Case C-177/02, C-178/02, C-179/02 e C-180/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte Suprema di Cassazione by order of that Court of 17 January 2002 in the cases of 1) Agenzia per le erogazioni in agricoltura — AGEA against Azienda agricola Fava Alessandro & Delledonne Carla; 2) Agenzia per le erogazioni in agricoltura — AGEA against Luigi Serpelloni; 3) Azienda agricola Coato Giovanni, Lorenzo & Vaccaro Ivana against Agenzia per le erogazioni in agricoltura — AGEA; and 4) Agenzia per le erogazioni in agricoltura — AGEA against Battista e Giacomo Malzani
Date: 2002-06-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: agricultural levy, dairy production, interpretation of the law, milk, milk product, regulation of agricultural production

C 156/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

29.6.2002

— Incorrect legal assessment of the letter of the director of
the merger control directorate of 7 November 2001

the pension of 5 % for each year by which the pension is taken
in advance?

(1) Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the
progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment
for men and women in matters of social security (OJ L 6 of
10.1.1979, p. 24).

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte Suprema
di Cassazione by order of that Court of 17 January 2002
in the cases of 1) Agenzia per le erogazioni in agricoltura
— AGEA against Azienda agricola Fava Alessandro &
Delledonne Carla; 2) Agenzia per le erogazioni in agricol-
tura — AGEA against Luigi Serpelloni; 3) Azienda agricola
Coato Giovanni, Lorenzo & Vaccaro Ivana against Agen-
zia per le erogazioni in agricoltura — AGEA; and 4) Agen-
zia per le erogazioni in agricoltura — AGEA against
Battista e Giacomo Malzani

(Case C-177/02, C-178/02, C-179/02 e C-180/02)

(2002/C 156/22)

the Court Registry on 13 May 2002,

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the la Corte Suprema di
Cassazione (Supreme Court of Cassation) of 17 January 2002,
received at
for a
preliminary ruling in the cases of 1) Agenzia per le erogazioni
in agricoltura — AGEA against Azienda agricola Fava Alessan-
dro & Delledonne Carla; 2) Agenzia per le erogazioni
in
agricoltura — AGEA against Luigi Serpelloni; 3) Azienda
agricola Coato Giovanni, Lorenzo & Vaccaro Ivana against
Agenzia per le erogazioni
in agricoltura — AGEA; and
4) Agenzia per le erogazioni in agricoltura — AGEA against
Battista e Giacomo Malzani on the following question:

Must Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 856/84 (1) of 31 March
1984 and Articles 1 to 4 of Regulation No 3950/92 (2) of
28 December 1992 be interpreted as meaning that
the
additional levy on milk and milk products is in the nature of
an administrative penalty with the result that producers are
liable to pay it only where quantities allocated have been
exceeded by them intentionally or as a result of negligence?

(1) OJ L 90 of 1.4.1984, p. 10.
(2) OJ L 405 of 31.12.1992, p. 1.

The interpretation of the Court of First Instance that the
letter of 7 November 2001 is to be imputed to the
Commission as a contestable act, since in contrast to the
two previous letters there is no mention in it of the
Commission not being bound, appears arbitrary and
contrary to the principle of good faith and hence in
breach of general principles of Community law.

With a correct legal assessment, the Court of First Instance
should have concluded that the letter of the merger
control directorate of 7 November 2001 was not imput-
able to the Commission, so that there was a continuing
failure to act by the Commission.

(1) Not yet reported in the ECR.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Belgian Cour de
Cassation by judgment of that Court of 29 April 2002 in
the case of Robert Bourgard against Institut National
d’Assurances Sociales pour Travailleurs Indépendants

(Case C-172/02)

(2002/C 156/21)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Belgian Cour de
Cassation (Third Chamber) of 29 April 2002, received at the
Court Registry on 10 May 2002, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Robert Bourgard against Institut National
d’Assurances Sociales pour Travailleurs Indépendants on the
following question:

Does Article 7(1)(a) of Directive 79/7/EEC (1) of the Council of
19 December 1978 authorise a Member State which has set
the pensionable age of male self-employed workers at 65 and
that of female self-employed workers at 60, with the result
that the old-age pension of male workers is calculated on the
basis of an insurance record expressed as a fraction with a
denominator of 45, whilst the denominator is 40 for female
workers, to impose on male workers, who alone have the right
to rquest early payment of the old-age pension in the five years
prior to normal retirement age, a reduction in the amount of