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) >> La Compagnie francaise commerciale et financiere SA, v Commission of the European Communities. [1970] EUECJ C-63/69 (16 April 1970)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/1970/C6369.html
Cite as: [1970] EUECJ C-63/69

[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.

61969J0063
Judgment of the Court of 16 April 1970.
La Compagnie française commerciale et financière SA, v Commission of the European Communities.
Case 63-69.
European Court reports 1970 Page 00205
Danish special edition 1970 Page 00041
Greek special edition 1969-1971 Page 00299
Portuguese special edition 1969-1970 Page 00323

++++
MEASURES ADOPTED BY AN INSTITUTION - REGULATION - CONCEPT
( EEC TREATY, ARTICLE 189 )

THE FACT THAT A GENERAL PROVISION DOES NOT HAVE THE SAME EFFECT ON ALL THOSE SUBJECT TO IT IS NOT IN ITSELF CAPABLE OF DEPRIVING IT OF ITS CHARACTER OF A REGULATION . IT IS, ON THE CONTRARY, IN THE NATURE OF A GENERAL PROVISION THAT WHEN UNIFORMLY APPLIED IT MAY AFFECT PERSONS CONCERNED IN DIFFERENT WAYS ACCORDING TO THEIR PARTICULAR SITUATION OR ACTIVITIES .
A PROVISION FIXING THE DATE FROM WHICH THE PROVISIONS OF A REGULATION SHALL TAKE EFFECT PARTAKES OF THE GENERAL NATURE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MISUSE OF POWERS, OF THOSE PROVISIONS .

IN CASE 63/69
LA COMPAGNIE FRANCAISE COMMERCIALE ET FINANCIERE S . A ., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE IN PARIS, ASSISTED BY ANDRE VIDART, ADVOCATE AT THE CONSEIL D' ETAT AND AT THE COUR DE CASSATION, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE CHAMBERS OF ERNEST ARENDT, 34 . B . IV, RUE PHILIPPE-II, APPLICANT,
V
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, REPRESENTED BY ARMANDO TOLEDANO-LAREDO ACTING AS AGENT, ASSISTED BY JACQUES H . J . BOURGEOIS ACTING AS ADVISER, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG, AT THE CHAMBERS OF EMILE REUTER, CENTRE EUROPEENNE, KIRCHBERG, DEFENDANT,

APPLICATION FOR THE ANNULMENT OF :
1 . THE FIXING AT 81.87 FF PER METRIC TON OF THE COMPENSATORY AMOUNT FOR WHEAT OR MESLIN FLOUR ( HEADING NO 11.01 A IN THE CUSTOMS TARIFF ) IN THE ANNEX FOR WHICH PROVISION IS MADE BY ARTICLE 2 OF REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 1670/69 OF THE COMMISSION OF 22 AUGUST 1969 ON CERTAIN MEASURES TO BE TAKEN IN THE CEREALS AND RICE SECTORS AS A RESULT OF THE DEVALUATION OF THE FRENCH FRANC;
2 . ARTICLE 6 OF THE ABOVE REGULATION IN SO FAR AS IT PROVIDES THAT : " THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLES 2 TO 4 SHALL HAVE EFFECT FROM 11 AUGUST 1969 ",

