P . 120
THE APPLICANTS HAVE INSTITUTED PROCEEDINGS AGAINST REGULATION NO 128/67 OF THE COUNCIL FIXING THE PRICES AND PRINCIPAL MARKETING CENTRES FOR CEREALS FOR THE 1967-1968 MARKETING YEAR . MORE PARTICULARLY, THEY REQUEST THE ANNULMENT OF ARTICLES 2 AND 3 OF THE SAID REGULATION AND OF ANNEXES A AND B THERETO, TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH THOSE PROVISIONS FIX DERIVED INTERVENTION PRICES FOR COMMON WHEAT AT THE BOLOGNA AND ANCONA MARKETING CENTRES .
UNDER ARTICLE 91 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE COURT, THE DEFENDANT HAS RAISED AN OBJECTION OF INADMISSIBILITY AGAINST THE APPLICATION, SUBMITTING THAT THE ABOVE - MENTIONED PROVISIONS OF REGULATION NO 128/67 ARE NOT OF DIRECT AND INDIVIDUAL CONCERN TO THE APPLICANTS .
UNDER THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 173 OF THE TREATY, INDIVIDUALS ARE EMPOWERED TO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGS FOR ANNULMENT ONLY AGAINST DECISIONS ADDRESSED TO THEM OR AGAINST DECISIONS WHICH, ALTHOUGH IN THE FORM OF REGULATIONS OR OF DECISIONS ADDRESSED TO OTHER PERSONS, ARE OF DIRECT AND INDIVIDUDAL CONCERN TO THEM . IN THE PRESENT CASE IT IS NECESSARY TO EXAMINE, IN APPLICATION OF THAT ARTICLE, WHETHER THE PROVISIONS WHICH ARE THE SUBJECT OF THE APPLICATION ARE MERELY IN THE FORM OF A REGULATION AND IN FACT CONSTITUTE A DECISION OF DIRECT AND INDIVIDUAL CONCERN TO THE APPLICANTS . IT IS ACCORDINGLY NECESSARY TO ASCERTAIN, IN RELATION TO THE STATED CRITERIA, THE TRUE LEGAL NATURE OF THE MEASURE ENTITLED REGULATION NO 128/67 AND, MORE PARTICULARLY, OF ARTICLES 2 AND 3 OF THAT REGULATION AS WELL AS CERTAIN PARTS, SPECIFIED IN THE APPLICATION, OF ANNEXES A AND B TO THE REGULATION .
HAVING FIXED THE TARGET PRICE, THE BASIC INTERVENTION PRICE AND THE GUARANTEED MINIMUM PRICE FOR CERTAIN PRODUCTS FOR THE 1967-1968 MARKETING YEAR IN ARTICLE 1, REGULATION NO 128/67 FIXES, IN ARTICLE 2, THE DERIVED INTERVENTION PRICES FOR COMMON WHEAT, DURUM WHEAT, RYE AND BARLEY, AS LISTED IN ANNEXES A AND B, FOR THAT MARKETING YEAR . THE SAID ANNEXES PROVIDE FOR THE FIXING OF THOSE PRICES, INTER ALIA, FOR THE BOLOGNA AND ANCONA MARKETING CENTRES . FINALLY, IN ARTICLE 3, THE SAID REGULATION FIXES THE THRESHOLD PRICE FOR CERTAIN CEREALS, INCLUDING COMMON WHEAT, FOR THE SAME MARKETING YEAR .
