Opinion of Mr Advocate General Mancini

Mr President,

Members of the Court,

1. In this dispute between Irish Grain Board (Trading) Limited (hereinafter referred to as Irish Grain) and the Minister for Agriculture, the Supreme Court of Ireland is asking the Court of Justice to interpret two Community measures: Regulation (EEC) No 974/71 of the Council of 12 May 1971 on certain measures of conjunctural policy to be taken in agriculture following the temporary widening of the margins of fluctuation for the currencies of certain Member States (Official Journal, English Special Edition 1971 (I), p. 257) and Regulation (EEC) No 1380/75 of the Commission of 29 May 1975 laying down detailed rules for the application of monetary compensatory amounts (Official Journal 1975, L 139, p. 37). In particular, the national court wishes to ascertain whether and on what conditions a trader is entitled to payment of monetary compensatory amounts on imports of grain whose release into the economy of the importing State has net been fully established.

2. Since the Court has given numerous judgments in this area, I will confine myself to a brief outline of those rules governing monetary compensatory amounts to which the questions refer. Article 1 (1) of Regulation No 974/71 of the Council, as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 509/73 (Official Journal 1973, L 50, p. 1), provides that: If, for the purposes of commercial transactions, a Member State allows the exchange rate of its currency to fluctuate by a margin wider than that permitted... on 12 May 1971, (a) the Member State whose currency increases in value beyond the permitted fluctuation margin shall charge on imports and grant on exports, (b) the Member State whose currency decreases beyond ... [those] margins shall charge on exports and grant on imports, compensatory amounts for the products referred to in paragraph 2, in trade with the Member States and third countries.

3. The Supreme Court is asking the Court of Justice in the first place to state whether it is lawful to refuse payment of monetary compensatory amounts to a Member State where, notwithstanding the proper completion of customs formalities and the exporter's good faith, doubts persist concerning the actual release of the grain into the economy of the importing State. I would recall that the defendant in the main proceedings and the Commission of the European Communities suggest that the Court should answer this question in the affirmative, whilst Irish Grain takes the opposite view.

4. In question 2 the national court seeks to ascertain whether the onus of establishing that the product has actually been released into the economy of the importing State is to be borne by the person claiming the monetary compensatory amounts or by the intervention agency. Irish Grain, as has been seen, considers that the answer to that question depends on Article 11 of Regulation No 1380/75. Production of the T 5 form stamped by the customs authorities is decisive for the purposes of that provision. Having completed those formalities, the exporter has discharged his duty. He cannot therefore be required to prove that the transaction concerned has taken place and has been carried out correctly.

5. The third and fourth questions seek to ascertain whether interest is payable as a result of the delay in the payment of the monetary compensatory amounts and to determine the currency in which those compensatory amounts are to be paid. In the light of the conclusions which I have reached so far, those problems could be left aside. However, I will deal with them for the sake of completeness.

6. In the light of all the foregoing considerations, I suggest that the questions submitted by the Supreme Court of Ireland by order of 25 June 1985 in the proceedings between Irish Grain Board (Trading) Ltd and the Minister for Agriculture should be answered by the Court in the following manner:

1 Translated from the Italian.