C-309/81

Avis juridique important | 61981J0309 Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 December 1982. - H.P. Klughardt oHG v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-St. Annen. - Reference for a preliminary ruling: Bundesfinanzhof - Germany. - Common organization of the market in beef and veal. - Case 309/81. European Court reports 1982 Page 04291 Summary Parties Subject of the case Grounds Decision on costs Operative part Keywords . AGRICULTURE - COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKET - BEEF AND VEAL - SCOPE - BUFFALO MEAT OF NON-DOMESTIC SPECIES - INCLUSION ( COUNCIL REGULATION NO 425/77 , ART . 1 ) 2 . MEASURES ADOPTED BY THE INSTITUTIONS - REGULATIONS - DUTY TO PROVIDE A STATEMENT OF THE REASONS ON WHICH THEY ARE BASED - SCOPE ( EEC TREATY , ART . 190 ) Summary . REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 425/77 MUST BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT BUFFALO MEAT OF NON-DOMESTIC SPECIES IS COVERED BY THE COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKET IN BEEF AND VEAL . . IN RELATION TO THE STATEMENT OF REASONS UPON WHICH REGULATIONS ARE BASED , ARTICLE 190 OF THE TREATY REQUIRES THAT THE RECITALS IN THE PREAMBLE SHOULD EXPLAIN IN ESSENCE THE MEASURES TAKEN , WITHOUT ITS BEING NECESSARY TO PROVIDE A SPECIFIC STATEMENT OF REASONS IN SUPPORT OF ALL THE DETAILS WHICH MIGHT BE CONTAINED IN SUCH MEASURES . Parties IN CASE 309/81 REFERENCE TO THE COURT UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY BY THE BUNDESFINANZHOF ( FEDERAL FINANCE COURT ) FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING IN THE PROCEEDINGS PENDING BEFORE THAT COURT BETWEEN H . P . KLUGHARDT OHG , HAMBURG , AND HAUPTZOLLAMT ( PRINCIPAL CUSTOMS OFFICE ) HAMBURG-ST . ANNEN , INTERVENER : FEDERAL MINISTER OF FINANCE , Subject of the case ON THE INTERPRETATION AND VALIDITY OF COUNCIL REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 425/77 OF 14 FEBRUARY 1977 AMENDING REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 805/68 ON THE COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKET IN BEEF AND VEAL AND ADAPTING REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 827/68 AND REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 950/68 ON THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL 1977 , L 61 , P . 1 ), Grounds BY ORDER OF 27 OCTOBER 1981 WHICH WAS RECEIVED AT THE COURT ON 3 DECEMBER 1981 , THE BUNDESFINANZHOF ( FEDERAL FINANCE COURT ) REFERRED TO THE COURT FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY TWO QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE INTERPRETATION AND VALIDITY OF COUNCIL REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 425/77 OF 14 FEBRUARY 1977 AMENDING REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 805/68 ON THE COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKET IN BEEF AND VEAL AND ADAPTING REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 827/68 AND REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 950/68 ON THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL 1977 , L 61 , P . 1 ). THE QUESTIONS WERE RAISED IN THE COURSE OF AN APPEAL BROUGHT BY A GERMAN UNDERTAKING AGAINST THE APPLICATION OF LEVIES AND MONETARY COMPENSATORY AMOUNTS BY THE CUSTOMS AUTHORITIES ON THE IMPORTATION OF A QUANTITY OF FROZEN BONELESS BUFFALO MEAT . THE IMPORTER CLAIMED BEFORE THE NATIONAL COURT THAT THE APPLICATION OF LEVIES AND MONETARY COMPENSATORY AMOUNTS WAS JUSTIFIED ONLY IF THE BUFFALO MEAT WAS RE-COVERED BY THE COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKET IN BEEF AND VEAL AND THAT THAT WAS NOT THE CASE SINCE IT WAS MEAT OF AUSTRALIAN BUFFALO , WHICH WAS WILD BUFFALO . REGULATION NO 425/77 DID NOT INCLUDE