Getreide-Import GmbH v Einfuhr und Vorratsstelle fuer Getreide und Futtermittel. (Preliminary Questions ) [1973] EUECJ R-11/73 (12 July 1973)

[ Home ] [ Databases ] [ World Law ] [ Multidatabase Search ] [ Help ] [ Feedback ] [ DONATE ] Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions) You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions) >> Getreide-Import GmbH v Einfuhr und Vorratsstelle fuer Getreide und Futtermittel. (Preliminary Questions ) [1973] EUECJ R-11/73 (12 July 1973) URL: https://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/1973/R1173.html Cite as: [1973] EUECJ R-11/73 [ New search ] [ Help ] IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE - The source of this judgment is the web site of the Court of Justice of the European Communities . The information in this database has been provided free of charge and is subject to a Court of Justice of the European Communities disclaimer and a copyright notice . This electronic version is not authentic and is subject to amendment. 61973J0011 Judgment of the Court of 12 July 1973. Getreide-Import GmbH v Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel. Reference for a preliminary ruling: Hessisches Finanzgericht - Germany. Case 11-73. European Court reports 1973 Page 00919 Greek special edition 1972-1973 Page 00647 Portuguese special edition 1973 Page 00349 ++++ 1 . PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS - JURISDICTION OF THE COURT - LIMITS ( EEC TREATY, ARTICLE 177 ) 2 . AGRICULTURE - COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKETS - CEREALS - COMMON WHEAT AND BARLEY - INTRA-COMMUNITY LEVY - CALCULATION - IMPORT COSTS - ITEMS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT ( REGULATION NO 19 OF THE COUNCIL, ART . 2, ART . 4 ) 1 . THE COURT IS NOT ENABLED, IN THE CONTEXT OF ARTICLE 177, TO APPLY THE TREATY TO SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES BUT MUST EXTRACT FROM THE WORDING OF THE DECISION REFERRING THE MATTER THOSE QUESTIONS ALONE WHICH RELATE TO THE INTERPRETATION OF COMMUNITY LAW . 2 . ARTICLES 2 AND 4 OF REGULATION NO 19/62 OF THE COUNCIL SHOULD BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT THE IMPORT COSTS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN CALCULATING THE AMOUNT OF THE LEVY ARE THOSE WHICH EVERY IMPORTER MUST INEVITABLY INCUR IN COMPLYING WITH THE PROCEDURES AND LEGAL FORMALITIES NECESSARY FOR THE IMPORT OF THE PRODUCTS IN QUESTION AND IN TRANSPORTING THOSE PRODUCTS TO THE FIRST WHOLESALE MARKETING STAGE IN THE AREA TO WHICH THE BASIC TARGET PRICE APPLIES . IN CASE 11/73 REFERENCE TO THE COURT UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY BY THE HESSISCHES FINANZGERICHT ( VIITH SENATE ) FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING IN THE ACTION PENDING BEFORE THAT COURT BETWEEN GETREIDE-IMPORT GMBH, DUISBURG, AND EINFUHR - UND VORRATSSTELLE FUER GETREIDE UND FUTTERMITTEL, FRANKFURT-AM-MAIN, ON THE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLES 2 AND 4 OF REGULATION NO 19 OF THE COUNCIL OF 4 APRIL 1962, ON THE GRADUAL ESTABLISHMENT OF A COMMON ORGANISATION OF THE AGRICULTURAL MARKETS IN CEREALS, IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN THOSE IMPORT COSTS WHICH ARE RELEVANT TO THE CALCULATION OF THE RATE OF LEVY APPLICABLE TO SUCH GOODS, 1 BY ORDERS DATED 5 FEBRUARY 1973 AND 18 JUNE 1973, FILED AT THE COURT OF JUSTICE ON 21 FEBRUARY 1973 AND 22 JUNE 1973 RESPECTIVELY, THE HESSISCHES FINANZGERICHT REFERRED, UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY A QUESTION ON THE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLES 2 AND 4 OF REGULATION NO 19 OF THE COUNCIL DATED 4 APRIL 1962 ( P . I . 1962, NO 30 ), CONCERNING THE GRADUAL ESTABLISHMENT OF A COMMON ORGANISATION OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETS IN THE CEREALS SECTOR; 2 THE QUESTION IS WHETHER, IN CALCULATING THE LEVY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ABOVE REGULATION, VARIOUS COSTS OF IMPORT SHOULD BE DEDUCTED FROM THE THRESHOLD PRICE, IN PARTICULAR, COSTS OF EXAMINING PLANTS, COSTS OF INSPECTION, COSTS OF CUSTOMS CLEARANCE, BANK CHARGES AND EXPENSES RELATING TO PRESENTATION OF DOCUMENTS AND TO THE MANDATORY SECURITY; 3 THE QUESTION SEEKS NOT ONLY AN INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLES 2 AND 4 OF REGULATION NO 19/62, BUT ALSO AN ANSWER BY THE COURT TO THE PARTICULAR PROBLEMS RAISED BY THE APPLICATION OF COMMUNITY LAW TO THE SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES FORMING THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE MAIN ACTION; HOWEVER, THE COURT IS NOT ENABLED UNDER ARTICLE 177 TO APPLY THE TREATY TO SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES, AND MUST THEREFORE EXTRACT, FROM THE WORDING OF THE ORDER REFERRING THE MATTER, THOSE QUESTIONS ALONE WHICH RELATE TO THE INTERPRETATION OF COMMUNITY LAW; THE QUESTION MAY THUS BE UNDERSTOOD AS ASKING IN GENERAL WHICH ITEMS OF IMPORT COSTS MUST BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHEN CALCULATING THE AMOUNT OF THE LEVY . 