr Advocate General Léger delivered on 9 January 1997. - Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung v Deutsches Milch-Kontor GmbH. - Reference for a preliminary ruling: Bundesverwaltungsgericht - Germany. - Aid for skimmed-milk powder - Systematic inspections - Costs of inspections. - Case C-272/95.

European Court reports 1997 Page I-01905

Opinion of the Advocate-General

1 The Bundesverwaltungsgericht has referred to the Court the same questions in every respect, arising out of the same dispute, as those which gave rise to the Court's judgment of 22 June 1994 in Deutsches Milch-Kontor (1) (hereinafter `the judgment' or `the judgment of 22 June 1994').

Those questions are concerned with the interpretation of various Community regulations governing the conditions for granting Community aid for skimmed-milk powder produced in a Member State and intended for processing in another Member State.

2 The national court considers that the answers given in the judgment of 22 June 1994 relate to a factual situation different from that set out in its request and that therefore they are not such as to dissipate the doubts which it entertains regarding the interpretation of Community law which it sought.

3 Without repeating in detail the context of the case - I would refer, so far as may be necessary, to the judgment of 22 June 1994 and to the Opinion of Advocate General Darmon in the case -, I would merely remind the Court that the case raises essentially two problems. The questions put to the Court concern, on the one hand, the frequency and type of inspections which may be carried out under the relevant Community rules and, on the other hand, on the compatibility with Community law of charging to traders the costs of the analyses carried out on the occasion of systematic inspections of milk intended to be exported for the purposes of processing.

4 By way of reminder, I would mention that the applicable Community legislation was introduced in order to support the disposal on the market of the products falling within its scope, through their use in animal feed. Under the system established the aid is in principle to be granted in the Member State in which the processing took place. (2) However, it is also open to the Member States to derogate from that system by authorizing payment of the aid by the State in which the product is manufactured and not by the State in which it is processed. The Member States have had recourse to this option only as regards the export of skimmed-milk powder to Italy. As regards products intended for that country, it therefore falls to the exporting Member State to pay the aid for skimmed-milk powder produced in its territory but intended for denaturing or processing in Italy. (3) The payment of the aid is made subject to certain conditions. (4)

5 Deutsches Milch-Kontor (hereinafter `DMK') exports skimmed-milk powder from Germany to Italy, where it is intended for processing into compound feedingstuffs for animals. Transport is effected in lorries, each one conveying a batch of around 25 tonnes.

6 In order to determine whether the milk could qualify for aid, the Bundesamt für Ernährung und Forstwirtschaft (Federal Office for Food and Forestry) (hereinafter `the BEF') arranged for inspections to be carried out by the competent customs dispatch office. Those inspections were carried out systematically, and consisted in taking samples from each lorry-load, which were subsequently analysed. The cost of analysis relating to those inspections were charged to DMK by the BEF.

7 In its order for reference in this case (5) the Bundesverwaltungsgericht states that that office is situated in Hamburg and that the inspections are carried out as part of cross-border operations, but within the country, a long way from the frontier (German-Austrian or German-Swiss) which is to be crossed.

8 Since the parties were in disagreement on the question whether DMK could require from the BEF reimbursement of those costs, the national court referred to this Court, in Case C-426/92, the following questions:

`1. Is the first subparagraph of Article 2(4) of Regulation (EEC) No 1624/76 of 2 July 1976, as amended by Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 1726/79 of 26 July 1979, to be interpreted as meaning that, where skimmed-milk powder produced in Germany is exported by lorry to Italy for use in the manufacture of compound feedingstuffs, the competent authority is required to take a sample from each lorry-load and have it analysed in order to be able to issue the certificate referred to in that provision?

2. If Question 1 is answered in the negative, what criteria are to be elicited...