WILD BUFFALO MEAT IN THE COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKET IN BEEF AND VEAL AND IF IT SHOULD BE INTERPRETED OTHERWISE , THAT REGULATION WOULD BE INVALID ON THE GROUND THAT IT DID NOT STATE THE REASONS ON WHICH IT WAS BASED . IN ORDER TO ENABLE IT TO DETERMINE THOSE TWO QUESTIONS , THE BUNDESFINANZHOF REFERRED TO THE COURT FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS : ' ' 1 . WAS IT THE INTENTION THAT WILD BUFFALO MEAT SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKET IN BEEF AND VEAL AS A RESULT OF COUNCIL REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 425/77? 2.IF THE ANSWER TO QUESTION 1 IS IN THE AFFIRMATIVE : IS COUNCIL REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 425/77 INVALID IN SO FAR AS IT INFRINGES ARTICLE 190 OF THE TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY? ' ' 5 DURING THE PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COURT , THE COUNCIL AND THE COMMISSION CONTENDED THAT THOSE QUESTIONS WERE BASED ON AN ERRONEOUS PREMISE , SINCE THE AUSTRALIAN BUFFALO WAS DESCENDED FROM THE ASIATIC BUFFALO AND THE LATTER SHOULD BE REGARDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EXPLANATORY NOTES TO THE CUSTOMS TARIFF OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES AS AN ANIMAL OF THE DOMESTIC SPECIES . THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THE BUFFALO IS AN ANIMAL OF THE BOVINE SPECIES AND THAT MEAT OF ANIMALS OF THE DOMESTIC BOVINE SPECIES WAS ALREADY COVERED BY THE COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKET IN BEEF AND VEAL BEFORE THE ENTRY INTO FORCE OF REGULATION NO 425/77 , BY VIRTUE OF ARTICLE 1 OF COUNCIL REGULATION NO 805/68 OF 27 JUNE 1968 ON THE COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKET IN BEEF AND VEAL ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL , ENGLISH SPECIAL EDITION 1968 ( I ), P . 187 ). HOWEVER , IT MUST BE NOTED THAT THE QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO THE COURT OF JUSTICE BY THE NATIONAL COURT CONCERN THE MEAT OF WILD BUFFALO AND THAT IT IS FOR THAT COURT TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE MAIN ACTION IN FACT CONCERNS SUCH A PRODUCT . SINCE THE EXPRESSION ' ' WILD BUFFALO ' ' DOES NOT APPEAR IN THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF OR IN THE REGULATIONS ON AGRICULTURAL MATTERS , IT MUST BE ASSUMED THAT THE NATIONAL COURT REFERS IN ITS QUESTIONS TO MEAT OF BUFFALO OF NON-DOMESTIC SPECIES . ARTICLE 1 OF REGULATION NO 425/77 DEFINES THE SCOPE OF THE COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKET IN BEEF AND VEAL SO AS TO COVER ' ' LIVE ANIMALS OF THE DOMESTIC BOVINE SPECIES , OTHER THAN PURE-BRED BREEDING ANIMALS ' ' ( SUBHEADING 01.02 A II OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF ) AND ALSO ' ' MEAT OF BOVINE ANIMALS , FRESH , CHILLED OR FROZEN ' ' ( SUBHEADING 02.01 A II OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF ). ARTICLE 5 OF THE SAME REGULATION AMENDS THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF ON LIVE ANIMALS OF THE BOVINE SPECIES , ( HEADING 01.02 ) AND ON MEAT AND EDIBLE OFFALS OF THE BOVINE ANIMALS FALLING WITHIN HEADING 01.02 , FRESH , CHILLED OR FROZEN ( SUBHEADINGS 02.01 A II , B II AND C I ). THE AMENDED VERSION OF TARIFF HEADING 01.02 DISTINGUISHES BETWEEN ANIMALS OF ' ' DOMESTIC SPECIES ' ' AND ' ' OTHER ' ' , WHEREAS THERE IS NO SUCH DISTINCTION IN TARIFF HEADING 02.01 IN RELATION TO MEAT AND OFFALS . IT THEREFORE FOLLOWS FROM THE PROVISIONS OF REGULATION NO 425/77 THAT THERE IS NO DISTINCTION IN EITHER THE COMMON CUSTOMS TARIFF OR THE RULES ON THE COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKET BETWEEN MEAT OF BUFFALO OF DOMESTIC SPECIES AND THAT OF BUFFALO OF NON-DOMESTIC