Case C-366/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgericht, Halle (Administrative Court, Halle) by order of that Court of 30 September 2002 in the administrative proceedings between Mr Gerd Gschoßmann against Authority for Agriculture and the Reorganisation of Land, South
Date: 2002-12-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: aid per hectare, arable land, fruit-growing, interpretation of the law, land use, set-aside

7.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 305/15

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungs-
gericht, Halle (Administrative Court, Halle) by order of
that Court of 30 September 2002 in the administrative
proceedings between Mr Gerd Gschoßmann against Auth-
ority for Agriculture and the Reorganisation of Land,
South

purposes on the qualifying date, within the meaning of
either of the above regulations, and, if so, whether any of
the aforesaid circumstances might cause it no longer to
be so regarded?

(Case C-366/02)

(2002/C 305/26)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht,
Halle (Administrative Court, Halle) of 30 September 2002,
received at the Court Registry on 14 Oktober 2002, for a
preliminary ruling in the administrative proceedings between
Mr Gerd Gschoßmann against Authority for Agriculture and
the Reorganisation of Land, South on the following questions:

1. Does being under permanent crops, within the meaning
Article 9 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1765/92 of
30 June 1992 establishing a support system for producers
of certain arable crops (OJ 1992 L 181, p. 12), or Article 7
of Council Regulation (EC) No 1251/1999 of 17 May
1999 (OJ 1999 L 160, p. 1), necessarily require that the
crops on the land,
in this case apple trees, are being
cultivated?

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Is the land still under permanent crops if the owner or
tenant stops using insecticides during the growing season
and no longer picks the apples thereafter?

If the answer to Question 2 is in the negative, does the
land cease to be under permanent crops if the owner or
tenant decides to fell the apple trees on it but does not in
fact act on that decision before the qualifying date? Is the
answer different if, before the qualifying date, another
undertaking is contracted to carry out the clearing?

If the answer to Question 3 is also in the negative, does
the land cease to be under permanent crops if the owner
or tenant has felled the trees, with no intention of
planting new trees? In other words, is the deadline for
clearing, namely 31 December 1991, also the relevant
deadline for the purposes of the support system?

If the answer to Question 4 is also in the negative, does
the land cease to be under permanent crops if it is cleared
of the felled trees before the qualifying date to prepare it
for use as arable land?

If any of the above circumstances do result in the land
ceasing to be under permanent crops the question arises
whether, once it is no longer under permanent crops, it
is to be regarded as being used for non-agricultural

Action brought on 14 October 2002 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
Spain

(Case C-368/02)

(2002/C 305/27)

An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 Octo-
ber 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Isabel Martínez del Peral and Miguel França, of
its Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by failing to adopt or, in the alternative, to
notify to the Commission, within the time-limit laid
down, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
necessary to comply fully with Directive 98/27/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May
1998 (1) on injunctions for the protection of consumers’
its
interests, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil
obligations under Article 8(1) of the directive;

— order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposition expired on 1 January
2001. Although Spain has already transposed into domestic
law Directive 2000/31/EC on electronic commerce, to which
Directive 98/27/EC also applies by virtue of the amendment
introduced by Article 18 of Directive 2000/31/EC, the infringe-
ment alleged against Kingdom of Spain continues to exist in
its entirety so far as concerns the basic provisions of Directive
98/27/EC and its implementation in the sectors initially
provided for in the annex thereto.

(1) OJ No L 166, 11.6.1998, p. 51.