In the light of the request…presented by M. Maurice Boisdet…in execution of the judgment of the tribunal d’instance of Loches of 22 February 1984 that the Conseil d’Etat:

1. examines the legality of the decree of 22 April 1981 by which the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister for the Economy and the Budget continued for a further three years the provisions of the decision of 29 March 1978 extending to all the produces of eating apples of the 12 départements concerned certain rules enacted by the agricultural economic committee of the Loire Valley, and, on the other hand, a deliberation of the same committee of 12 April 1982 insofar as it fixes the amount of the subscription for producers of eating apples members of the agricultural economic committee;

2. declare that the decision and the deliberations are unlawful;

On the legality of the decision of 28 April 1981

Considering that, under the terms of the said decision “the provisions of the decision of 29 March 1978 are continued for a further period of three years”; as by the decision of 29 March 1978, the under-minister for the Economy and Finance and the Minister of Agriculture had extended to all the producers of eating apples of the 12 départements affected certain rules enacted by the agricultural economic committee “fruit and vegetables” of the Loire Valley;

On the question of jurisdiction

Considering that, under the terms of article 16 of the Law of 16 August 1962 in the form in force at the date of the decision of 29 March 1978 “agricultural economic committees having shown satisfactory experience in certain areas of activity can request the Minister of Agriculture that the rules accepted by their members concerning the organisation of production, sales promotion and marketing (other than sales) should become obligatory for all the producers in the relevant region and the extension in all or part of these rules to all producers in the region shall be declared in an interministerial decision for renewable periods of three years, after having consulted all the producers in this region, under terms set out in a decree made in the Conseil d’Etat”:

Considering that Regulation no 1035/72 of the Council of the European Communities dated 12 May 1972 has defined, especially in relation to eating apples, a common regime of markets including norms of quality and means of intervention; as it follows from the decision of 25 November 1986 of the European Court of Justice deciding on a preliminary ruling that, even if this regulation does not prevent groups of producers imposing on their members different requirements in these areas, it does not give state authorities competence to extend to the producers of an entire region the rules thus enacted; as it follows that the under-minister for the Economy and Finance and the Minister of Agriculture did not have the competence to extend the rules enacted by the agricultural economic committee of the Loire Valley which are cited in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of art. 1 of their decision of 29 March 1978 relating to the rules of production, of quality , size, weight and presentation of eating apples and of the means of intervention in the market and to paragraphs 8 and 9 relating to the participation of producers in the financing of management and promotion funds connected with these regulations which could not be extended; as in declaring the extension for a further three years of these unlawful provisions of the decision, the Minister for the Economy and the Budget and the Minister of Agriculture have coloured with illegality their decision of 28 April 1981; as the extension for a further period of three years of the rules cited in paragraphs 5 to 9 of the decision of 29 March 1978 could not have as its legal basis art 7 of the Law of 4 July 1980 which redrafted the provisions of art. 16 of the Law of 8 August 1962 insofar as it authorises in certain areas the extension of rules enacted by agricultural economic committees, it is incompatible with the provisions then in force of the Regulation of the Council of the European Communities of 12 May 1972;

[The arguments relating to a procedural irregularity in the failure to consult the affected producers is not reproduced.]

Considering that, from all that has been said, and with out any need to examine other arguments, M. Boisdet is justified to claim that the decision of 28 April 1981 is unlawful in relation to all its provisions;

On the legality of the decision of 12 March 1982 fixing the amount of subscriptions

Considering that the arguments of the request directed against the said deliberation in so far as these apply to non-members; as it has its legal basis in the decision of 28 April 1981, which is affected by illegality, as has been said above; as it must, in consequence, also be declared unlawful...