1. Article 215 of the Treaty does not prevent the court from being asked to declare the community liable for imminent damage foreseeable with sufficient certainty even if the damage cannot yet be precisely assessed.
2. The lawfulness of Regulations nos 855/84 and 2677/84 cannot be called in question with regard to article 39 (1) of the treaty since article 39(1)(b) cannot be interpreted as guaranteeing the processing industry a certain profit margin and the other objectives referred to in article 39 have not been jeopardized by the modification of the representative rates by the contested regulations.
Neither the monetary compensatory amounts nor the representative rates are intended to guarantee that each individual trader will receive for his products a price that, expressed in the national currency, does not vary, so that a reduction of the value in national currency of the stocks held by traders following a revaluation of the representative rates intended to approximate those rates to the central rates cannot in itself constitute interference with the property rights of those traders.
3. In order to consider whether a provision of community law is in conformity with the principle of proportionality it is necessary to check whether the measures imposed by the provision are appropriate for achieving the intended objective and whether they exceed the limits of what is necessary to that end.
4. The community is not liable to sugar-processing undertakings in a member state for losses they suffer as a result of the alteration of the representative rates by regulations nos 855/84 and 2677/84, since the alteration and the terms of its implementation were not unforeseeable, met the general interest and contained transitional measures intended to mitigate the effects for the said undertakings.
Citations:
C-281/84, [1987] EUECJ C-281/84
Links:
European
Updated: 22 May 2022; Ref: scu.133997
