Case C-335/09 P

Republic of Poland

v

European Commission

‛Appeal — Common organisation of the markets — Transitional measures adopted because of the accession of new Member States — Regulation (EC) No 1972/2003 laying down measures in respect of trade in agricultural products — Action for annulment — Period within which an action must be brought — Point from which that period starts to run — Lateness — Inadmissibility — Amendment of a provision of that regulation — Recommencement of period within which an action must be brought — Partial admissibility — Grounds of appeal — Infringement of the principles underlying a community based on the rule of law and of the principle of effective judicial protection — Infringement of the principles of free movement of goods and of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality — Infringement of the principles of proportionality and protection of legitimate expectations — Infringement of the hierarchy of norms — Infringement of Article 41 of the 2003 Act of Accession — Erroneous interpretation of Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1972/2003 — Infringement of duty to state reasons’

Summary of the Judgment

1. Appeals — Grounds — Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted

   (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58(1))

2. Appeals — Grounds — Mere repetition of the pleas and arguments put forward before the General Court — Inadmissibility — Challenge to the interpretation or application of Community law made by the General Court — Admissibility

   (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58(1))

3. Actions for annulment — Periods within which an action must be brought — Point from which that period starts to run — Action against a regulation adopted under the 2003 Act of Accession brought by an acceding Member State — Period starting to run from the date of the entry into force of the Treaty and of the 2003 Act of Accession

   (Art. 230(2) and (5) EC; 2003 Act of Accession, Art. 2(3))

4. Accession of new Member States to the European Union — 2003 Act of Accession — Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Transitional measures in respect of trade in agricultural products — Taxation of surplus stocks — Judicial review — Limits

   (2003 Act of Accession; Commission Regulation No 1972/2003, Art. 4(3))

5. Appeals — Grounds — Plea against a ground of the judgment not necessary to support the operative part — Ineffective plea in law

   (Art. 256 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58(1))

6. Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — Discretion of European Union institutions — Judicial review — Limits

7. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Regulation adopted under the 2003 Act of Accession and laying down transitional measures in respect of trade in agricultural products

   (Art. 296 TFEU; Commission Regulation No 1972/2003)

8. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Context of the familiar to the persons concerned — Admissibility of summary reasoning

   (Art. 296 TFEU)

9. European Union law — Principles — Protection of legitimate expectations — Limits — Modification of rules governing a common organisation of the market — Discretion of institutions — Legislation adapted to changes in the economic situation — Not possible to claim protection of legitimate expectations

1.  See the wording of the judgment.

   (see paras 23, 24)

2.  See the wording of the judgment.

   (see paras 25-28, 98, 113, 172)

3.  The European Union is a union based on the rule of law, its institutions being subject to review of the conformity of their acts, inter alia, with the Treaty and the general principles of law.

   Those principles are the very foundation of that union and compliance with them means, as is now provided for expressly in Article 4(2) TEU, that the new Member States are to be treated on the basis of equality with the old Member States.

   Therefore, the new Member States must enjoy, in relation to all measures which were adopted on the basis of Article 2(3) of the 2003 Accession Treaty and which affect them in their capacity as Member States, a right of action as applicants pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 230 EC.

   Given that that status was acquired by the new Member States only on the date of entry into force of the Accession Treaty and of the 2003 Act of Accession, it must be held that, in relation to those States, the period laid down in the fifth paragraph of Article 230 EC began to run, in relation to those acts, only as from that date, that is, in the present case, 1 May 2004.

   (see paras 48-51)

4.  The Commission may exercise a wide discretion when exercising the powers conferred on it by the Council, or indeed those who drafted the Act of Accession, in regard to the common agricultural policy for the implementation of the rules which it lays down, with the result that the legality of a measure adopted in that sphere can be affected only if the measure is manifestly inappropriate in terms of the objective which the competent institution is seeking to pursue.

   It follows from the above that, in relation to the proportionality principle, the General Court has to establish only whether the fixing of the amount of the charge on the surplus stocks provided for under Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1972/2003 on transitional measures to be adopted in respect of trade in agricultural products on account of the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia, that is the erga omnes import duty rate applicable on 1 May 2004, does not manifestly exceed what is required in order to achieve the objectives the Commission is seeking to pursue.

   (see paras 71, 72)

5.  See the wording of the judgment.

   (see para. 115)

6.  See the wording of the judgment.

   (see para. 128)

7.  See the wording of the judgment.

   (see para. 147)

8.  See the wording of the judgment.

   (see para. 152)

9.  Any trader to whom an institution has given justified hopes may rely on the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations. However, while the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations is one of the fundamental principles of the European Union, economic operators are not justified in having a legitimate expectation that an existing situation which is capable of being altered by the Community institutions in the exercise of their discretionary power will be maintained, particularly in an area such as that of the common organisation of the markets, the objective of which involves constant adjustment to reflect changes in economic circumstances.

   The same applies to an acceding Member State.

   (see paras 180, 181)