Page1

*112 Stauder v City of Ulm

(Case 29/69) Before the Court of Justice of the European Communities 12 November 1969

[1970] C.M.L.R. 112

( The President , Judge R. Lecourt ; Judges R. Monaco , P. Pescatore , A. M. Donner , W. Strauss , A. Trabucchi and J. Mertens de Wilmars .) Herr Karl Roemer , AdvocateGeneral . 12 November 1969 Submission of A Question by the Verwaltungsgericht, Stuttgart, under Article 177. Procedure. European Court. National courts may make reference under Article 177 E.E.C. of questions arising in applications for interlocutory injunction. Interpretation. Multilingual texts. When a decision is addressed to all the memberStates, the necessity of uniform application, and therefore of uniform interpretation, precludes its being considered in one of its versions in isolation but requires that it should be interpreted in accordance with the real intention of its author in the light of all four of its language versions. Interpretation. Variant possibilities. Where there are alternative interpretations of a Community instrument, preference must be given to the least onerous interpretation if it suffices to achieve the purposes of the instrument. Interpretation. Travaux prparatoires. Where a Commission decision which is open to two interpretations had been considered in draft by an advisory committee which had expressly excluded one such interpretation, and evidence is given that the Commission had accepted the exclusion on promulgation, the decision should be interpreted in accordance with the other alternative. Human rights. Community law. The European Court is required to ensure the observance of the fundamental rights of the individual contained in the general principles of the law of the Community. The Court interpreted Article 4 (2) of Decision 69/71/EEC . *113

Facts
The facts are set out in the first two paragraphs of the Advocate General's submissions.

Submissions of the Advocate-General (Herr. Karl Roemer)

The fact that too much butter is produced in the Community and that there has so far been a lack of effective measures against increases in production compels the Community in turn to try to reduce the surplus of butter by means of measures intended to increase demand. The Commission's decision of 12 February 1969 1 under Articles 28 and 35 of Council Regulation 804/68 on a Common Market organisation for milk and milk products was made for this purpose. It empowers the member-States to provide cheap butter for certain consumer-groups in receipt of social assistance, or more precisely, it permits subsidies of up to 1.45 units of account per kilogramme of butter so as to produce a price equal to the price of margarine. Since the sale of the butter was to be effected through retailers and not the administrative authorities it seemed necessary to provide measures of control that would ensure that the cheap butter would in fact reach the consumer-groups in receipt of social assistance. Article 4 of the Commission's decision therefore provides, in its German version, that: "The member-States shall adopt all the measures necessary to ensure thatthe beneficiaries of the measures provided in

Article 1 may only obtain butter in return for a coupon issued in their name (auf ihren Namen ausgestellten )." The German Federal Republic has used this power. The Federal Minister for Food, Agriculture and Forestry issued instructions on 11 March 1969 2 regulating the issue of coupon-cards. These cards consist of a counterfoil and eight detachable coupons. For the purposes of control it is provided that the counterfoils are valid only if a name is inserted and that coupons can only be exchanged through retailers if they are still attached to the counterfoil. The plaintiff in these proceedings, who is resident in Ulm, was, as a recipient of war victims' benefit, a beneficiary under these provisions. However, he considers that it is "discriminatory" to require the beneficiaries to reveal their name and address to the retailer. As he considers that this amounts to a breach of the basic rights laid down in the Constitution of the German Federal Republic 3 he appealed to the Bundesverfassungsgericht on 22 April 1969. In addition he lodged an administrative appeal on 22 May 1969 in the Verwaltungsgericht, Stuttgart, against the City of Ulm. In these proceedings he also claimed that an interlocutory injunction should be issued against the City of Ulm. After considering the facts of the case the Verwaltungsgericht held that the publication of the name as required by the decision of the Commission raised justifiable doubts as to the legality of the decision in view of the national constitutional rights. Moreover, as the Verwaltungsgericht held that the jurisdiction of the European Court under Article 177 of the E.E.C. Treaty could be invoked even in proceedings for an interlocutory injunction, it made an order on 18 June 1969 to submit the following question: "Is it compatible with the general principles of Community law in force that the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 12 February 1969 (69/71/EEC) makes the allocation of butter at a reduced price to the beneficiaries of certain social assistance schemes dependent on the disclosure of the beneficiary's name to the sellers (Article 4 of the decision)?" Only the Commission of the European Communities has expressed its views on this question orally and in writing. The Commission was, moreover, represented at the proceedings in the national court. My views on the question are as follows: 1. No special problems arise with regard to the admissibility of the submission to this Court. *114 Although Article 177 (2) provides that a ruling on a submission must be necessary for the issue of a judgment, it cannot be objected that preliminary rulings are also requested in respect of the issue of interlocutory injunctions. Like judgments at first instance, which are certainly covered by Article 177 (2), they occasionally remain in force for a fairly long period. If in addition questions of validity that have arisen are involved, one may even agree with the Commission that it is particularly desirable that they should be answered as early as possible, i.e. where necessary, at the interlocutory stage. The Court, in the present case, is not asked, as first appearances might suggest, to rule on the compatibility of a legislative provision of the Community with the national constitutional law. Such a test must in fact be inadmissible according to the existing practice of this Court. The Verwaltungsgericht is really asking the Court to consider the validity of the Commission's decision in the light of "the general principles of Community law in force" . As the grounds for the order of the Verwaltungsgericht show, by this it is meant that a comparison with the principles of the national law should be undertaken. This is in line with the view expressed by many authors that common conceptions of value in the national constitutional law, in particular, national basic rights, must be established by comparative evaluation of the law and these common conceptions must be observed as unwritten components of Community law in the formulation of secondary Community law. Consequently, the Court may quite properly be requested to test the validity of a decision of the Commission against this criterion. 2. As I have stated, the plaintiff takes exception to the fact that a coupon issued in a name must be presented for the purchase of butter at the reduced price. Accordingly,

