Odbor kompatibility s právem ES
Úřad vlády ČR
I S A P
Informační Systém pro Aproximaci Práva
Databáze č. 17 : Databáze judikatury
ă Odbor kompatibility s právem ES, Úřad vlády ČR - určeno pouze pro potřebu ministerstev a ostatních ústředních orgánů

Číslo (Kód CELEX):
Number (CELEX Code):		61979J0138
Název:
Title: 		JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF 29 OCTOBER 1980. SA ROQUETTE FRERES V COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES. ISOGLUCOSE - PRODUCTION QUOTAS. CASE 138-79.
Publikace:
Publication:		REPORTS OF CASES 1980 PAGES 3333 - 3362
Předmět (klíčová slova):
Keywords		AGRICULTURE;SUGAR;
Související předpisy:
Corresponding acts:		379R1293
Odkaz na souvisejicí judikáty:
Corresponding Judgements:
Plný text:
Fulltext:		Ne

Fakta:


Názor soudu a komentář:


Shrnutí (Summary of the Judgment):
1. SINCE ARTICLE 9 (4) OF REGULATION NO 1111/77 (AS AMENDED BY ARTICLE 3 OF REGULATION NO 1293/79), ITSELF APPLIES THE CRITERIA LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 9 (1) TO (3) TO EACH OF THE UNDERTAKINGS SET OUT IN ANNEX II TO THE SAID REGULATION, THE LATTER ARE THE ADDRESSEES AND ARE THUS DIRECTLY AND INDIVIDUALLY CONCERNED.

2. THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 37 OF THE STATUTE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE PROVIDES THAT ALL THE INSTITUTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY HAVE THE SAME RIGHT TO INTERVENE. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO RESTRICT THE EXERCISE OF THAT RIGHT BY ANY ONE OF THEM WITHOUT ADVERSELY AFFECTING ITS INSTITUTIONAL POSITION AS INTENDED BY THE TREATY AND IN PARTICULAR ARTICLE 4 (1). THE RIGHT TO INTERVENE WHICH THE INSTITUTIONS HAVE IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT THEY HAVE AN INTEREST IN TAKING PROCEEDINGS.

3. WHEN THE IMPLEMENTATION BY THE COUNCIL OF THE AGRICULTURAL POLICY OF THE COMMUNITY INVOLVES THE NEED TO EVALUATE A COMPLEX ECONOMIC SITUATION THE DISCRETION WHICH IT HAS DOES NOT APPLY EXCLUSIVELY TO THE NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE MEASURES TO BE TAKEN BUT ALSO TO SOME EXTENT TO THE FINDING OF THE BASIC FACTS INASMUCH AS, IN PARTICULAR, IT IS OPEN TO THE COUNCIL TO RELY IF NECESSARY ON GENERAL FINDINGS. IN REVIEWING THE EXERCISE OF SUCH A POWER THE COURT MUST CONFINE ITSELF TO EXAMINING WHETHER IT CONTAINS A MANIFEST ERROR OR CONSTITUTES A MISUSE OF POWER OR WHETHER THE AUTHORITY IN QUESTION DID NOT CLEARLY EXCEED THE BOUNDS OF ITS DISCRETION.

4. THE CONSULTATION PROVIDED FOR IN THE THIRD SUBPARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 43 (2) AS IN OTHER SIMILAR PROVISIONS OF THE EEC TREATY, IS THE MEANS WHICH ALLOWS THE PARLIAMENT TO PLAY AN ACTUAL PART IN THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS OF THE COMMUNITY. SUCH POWER REPRESENTS AN ESSENTIAL FACTOR IN THE INSTITUTIONAL BALANCE INTENDED BY THE TREATY. ALTHOUGH LIMITED, IT REFLECTS AT COMMUNITY LEVEL THE FUNDAMENTAL DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLE THAT THE PEOPLES SHOULD TAKE PART IN THE EXERCISE OF POWER THROUGH THE INTERMEDIARY OF A REPRESENTATIVE ASSEMBLY. DUE CONSULTATION OF THE PARLIAMENT IN THE CASES PROVIDED FOR BY THE TREATY THEREFORE CONSTITUTES AN ESSENTIAL FORMALITY DISREGARD OF WHICH MEANS THAT THE MEASURE CONCERNED IS VOID. OBSERVANCE OF THAT REQUIREMENT IMPLIES THAT THE PARLIAMENT HAS EXPRESSED ITS OPINION. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO TAKE THE VIEW THAT THE REQUIREMENT IS SATISFIED BY THE COUNCIL' S SIMPLY ASKING FOR THE OPINION, IF NO OPINION IS AFTERWARDS GIVEN BY THE PARLIAMENT.

Plný text judikátu (Entire text of the Judgment):