JUDGMENT OF 22. 11. 1973 — CASE 139/73 EINFUHR- UND VORRATSSTELLE GETREIDE v MÜNCH
In Case 139/73 Reference to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Hessischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof for a preliminary ruling in the action pending before that court between
THE COURT composed of: R. Lecourt, President, A. M. Donner and M. Sørensen, Presidents of Chambers, R. Monaco, J. Mertens de Wilmars (Rapporteur), P. Pescatore, H. Kutscher, C. Ó Dálaigh, A. J. Mackenzie Stuart, Judges, Advocate-General: G. Reischl Registrar: A. Van Houtte
gives the following
JUDGMENT
Issues of fact and of law
I — Facts and procedure
II — Observations submitted under Article 20 of the Statute of the Court of Justice
A — Observations submitted by the Commission
B — Observations submitted by Firma Munch
Grounds of judgment
Costs
I —. Facts and procedure
1. Must the requirement in Article 3 — last indentation — of EEC Regulation No 1196/71 of the Commission dated 8 June 1971 (OJ L 125, 9. 6. 1971, p. 12) be interpreted as fixing a period within the meaning of Article 3 of Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1182/71 of the Council dated 3 June 1971 (OJ L 124, 8. 6. 1971, p. 1)?
2. If it does fix such a period, is the definition in Article 3 (4), first paragraph, of Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1182/71 applicable, or does Article 3 (4), second paragraph, of the last-mentioned Regulation apply?
3. If (1) is answered in the negative, must the requirement in Article 3 — last indentation — of EEC Regulation No 1196/71 be interpreted as fixing a date within the meaning of Article 5 of Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1182/71?
II —. Observations submitted under Article 20 of the Statute of the Court of Justice
A —. Observations submitted by the Commission
B —. Observations submitted by Firma Munch
1. By order of 11 May 1973, lodged at the Registry of the Court on 4 June 1973, the Hessischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof referred three questions pursuant to Article 177 of the Treaty establishing the EEC as to the interpretation of Article 3 — last indentation — of Regulation No 1196/71 of the Commission of 8 June 1971 (OJ L 125, 9. 6. 1971, p. 12) on the requirements for the grant of carry-over payments for certain cereals held in stock at the end of the 1970/71 marketing season, and of Articles 3 and 5 of Regulation No 1182/71 of the Council of 3 June 1971 (OJ L 124, 8. 6. 1971, p. 1) determining the rules applicable to periods, dates and time limits.
2. The first question asks whether the expression despatched on 7 August 1971 at the latest in Article 3 of Regulation No 1196/71 fixes a period within the meaning of Article 3 of Regulation No 1182/71.
3. According to Article 1 of the last-named Regulation, its provisions apply to acts of the Council and of the Commission which have been or will be passed pursuant to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community or the Euratom Treaty.
4. Regulation No 1182/71 lays down general, uniform rules with regard to periods, dates and time limits and distinguishes, in this respect, between periods, which are covered by Articles 2 and 3, and dates and time limits, which are covered by Articles 4 and 5.
5. The apparent derogation with regard to periods calculated retroactively from a given date or event, contained in the second paragraph of Article 3 (4), confirms this interpretation, since such periods cannot be extended and are accordingly equated with dates and time limits within the meaning of Articles 4 and 5.
6. The hypothesis contained in Article 3 of Regulation No 1196/71, whereby an action must be effected before a given date, is not expressly covered by any of the provisions of Regulation No 1182/71.
7. Moreover, this interpretation is confirmed by the purpose attributed to the fixing of a final date, which must be adhered to on paid of exclusion, within the context of the system for granting carry-over payments for cereals held in stock which is implemented in Regulation No 1192/71 pursuant to Article 9 of Regulation No 120/67, on the common organization of the market in cereals.
8. The first question having been answered in the negative, the second question does not require to be considered.
9. The third question asks whether the expression despatched on 7 August 1971 at the latest is a date within the meaning of Article 5 of Regulation No 1182/71.
10. Article 5 (1) and (2), first paragraph, covers actions which must be effected at a given moment or at a given date.
11. The costs incurred by the Commission of the European Communities, which has submitted observations to the Court, are not recoverable and as these proceedings are, insofar as the parties to the main action are concerned, a step in the action pending before a national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court.
Upon reading the pleadings, Upon hearing the report of the Judge-Rapporteur; Upon hearing the observations of the plaintiff in the main action and the Commission of the European Communities; Upon hearing the opinion of the Advocate-General; Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, especially Article 177; Having regard to Regulations of the Council Nos 120/67 of 13 June 1967 and 1182/71 of 3 June 1971; Having regard to Regulation No 1196/71 of the Commission of 8 June 1971; Having regard to the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Economic Community, especically Article 20; Having regard to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, THE COURT, in answer to the questions referred to it by the Hessischer Verwaltungs gerichtshof, hereby rules: