Opinion of Mr Advocate-general Roemer

Mr President,

Members of the Court,

I have to consider today two references for preliminary rulings by the Hessisches Finanzgericht. The underlying problems in each have some features in common. The Court has therefore directed by Order dated 18 October 1972 that the two cases be joined for the purpose of the oral proceedings and for this reason I propose dealing with them together in my opinion.

What is the issue in these applications?

They concern imports of maize from Italy into the Federal Republic of Germany and the amounts of the levy to be charged on importation. The first case (of the proceedings instituted by the Getreide-Import-Gesellschaft) is concerned with imports made at the end of

1965 under licences issued on 9 and 10 December 1965. In the second case (of the proceedings instituted by the Gesellschaft für Getreidehandel) imports were to be made from January to June

1966 under import licences at a predetermined levy issued from January to March 1966.

The all-important element in the calculation of these levies, as we know from a series of other proceedings, was the free-at-frontier prices as determined by a decision of the Commission with effect from 6 December 1965. In the second case decisions of the Commission on price determinations as reproduced in the Agricultural Supplements to the Official Journals of 12 January 1966, 2 February 1966, 23 February 1966, 2 March 1966 and 9 March 1966 had to be considered.

In regard to these decisions both firms of importers are of opinion that they were not given a correct determination of the free-at-frontier prices. In the first case, apart from other arguments submitted in the course of proceedings in the national court, it was contended that the Commission acted incorrectly in taking account of price quotations for imported North American maize which were below the Italian threshold price, instead of taking price quotations for maize produced in Italy, the latter course alone being permissible. In the second case the firm of importers likewise submitted that the Commission had incorrectly based its decision on price quotations for North American imported maize. Further however it objected to the Commission's choice of the most representative market for export to the Federal Republic of Germany within the meaning of Article 3 of Regulation 19 (Official Journal 1962, p. 933) and Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation 89 (Official Journal 1962, p. 1899) claiming that instead of the price quotations listed in Padua those listed in Milan should have been used. Finally the objection was raised, as in the main action in Case 17/72, that the conversion of the free-at-frontier prices expressed in Italian lire was made into DM on the basis of the exchange rate declared to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). In the opinion of the firm of importers the Commission in accordance with Article 2 of Regulation 129 (Official Journal 1962, p. 2553) should have authorised the actual current exchange rates, which were higher, as the basis for the conversion; this course would have meant a reduction in the amounts of the levy.

In view of these objections the Hessisches Finanzgericht, before which the firm of importers brought the case, has suspended proceedings by Orders dated 12 and 28 June 1972 and referred the following questions for a preliminary ruling:

We must now consider how these questions are to be answered.

1 Translated from the German.