JUDGMENT OF 5. 4. 1979 — CASE 151/77 PEISER / HAUPTZOLLAMT HAMBURG-ERICUS

In Case 151/77 REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Finanzgericht [Finance Court] Hamburg for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between

THE COURT composed of: J. Mertens de Wilmars, President of the First Chamber, acting as President, Lord Mackenzie Stuart (President of the Second Chamber), P. Pescatore, M. Sørensen, A. O'Keeffe, G. Bosco and A. Touffait, Judges, Advocate General: H. Mayras Registrar: A. Van Houtte

gives the following

JUDGMENT

Facts and Issues

I — Facts and written procedure

A — The framework of the regulations

B — The facts

C — The question referred for a preliminary ruling

II — Summary of the observations submitted under Article 20 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC.

A — Observations submitted by Peiser et Co. KG

1. Illegality of Regulation No 800/77 in relation to the powers conferred by Regulation No 974/71 and to Article 235 of the Treaty.

2. Illegality of Regulation No 800/77 in relation to the principle of proportionality

3. Illegality of Regulation No 800/77 in relation to the principle of nondiscrimination laid down in respect of the agricultural common market by Article 40 (3) of the Treaty

4. Limits of the Commission's discretionary power of assessment

B — Observations submitted by the Irish Government

C — Observations submitted by the Italian Government

1. Infringement of Article 1 (3) of Regulation No 974/71

2. Misuse of powers

3. Breach of the principle of proportionality

D — Observations submitted by the Commission

1. Disturbances in trade

(a) Matters of principle

(b) The Commission's policy in the sector of processed products

(c) Regulation No 800/77

2. Compatibility of the legislation in question with Article 235 of the EEC Treaty

3. The question of discrimination

(a) General complaint of discrimination

(b) Complaint concerning specific forms of discrimination

(c) General remark on the question of discrimination in the field of monetary compensation

Decision

Costs

1 Translator's note: This is a corrected version of the text appearing in the Official Journal, which is defective; cf. Mr Advocate General Warner's comments in Case 29/77 Roquette (1977) ECR 1835 at p. 1847.