1 IN AN APPLICATION LODGED ON 20 OCTOBER 1969 THE APPLICANT SEEKS THE ANNULMENT OF REGULATION NO 1670/69 OF THE COMMISSION OF 22 AUGUST 1969 RELATING TO CERTAIN MEASURES IN THE CEREALS AND RICE SECTORS FOLLOWING THE DEVALUATION OF THE FRENCH FRANC ( OJ, L 214 P . 7 ) IN SO FAR AS IT FIXES AT 81.87 FF PER METRIC TON THE COMPENSATORY AMOUNTS PAYABLE ON THE EXPORT OF WHEAT OR MESLIN FLOUR AND APPEARING IN THE ANNEX PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 2 AND PROVIDES IN ARTICLE 6 THAT THE PROVISIONS IN ARTICLES 2 TO 4 SHALL HAVE EFFECT FROM 11 AUGUST 1969 .
2 IN AN INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION LODGED AT THE REGISTRY ON 21 NOVEMBER 1969 THE DEFENDANT HAS RAISED AN OBJECTION OF INADMISSIBILITY UNDER ARTICLE 91 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, CLAIMING THAT THE MEASURE IN QUESTION WAS A REGULATION AND WAS NOT OF INDIVIDUAL CONCERN TO THE APPLICANT .
3 IT IS THEREFORE FOR THE COURT TO EXAMINE IN THE LIGHT OF ARTICLE 173 OF THE TREATY WHETHER THE PROVISIONS WHICH FORM THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE APPLICATION ARE MERELY IN THE FORM OF A REGULATION AND DO, IN REALITY, CONSTITUTE A DECISION OF INDIVIDUAL CONCERN TO THE APPLICANT .
4 THE REGULATION IN QUESTION WAS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 8 OF REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 1586/69 OF THE COUNCIL OF 11 AUGUST 1969 RELATING TO CERTAIN MEASURES OF CONJUNCTURAL POLICY TO BE TAKEN IN THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR AS A RESULT OF THE DEVALUATION OF THE FRENCH FRANC ( OJ, L 202 P . 1 ) AND FORMS PART OF A BODY OF PROVISIONS DESIGNED TO ADJUST THE FUNCTIONING OF THE INTERVENTION MECHANISMS OF THE COMMON ORGANIZATION OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETS TO THE DEVALUATION OF THE FRENCH FRANC ON 8 AUGUST 1969 .
5 THE MAIN PURPOSE OF THESE MEASURES IS THAT CERTAIN CORRECTING FACTORS, CORRESPONDING TO THE DEVALUATION OF THE FRENCH FRANC AS AGAINST THE UNIT OF ACCOUNT, SHOULD BE APPLIED TO CERTAIN AMOUNTS PAYABLE OR TO BE CHARGED BY FRANCE AS A RESULT OF THE COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY, AND THEY LAY DOWN THE AMOUNTS OF THESE IN FRENCH FRANCS FOR VARIOUS PRODUCTS .
6 THE APPLICANT ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THESE ARE GENERAL MEASURES AND THEREFORE IN THE NATURE OF A REGULATION, AND ADMITS THAT THE FIXING OF THE COMPENSATORY AMOUNTS FOR EXPORT AND OF THE IMPORT SUBSIDIES ON WHEAT, FLOUR AND MESLIN ARE AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE ADJUSTMENT PROCESS AND THEREFORE HAVE, IN PRINCIPLE, GENERAL APPLICATION .
7 HOWEVER, ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANT THE FIXING OF THE CONTESTED RATE OF 81.87 FF PER METRIC TON OF FLOUR EXPORTED AFFECTS THE UNDERTAKINGS CONCERNED UNEQUALLY, SINCE IT HAS BEEN CALCULATED WITHOUT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE DIFFERING EFFECTS OF THE INCREASE OF CERTAIN CONSTITUENT ELEMENTS OF THE COST PRICE, IN PARTICULAR TRANSPORT AND SACKING COSTS, WHICH ARE PAYABLE IN NON-FRENCH CURRENCY .
8 IT SAYS THAT SINCE THESE COSTS VARY ACCORDING TO THE GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION OF THE FACTORY AND THE SIZE OF THE SACKING PLANT, THE FIXING OF THE CONTESTED AMOUNT DOES NOT HAVE GENERAL AND UNIFORM EFFECT BUT AFFECTS THE VARIOUS FRENCH EXPORTERS IN DIFFERENT WAYS, AND, THEREFORE, INDIVIDUALLY .
