# C_2005330EN.01000901.xml

| 24.12.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 330/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.12.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 330/9

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht by order of that court of 23 August 2005 in Erhard Geuting v Direktor der Landwirtschaftskammer Nordrhein-Westfalen

(Case C-375/05)

(2005/C 330/17)

Language of the case: German

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Bundesverwaltungsgericht of 23 August 2005, received at the Court Registry on 12 October 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Erhard Geuting and the Direktor der Landwirtschaftskammer Nordrhein-Westfalen on the following questions:

| 1. | For the purposes of Article 4a(ii) of Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 of the Council of 27 June 1968 (1) as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2066/92 of 30 June 1992 (2):






  (a) | Is an in-calf heifer only a suckler cow within the meaning of the first section of the regulation if it replaces a suckler cow for which an application for a premium has been made? |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

For the purposes of Article 4a(ii) of Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 of the Council of 27 June 1968 (1) as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2066/92 of 30 June 1992 (2):

1

2

(a)

Is an in-calf heifer only a suckler cow within the meaning of the first section of the regulation if it replaces a suckler cow for which an application for a premium has been made?

| (b) | Is an in-calf heifer also a suckler cow within the meaning of the first section of the regulation if, in the previous marketing year, it replaced a suckler cow for which an application for a premium had been made and was regarded as eligible for a premium? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Is an in-calf heifer also a suckler cow within the meaning of the first section of the regulation if, in the previous marketing year, it replaced a suckler cow for which an application for a premium had been made and was regarded as eligible for a premium?

| (c) | Is an in-calf heifer for which application for a premium has been made to be regarded at any rate as eligible for a premium if it calves before the end of the period for lodging applications? |
| --- | --- |

(c)

Is an in-calf heifer for which application for a premium has been made to be regarded at any rate as eligible for a premium if it calves before the end of the period for lodging applications?

| 2. | The following questions are also referred to the Court of Justice of the European Communities for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Article 33(2) and (4) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3886/92 of 23 December 1992 (3) as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2311/96 of 2 December 1996 (4): |
| --- | --- |

2.

The following questions are also referred to the Court of Justice of the European Communities for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Article 33(2) and (4) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3886/92 of 23 December 1992 (3) as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2311/96 of 2 December 1996 (4):

3

4

| (a) | Has a producer not made use of premium rights during a marketing year if he has applied for a premium but his application has been rejected because the animals concerned were not eligible for premiums?
  Is this also the case if there is no indication of an improper application having been made?
  Would this be compatible with the Community principle of proportionality? |
| --- | --- |

(a)

Has a producer not made use of premium rights during a marketing year if he has applied for a premium but his application has been rejected because the animals concerned were not eligible for premiums?

Is this also the case if there is no indication of an improper application having been made?

Would this be compatible with the Community principle of proportionality?

| (b) | Should Article 33(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 3886/92 be interpreted as meaning that, in an instance such as this, premium rights are maintained because it constitutes a (duly justified) exceptional case? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Should Article 33(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 3886/92 be interpreted as meaning that, in an instance such as this, premium rights are maintained because it constitutes a (duly justified) exceptional case?

| (c) | Should premium rights that are withdrawn from a producer under Article 33(4) of Regulation (EEC) No 3886/92 because he made use of more than 70 % but less than 90 % of his premium rights in the 1998 marketing year be granted to that producer on a preferential basis on the expiry of the two-year exclusion period? |
| --- | --- |

(c)

Should premium rights that are withdrawn from a producer under Article 33(4) of Regulation (EEC) No 3886/92 because he made use of more than 70 % but less than 90 % of his premium rights in the 1998 marketing year be granted to that producer on a preferential basis on the expiry of the two-year exclusion period?

---

(1)  OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (I), p. 187.

1

(2)  OJ L 215, p. 49.

2

(3)  OJ L 391, p. 20.

3

(4)  OJ L 313, p. 9.

4

---