Between 1 and 25 March 1976 the Wagner company, the applicant in the main action, exported to Bulgaria 4000000 kilograms of undenatured white sugar coming under tariff subheading 17.01-B-I of the Common Customs Tariff. Some of the export licences were issued by the Fonds d'Intervention et de Régularisation du Marché du Sucre (Fund for intervention and stabilization of the sugar market) in Paris to Jean Lion et Compagnie (Paris) and assigned by the latter to Wagner and the remainder were issued directly to Wagner by the Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle fur Zucker und Rohtabak (Import and storage agency for sugar and raw tobacco).

In pursuance of several decisions taken between 15 March and 15 April 1976 on the basis of Regulations Nos 2719/75 and 572/76 of the Commission of 24 October 1975 and 15 March 1976 respectively fixing the monetary compensatory amounts and certain rates for their application (Official Journal Nos L 276, p. 7, and L 68, p. 5), the Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas granted the plaintiff in the main action monetary compensation amounting to DM 10.90 per 100 kg. It also granted export refunds amounting to DM657470.33 applying to the amounts resulting from the rates indicated in the export licences the coefficient 0.9. It did so in reliance on the provisions of Article 4 (3) of Regulation No 1380/75 of the Commission, according to which:

The refunds at issue in the main action were, according to the Hauptzollamt, also fixed in units of account, the maximum amount of the refund having been, within the context of the prescribed procedure for tendering, fixed in units of account. The application to the refund of the coefficient is explained by the fact that compensatory amounts are calculated on the basis of the intervention price which includes export refunds. That part of the compensatory amount which related to the export refunds therefore had to be deducted.

The Finanzgericht Hamburg, before which the matter came, decided by order of 19 August 1977 to stay the proceedings and in pursuance of Article 177 of the EEC Treaty to submit the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

The Finanzgericht takes the view that if the interpretation of the plaintiff in the main action were to be followed doubts would arise as to the validity of Article 4 (3) of Regulation No 1380/75. In fact, in the case of exports from Member States whose currencies have appreciated beyond the limit of fluctuation, exporters would receive, apart from the export refund, the whole of the monetary compensation whereas, in the case of exports from Member States whose currencies have depreciated beyond the limit of fluctuation, exporters would receive the export refund only subject to a deduction of the whole of the monetary compensation. The absence of a corrective factor for the monetary compensatory amounts might infringe the prohibition on discrimination contained in Article 7 of the Treaty and constitute a breach of the general principle of equality.

Apart from Regulation No 1380/75, the Community legislation applicable to the main action is as follows:

The order referring the matter to the Court was lodged at the Court Registry on 8 September 1977.

The Court, on hearing the report of the Judge-Rapporteur and the views of the Advocate General, decided to open the oral procedure without any preparatory inquiry.

The Wagner undertaking states, with regard to the facts, that because of the unexpected application of the monetary coefficient, the Jean Lion company was only able to carry out as to 90 % the financial obligations which it had undertaken by contract with regard to the plaintiff in the main action resulting from the export licences transferred.

The wording of Article 4 (3) of Regulation No 1380/75 is unequivocal. There is not to be found in that regulation or in Regulations Nos 766/68 and 2101/75 or in Notice of Invitation to Tender No 9/1975 any possibility of applying the monetary coefficient to the refunds to be granted in the case of the main action, which were not fixed in units of account.

The above interpretation corresponds also to the meaning and purpose of the said provisions. The principle of legal certainty already constitutes an argument in favour of this view. Since transfers of export licences are authorized, to reduce a posteriori the amount of refunds fixed in national currency in export licences by applying to them a monetary coefficient which is valid only for refunds fixed in units of account would be quite simply irreconcilable with that principle.

In the case of the main action, which relates to refunds granted in the context of invitations to tender, special rules and conditions apply which at first sight exclude the application of the general rules relating to refunds. This appears from the third recital in the preamble to Regulation No 2101/75. In the case of a tender, Article 4 of Regulation No 766/68 provides that the refund is not fixed in terms of the difference between prices on the world market and the representative Community price but on the basis of a tender (the purpose of the tender shall be to determine the amount of the refund).

The tender is based solely on the tenderer's calculations or his assessment of the market. It is taken into consideration only when it is not higher than the maximum amount of the refund, determined by the Commission on the basis of all the tenders submitted. A person asking for the refund which he needs ought therefore to obtain that same refund and not a refund reduced by the effect of the monetary coefficient.

To that is added the fact that sugar-exporting undertakings established in countries which have revalued their currency are at a considerable disadvantage, in spite of the monetary compensatory amounts, in comparison with their colleagues established in countries which have devalued their currency.

