JUDGMENT OF 18. 1. 1979 — JOINED CASES 103 TO 109/78 SOCIÉTÉ DES USINES DE BEAUPORT v COUNCIL

In Joined Cases 103 to 109/78

THE COURT composed of: H. Kutscher, President, J. Mertens de Wilmars and Lord Mackenzie Stuart (Presidents of Chambers), A. M. Donner, P. Pescatore, M. Sørensen, A. O'Keeffe, G. Bosco and A. Touffait, Judges, Advocate General: J.-P. Warner Registrar: A. Van Houtte

gives the following

JUDGMENT

Facts and Issues

I — Facts and procedure

II — Conclusions of the parties

III — Submissions and arguments of the parties

IV — Oral procedure

Decision

Admissibility

Costs

I —. Facts and procedure

II —. Conclusions of the parties

III —. Submissions and arguments of the parties

IV —. Oral procedure

1. The applications, which were entered on the Court Register on 28 April 1978, are for the annulment of Council Regulation (EEC) No 298/78 of 13 February 1978 amending Regulation (EEC) No 3331/74 on the allocation and alteration of the basic quotas for sugar (Official Journal 1978, No L 45, p. 1).

2. The Syndicat Général des Producteurs de Sucre et de Rhum des Antilles Françaises is intervening in support of the applicants' submissions.

3. Article 24 of Regulation (EEC) No 3330/74 of the Council of 19 December 1974 on the common organization of the market in sugar (Official Journal 1974, No L 359, p. 1) provides for the allocation by Member States of basic quotas to undertakings; Article 24 (3) stipulates that the Council … shall adopt the general rules for the application of this article and any derogations therefrom.

4. The Council adopted on the same date and pursuant to that provision Regulation (EEC) No 3331/74 on the allocation and alteration of the basic quotas for sugar.

5. Article 2 of the latter regulation provides for derogations from Article 24 of Regulation (EEC) No 3330/74.

6. In its original version that article provided for two derogations, one of a general nature in Article 2 (1) and the other of a special nature in Article 2 (2) in respect of the Republic of Italy.

7. The contested regulation amended Article 2 of Regulation No 3331/74 by adding to the two existing paragraphs a paragraph 3 which provides as follows :

8. The recitals of the preamble to the contested regulation justify this addition on the ground that it is desirable to make it possible for a part of the French Republic's basic quantity assigned by Regulation (EEC) No 3330/74 to its overseas departments which is not used up in other overseas departments, in other words Guadeloupe and Martinique, to be allocated to an overseas department, in other words Reunion.

9. The applicants consider that their established rights have been adversely affected by Regulation (EEC) No 298/78 and request its annulment under Article 173 of the Treaty.

10. The Council, the defendant, raised an objection of inadmissibility against the applications under Article 91 of the Rules of Procedure by document of 3 July 1978 and requested the Court to decide on that preliminary objection without examining the substance of the case.

11. It maintains that the applications for annulment do not comply with the conditions laid down in the second paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty in that the contested measure does not constitute a decision adopted in the form of a regulation and is not of either direct or individual concern to the applicants.

12. The applicants allege that the contested measure constitutes a decision adopted with regard to clearly defined undertakings and is of direct and individual concern to them.

13. As regards the nature of the contested measure, the fourth subparagraph of Article 24 (2) of Regulation No 3330/74 fixes the basic quantities for each Member State, making a distinction in the case of France between Metropolitan France, for which the basic quantity is fixed at 2530000 tonnes of white sugar, and the French overseas departments, for which that quantity is fixed at 466000 tonnes of white sugar.

14. Thus the territory of the Community is divided for the purposes of the allocation of the basic quotas into as many parts as there are Member States, France being divided into two different zones.

15. Article 2 of Regulation No 3331/74, by providing for derogations from the rules as to the distribution of the basic quotas, which are necessary so as to take into account any changes in the structure of the sugar industry, introduced from its origin both a general derogation applicable to all Member States, in other words to all parts of the Common Market listed in Article 24 of Regulation No 3330/74, and a special derogation in respect of a single part of the Common Market, in other words the Republic of Italy, having regard to the special situation in the sugar sector in that country.

16. These derogations do not constitute general or special exceptions to the rules governing the distribution of the basic quotas but are an integral part of those very rules so as to form a legislative whole aiming on the one hand to provide legal certainty for the undertakings concerned and, on the other, effective administration capable of adapting itself, within certain limits, to changes in the structure of the sugar sector.

17. It is necessary to conclude from this that the nature of the original text of Article 2 of Regulation No 3331/74 is purely that of a regulation and that it cannot therefore be considered to constitute in certain respects a decision.

18. The amendment made by the contested regulation has not changed the nature of the provision, since paragraph 3 which has been added thereto contains merely an additional derogation which does not concern certain individual undertakings but a part of the territory which is expressly referred to in Article 24 of Regulation No 3330/74 and in respect of which a separate basic quantity has been fixed.

19. It is necessary therefore to conclude from this that the amendment made by the contested regulation shares is, in the same way as Article 2 of Regulation No 3331/74, in the nature of a regulation.

20. Moreover, the contested regulation is not of direct or individual concern to the applicants.

21. Although it is true that they could have been concerned by the use which the Member State might make of the derogating rule adopted, paragraph 3 added to that article nevertheless provides expressly that the French Republic may… reduce the basic quota for each undertaking", thus leaving to that Member State the decision whether or not to reduce the basic quotas and, if the answer is in the affirmative, to decide whether the basic quotas of all or of certain undertakings are to be reduced.

22. It is therefore clear that only the measures adopted by the French Republic under the derogating rule laid down by Regulation No 298/78 could be of direct and individual concern to the applicants.

23. It is necessary to conclude from this that the conditions laid down in the second paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty are not fulfilled in the present case so that the applications must be dismissed as inadmissible.

24. Under Article 69 (2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party shall be ordered to pay the costs if they have been asked for.

25. In the present case the applicants and the intervener have failed in their submissions.

26. It is therefore necessary to order them to pay the costs.

On those grounds, THE COURT, hereby:

1 Dismisses the applications as inadmissible;

2 Orders the applicants to pay the costs of the applications;

3 Orders the intervener to pay the costs of the intervention.