1 BY A DECISION OF 28 JUNE 1972 RECEIVED BY THE COURT ON 19 JULY 1972, THE HESSISCHER VERWALTUNGSGERICHTSHOF REFERRED TO THE COURT, PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY, A QUESTION CONCERNING THE INTERPRETATION OF THE FIRST INDENT OF ARTICLE 3 OF REGULATION NO 963/69 OF THE COMMISSION OF 27 MAY 1969 ( JO 1969, L 126 ) ON THE CONDITIONS FOR GRANTING CARRY-OVER PAYMENTS FOR COMMON WHEAT, RYE OF BREAD-MAKING QUALITY AND MAIZE IN STOCK AT THE END OF THE 1968/1969 MARKETING YEAR .
THAT PROVISION STIPULATED IN PARTICULAR THAT IN ORDER TO BENEFIT FROM THE CARRY-OVER PAYMENT MENTIONED IN ARTICLE 9 OF REGULATION NO 120/67 OF THE COUNCIL OF 13 JUNE 1967 ( OJ, SPECIAL EDITION, 1967, P . 33 ) THE PERSON CONCERNED MUST HAVE DECLARED TO THE COMPETENT NATIONAL AUTHORITY, BY REGISTERED LETTER, TELEX MESSAGE OR TELEGRAM SENT NOT LATER THAN 7 JUNE 1969, HIS INTENTION TO APPLY WHERE APPROPRIATE TO BE GRANTED THE CARRY-OVER PAYMENT AND ALSO THE QUANTITIES OF EACH OF THE CEREALS REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 1 HELD BY HIM ON 31 MAY 1969, WITH DETAILS OF THE AGENT AND THE WAREHOUSE WHERE THE STOCKS MAY BE INSPECTED . THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THIS IS A MATTER OF AN ABSOLUTE LIMITATION PERIOD, NON-COMPLIANCE WITH WHICH ALWAYS RESULTS IN THE LOSS OF THE RIGHT TO THE CARRY-OVER PAYMENT .
2 BY MAKING THE LODGING OF THE DECLARATION OF INTENTION BY A TIME-LIMIT LAID DOWN IN ADVANCE ONE OF THE CONDITIONS FOR GRANTING THE PAYMENT, THE WORDING OF THE FIRST INDENT OF ARTICLE 3 CONTRIBUTES TOWARDS CONFERRING ON IT THE NATURE OF AN ABSOLUTE TIME-LIMIT . SUCH NATURE IS CONFIRMED BY THE FUNCTION OF THE PERIOD WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE INTERVENTION MACHINERY ESTABLISHED BY REGULATION NO 120/67 OF THE COUNCIL ON THE COMMON ORGANIZATION OF THE MARKET IN CEREALS . IN ORDER TO ENSURE THROUGHOUT THE MARKETING YEAR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE PRICE GUARANTEE TO PRODUCERS ARTICLE 6 OF THIS REGULATION PROVIDES THAT THE INTERVENTION PRICES SHALL BE THE SUBJECT OF MONTHLY INCREASES PHASED OVER ALL OR PART OF THE MARKETING YEAR . IN ORDER TO AVOID A LARGE RUSH OF CEREALS FOR INTERVENTION WHEN THE MONTHLY INCREASES IN INTERVENTION PRICES COME TO AN END, EVEN THOUGH A LARGE PART OF THE CEREALS IN STORE COULD BE SOLD DIRECTLY ON THE MARKET BEFORE THE BEGINNING OF THE NEW MARKETING YEAR, ARTICLE 9 OF REGULATION NO 120/67 MAKES PROVISION FOR THE OPPORTUNITY OF GRANTING A CARRY-OVER PAYMENT FOR CEREALS HARVESTED IN THE COMMUNITY, WHICH ARE STILL IN STOCK .
