Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) 16 May 2002 in Case C-384/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Niedersächsisches Oberverwaltungsgericht): Heinrich Bredemeier v Landwirtschaftskammer Hannover (Common agricultural policy — Milk quota scheme — Grant of a special reference quantity — Beneficiaries — Producers who take over a holding by similar means to inheritance after the expiry of the non-marketing undertaking entered into by their predecessors — Interpretation of Article 3a of Regulation (EEC) No 857/84, as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1639/91)
Date: 2002-07-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: agricultural holding, cattle, common agricultural policy, farm lease, milk, milk product, non-marketing premium, redirection of production

C 169/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

13.7.2002

(OJ 1997 L 10, p. 13) and, in particular, Article 11 thereof, the
Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations
under the EC Treaty, the Court (Second Chamber), composed
of: N. Colneric, President of
the Chamber, R. Schintgen
(Rapporteur) and V. Skouris, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
on 14 May 2002, in which it:

1. Declares that, by failing to take, within the prescribed period,
all the measures necessary to comply with Council Directive 96/
82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident
hazards involving dangerous substances, the Federal Republic
of Germany has failed to fulfil
its obligations under that
directive;

2. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 372 of 23.12.2000.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

16 May 2002

composed of: N. Colneric, President of
the Chamber,
R. Schintgen and V. Skouris (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
on 16 May 2002, in which it has ruled:

The words ‘producers ... who have received the holding through ...
similar means’ in the second indent of the second subparagraph of
Article 3a(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 March
1984 adopting general rules for the application of the levy referred
to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and
milk products sector, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC)
No 1639/91 of 13 June 1991, must be interpreted as meaning that
they refer to a producer who is the spouse of the designated heir and
to whom the holding has been let on conditions more favourable than
market
the non-marketing
following the expiry of
undertaking entered into by the lessor (the deviser) under Council
Regulation (EEC) No 1078/77 of 17 May 1977 introducing a
system of premiums for the non-marketing of milk and milk products
and for the conversion of dairy herds, provided that it follows from
all the elements of fact and of law which characterise the letting that:

conditions,

— the main intention of the arrangement is that the holding
should continue to be exploited for the benefit of the designated
heir and not that the market value of the holding should be
realised by the deviser, and that

— the terms of the legal relations between the parties to the
contract are such that the advantage which the deviser intends
to confer on his heir is guaranteed in the long term, even if the
spouses should separate or the marriage be dissolved.

in Case C-384/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Niedersächsisches Oberverwaltungsgericht): Heinrich
Bredemeier v Landwirtschaftskammer Hannover (1)

(1) OJ C 372 of 23.12.2000.

(Common agricultural policy — Milk quota scheme — Grant
of a special reference quantity — Beneficiaries — Producers
who take over a holding by similar means to inheritance
after the expiry of the non-marketing undertaking entered
into by their predecessors — Interpretation of Article 3a of
Regulation (EEC) No 857/84, as amended by Regulation
(EEC) No 1639/91)

(2002/C 169/16)

(Language of the case: German)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

30 May 2002

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

in Case C-441/00: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland (1)

In Case C-384/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Niedersächsisches Oberverwaltungsgericht (Ger-
many) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Heinrich Bredemeier and Landwirts-
chaftskammer Hannover, joined parties: Wilhelm Wieggrebe
and Irmtraut Bredemeier, on the interpretation of Article 3a(1)
of Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984
adopting general rules for the application of the levy referred
to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and
milk products sector (OJ 1984 L 90, p. 13), as amended by
Council Regulation (EEC) No 1639/91 of 13 June 1991
(Second Chamber),
(OJ 1991 L 150, p. 35),

the Court

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Directive 96/48/EC — Interoperability of the trans-Euro-
pean high-speed rail system)

(2002/C 169/17)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case C-441/00, Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: M. Wolfcarius) v United Kingdom of Great Britain and