# C_2008064EN.01002003.xml

| 8.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 64/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/20

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tallinna Halduskohus (Estonia) lodged on 18 December 2007 — AS Balbiino v EV Põllumajandusministeerium, Maksu- ja Tolliameti Põhja maksu- ja tollikeskus

(Case C-560/07)

(2008/C 64/31)

Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Tallinna Halduskohus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: AS Balbiino

Applicant:

Defendants: EV Põllumajandusministeerium, Maksu- ja Tolliameti Põhja maksu- ja tollikeskus

Defendants:

Questions referred

| 1. | Does the law of the European Union, in particular Article 6(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 60/2004 (1), in conjunction with recital 3 in the preamble to Commission Regulation (EC) No 832/2005 (2), and Article 4(1) and (2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1972/2003 (3), preclude the ascertainment of the amount of an operator's surplus stock by automatically deducting from the surplus stock (regarded as transitional stock) the average stock as at 1 May of the operator's years of activity preceding 1 May 2004, but not more than four years of activity, multiplied by 1.2?
  If the answer is in the affirmative, would the answer be different if in determining the transitional stock and surplus stock it were possible also to take into account the growth of the operator's production, processing or sales volume, the maturation period of the agricultural product, the time when the stocks were built up, and other circumstances independent of the operator? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the law of the European Union, in particular Article 6(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 60/2004 (1), in conjunction with recital 3 in the preamble to Commission Regulation (EC) No 832/2005 (2), and Article 4(1) and (2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1972/2003 (3), preclude the ascertainment of the amount of an operator's surplus stock by automatically deducting from the surplus stock (regarded as transitional stock) the average stock as at 1 May of the operator's years of activity preceding 1 May 2004, but not more than four years of activity, multiplied by 1.2?

1

2

3

If the answer is in the affirmative, would the answer be different if in determining the transitional stock and surplus stock it were possible also to take into account the growth of the operator's production, processing or sales volume, the maturation period of the agricultural product, the time when the stocks were built up, and other circumstances independent of the operator?

| 2. | It is compatible with the law of the European Union, in particular the objective of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1972/2003, to regard the entire stock of an agricultural product in the operator's possession as at 1 May 2004 as the operator's surplus stock? |
| --- | --- |

2.

It is compatible with the law of the European Union, in particular the objective of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1972/2003, to regard the entire stock of an agricultural product in the operator's possession as at 1 May 2004 as the operator's surplus stock?

| 3. | If the operator started to deal in the corresponding agricultural product less than one year before 1 May 2004, does the law of the European Union, in particular Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1972/2003 and Article 6 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 60/2004, preclude that operator himself having to prove that the amount of the stock of the agricultural product in his possession on 1 May 2004 is equivalent to the amount of the stock of the agricultural product customarily produced, sold, otherwise transferred for payment or without payment or acquired by him?
  If the answer is in the affirmative, would the answer be different if, regardless of the operator's obligation to provide proof, the administrative body had an obligation to take into account, on the basis of the declaration of the agricultural product submitted by the operator, in assessing the operator's transitional stock and surplus stock, the growth of the operator's production, processing or sales volume and stock after 1 May 2004? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the operator started to deal in the corresponding agricultural product less than one year before 1 May 2004, does the law of the European Union, in particular Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1972/2003 and Article 6 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 60/2004, preclude that operator himself having to prove that the amount of the stock of the agricultural product in his possession on 1 May 2004 is equivalent to the amount of the stock of the agricultural product customarily produced, sold, otherwise transferred for payment or without payment or acquired by him?

If the answer is in the affirmative, would the answer be different if, regardless of the operator's obligation to provide proof, the administrative body had an obligation to take into account, on the basis of the declaration of the agricultural product submitted by the operator, in assessing the operator's transitional stock and surplus stock, the growth of the operator's production, processing or sales volume and stock after 1 May 2004?

| 4. | Is it compatible with the objective of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1972/2003 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 60/2004 to levy the surplus stock charge where the operator is found to have a surplus stock as at 1 May 2004 but the operator shows that he has not obtained a real advantage in terms of a price difference from marketing the surplus stock after 1 May 2004? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is it compatible with the objective of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1972/2003 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 60/2004 to levy the surplus stock charge where the operator is found to have a surplus stock as at 1 May 2004 but the operator shows that he has not obtained a real advantage in terms of a price difference from marketing the surplus stock after 1 May 2004?

| 5. | Must the provisions of Article 6(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 60/2004, under which account is taken, in determining surplus quantities of sugar, isoglucose or fructose, inter alia of storage capacities, be interpreted as meaning that in a situation in which the operator's storage capacities have increased during the year preceding accession that is a basis for reducing the surplus stock of the agricultural product in the possession of the operator as at 1 May 2004, regardless of the operator's economic activity, the volume of the agricultural product processed and the amount of stocks of the agricultural product in the years of activity preceding 1 May 2004 and during the two years following 1 May 2004? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Must the provisions of Article 6(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 60/2004, under which account is taken, in determining surplus quantities of sugar, isoglucose or fructose, inter alia of storage capacities, be interpreted as meaning that in a situation in which the operator's storage capacities have increased during the year preceding accession that is a basis for reducing the surplus stock of the agricultural product in the possession of the operator as at 1 May 2004, regardless of the operator's economic activity, the volume of the agricultural product processed and the amount of stocks of the agricultural product in the years of activity preceding 1 May 2004 and during the two years following 1 May 2004?

| 6. | Does Article 10 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1972/2003 preclude the demanding of a surplus stock charge from an operator by a tax notice in a situation in which the tax notice was indeed drawn up while the regulation was applicable, on 30 April 2007, but according to national law became enforceable against the operator after the final date of application of the Commission regulation, and national law does not establish a time-limit for demanding the stock charge? |
| --- | --- |

6.

Does Article 10 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1972/2003 preclude the demanding of a surplus stock charge from an operator by a tax notice in a situation in which the tax notice was indeed drawn up while the regulation was applicable, on 30 April 2007, but according to national law became enforceable against the operator after the final date of application of the Commission regulation, and national law does not establish a time-limit for demanding the stock charge?

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 60/2004 of 14 January 2004 laying down transitional measures in the sugar sector by reason of the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (OJ 2004 L 9, p. 8).

1

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 832/2005 of 31 May 2005 on the determination of surplus quantities of sugar, isoglucose and fructose for the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (OJ 2005 L 138, p. 3).

2

(3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1972/2003 of 10 November 2003 on transitional measures to be adopted in respect of trade in agricultural products on account of the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (OJ 2003 L 293, p. 3).

3

---