JUDGMENT OF 22. 3. 1973 — CASE 72/72 EINFUHR- UND VORRATSSTELLE GETREIDE v BAER-GETREIDE

In Case 72/72 REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling made to the Court of Justice under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht, Berlin, in the case pending before the said Court between

THE COURT composed of: R. Lecourt, President, R. Monaco and P. Pescatore, Presidents of Chambers, A. M. Donner (Rapporteur), J. Mertens de Wilmars, H. Kutscher, C. Ó Dálaigh, M. Sørensen, A. J. Mackenzie Stuart, Judges, Advocate-General: K. Roemer Registrar: A. Van Houtte

gives the following

JUDGMENT

Issues of fact and of law

I — Facts and procedure

II — Observations submitted by virtue of Article 20 of the Statute

A — On the first question

(a) Article 226 of the EEC Treaty provides no legal foundation for the contested decision

(b) The conditions for the application of Article 226, viz. the presence of difficulties which are serious and liable to persist in any sector of the economy, were not fulfilled at the time of the adoption of the Decision under criticism

(c) The Decision of 8 May 1969 was not of such a nature as to eliminate the alleged difficulties in the cereal market in Germany

(d) The protective measures provided for by the Decision of 8 May 1969 were unnecessary and the Commission neglected to select such measures as would least disturb the functioning of the Common Market

(a) The facts on which the disputed decision was founded were correct

(b) The disputed decision was founded on a correct appraisal of the facts

(c) The measures taken occasioned the least possible disturbance to the functioning of the common market

B — On the second question

Grounds of judgment

I — On the validity of the Decision of 8 May 1969

(a) On the possible effect of Regulation No 120/67 EEC on the applicability of Article 226 of the Treaty

(b) On the conditions of application of Article 226 of the Treaty

1. On the existence of difficulties within the meaning of Article 226

2. On the efficacy of the protective measures authorised

3. On the question whether the measures authorized occasioned the least possible disturbance to the functioning of the common market

II — On the interpretation of the Decision of 8 May 1969

Costs