Page3

the question submitted by the Verwaltungsgericht, Stuttgart, solely relates to Article 4 (2) of the Commission's decision of 12 February 1969 . That court's doubts as to the validity of the decision arise from the assumption that the requirement mentioned must be clearly taken from the decision. A corresponding request for an interpretation was therefore intended. However, this does not mean that this Court must merely base its decision on the interpretation submitted by the Verwaltungsgericht but, on the contrary, it should be assumed that a request for an interpretation of the Commission's decision is implicitly submitted to the Court with the request for a scrutiny of its validity. I therefore agree with the view of the Commission that the Court should first deal with the interpretation of the Commission's decision and then decide whether the question of validity has any substance. The interpretation of Article 4 of the Commission's decision *115 presents no problems whatsoever if it is based solely on the German and the corresponding Dutch versions. They use the words "auf ihren Namen ausgestellten Gutschein " (Dutch: "een op naam gestelde bon " ) (coupon issued in their name). However, the French and Italian versions differ from this and merely speak of a "bon individualis " and "buono individualizzato " respectively. This also applies to the reasons for the decision which, even in the Dutch version, employ solely the term "individualised coupon " . Thus it is clear that versions in other languages are wider, for coupons may undoubtedly be "individualised" in other ways than by specifying the name of the beneficiary (for example, as suggested by the Commission, by continuous numbering). This divergence is important for the purposes of interpretation. It is obvious that the Commission intended to issue a single decision equally binding on all the member-States. This results in particular from Article 6 of the Decision. However, if it is not possible to assume that different conditions apply in the various member-States, we must try to attribute a uniform interpretation to the decision in spite of variations in the linguistic versions. This problem constantly arises in the case of Community legislation and decisions which are binding in four languages. However, in the present case, a theoretical solution which might prove difficult to apply, particularly to legislative provisions, is not required. On the contrary, the solution seems relatively simple since we have to deal with a decision addressed to the member-States and the necessary information can clearly be extracted from the history of its origin. As we have heard, the power granted in the decision originated in a suggestion made by the German Federal Republic which in a telex of 16 January 1969 had expressed the wish to distribute a certain quantity of butter at a reduced price to recipients of social assistance during the first six months of 1969. It was proposed to introduce coupon cards the counterfoil of which would bear the name of the recipient. A draft-decision was prepared in French on the basis of this proposal. By virtue of Article 30 of Regulation 804/68 this draft had to be considered by the Administrative Commission for Milk and Milk Products, to which the member-States send representatives. However, the Administrative Commission objected precisely to the naming of the beneficiaries in the coupons. Therefore, the words "dtach d'une carte portant l'identit de l'acheteur " (detached from a card bearing the identity of the purchaser) were deleted from the draft and replaced with the words "en change d'un bon individualis " (in exchange for an individualised coupon). All the delegations in the Commission agreed to this wording. At this point it should be noted that although the Commission, when adopting measures, *116 is not bound by the views of the Administrative Commission, it must inform the Council of any differences immediately, in accordance with Article 30 (3) of Regulation 804/68 . This did not arise in the present case. From this fact and from the sixth reason stated in the grounds for the decision it necessarily follows that the Commission intended to formulate its decision with the content that the Administrative Commission had approved when it had considered the French draft. The deviations in the German and Dutch versions must therefore be held to be merely translation errors, which must have arisen in the preparation of the text for adoption by the Commission in the written proceedings. This mistake was clearly discernible to the member-States, which, as has been shown, were most closely involved in the preparation of the text. In addition, further clarification ensued in the Commission's decision of 29 July 1969, Article 2 of which provides: "The words auf ihren Namen ausgestellten (made out in their name) in the German version of Article 4 (2) of the said decision" (i.e. the decision of 12 February 1969) "shall with effect from 17 February 1969" (this is the date on which the

