Opinion of Mr Advocate General Mancini

Mr President,

Members of the Court,

1. The questions which the Hessisches Finanzgericht [Finance Court, Hesse] has referred to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by an order of 6 June 1984 concern the interpretation of several provisions of Regulation No 1608/74 of the Commission of 26 June 1974 containing special provisions in respect of monetary compensatory amounts (Official Journal 1974, L 170, p. 38). Those provisions were introduced in order to ensure the smooth functioning of the common agricultural policy at a time when the frequent fluctuations to which several European currencies were subject were creating obstacles to trade in agricultural products. As stated in the fourth recital in the preamble, the main purpose of the regulation was to introduce a certain flexibility into the Community rules by permitting the Member States to grant equitable relief after examining each individual case ... in the light of the loss suffered by traders.

2. Let us now turn our attention to the facts of the main proceedings. The adjustment made on 29 June 1973 to the central rate of the German mark brought about an increase in the monetary compensatory amounts. In a declaration of 3 July 1974 the German Government decided to avail itself of the provisions contained in Regulation No 1608/74 and, to that end, fixed a period of time within which applications were to be made. Such an application was made by Söhnlein Rheingold. That undertaking stated that on the basis of contracts concluded between November 1972 and March 1973, it had imported, between July and October 1973, a considerable quantity of table wine produced in France and Italy. It thus claimed that the increase in the monetary compensatory amounts brought about by the national monetary measure caused it to suffer an additional burden and since the conditions laid down in the Community regulation were satisfied it sought appropriate compensation for that loss.

3. The problem raised by the first question is simple. As I have already said, Article 6 of Regulation No 1608/74 makes the measures provided for in that regulation applicable as from 4 June 1973. The reason for the choice of that date is that it is the date of the entry into force of Regulation No 1463/73 of the Commission of 30 May 1973 laying down detailed rules for the application of monetary compensatory amounts (Official Journal 1973, L 146, p. 1). That regulation significantly modified the rules governing monetary compensatory amounts but, until the regulation under consideration in this case was adopted, it had not been followed up with provisions capable of aleviating the position of traders who suffered loss as a result of national monetary measures.

4. With regard to the second question, I note that according to the settled case-law of the Court, Regulation No 1608/74 has given the Member States a margin of discretion which permits them to judge the application to each individual case of the discretionary measure, including the circumstances such as to justify the grant or refusal of an exemption from the compensatory amounts (see, in particular, judgment of 2 March 1978 in Joined Cases 12, 18 and 21/77 Debayser v Commission [1978] ECR 553; judgment of 10 May 1978 in Case 132/77 Société pour l'exportation des sucres v Commission [1978] ECR 1061).

5. On the basis of the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court should reply as follows to the questions referred to it for a preliminary ruling by the Hessisches Finanzgericht by an order of 6 June 1984:

1 Translated from the Italian.