Opinion of Mr Advocate-General Reischl

Mr President,

Members of the Court,

To counteract rising prices on the domestic market the Italian Government on 24 July 1973 issued Decree-law No 427 which on 4 August 1973 became Law No 496. As a result the prices of producers, wholesalers and retailers of certain important foods, including pasta products from durum wheat, were temporarily frozen at the level at which they were on 16 July 1973 and increases were allowed only in December 1973 and September 1974. On the other hand the said Law provided that the Italian State intervention agency for agricultural products, the AIMA, could with ministerial consent intervene to control the Italian cereal market by purchases, storing and sale, the conditions for the sale on the domestic market being determined by an interministerial committee.

In application of these provisions the AIMA purchases on the world market as from September 1973 considerable quantities of durum wheat at an average price of Lit. 18500 per 50 kg. The greater part of this durum wheat was sold with the consent of the Interministerial Committee in various stages between September 1973 and April 1975 to Italian manufacturers of semolina and pasta. The prices lay between Lit. 11000, 13000 and 13600 per 50 kg, whereas the price on the Italian market at the period in question lay between Lit. 11500, 18500 or even 20000 per 50 kg.

The sales by the AIMA brought about a sudden fall in the price of the remaining stocks of durum wheat held by operators on the Italian market during the period from January 1974 to January 1975, particularly in Foggia which is the most important market centre in Italy for the durum wheat trade; this fall was so sharp that at certain times durum wheat was not even quoted.

The plaintiff in the main action, Mr Carmine Russo, a durum wheat producer in the commune of Castelluccio dei Sauri submits that he could aim at obtaining a price of only Lit. 17000 per quintal in January 1975 for 50 quintals of durum wheat, although under the system of the common organization of the market he was entitled — and what is more had the right — to expect a price of about Lit. 18500 per quintal, which the combined effect of the market and Community mechanisms would have produced, if in the meantime the AIMA had not intervened. He therefore brought an action against the AIMA before the Pretore in Bovino under Article 2043 of the Italian Civil Code for compensation for the damage which he had suffered and which he assessed at Lit. 75000.

By an order dated 2 May 1975 the Pretore stayed the proceedings and referred to the Court of Justice under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty the following questions:

My opinion on these questions is as follows:

1 Translated from the German.