Keywords
Summary

Keywords

1 . AGRICULTURE - COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKETS - SUGAR - PRODUCTION QUOTAS - DIVISION - PRODUCTION LEVY - SITUATION OF ITALIAN PRODUCERS - DISCRIMINATION - NONE

( EEC TREATY , ARTS 7 AND 40 ( 3 ); COUNCIL REGULATION NO 1785/81 , ARTS 24 AND 28 )

2 . AGRICULTURE - COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY - OBJECTIVES - FAIR STANDARD OF LIVING FOR THE AGRICULTURAL COMMUNITY - DISTRIBUTION OF THE FINANCIAL BURDEN OF DISPOSING OF SURPLUS SUGAR PRODUCTION AT A GUARANTEED PRICE - TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE VARIOUS PRODUCERS FOR THE CREATION OF SURPLUSES - INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF A COMMON MARKET

( EEC TREATY , ART . 39 ( 1 ) ( B ); COUNCIL REGULATION NO 1785/81 )

3 . MEASURES ADOPTED BY THE INSTITUTIONS - DUTY TO PROVIDE A STATEMENT OF REASONS - SCOPE - REGULATIONS

( EEC TREATY , ART . 190 )

Summary

1 . IN DIVIDING QUOTAS BETWEEN THE INDIVIDUAL UNDERTAKINGS ON THE BASIS OF THEIR ACTUAL PRODUCTION UNDER THE SYSTEM OF SUGAR PRODUCTION QUOTAS ESTABLISHED BY REGULATION NO 1785/81 , THE COUNCIL WAS MERELY ACTING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF REGIONAL SPECIALIZATION AND SOLIDARITY BETWEEN PRODUCERS AND DID NOT CREATE DISCRIMINATION CONTRARY TO ARTICLES 7 AND 40 ( 3 ) OF THE EEC TREATY .

ALTHOUGH THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE BURDEN OF THE QUOTA SYSTEM GIVES RISE TO AN A QUOTA FOR ITALY WHICH IS LOWER THAN ITS INTERNAL CONSUMPTION AND ALSO TO A PARTICULARLY HIGH RATIO BETWEEN THE PRODUCTION LEVIES PAID AND ITS B QUOTA , THOSE CONSEQUENCES CANNOT CONSTITUTE PROHIBITED DISCRIMINATION EITHER , SINCE THEY ARE DUE TO THE REQUIREMENT THAT , IN A COMMON MARKET CHARACTERIZED BY REGIONAL SPECIALIZATION , PRODUCTION IN THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBER STATES MUST BE ABLE TO DEVELOP INDEPENDENTLY OF THE LEVEL OF DOMESTIC CONSUMPTION .

THE FACT THAT DIFFERENCES IN PRODUCTION COSTS BETWEEN THE MEMBER STATES ARE NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN THE ALLOCATION OF QUOTAS BETWEEN THE INDIVIDUAL PRODUCERS CANNOT BE REGARDED AS DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE THE AIM OF THE QUOTA SYSTEM IS NOT TO SUPPORT THE LEAST PROFITABLE UNDERTAKINGS BUT TO PROVIDE A DEGREE OF CONTROL OVER PRODUCTION WHILST RE-ORIENTATING IT TOWARDS THE NEEDS OF THE MARKET .

2 . THE INTERVENTION AND CO-FINANCING MACHINERY SET UP BY REGULATION NO 1785/81 IN ORDER TO DISPOSE OF THE SUGAR SURPLUSES AT GUARANTEED PRICES SERVES THE INTERESTS OF ALL SUGAR PRODUCERS IN THE COMMUNITY , INCLUDING ITALIAN PRODUCERS . THEREFORE , THE BURDEN TO BE BORNE BY ITALIAN PRODUCERS UNDER THE SYSTEM ESTABLISHED BY REGULATION NO 1785/81 CANNOT BE REGARDED AS INCONSISTENT WITH THE AIM LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 39 ( 1 ) ( B ) OF THE EEC TREATY . THE VIEW THAT THE PRODUCERS IN A MEMBER STATE ARE NOT OBLIGED TO ASSIST IN FINANCING SURPLUSES FOR WHICH THEY ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE VERY PRINCIPLE OF A COMMON MARKET , IN WHICH THE UNDERTAKINGS OR THE MEMBER STATE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY SURPLUS PRODUCTION CANNOT BE IDENTIFIED .

3 . THE STATEMENT OF REASONS REQUIRED BY ARTICLE 190 OF THE TREATY MUST BE APPROPRIATE TO THE NATURE OF THE MEASURE IN QUESTION . IT MUST SHOW CLEARLY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY THE REASONING OF THE COMMUNITY AUTHORITY WHICH ADOPTED THE CONTESTED MEASURE SO AS TO INFORM THE PERSONS CONCERNED OF THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE MEASURE ADOPTED AND TO ENABLE THE COURT TO EXERCISE ITS POWERS OF REVIEW .

HOWEVER , THE STATEMENT OF REASONS IS NOT REQUIRED TO SPECIFY THE OFTEN VERY NUMEROUS AND COMPLEX MATTERS OF FACT OR OF LAW DEALT WITH IN A REGULATION , PROVIDED THAT THE REGULATION FALLS WITHIN THE GENERAL SCHEME OF THE BODY OF MEASURES OF WHICH IT FORMS PART . CONSEQUENTLY , IF A REGULATION CLEARLY DISCLOSES THE ESSENTIAL OBJECTIVE PURSUED BY THE INSTITUTION WHICH ADOPTED IT , IT WOULD BE EXCESSIVE TO REQUIRE A SPECIFIC STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR EACH OF THE TECHNICAL CHOICES MADE BY THE INSTITUTION .