OWING TO THE PRICE MECHANISM BROUGHT INTO BEING BY REGULATION NO 120/67, THE CREATION OF A SINGLE MARKET IN CEREALS FOR THE WHOLE COMMUNITY DEPENDS IN PART UPON THE ADOPTION OF A SYSTEM COMPRISING, APART FROM A TARGET PRICE VALID FOR THE WHOLE COMMUNITY, A SINGLE THRESHOLD PRICE AND A SINGLE METHOD OF FIXING INTERVENTION PRICES . WITH A VIEW IN PARTICULAR TO STABILIZING MARKETS AND GUARANTEEING THE FREE MOVEMENT OF CEREALS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY, REGULATION NO 120/67 PROVIDES FOR THE FIXING OF INTERVENTION PRICES DERIVED FROM THE BASIC PRICE, THE EFFECT OF WHICH IS TO ENABLE SURPLUSES IN PRODUCTION AREAS TO BE OFFSET AGAINST REQUIREMENTS IN DEFICIT AREAS . FOR THE PURPOSES OF SUCH OFFSETTING, THE NECESSARY INTERVENTION MEASURES MUST BE STANDARDIZED AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFYING THOSE MEASURES MUST BE ASSESSED NOT ON THE BASIS OF A LOCALITY OR SECTOR BUT AT COMMUNITY LEVEL . THE PROPER WORKING OF THE SYSTEM THUS SET UP COULD NOT BE GUARANTEED IN THE ABSENCE OF A CORRELATION, EFFECTED BY THE FIXING OF THRESHOLD PRICES, BETWEEN THE PRICE SYSTEM AND THE LEVY SYSTEM . IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE THAT THE FIXING OF DERIVED INTERVENTION PRICES AND THRESHOLD PRICES IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE PRICE SYSTEM WHICH IS HELD TO BE INDISPENSABLE IN ENSURING THE PROGRESSIVE ESTABLISHMENT OF A COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKET IN CEREALS IN ACCORDANCE WITH REGULATION NO 120/67 AND THE OBJECTIVES OF ARTICLE 39 OF THE TREATY . THE STATE OF INTERDEPENDENCE BETWEEN THESE PRICES IS MOREOVER DEMONSTRATED BY THE FACT THAT BOTH INTERVENTION PRICES AND THRESHOLD PRICES ARE FIXED IN RELATION TO A COMMON TARGET PRICE WHICH ALLOWS PRODUCERS TO SETTLE THEIR PLANS FOR CULTIVATION ACCORDINGLY .
P . 121
ACCORDINGLY, IT CANNOT BE CONTESTED THAT THE MEASURE OF WHICH THE PROVISIONS AT ISSUE FORM AN INTEGRAL PART IS IN THE NATURE OF A REGULATION .
THIS FINDING CANNOT BE INVALIDATED BY THE FACT THAT ARTICLE 2 LAYS DOWN DERIVED INTERVENTION PRICES WHICH VARY ACCORDING TO THE MARKETING CENTRE CONCERNED AND THAT, FOR EACH OF THOSE PRICES, THE EFFECTS OF THAT PROVISION ARE LIMITED TO THE AREAS LISTED IN ANNEXES A AND B . ALTHOUGH IT MAY HAPPEN THAT A MEASURE WHICH, TAKEN AS A WHOLE, HAS THE CHARACTERISTICS OF A REGULATION, MAY NEVERTHELESS CONTAIN PROVISIONS ADDRESSED TO SPECIFIC PERSONS IN SUCH A WAY AS TO DISTINGUISH THEM INDIVIDUALLY IN THE SENSE OF THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 173 OF THE TREATY, NO SUCH PERSONS ARE INDIVIDUALLY DISTINGUISHED IN THIS CASE . IN FACT THE PROVISIONS OF THE SAID ARTICLE 2, THE AMBIT OF WHICH IS CIRCUMSCRIBED BY ANNEXES A AND B, DO NOT CONCERN, WITHIN EACH MARKETING CENTRE, THE INTERESTS OF GIVEN NAMED OR IDENTIFIABLE PERSONS, BUT AFFECT THE INTERESTS OF GIVEN NAMED OR IDENTIFIABLE PERSONS, BUT AFFECT THE INTERESTS OF CATEGORIES OF USERS AND TRADERS, CONSIDERED IN THE ABSTRACT, WHO ARE DISTINGUISHED SOLELY BY THEIR PARTICIPATION IN THE MARKET FOR THE RELEVANT PRODUCTS .
THE APPLICATION IS ACCORDINGLY INADMISSIBLE UNDER THE TERMS OF THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 173 OF THE TREATY AND MUST THEREFORE BE DISMISSED .
UNDER ARTICLE 69(2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, THE UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY SHALL BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS IF THEY HAVE BEEN ASKED FOR IN THE SUCCESSFUL PARTY'S PLEADING . IN THIS CASE NEITHER THE APPLICANTS NOR THE DEFENDANT HAVE MADE ANY SUBMISSIONS AS TO COSTS . UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, EACH PARTY MUST BE ORDERED TO PAY ITS OWN COSTS .
THE COURT
HEREBY : 1 . DISMISSES APPLICATION NO 30/67 AS INADMISSIBLE;
2 . ORDERS EACH PARTY TO BEAR ITS OWN COSTS .
