JUDGMENT OF 1. 7. 1965 — JOINED CASES 106 AND 107/63 TOEPFER v COMMISSION

In Joined Cases

THE COURT composed of: Ch. L. Hammes, President, A. M. Donner (Rapporteur) and R. Lecourt, Presidents of Chambers, L. Delvaux, A. Trabucchi, W. Strauß and R. Monaco, Judges, Advocate-General: K. Roemer Registrar: A. Van Houtte

gives the following

JUDGMENT

Issues of fact and of law

I — Facts

II — Conclusions of the parties

III — Submissions of the parties

A — Admissibility

B — Substance

(a) Infringement of an essential procedural requirement

(b) Infringement of the Treaty

(c) Misuse of powers

IV — Procedure

Grounds of judgment

Admissibility of the applications

The expression of direct… concern

The expression of … individual concern

On the substance of the case

Costs

I —. Facts

II —. Conclusions of the parties

1. declare the application admissible;

2. annul the decision of the Commission of 3 October 1963 authorizing the Federal Republic of Germany to maintain the protective measures concerning the importation of maize, millet and sorghum (65/553/EEC) published in the Official Journal of the European Communities, 6th year, No 146, of 11 October 1963, p. 2479/63;

3. order the defendant to bear the costs.

III —. Submissions of the parties

A —. Admissibility

B —. Substance

(a). Infringement of an essential procedural requirement

(b). Infringement of the Treaty

1. In putting forward the submission of infringement of the Treaty or of any rule of law relating to its application, the applicants use the words quoted in order to complain that the contested decision disregards Federal public law relating to the application of Regulation No 19. The protective measures are, so they say, contrary to the requirements of Federal legislation; therefore the Commission could not authorize them.

2. The applicants deny that the grant of the licences requested on 1 October 1963 would have had as its result, in January 1964, the importing of considerable quantities of maize into the Federal Republic, at a price which would have been considerably below the threshold price. They further argue that the quantities concerned would have been sold on the German market at a normal price. Furthermore if prices had fallen, purchases at the intervention prices would have been enough to maintain a suitable level of prices. In any event there could be no question of a catastrophe, which is a prerequisite for applying Article 22.

3. The applicants allege that the refusal, the effect of which was retroactive, to grant the requests which they had made constitutes an infringement of the law applicable to the case.

(c). Misuse of powers

IV —. Procedure

On those grounds, Upon reading the pleadings; Upon hearing the report of the Judge-Rapporteur; Upon hearing the parties; Upon hearing the opinion of the Advocate-General; Having regard to Articles 39 and 173 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community; Having regard to Regulation No 19 of the Council of the European Economic Community, especially Article 22; Having regard to the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Economic Community; Having regard to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, especially Article 69 THE COURT hereby:

I Annuls the decision of the Commission of the European Economic Community of 3 October 1963, authorizing the Federal Republic of Germany to retain protective measures concerning the importation of maize, millet and sorghum.

2 Orders the defendant to bear the costs.