JUDGMENT OF 31. 1. 1979 — CASE 127/78 SPITTA v HAUPTZOLLAMT FRANKFURT AM MAIN-OST

In Case 127/78 REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Hessisches Finanzgericht (Finance Court, Hesse) for a preliminary ruling in the action pending before .that court between

THE COURT (First Chamber) composed of: J. Mertens de Wilmars, President of Chamber, A. M. Donner and A. O'Keeffe, Judges Advocate General: H. Mayras Registrar: A. Van Houtte

gives the following

JUDGMENT

Facts and Issues

I — Facts and written procedure

I — Summary of the written observations submitted under Article 20 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC

A — Observations submitted by Spitta & Co.

B — Observations submitted by the Commission

Law

The first part of the question

The second part of the question

The third part of the question

Costs

I —. Facts and written procedure

(a). for absence of the conditions required by Article 1 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 974/71 of the Council;

(b). for failure to make any provision for old contracts;

(c). for restriction of intra-Community trade?

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

A —. Observations submitted by Spitta & Co.

B —. Observations submitted by the Commission

1. By an order of 3 May 1978, which was received at the Court on 7 June 1978, the Hessisches Finanzgericht referred to the Court of Justice under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty a preliminary question on the validity of Regulation (EEC) No 3092/76 of the Commission of 17 December 1976 on the application of monetary compensatory amounts to certain beef and veal products (Official Journal L 348, p. 18).

2. This question was raised in the course of an action concerning the charging of monetary compensatory amounts in respect of importations of forequarters of bovine animals and boned or boneless cuts of beef and veal, seasoned with pepper, falling within tariff subheading 16.02 B III (b) 1 of the Common Customs Tariff which were effected by Spitta & Co., the plaintiff in the main action, from France into the Federal Republic of Germany on 29 December 1976 and 7 January 1977.

3. The question submitted by the Hessisches Finanzgericht inquires whether Regulation No 3092/76 is either invalid or inapplicable:

4. Fresh, chilled or frozen bovine meat coming under subheading 02.01 A II (Chapter 2: Meat and edible meat offals) of the Common Customs Tariff was brought in 1971 within the system of monetary compensatory amounts set up by Regulation No 974/71 of the Council of 12 May 1971 (Official Journal, English Special Edition, 1971 (I) p. 257).

5. The application of monetary compensatory amounts is subject to the condition prescribed in Article 1 (1) of Regulation No 974/71, as amended by Regulation No 509/73 of the Council of 22 February 1973 (Official Journal L 50, p. 1) that a Member State allows the exchange rate of its currency to fluctuate by a wider margin than that permitted by international rules in force on 12 May 1971.

6. According to the second subparagraph of Article 1 (2) of Regulation No 974/71 as amended by Regulation No 2746/72 of the Council of 19 December 1972 (Official Journal, English Special Edition 1972 (28-30 December) p. 64) monetary compensatory amounts may only be applied if the monetary measures referred to in paragraph (1) would lead to disturbances in trade in agricultural products, a condition which the plaintiff maintains had not been fulfilled at the time when Regulation No 3092/76 was adopted.

7. On the basis of those considerations the Commission was justified in fixing monetary compensatory amounts in respect of the products in question.

8. The plaintiff in the main action claims that Regulation No 3092/76 makes no provision for exemption in respect of contracts already concluded and thereby breaches the principles of the protection of good faith and of legitimate expectation and that in fact it concluded the contract for the purchase of the goods in question on 30 November 1976, that is, before the publication of Regulation No 3092/76.

9. However, the import system at issue in this case did not require any previous authorization or any firm commitment on the part of the person concerned with respect to the authorities responsible for the management of the organization of the markets in question and the Commission gave importers no indication which could have justified the expectation that, regardless of the development of conditions on the market, the previous rules would be maintained without alteration.

10. Article 1 (1) of Regulation No 974/71 cannot be interpreted as requiring that monetary compensatory amounts should be applied simultaneously in intra-Community trade and in trade with non-member countries even when the situations are different.

11. Furthermore, following the adoption of the regulation in dispute, seasoned meat practically ceased to feature in trade with non-member countries since it was brought within the scope of the protective measures by Regulation No 2033/75 of the Commission of 5 August 1975 (Official Journal L 207, p. 8).

12. The costs incurred by the Commission of the European Communities, which has submitted observations to the Court, are not recoverable.

On those grounds, THE COURT (First Chamber), in answer to the questions referred to it by the Hessisches Finanzgericht by order of 3 May 1978, hereby rules: