W Beus GmbH and Co v Hauptzollamt Munchen (Judgment): ECJ 13 Mar 1968

Europa Agriculture – common agricultural policy – common organization of the markets – fruit and vegetables – entry price – deduction of taxes on imports, including the German turnover equalization tax – fixing – duties of the commission (regulation no 23 of the council of the EEC of 4 April 1962, sixth subparagraph of article 11(2); regulation no 65/65 of the council of the EEC of 13 may 1965, article 1) 2. Agriculture – common agricultural policy – common organization of the markets – fruit and vegetables – reference price – fixing – power of the commission to exercise its discretion – review by the court (regulation no 23 of the council of the EEC of 4 April 1962, second subparagraph of article 11(2); regulation no 65/65 of the council of the EEC of 13 may 1965, article 1) 3. Agriculture – common agricultural policy – objectives – protection of the interests of producers and consumers – conflict of interests – principle of community preference (EEC treaty, article 39; article 44(2)) 4. Measures adopted by community institutions – statement of reasons in regulations – requirement to state the reasons on which the measure is based – extent (EEC treaty, article 190). 1. The expression ‘ other taxes on imports ‘ appearing in the sixth subparagraph of article 11(2) of regulation no 23, as amended by article 1 of regulation no 65/65/eec covers the turnover equalization tax collected in Germany (‘ umsatzausgleichssteuer ‘) as well as the community countervailing charge collected on the basis of the said regulations. In calculating the entry price of fruit and vegetables from third states, it is necessary therefore to deduct from the amount of these taxes the prices recorded on the representative import markets of the member states. Since the said sixth subparagraph provides that the entry price shall be fixed ‘ on the basis of the lowest prices recorded on the representative import markets ‘, the commission must take into account the lowest prices ruling on each market during the observation period. 2. The expression ‘ considerable part of the marketed output throughout the year or during a part thereof ‘, used in the second subparagraph of article 11(2) of regulation no 23, as amended by the sole article of regulation no 65/65/eec, shows that the commission has a certain area of discretion as to the choice of varieties to be considered for fixing the reference price for fruit and vegetables. The court must therefore confine itself where necessary to considering whether or not the choice made by the commission is of an arbitrary nature. 3. The objectives set out in article 39 of the EEC treaty, which are intended to safeguard the interests of farmers and consumers, may not all be simultaneously and fully attained. In balancing these interests, the council must take into account, where necessary, in favour of the farmers the principle known as ‘ community preference ‘, which is one of the principles of the treaty and which in agricultural matters is laid down in articles 44(2). 4. The extent of the requirement, laid down by article 190 of the treaty, to state the reasons on which measures are based, depends on the nature of the measure in question. The statement of the reasons for a regulation may be confined to indicating the general situation which led to its adoption, on the one hand, and the general objectives which it is intended to attain on the other. Consequently it is not possible to require that it should set out the various facts, which are often very numerous and complex, on the basis of which the regulation was adopted, or a fortiori that it should provide a more or less complete evaluation of those facts.

Citations:

C-5/67

European, Agriculture

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.131835