Report for the Hearing in Case C-16/89

I — Facts and written procedure

1. The relevant Community provisions

2. The Netherlands rules implementing the Community rules

The system of an additional levy on milk was implemented in the Netherlands by the Beschikking Superheffing (Super-Levy Decree) of the Minister van Landbouw en Visserij (Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries) of 18 April 1984 {Staatscourant 1984, p. 79), as amended. That decree adopts formula A (the producer formula) as defined in Regulation No 856/84 and fixes reference quantities for producers on the basis of their deliveries in 1983, with the proviso that a different reference year may be taken into account in certain restricted circumstances. Article 11 of the decree is worded as follows:

3. The main proceedings

The dispute in the main proceedings is between G. Spronk, the operator of a dairy holding residing in Kamperveen, the Netherlands (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff), and the Netherlands Minister van Landbouw en Visserij (Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, hereinafter referred to as the Minister for Agriculture). In 1983 the plaintiff was granted an interest rate subsidy pursuant to Directive 72/159 in order to implement a development plan. In 1984, pursuant to Article 11 of the Super-Levy Decree, he was granted a special quantity of milk exempt from levy which was none the less lower than the estimated production in the development plan.

By letter of 1 April 1985, the Minister for Agriculture notified the plaintiff that his complaint against the decision of the Directeur voor de Landbouw en Voedselvoorziening (Director for Agriculture and Food Supply) of the province of Overijssel only partially upholding the plaintiff's claims for the allocation of a special quantity of milk to be delivered free of levy under Article 11 of the Super-Levy Decree was unfounded.

On 1 May 1985 the plaintiff brought an action against the aforesaid decision before the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven (administrative court of last instance in matters of trade and industry). In his application, he claimed that the court should annul the contested decision and order the defendant to recognize his claims to a special quantity of milk to be delivered free of levy, as requested.

In support of his conclusions the plaintiff claims essentially that the Netherlands rules adopted for the purpose of implementing the rules on an additional levy are incompatible with the Community provisions on the granting of an interest rate subsidy to farms suitable for development, and in particular Directive 72/159. On the one hand, he was granted an interest rate subsidy on the basis of the aforesaid rules in order to carry out an approved development

plan, in which he is obliged to achieve a specified production, but on the other hand he is deprived by the Netherlands rules of the chance to obtain the milk production provided for in the plan.

In view of this line of argument, the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven stayed the proceedings and referred the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 177 of the EEC Treaty:

4. Procedure before the Court

The order of the national court was received at the Court Registry on 23 January 1989.

In accordance with Article 20 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, written observations were submitted by the Netherlands Government, represented by B. R. Bot, Secretary-General in the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, the French Government, represented by Edwige Belliard, acting as Agent, and Géraud de Bergues, acting as Deputy Agent, and the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Robert Caspar Fischer, Legal Adviser, acting as Agent.

Upon hearing the Report of the Judge-Rapporteur and the views of the Advocate General, the Court, by decision of 21 February 1990, assigned the case to the Third Chamber pursuant to Anicie 95 of the Rules of Procedure and opened the oral procedure without any preparatory inquiry.

II — Written observations submitted to the Court

1. The first question

All the parties which submitted written observations are agreed that Article 3(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 does not impose on the Member States an unconditional obligation to allocate a special reference quantity to producers who have lodged a milk production development plan under Directive 72/159 before 1 March 1984.

2. The second question

The Netherlands Government considers essentially that producers who have adopted a development plan under Directive 72/159 cannot expect to be able to achieve a specified production. The Commission stresses the wide discretion which the Member States enjoy in implementing Article 3(1) of Regulation No 857/84. The French Government did not state its opinion on this question.

3. The third question

The Netherlands Government and the Commission agree that Article 3(1) of Regulation No 857/84 does not preclude national rules of the type referred to in the third question. The French Government did not express a view on this question.

1 Language of the case: Dutch.