decision came into force) "be replaced by the word individualisierten (individualised)" . Thus this clearly establishes how the Commission's decision of 12 February 1969 is to be understood. It merely prescribes that the member-States must individualise the coupons. It does not prescribe that the name must necessarily be specified, since the individualisation can also be achieved in other ways. From this it follows not only that the question of validity raised by the Verwaltungsgericht is without justification but also, and without going more deeply into the problem, that the individualisation prescribed by the Commission cannot amount to an infringement of any basic rights. Whether the continued application of the national regulation, which provides for the specification of the name, creates a constitutional law problem in the national sphere is irrelevant in the present proceedings. As the Commission suggested, the following answer can therefore be given to the Verwaltungsgericht, Stuttgart: "An examination of the question submitted to the Court of Justice has not revealed any grounds on which the Commission's decision of 12 February 1969 (in conjunction with the correction of 29 July 1969) can be invalidated, to the extent that it makes the purchase of butter at a reduced price dependent on the presentation of an individualised coupon."

JUDGMENT
[1] By an order dated 18 June 1969, received in the Registry of the Court of Justice on 26 June 1969, the Verwaltungsgericht, *117 Stuttgart, in accordance with Article 177 of the E.E.C. Treaty , submitted the question as to whether it is compatible with the general principles of Community law in force that Article 4 of the decision of the Commission of the European Communities 69/71/EEC of 12 February 1969 makes the sale of butter at a reduced price to the beneficiaries of certain social assistance schemes dependent on the disclosure of the beneficiary's name to the seller. [2] The said decision, addressed to all the member-States, authorises those states, in order to increase the sale of surplus stocks of butter in the Common Market, to make butter available to certain consumer-groups in receipt of social assistance at a price below the normal price. This authorisation is tied to certain measures which are intended inter alia to ensure that the products thus placed on the market are not diverted from their destination. For this purpose, Article 4 in two of its versions, including the German version, provides that the member-States must adopt all the measures necessary to ensure that the beneficiaries can only obtain the products in exchange for a "coupon made out in their name" . The other versions, on the other hand, merely mention the presentation of an "individualised coupon" and therefore permit other means of control in addition to the nominative designation of the beneficiary. Accordingly, it must first be decided what method of control the decision in question prescribes. [3] When a decision is addressed to all the member-States the necessity of uniform application and therefore of uniform interpretation precludes its being considered in one of its versions in isolation and on the contrary requires that it should be interpreted in accordance with the real intention of its author and the end pursued by him in the light of its version in all four languages. [4] In a case like that before us preference must be given to the least onerous interpretation if it suffices to achieve the purposes served by the decision in question. Moreover, it cannot be supposed that the authors of the decision intended to impose stricter obligations in some countries than in others. [5] This interpretation is moreover confirmed by the declaration of the Commission that the Administrative Commission, to which a draft of Decision 69/71 had been submitted for its views, had proposed an amendment whereby the requirement of a coupon made out in a name should be deleted; moreover, it emerges from the last reason given for this decision that the Commission intended to adopt this proposed amendment. [6] Accordingly, it must be so interpreted that the decision in question does not prescribe the nominative identification of the beneficiary, although it does not prohibit it. The Commission could therefore issue a decision on 29 July 1969 correcting this *118

Page5

point. Each member-State individualisation.

can

therefore

choose

between

various

methods

of

[7] Thus interpreted, the decision in question does not contain any element that might jeopardise the fundamental rights of the individual contained in the general principles of the law of the Community of which the Court must ensure the observance.

Costs
[8] The costs incurred by the Commission of the European Communities, which has submitted its observations to the Court, are not recoverable. With regard to the parties to the proceedings, the proceedings before this Court are in the nature of a stage in the course of proceedings pending in the Verwaltungsgericht, Stuttgart, and it is therefore for that court to make its own order as to costs. THE COURT, for these reasons, giving judgment on the question submitted to it for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgericht, Stuttgart, in its order of 18 June 1969, HEREBY DECIDES: 1. Article 4 (2) of Decision 69/71/EEC of 12 February 1969 , as amended by Decision 69/244/EEC , must be interpreted as merely prescribing the individualisation of the beneficiaries of the measures provided therein, without however imposing or prohibiting their nominative identification for the purposes of control. 2. The examination of the question submitted to the Court by the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart has not revealed any element that could jeopardise the validity of the aforesaid decision.
1. [1969] J.O. L52 . 2. [1969] Bundesanzeiger No. 52, p. 3 . 3. Articles 1 and 3 of the Constitution provide: 1. (1) The dignity of man shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority. (2) The German people therefore acknowledges inviolable and inalienable human rights as the basis of every human community, of peace and of justice in the world. (3) The following basic rights shall be binding as directly valid law on legislation, administration and judiciary. 3. (1) All men shall be equal before the law. (2) Men and women shall have equal rights. (3) No one may be prejudiced or privileged because of his sex, descent, race, language, homeland and origin, faith or his religious and political opinions. 2009 Sweet & Maxwell