Report for the Hearing in Case C-84/90

I — Facts and procedure

1. The Community rules applicable

Articles 3, 3a, 4 and 4a of Regulation No 857/84, as amended, allow Member States to take certain special situations into account for the determination of reference quantities or allocation of special or additional reference quantities. In the present case, Article 3a, which was added by amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 764/89 of 20 March 1989 (Official Journal 1989 L 84, p. 2), should be cited:

Article 4(1 )(b) and (c) of Regulation No 857/84 is worded as follows:

Article 12 of Regulation No 857/84 lists various definitions, among which is that for producer. That term is defined in Article 12(c) of Regulation No 857/84, as amended by Regulation No 764/89, in the following way:

2. The action in the main proceedings

3. Procedure before the Court

The order for reference was received at the Court Registry on 22 March 1990.

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 Mr and Mrs Dent, represented by Richard Gordon, Barrister, London, and by Messrs Cartmell Shepherd, Solicitors, Carlisle, by the United Kingdom, represented by Stephen Richards, Barrister, London, and Rosemary Caudwell, of the Treasury Solicitor's Department, acting as Agent, and by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Peter Oliver, a member of its Legal Service, acting as Agent.

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.

II — Written observations

1. The first question

With regard to the argument that since the special hardship quota had been granted under the (British) Dairy Produce Quotas Regulations it could not have been granted simultaneously pursuant to Article 4(1)(c) of Regulation No 857/84, the Commission emphasizes that the term pursuant to has a very general meaning. Thus where Regulation A is enacted and Regulation B is then adopted on the basis of that and measure C is then taken by which Regulation B is applied to an individual case, both Regulation B and measure C have been adopted pursuant to instrument A.

Moreover, according to the Commission, the purpose of the second subparagraph of Article 3a(2) is to prevent the unjust enrichment which would ensue if producers were granted two reference quantities covering the same production twice over (see the sixth recital in the preamble to Regulation No 764/89). As the Court of Justice recognized in its judgment of 6 June 1990 in Case C-174/88 Hall [1990] ECR 2237, it would be contrary to the whole philosophy of the milk quotas regime to grant two sets of quotas with respect to one quantity of milk.

As regards the argument that a quota deduction is only to be made where producers have been granted a quota under Article 4(1)(b) and (c) simultaneously, the Commission objects that that would render the second subparagraph of Article 3a(2) inapplicable to the United Kingdom since that State has chosen not to implement Article 4(1)(b) at all.

In conclusion the Commission suggests the following reply to the first question:

2. The second question

In any case, for the purpose of answering the question posed, in the Commission's opinion it must be assumed that the award of the special reference quantity to Mr and Mrs Dent rather than to the partnership has to stand. That circumstance is, however, no more than a technicality, as quotas are always granted in relation to a particular holding.

The Commission emphasizes in this context the importance of ensuring that quotas are not granted twice over in respect of the same quantity. Thus, it says, the submissions and arguments put forward by Mr and Mrs Dent fly in the face of both the letter and the spirit of Regulation No 764/89.

In conclusion the Commission suggests that the second question should be answered as follows :

1 Language of lhe case: English.

2 The questions as set out include the punctuation agreed between the parties but omitted from the formal order of the Queen's Bench Division (per the written observations of the United Kingdom).