Opinion of Mr Advocate General Mancini

Mr President,

Members of the Court,

1. In this dispute between the Bundesanstalt für landwirtschaftliche Marktordnung [Federal Office for the Organization of Agricultural Markets, hereinafter referred to as the Federal Office'], that is to say the German intervention agency, and Raiffeisen Hauptgenossenschaft eG [hereinafter referred to as Raiffeisen'], the Bundesverwaltungsgericht [Federal Administrative Court] is asking the Court to give a ruling on the interpretation and validity of the fifth indent of Article 6 (1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1570/77 of 11 July 1977 on price increases and reductions applicable to intervention in cereals (Official Journal 1977, L 174, p. 18). According to that provision, national intervention agencies may apply, at the time of intervention, a special increase of 3.11 units of account per tonne in respect of rye in production regions... where that cereal is regularly sold for bread-making ... . However, the grant of that increase is subject to one condition, namely the rye must be of particularly good quality which means that the amylogram units, based on full milling, including the germ, with a hardening temperature of the starch of at least 63° C, are not less than 200 units.

2. Facts of the case: between August 1978 and January 1979 the Federal Office bought into intervention from Raiffeisen over 29000 tonnes of bread rye harvested in 1978. On several occasions Raiffeisen applied for the price increase referred to in Regulation No 1570/77. However, its applications were rejected by the Federal Office on the ground that the rye of which it had taken delivery did not satisfy the requirements laid down in the fifth indent of Article 6 (1) of that regulation. Tests carried out on the rye revealed an amylogram curve showing that the maximum of 360 amylogram units had already been reached at a temperature of 60°C, whilst at the temperature required by the aforesaid provision, namely 63° C, the number of units on the now redescending amylogram curve was only 280.

3. I propose to consider Question 1 first. I would recall that Raiffeisen favours the interpretation set out in Question 1 (a) (the expression hardening temperature encompasses all the temperatures passed through during the hardening process), whilst the Commission and the Federal Office favour the opposite interpretation (that expression refers only to the temperature reached at the time of maximum viscosity of the dough).

4. I am not swayed by those arguments. In the first place I would point out that, in specifying the threshold temperature at which the number of amylogram units must be not less than 200, the legislature refers to a hardening temperature. Hence, in my view, to interpret those words as referring to a range of temperatures is dangerous to say the least.

5. My conclusion renders Question 2 devoid of purpose. With regard to Questions 3 and 4, I would merely point out that the principle of equality exists in Community law and is in no way encroached upon by the fifth indent of Article 6 (1). Since the price increase is granted to producers of rye which is of particularly good quality, the different treatment accorded to rye of lesser quality would appear to be objectively justified.

6. In the light of all the foregoing considerations, I suggest that the Court answer the questions submitted to it by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht by order of 9 May 1985 in the proceedings between the Bundesanstalt für landwirtschaftliche Marktordnung and Raiffeisen Hauptgenossenschaft eG in the following manner:

1 Translated from the Italian.