There is no doubt as to the validity of Article 4 (3) of Regulation No 1380/75 in the event of the interpretation put forward by the plaintiff in the main action being followed. It is only by the adoption, subsequently, of Regulation No 2101/75 that it was established that, in the context of invitations to tender, refunds to be granted must not have the monetary coefficient applied to them. Moreover, that would be contrary neither to the prohibition on discrimination nor — from the point of view of failure to comply with the system — to the general principle of equality. In terms of Article 4 of Regulation No 766/68 the Commission was bound to take into account the peculiarities of tenders with respect to which it was explicit that the object was the amount of the refund.

The Commission points out that the objections of the plaintiff in the main action are based on a literal and formal interpretation of Community provisions which does not take into account either the spirit or the objective of those provisions.

To the extent to which monetary compensation, calculated on the basis of the intervention price, is equal to the amount representing the difference between the price on the world market and the Community price (in this case the refund) it is appropriate to proceed to a correction as the necessary compensation has already been granted.

The same is true in cases in which levies or refunds are fixed in a general way by regulation or by tender. Thus refunds granted in the context of a tender also constitute Community refunds and do not take account of the various monetary relationships existing between the respective currencies of the States of the Community. In comparison with the general system of fixing by way of regulation the procedure by way of tender has the sole objective and advantage that it determines the refunds which best correspond to market conditions.

Offers submitted by tenderers are expressed in national currency in accordance with Article 5 (2) of Regulation No 2101/75, but, at the Commission level, the whole of the calculation must necessarily be carried out on the basis of units of account. Offers submitted have to be converted into units of account by means of the green rates so that they may be comparable. Contracts cannot be awarded except by taking into account the maximum amount fixed in units of account and by comparison with it; in other words, they are deducted from that amount.

A failure to apply the monetary coefficient to refunds fixed by way of tender would make it impossible to establish complete equality of treatment between all the tenderers. This equality can only be attained by the application of the two monetary correctives: the basic compensatory amount and the coefficient. Otherwise participants from countries whose currency has strongly appreciated would be at an advantage since they would obtain an over-valued compensatory amount whilst participants in the invitation to tender from countries whose currency was depreciating would be at a disadvantage since they would obtain a compensatory amount which would be too small.

It would be possible to give an interpretatio intra legem of Article 4 (3) of Regulation No 1380/75. The declaration of award of the contract does not constitute a fixing within the meaning of Community law but simply an executory act adopted by the national authorities. It should be noted that in that declaration there is an express reference to the maximum amount expressed in units of account so that the recipient could equally discover that the refund which has been awarded to him has also been determined in the form of an amount expressed in units of account.

Reference should also be made to the provisions of Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1134/68 of the Council of 30 July 1968 laying down rules for the implementation of Regulation (EEC) No 653/68 on conditions for alterations to the value of the unit of account used for the common agricultural policy (Official Journal, English Special Edition 1968 (IT), p. 396). According to that provision, which shows a striking parallelism with that of Article 4 (3) of Regulation No 1380/75, all amounts expressed in national currency in documents, but given in units of account — that is to say, fixed on a Community basis — are subject to the reservation of an alteration of the parity in question. Such an alteration, for its part, would involve an alteration in the amount expressed in national currency precisely in those cases in which refunds are fixed by way of tender. There is a special interaction between these two provisions. Regulation No 1134/68 constitutes a special rule whereas in Regulation No 1380/75 the application to refunds of the coefficient represents only one of the many special problems dealt with. It may be understood therefore that in Article 4 (3) the legislature used a simplified formula and did not take into account the case of a refund fixed by way of tender in having recourse to a formula specially conceived for that case.

Finally the interpretation contended for by the Commission also corresponds to a consistent administrative practice and one which has not hitherto been contested. There is no general problem of legal certainty as the provision in question was not formulated in such a confusing manner that the parties concerned could not at least make out the real intention of the legislature.

The Commission adopts the observations of the Finanzgericht with regard to the consequences which might follow the adoption of an interpretation similar to that of the plaintiff in the main action. That is an additional reason for seeking an interpretation in conformity with Community law. Such an interpretation is possible when it is not opposed to the clear and unequivocal text of the legislation in question. There can be no question of that in the main action.

The Commission therefore suggests the following reply:

The plaintiff in the main action, represented by K. Landry, Rechtsanwalt, Hamburg, and the Commission of the European Communities, represented by its Legal Adviser, P. Gilsdorf, acting as Agent, presented oral argument at the hearing on 1 March 1978.

The Advocate General delivered his opinion at the hearing on 18 April 1978.