4 BY ARTICLE 2 OF REGULATION NO 19/62, THE AMOUNT OF THE INTRA-COMMUNITY LEVY UPON CEREAL IMPORTS SUCH AS COMMON WHEAT AND BARLEY WAS EQUAL TO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FREE-AT-FRONTIER PRICE FOR THE PRODUCT AS BETWEEN THE EXPORTING AND IMPORTING MEMBER STATES, AND THE THRESHOLD PRICE WITHIN THE IMPORTING STATE; UNDER ARTICLE 4 OF THIS REGULATION, THE THRESHOLD PRICE WAS FIXED ANNUALLY BY THE MEMBER STATES FOR AN IDENTICAL STANDARD QUALITY, IN SUCH A WAY THAT THE SELLING PRICE FOR THE IMPORTED PRODUCT IN THE MARKETING CENTRE OF THE MAIN DEFICIT AREA WITHIN THE RELEVANT MEMBER STATE WAS EQUAL TO THE BASIC TARGET PRICE LAID DOWN UNDER ARTICLE 5 OF THE SAID REGULATION; 5 IN ORDER TO AVOID DISTURBANCES RESULTING FROM THE IMPORT OF LOW-PRICED GOODS, THE THRESHOLD PRICE PROVIDED BY REGULATION 19/62 WAS INTENDED, BY MEANS OF LEVIES, TO FIX THE LEVEL TO WHICH THE PRICE OF THE IMPORTED PRODUCT MUST BE RAISED TO PRECLUDE ITS BEING OFFERED FOR SALE ON THE MARKET IN QUESTION AT A PRICE LOWER THAN THE BASIC TARGET PRICE; TO MEET THIS CONDITION THE PRICE OF THE IMPORTED PRODUCT AFTER CROSSING THE FRONTIER HAD TO BE THE SAME AS THE BASIC TARGET PRICE, AND THUS THE THRESHOLD PRICE HAD TO BE EQUAL TO THE BASIC TARGET PRICE LESS MARKETING COSTS; 6 MARKETING COSTS INCLUDE THOSE EXPENSES INHERENT IN THE PROCEDURES AND FORMALITIES OF IMPORT, WHICH EVERY IMPORTER MUST INEVITABLY INCUR, AS WELL AS THE NORMAL EXPENSE OF TRANSPORTING THOSE GOODS TO THE DECISIVE MARKETING STAGE IN THE MAIN DEFICIT AREA . HOWEVER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GENERAL SYSTEM OF LEVIES PROVIDED UNDER REGULATION 19/62, MARKETING COSTS SHOULD NOT BE CALCULATED ON THE BASIS OF COSTS ACTUALLY INCURRED BY THE IMPORTER FOR A SPECIFIC DELIVERY - THESE BEING LARGELY DEPENDENT UPON DECISIONS MADE BY THE IMPORTER BUT SHOULD BE CALCULATED AT A FLAT RATE IN RELATION TO THOSE EXPENSES WHICH AN IMPORTER OF THE PRODUCTS IN QUESTION MUST INEVITABLY INCUR; 7 THUS THE QUESTION SHOULD BE ANSWERED TO THE EFFECT THAT ARTICLES 2 AND 4 OF REGULATION 19/62 OF THE COUNCIL MUST BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT THE ITEMS OF IMPORT COSTS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN CALCULATING THE AMOUNT OF THE LEVY ARE THOSE WHICH EVERY IMPORTER MUST INEVITABLY INCUR IN COMPLYING WITH THE PROCEDURES AND LEGAL FORMALITIES NECESSARY FOR THE IMPORT OF THE PRODUCTS IN QUESTION AND IN TRANSPORTING THOSE PRODUCTS TO THE FIRST WHOLESALE MARKETING STAGE IN THE AREA TO WHICH THE BASIC TARGET PRICE APPLIES; 8 THE COSTS INCURRED BY THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY AND BY THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, WHICH HAVE SUBMITTED OBSERVATIONS TO THE COURT, ARE NOT RECOVERABLE, AND AS THESE PROCEEDINGS ARE, INSOFAR AS THE PARTIES TO THE MAIN ACTION ARE CONCERNED, IN THE NATURE OF A STEP IN THE ACTION PENDING BEFORE THE NATIONAL COURT, THE DECISION ON COSTS IS A MATTER FOR THAT COURT; THE COURT IN ANSWER TO THE QUESTION REFERRED TO IT BY THE HESSISCHES FINANZGERICHT ( VIITH SENATE ) BY ORDERS OF THAT COURT DATED 5 FEBRUARY 1973 AND 18 JUNE 1973, HEREBY RULES : ARTICLES 2 AND 4 OF REGULATION NO 19/62 OF THE COUNCIL MUST BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT THE IMPORT COSTS WHICH MUST BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN CALCULATING THE AMOUNT OF THE LEVY ARE THOSE WHICH EVERY IMPORTER MUST INEVITABLY INCUR IN COMPLYING WITH PROCEDURES AND LEGAL FORMALITIES FOR THE IMPORT OF THE PRODUCTS IN QUESTION AND IN TRANSPORTING THOSE PRODUCTS TO THE FIRST WHOLESALE MARKETING STAGE IN THE AREA TO WHICH THE BASIC TARGET PRICE APPLIES . © European Communities, 2001 All rights reserved BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII URL: https://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/1973/R1173.html