3 SINCE, HOWEVER, FOR CERTAIN CEREALS THE NEW HARVEST BEGINS BEFORE 31 JULY, THE END OF THE MARKETING YEAR FOR CEREALS, MEASURES HAD TO BE TAKEN TO PREVENT THE PAYMENT UNDER ARTICLE 9 FROM BEING ABUSED BY MEANS OF CLAIMS IN RESPECT OF CEREALS FROM THE NEW HARVEST IN STORE AT THAT TIME . IT IS PRECISELY FOR THIS PURPOSE THAT REGULATION NO 963/69 OF THE COMMISSION LAYS DOWN THAT, IN ORDER TO BENEFIT FROM THE PAYMENT IN QUESTION, THE APPLICANT MUST HAVE MADE THE DECLARATION REFERRED TO IN THE FIRST INDENT OF ARTICLE 3 BEFORE 7 JUNE 1969 SO AS TO ALLOW THE COMPETENT NATIONAL AUTHORITIES TO CHECK THE EXISTENCE OF STOCKS OF CEREALS EXISTING ON 31 MAY 1969, IN ORDER TO BE GRANTED THE BENEFIT OF THE CARRY-OVER PAYMENT . THESE OBJECTIVES REQUIRE THE FIXING OF A MANDATORY TIME-LIMIT FOR LODGING THE DECLARATION REFERRED TO IN THE FIRST INDENT OF ARTICLE 3 . THE FACT THAT THIS DECLARATION GIVES RISE TO THE GRANT OF A CARRY-OVER PAYMENT ONLY IF IT IS FOLLOWED BY THE REQUEST FOR PAYMENT REFERRED TO IN THE SECOND INDENT OF THE SAME ARTICLE DOES NOT DETRACT FROM THE MANDATORY NATURE OF THE TIME-LIMIT FIXED FOR LODGING THE DECLARATION . EACH OF THE TIME-LIMITS REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 3 HAS ITS OWN FUNCTION WHICH JUSTIFIES ITS STRICT NATURE . FURTHERMORE, THE NECESSITY OF ENSURING EQUALITY IN THE CONDITIONS FOR GRANTING CARRY-OVER PAYMENTS REQUIRES THE APPLICATION OF UNIFORM TIME-LIMITS .
4 IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, NEITHER PROOF THAT THE DECLARATION IS IN ITSELF JUSTIFIED, NOR THE FACT THAT THE DELAY DID NOT ARISE FROM THE FAULT OF THE APPLICANT SUFFICES TO JUSTIFY THE ACCEPTANCE OF DECLARATIONS LODGED AFTER THE TIME-LIMIT LAID DOWN IN THIS REGARD BY THE FIRST INDENT OF ARTICLE 3 OF REGULATION NO 963/69 .
5 THE REPLY TO THE FIRST QUESTION MUST THEREFORE BY THAT THE TIME-LIMIT LAID DOWN BY THE FIRST INDENT OF ARTICLE 3 OF REGULATION NO 963/69 OF THE COMMISSION OF 27 MAY 1969, UNDER THE TERMS OF WHICH THE APPLICANT MUST HAVE DECLARED, BY REGISTERED LETTER, TELEX MESSAGE OR TELEGRAM SENT NOT LATER THAN 7 JUNE 1969, HIS INTENTION TO APPLY WHERE APPROPRIATE TO BE GRANTED THE CARRY-OVER PAYMENT, IS AN ABSOLUTE LIMITATION PERIOD . IN VIEW OF THAT REPLY, THE OTHER QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO THE COURT LOSE THEIR PURPOSE .
THE COSTS INCURRED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, WHICH 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 ON COSTS IS A MATTER FOR THAT COURT .
THE COURT
IN ANSWER TO THE QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO IT BY THE HESSISCHER VERWALTUNGSGERICHTSHOF IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DECISION GIVEN BY THAT COURT ON 28 JUNE 1972, HEREBY RULES :
THE TIME-LIMIT LAID DOWN IN THE FIRST INDENT OF ARTICLE 3 OF REGULATION NO 963/69 OF THE COMMISSION OF 27 MAY 1969, UNDER THE TERMS OF WHICH THE APPLICANT MUST HAVE DECLARED, BY REGISTERED LETTER, TELEX MESSAGE OR TELEGRAM SENT NOT LATER THAN 7 JUNE 1969, HIS INTENTION TO APPLY WHERE APPROPRIATE TO BE GRANTED THE CARRY-OVER PAYMENT REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 9 OF REGULATION NO 120/67 OF THE COUNCIL IS AN ABSOLUTE LIMITATION PERIOD .
