Report for the Hearing in Case C-203/89

I — Applicable Community legislation

1. Council Regulation (EEC) No 1579/86 of 23 May 1986 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2727/75 on the common organization of the market in cereals (Official Journal 1986 L 139, p. 29) introduced a co-responsibility levy on cereals produced in the Community and used for certain operations, in order to remedy the state of the Community cereals market which is characterized by structural surpluses resulting from an imbalance between supply and demand.

2. In view of the difficulties which arose in the application of the co-responsibility levy so introduced, Article 4 of Regulation No 2727/75 was amended once again, this time by Article 1(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1097/88 of 25 April 1988 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2727/75 on the common organization of the market in cereals (Official Journal 1988 L 110, p. 7). The new wording of Article 4 provides, in particular, that subject to certain exemptions, the co-responsibility levy is to be payable by producers in respect of the cereals produced in the Community and placed on the market or sold to an invention agency.

3. By judgment in Case 300/86 Van Landschoot v Mera [1988] ECR 3443, on a reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vredegerecht (Cantonal Court) for the judicial district of Brasschaat, the Court held that: The second subparagraph of Article 1(2) of Commission Regulation No 2040/86 of 30 June 1986, as amended by Commission Regulation No 2572/86 of 12 August 1986, is invalid in so far as it exempts from the co-responsibility levy the first-stage processing of cereals carried out on the producer's own agricultural holding by means of the machinery of the farm, provided that the products of the processing are used on that holding, but does not provide for such exemption for first-stage processing carried out off the producer's agricultural holding or by means of machinery which does not form part of the agricultural installations of the farm, where the products of the processing are used on that farm.

4. The Commission acted on that judgment by adopting two sets of provisions.

II — Facts and procedure

1. On 16 September 1986 Mr Van Landschoot, the plaintiff in the main proceedings, sold 4925 kg of wheat to the defendant in the main proceedings, NV Mera, a company engaged in the production of compound feedingstuffs. On payment of the purchase price, Mera withheld the amount of BFR 1242 (4925 x 0.2522) by way of co-responsibility levy.

2. In the light of that judgment, the Vredegerecht has once again been called upon to settle the dispute between Mr Van Landschoot and Mera.

3. In those circumstances, the Vredegerecht for the judicial district of Brasschaat decided, by order of 21 June 1989, to stay the proceedings and to request the Court to give a preliminary ruling on the following question:

4. 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 NV Mera and the parties intervening in its support, represented by Ivo Van Bael and Jean-François Bellis, of the Brussels Bar, by the Italian Government represented by Ivo M. Braguglia, avvocato dello Stato, acting as Agent, and by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Robert Caspar Fischer, Legal Adviser, acting as Agent,

5. On hearing the report of the Judge-Rapporteur and the views of the Advocate General, the Court decided to open the oral procedure without any preparatory inquiry.

III — Summary of written observations submitted to the Court

1. NV Mera and the parties intervening in its support (hereinafter referred to as Mera) maintain that the fundamental question is whether the Commission correctly acted upon the Court's judgment of 29 June 1988 by adopting the contested Regulation No 3779/88.

2. The Italian Republic emphasizes that, in the light of paragraph 11 of the Court's judgment of 29 June 1988, the aim of the co-responsibility levy justifies the imposition of the levy only on the processing of cereals placed on the market.

3. The Commission of the European Communities begins by outlining the relevant Community legislation. It also points out that, since certain facts are not apparent from the order for reference, it is necessary to proceed on the assumption that, in the dispute in the main proceedings, the sale of the cereals and the purchase of compound feedingstuffs were transactions legally and chronologically independent of one another and did not necessarily relate to the same cereals.

1 Language of the case: Dutch.

2 Mera points out that although the Vredegerecht's question refers only to Regulation No 3779/88, the validity of that regulation is closely connected with the validity of Regulation No 2324/88 It is by taking account of the concept of placing on the market defined in the latter regulation with a view to restoring equal treatment for traders following the Court's judgment that Regulation No 3779/88 laid down the conditions for the reimbursement of the levy to traders.