Opinion of Mr Advocate General Tesauro

Mr President,

Members of the Court,

1. In this case, the French Conseil d'État (State Council) has referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling a question on the validity of four agricultural regulations concerning the cereals sector.

2. Following the adoption of Regulation No 400/86, the French intervention agency, ONIC, was offered a total quantity of wheat (1699740 tonnes) considerably in excess of the limit laid down, namely 200000 tonnes. Consequently, under Article 3 of that regulation ONIC decided to reduce the offers made to it by 88.23%.

(a) The Commission's alleged lack of powers

3. The plaintiff in the main proceedings, the Association, alleges that Regulation No 2727/75, as amended by Regulation No 1143/76, does not permit the Commission to adopt special intervention measures whose effects vary according to region.

4. It is therefore necessary essentially to consider whether or not, having regard to the fact that Article 8(2) of Regulation No 2727/75 is silent on the matter, the adoption of special intervention measures comes within the scope of the implementing powers conferred by the Council on the Commission.

5. It remains instead to be considered whether, in accordance with the logic of the abovementioned judgment in Rau, limits are to be inferred from the objectives pursued by the regulation, rather than the letter of Article 8.

(b) The validity of Regulation No 2727/75 of the Council, as amended by Council Regulations Nos 1143/76 and 1146/76

6. The national court has asked the Court of Justice whether the abovementioned measures are valid if it considers that they authorize the Commission to adopt special measures varying from region to region.

7. It can be seen from the observations made in section (a) above that the possibility of adopting special intervention measures varying from region to region is objectively justified by the need to restrict the measure itself to what is strictly necessary, having regard to the situation on the various markets, and to support the price of common wheat of breadmaking quality in relation to the single reference price.

(c) The discriminatory character of Regulation No 400/86

8. The Association argues that the measures contained in Regulation No 400/86 are discriminatory inasmuch as the significant difference in the quantities of common wheat of breadmaking quality which could be bought under the special intervention scheme in the various Member States, in particular in France and in the Federal Republic of Germany, is not justified on any objective ground.

9. It should be noted that the Commission, acting within the scope of implementing powers granted to it, has wide discretion in assessing facts and circumstances. The Court obviously cannot substitute its own assessment for that of the Commission. However, it can and must, in the exercise of its powers of judicial review, check whether there have been any manifest errors of assessment and examine the logical consistency of the reasoning on which the measure is based.

10. It is true that following the adoption of Regulation No 400/86 German prices rose further while French prices declined steadily to a level below the intervention price. Moreover, the proportion of wheat in respect of which the benefit of the special intervention measure was sought and obtained in the Federal Republic, approximately 97%, was much higher than that in France, where only 11.7% of the wheat offered was accepted.

(d) The statement of the reasons on which the regulation is based

11. The principles which may be deduced from the Court's case-law concerning the obligation to state the reasons on which regulations are based are well known.

1 Original language: Italian.

2 The reference price plays a double proiective role. On the one hand, it is the basis (higher than that used for other cereals) for the calculation of the target price and, therefore, for the determination of the level of external protection; on the other, it is a parameter in relation to which possible support measures (special intervention measures) may be adjusted.

3 See Commission Decision 80/533/PEC of 14 Mas 1980. OJ 1980, L 138. p 11

4 See Commission Regulation No 1428/83 of 2 June 1983, OJ 1983, L 145, p 26

5 On the other hand, the Commission's argument to the effect that account was taken, as an additional factor, of the positive trend of French exports in the period from September 1985 to February 1986 seems weaker. Exports, as an externa! component of demand, contribute to determining the level of prices. It can therefore be concluded that the data concerning prices on which the Commission based its decision already reflects, at any given time, the effect of exports.

6 In particular, in Eridania, the Court decided thai. According to the established case-law of the Court, the statement of reasons required by Article 190 of the Treaty must be appropriate to the nature of the measure in question It must show clearly and unequivocally the reasoning of the Community authority which adopted the contested measure so as to inform the persons concerned of the justification for the measure adopted and to enable the Court to exercise its powers of review It is also clear from that case-law, as confirmed most recently in the Court's judgment of 28 October 1982 in Joined Cases 292 and 293/81 Société Jean Lion et Cie, Societe Loiret & Haentjens SA and Others v Fonds d'intervention et de regularsation du marche du sucre [1982] LCR 3887, that the statement of the reasons on which regulations arc based is not required to specifv the often verv numerous and complex matters of fact or of law dealt with in the regulations, provided that the latter fall within the general scheme of the bods of measures of which they Form part Consequents. if the contested measure clearly discloses the essential obiective pursued by the institution. It would be excessive to require a specific statement ot reasons for each of the technical choices made by the institution (paragraphs 37 and 38)