SPECIES . THE PLAINTIFF IN THE MAIN ACTION CLAIMS THAT A SYSTEM WHEREBY THE LIVE BUFFALO OF NON-DOMESTIC SPECIES WAS NOT COVERED BY THE COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKET WHEREAS ITS MEAT WAS SO INCLUDED WOULD BE INCONSISTENT . HOWEVER , THAT ARGUMENT CONCERNS THE QUESTION WHETHER THE DISTINCTIONS MADE BETWEEN BOVINE ANIMALS IN REGULATION NO 425/77 ARE WELL FOUNDED , NOT THE INTERPRETATION OF THAT REGULATION . THE ANSWER TO THE FIRST QUESTION SHOULD THEREFORE BE THAT REGULATION NO 425/77 MUST BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT MEAT OF BUFFALO OF NON-DOMESTIC SPECIES IS COVERED BY THE COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKET IN BEEF AND VEAL . - PLEASE REFER TO PREVIOUS FOOTNOTES . THE SECOND QUESTION ASKS WHETHER SUCH AN INTERPRETATION RESULTS IN THE INVALIDITY OF REGULATION NO 425/77 , SINCE THE RECITALS IN THE PREAMBLE TO THE REGULATION DO NOT REFER TO THE EXTENSION OF THE SCOPE OF THE COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKET TO COVER MEAT OF BOVINE ANIMALS OF NON-DOMESTIC SPECIES . IT SHOULD BE RECALLED THAT THE COURT CONSIDERED IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 12 JULY 1979 IN CASE 166/78 ITALIAN REPUBLIC V COUNCIL ( 1979 ) ECR 2575 , THAT , IN RELATION TO THE STATEMENT OF THE REASONS UPON WHICH REGULATIONS ARE BASED , ARTICLE 190 OF THE TREATY REQUIRES THAT THE RECITALS IN THE PREAMBLE SHOULD EXPLAIN IN ESSENCE THE MEASURES TAKEN , WITHOUT ITS BEING NECESSARY TO PROVIDE A SPECIFIC STATEMENT OF REASONS IN SUPPORT OF ALL THE DETAILS WHICH MIGHT BE CONTAINED IN SUCH A MEASURE . REGULATION NO 425/77 IN ESSENCE PROVIDES FOR A REVISION OF THE RULES GOVERNING TRADE WITH NON-MEMBER COUNTRIES , DESCRIBED IN DETAIL IN THE RECITALS IN THE PREAMBLE . THE COUNCIL MADE USE OF THAT OPPORTUNITY IN ORDER TO SETTLE OTHER PROBLEMS IN RELATION TO BEEF AND VEAL BY AMENDING , FOR EXAMPLE , THE RULES APPLICABLE TO PURE-BRED BREEDING ANIMALS . IN ADDITION , THE 11TH RECITAL IN THE PREAMBLE TO THE REGULATION REFERS TO THE FACT THAT THE EFFECT OF THE AMENDMENTS TO THE REGULATIONS ON BEEF AND VEAL IS TO AMEND THE DESCRIPTIONS OF CERTAIN GOODS . IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES , THE ABSENCE OF A SPECIFIC STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE INCLUSION OF MEAT OF BOVINE ANIMALS OF NON-DOMESTIC SPECIES IN THE COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKET DOES NOT MAKE THE REGULATION INVALID FOR INFRINGEMENT OF ARTICLE 190 OF THE TREATY . THE ANSWER TO THE SECOND QUESTION SHOULD THEREFORE BE THAT CONSIDERATION OF THE QUESTION HAS DISCLOSED NO FACTOR OF SUCH A KIND AS TO AFFECT THE VALIDITY OF REGULATION NO 425/77 . Decision on costs COSTS 18 THE COSTS INCURRED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES AND THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES , WHICH HAVE SUBMITTED OBSERVATIONS TO THE COURT , ARE NOT RECOVERABLE . AS THESE PROCEEDINGS ARE , IN SO FAR 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 AS TO COSTS IS A MATTER FOR THAT COURT . Operative part ON THOSE GROUNDS , THE COURT ( FIRST CHAMBER ), IN ANSWER TO THE QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO IT BY THE BUNDESFINANZHOF BY ORDER OF 27 OCTOBER 1981 , HEREBY RULES : 1 . COUNCIL REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 425/77 OF 14 FEBRUARY 1977 MUST BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT BUFFALO MEAT OF NON-DOMESTIC SPECIES IS COVERED BY THE COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKET IN BEEF AND VEAL . 2.CONSIDERATION OF THE SECOND QUESTION HAS DISCLOSED NO FACTOR OF SUCH A KIND AS TO AFFECT THE VALIDITY OF COUNCIL REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 425/77 OF 14 FEBRUARY 1977 .