9 THE FACT THAT A GENERAL PROVISION DOES NOT HAVE THE SAME EFFECT ON ALL THOSE SUBJECT TO IT IS NOT IN ITSELF CAPABLE OF DEPRIVING IT OF ITS CHARACTER OF A REGULATION .
10 IT IS, ON THE CONTRARY, IN THE NATURE OF A GENERAL PROVISION THAT WHEN UNIFORMLY APPLIED IT MAY AFFECT PERSONS CONCERNED IN DIFFERENT WAYS ACCORDING TO THEIR PARTICULAR SITUATION OR ACTIVITIES .
11 FURTHERMORE, THE APPLICANT' S VIEW THAT IT IS INDIVIDUALLY CONCERNED BY THE PROVISION IN QUESTION APPEARS TO REST ON A FALSE APPRECIATION OF THE OBJECTIVE OF THE MEASURES .
12 THEY ARE NOT INTENDED TO BALANCE OUT THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF THE DEVALUATION OF THE FRENCH FRANC FOR DEALERS SO AS TO ENSURE THAT THEIR SITUATION IS UNALTERED AND TO NULLIFY THE EFFECTS OF THE DEVALUATION IN THEIR CASE .
13 ON THE CONTRARY, THE MEASURES REFRAIN FROM DEALING WITH THE RANGE OF INDIVIDUAL EFFECTS WHICH THE DEVALUATION MIGHT HAVE AND ARE INTENDED EXCLUSIVELY TO DRAW THE QUASI-AUTOMATIC CONSEQUENCES OF THE DEVALUATION ON THE PRICE MECHANISMS WHICH ARE EXPRESSED IN UNITS OF ACCOUNT AND LAID DOWN BY THE COMMON AGRICULTURAL RULES .
14 THESE MEASURES ARE THEREFORE IN THE NATURE OF REGULATIONS AND DO NOT CONCERN THE APPLICANT INDIVIDUALLY .
15 CONSEQUENTLY THE APPLICATION DIRECTED AGAINST THE FIXING IN THE ANNEX PROVIDED FOR BY ARTICLE 2 OF REGULATION NO 1670/69 OF THE COMPENSATORY AMOUNTS FOR EXPORTS OF WHEAT OR MESLIN FLOUR AT 81.87 FF PER METRIC TON IS INADMISSIBLE .
16 THE SAME APPLIES TO THE APPLICATION AGAINST ARTICLE 6 OF THE SAID REGULATION .
17 THAT ARTICLE PROVIDES THAT THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLES 2 TO 4 OF THE REGULATION SHALL HAVE EFFECT FROM 11 AUGUST 1969, AND DETERMINES THE METHOD OF TREATING TRANSACTIONS OCCURRING DURING THE PERIOD OF THE SUSPENSION OF THE VALUE OF THE UNIT OF ACCOUNT .
18 THE PROVISION IN QUESTION FIXES THE DATE FROM WHICH THE NEW PROVISIONS SHALL TAKE EFFECT .
19 IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MISUSE OF POWERS, SUCH A PROVISION PARTAKES OF THE GENERAL NATURE OF THE MEASURES WHICH IT BRINGS INTO EFFECT .
20 IN ANY EVENT THE CHOICE OF 11 AUGUST AS THE DATE WAS NECESSARY FROM AN OBJECTIVE POINT OF VIEW, SINCE THE ADJUSTMENT OF THE INTERVENTION MECHANISMS OF THE COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY TO THE DEVALUATION OF THE FRENCH FRANC HAD TO BE ACCOMPLISHED AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE DATE, THAT IS, FROM THE ENTRY INTO FORCE OF REGULATION NO 1586/69 .
21 THERE IS THEREFORE NOTHING WHATEVER TO INDICATE THAT ARTICLE 6 IS MERELY IN THE FORM OF A REGULATION AND CONCERNS THE APPLICANT INDIVIDUALLY .
22 THE RESULT OF THE FOREGOING IS THAT THE APPLICATION MUST BE DISMISSED IN ITS ENTIRETY AS INADMISSIBLE .

23 ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 69 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE THE UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY SHALL PAY THE COSTS .
24 IN THE PRESENT INSTANCE THE APPLICANT HAS FAILED IN ITS APPLICATION .
25 IT MUST THEREFORE BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS .

THE COURT
HEREBY :
1 . DISMISSES THE APPLICATION AS INADMISSIBLE;
2 . ORDERS THE APPLICANT TO BEAR THE COSTS .