ECJ 1. In order to establish whether a provision of community law is in conformity with the principle of proportionality it is necessary to ascertain whether the means which it employs are appropriate and necessary to attain the objective sought. Where community legislation makes a distinction between a primary obligation, compliance with which is necessary in order to attain the objective sought, and a secondary obligation, essentially of an administrative nature, it cannot, without breaching the principle of proportionality, penalize failure to comply with the secondary obligation as severely as failure to comply with the primary obligation.
2. Although, within the context of the standing invitation to tender organized by regulation no 1880/83, in order to determine levies and/or refunds on exports of white sugar, the obligation imposed on successful tenderers to apply within a short period for an export licence in accordance with article 12(b) of that regulation performs a useful administrative function from the commission’s point of view, it cannot be accepted that that obligation is as important as the obligation to export, which remains the essential aim of the community legislation in question.
Article 6(3) of regulation no. 1880/83 is invalid inasmuch as it prescribes forfeiture of the entire security as the penalty for failure to comply with the time-limit imposed for the submission of applications for export licences. That penalty, imposed in respect of an infringement significantly less serious than the failure to fulfil the primary obligation, which the security itself is intended to guarantee, is too drastic in relation to the export licence’s function of ensuring the sound management of the market in question.
Citations:
R-181/84, [1985] EUECJ R-181/84
Links:
Jurisdiction:
European
European
Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.215362