JUDGMENT OF 16. 4. 1970 — CASE 64/69 COMPAGNIE FRANÇAISE COMMERCIALE v COMMISSION

In Case 64/69

THE COURT composed of: R. Lecourt, President, R. Monaco and P. Pescatore, Presidents of Chambers, A. M. Donner (Rapporteur), A. Trabucchi, W. Strauß and J. Mertens de Wilmars, Judges, Advocate-General: K. Roemer Registrar: A. Van Houtte

gives the following

JUDGMENT

Issues of fact and of law

I — Facts and procedure

II — Conclusions of the parties

III — Submissions and arguments of the parties as to admissibility

Grounds of judgment

Costs

I —. Facts and procedure

II —. Conclusions of the parties

III —. Submissions and arguments of the parties as to admissibility

1. In an application lodged on 22 October 1969 the applicant has applied for the annulment of Regulation (EEC) No 1660/69 of the Commission of 22 August 1969 on certain measures to be taken in the agricultural sector as a result of the devaluation of the French franc (OJ L 213 p. 1) in so far as it provides in the second subparagraph of Article 2 (1) (a) that Where a refund may be fixed in advance the provisions of the foregoing subparagraph shall not apply unless this opportunity was made use of , and provides in Article 3 that Articles 1 and 2 shall take effect from 11 August 1969.

2. In an interlocutory application lodged at the Registry on 26 November 1969 the defendant has raised an objection of inadmissibility under Article 91 of the Rules of Procedure, claiming that the measures in question were regulations and were not of individual concern to the applicant.

3. It is therefore for the Court to examine in the light of Article 173 of the Treaty whether the provisions which formed the subject-matter of the application are merely in the form of a regulation and do, in reality, constitute decisions of individual concern to the applicant.

4. The regulation in question was adopted pursuant to Article 8 of Regulation (EEC) No 1586/69 of the Council of 11 August 1969 relating to certain measures of conjunctural policy to be taken in the agricultural sector as a result of the devaluation of the French franc (OJ L 202 p. 1) and forms part of a body of provisions designed to adjust the functioning of the intervention mechanisms of the common organization of agricultural markets to the devaluation of the French franc on 8 August 1969.

5. The main purpose of these measures is that certain correcting factors, corresponding to the devaluation of the French franc as against the unit of account, should be applied to certain amounts payable or to be charged by France as a result of the common agricultural policy, and they lay down the amounts of these in French francs for various products.

6. The contested provisions are transitional measures designed to govern the effects of the alterations of the amounts, expressed in French francs, with regard to situations which arose under the previous provisions relating to the common agricultural policy.

7. They provide in particular that transactions relating to exports which are the subject-matter of contracts of sale concluded in French francs before 11 August 1969 shall not be wholly subject to the obligation to pay a compensatory amount provided, however, that in cases where a refund may be fixed in advance that opportunity was made use of.

8. It is also provided that the provisions in question are to take effect as from 11 August 1969.

9. The applicant denies that the contested provisions are general in character and have the nature of regulations, claiming that the restriction imposed on the scheme provided for exports which are the subject-matter of contracts of sale concluded before 11 August in French francs, and the choice of 11 August as the date on which the scheme should come into effect, are of direct and individual concern to him.

10. The group of undertakings to which the condition objected to applies is defined, according to the applicant, since the undertakings are accurately known or identifiable from before the date on which the contested provision was adopted.

11. Where a measure has the character of a regulation that character is not called in issue by virtue of the fact that the number and even the identity of the persons to whom it applies at a given moment may be determined more or less precisely, provided that it is clear that this application depends on an objective legal or factual situation defined by the measure with reference to its purpose.

12. The fact that a transitional provision is applicable only to certain situations arising before a date fixed by it and, therefore, often established before it comes into force, does not prevent that provision from being an integral part of the former and new provisions which it is designed to reconcile and, consequently, from partaking of their general nature.

13. There is also no doubt that Article 3 of Regulation No 1660/69, providing that the provisions of Articles 1 and 2 shall take effect from 11 August 1969, has the nature of a regulation.

14. The provision in question fixes the date from which the new provisions shall take effect.

15. In the absence of any misuse of powers, such a provision partakes of the general nature of the measures which it brings into effect.

16. In any event the choice of 11 August as the date was necessary from an objective point of view, since the adjustment of the intervention mechanisms of the common agricultural policy to the devaluation of the French franc had to be accomplished at the earliest possible date, that is, from the entry into force of Regulation No 1586/69.

17. There is therefore nothing whatsoever to indicate that Article 6 was merely in the form of a regulation and concerns the applicant individually.

18. The result of the foregoing is that the application must be dismissed as inadmissible.

19. According to Article 69 (2) of the Rules of Procedure the unsuccessful party shall pay the costs.

20. In the present instance the applicant has failed in its application.

21. It must therefore be ordered to pay the costs.

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 the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, especially Articles 173 and 189; 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, THE COURT hereby :

1 Dismisses the application as inadmissible;

2 Orders the applicant to bear the costs.