Judgment of the Court of 9 October 2001 in Joined Cases C-80/99 to C-82/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht, Frankfurt am Main): Ernst-Otto Flemmer (C-80/99), Renate Christoffel (C-81/99) v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities and Marike Leitensdorfer (C-82/99) v Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung (Non-contractual liability — Milk producers — Non-marketing undertaking — Exclusion from milk quota scheme — Compensation — Substitution — Flat-rate compensation by contract — Regulation (EEC) No 2187/93 — Relevant jurisdiction — Applicable law)
Date: 2001-11-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: dairy production, indemnification, interpretation of the law, production aid, terms for aid

C 331/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

24.11.2001

of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —
Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assess-
ment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — the Court (Sixth Chamber),
composed of: F. Macken, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric
(Rapporteur), C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet and R. Schintgen,
Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,
Head of Division, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
9 October 2001, in which it has ruled:

1. A person who does not initially have any interest in the
immovable property and who enters into an agreement for lease
of that immovable property with a landlord and/or accepts the
grant of a lease of the property in return for a sum of money
paid by the landlord does not make a supply of services
falling within Article 13B(b) of the Sixth Council Directive
(77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the
laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —
common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment.

2. A person who does not initially have any interest in the
immovable property and who enters into an option agreement
such as the one before the national court in relation to leases of
that immovable property in return for a sum of money paid by
the landlord, on terms that the money will remain in a special
account as
the option
agreement, and who subsequently exercises the options under
the option agreement and accepts the grant of leases of the
immovable property in return for the release of the money in its
special account, at no time makes a supply of services falling
within Article 13B(b) of the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC.

its obligations under

security for

(1) OJ C 20 of 23.1.1999.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 9 October 2001

in Joined Cases C-80/99 to C-82/99 (reference for a
preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht, Frank-
furt am Main): Ernst-Otto Flemmer (C-80/99), Renate
Christoffel (C-81/99) v Council of the European Union
and Commission of the European Communities and
Marike Leitensdorfer (C-82/99) v Bundesanstalt für Land-
wirtschaft und Ernährung (1)

(Non-contractual liability — Milk producers — Non-market-
ing undertaking — Exclusion from milk quota scheme —
Compensation — Substitution — Flat-rate compensation by
contract — Regulation (EEC) No 2187/93 — Relevant
jurisdiction — Applicable law)

(2001/C 331/03)

(Language of the case: German)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Joined Cases C-80/99 to C-82/99: reference to the Court
under Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from

the Verwaltungsgericht, Frankfurt am Main for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Ernst-Otto Flemmer (C-80/99), Renate Christoffel (C-81/99)
and Council of the European Union and Commission of the
European Communities represented by: Bundesanstalt
für
Landwirtschaft und Ernährung, and between Marike Leit-
ensdorfer (C-82/99) and Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und
Ernährung — on the interpretation of the second paragraph
of Article 215 and Article 178 of the EC Treaty (now the
second paragraph of Article 288 EC and Article 235 EC) and
of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2187/93 of 22 July 1993
providing for an offer of compensation to certain producers
of milk and milk products temporarily prevented from carrying
on their trade (OJ 1993 L 196, p. 6) — the Court, composed
of: G.C. Rodrı´guez Iglesias, President, P. Jann, F. Macken,
N. Colneric (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr (Presidents of
Chambers), A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, L. Sevo´ n, M. Wathe-
let, V. Skouris and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; A. Tizzano,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
on 9 October 2001, in which it has ruled:

1.

2.

3.

The provisions of the second paragraph of Article 215 and
Article 178 of the EC Treaty (now the second paragraph of
Article 288 EC and Article 235 EC) read in conjunction must
be interpreted as meaning that the Court of Justice does not
have jurisdiction to rule in disputes arising from a contract for
compensation concluded in the name and on behalf of the
Council and the Commission by the competent national
authority,
in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC)
No 2187/93 of 22 July 1993 providing for an offer of
compensation to certain producers of milk and milk products
temporarily prevented from carrying on their trade.

In the absence of any indication in Regulation No 2187/93,
the contracts for compensation concluded pursuant to that
Regulation are governed by the rules of national law, provided
that their application does not prejudice the scope and effective-
ness of Community law.

Community law does not preclude the application of
the
principle of legitimate expectations provided for by the national
legal order of the Member State concerned for the purposes of
assessing the scope of contracts concluded by national authorities
in the name and on behalf of the Council and Commission,
provided that the Community interest is also taken into account.

(1) OJ C 121, 1.5.1999.