Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 November 2002 in Case C-304/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Crown Office): The Queen v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte: W.H. Strawson (Farms) Ltd, and J.A. Gagg & Sons (a firm) (Common agricultural policy — Integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes — Article 9(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 — Application for "area" aid — Penalties — Limitation period)
Date: 2003-01-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: aid system, area of holding, interpretation of the law

C 7/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

11.1.2003

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 26 November 2002

(Sixth Chamber)

in Case C-275/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Hof van Beroep te Gent): European Community,
represented by the Commission of the European Com-
munities, v First NV, Franex NV (1)

(Articles 235 EC, 240 EC and second paragraph of 288 EC
— Action for damages — Expert report ordered as an
interlocutory measure by a national court as against the
European Community — Exclusive jurisdiction of the Com-
munity Courts)

(2003/C 7/02)

of 19 November 2002

in Case C-304/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s
Bench Division (Crown Office): The Queen v Ministry of
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte: W.H. Strawson
(Farms) Ltd, and J.A. Gagg & Sons (a firm) (1)

(Common agricultural policy — Integrated administration
and control system for certain Community aid schemes —
Article 9(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 — Application
for ‘area’ aid — Penalties — Limitation period)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

(2003/C 7/03)

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

(Language of the case: English)

In Case C-275/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Hof van Beroep te Gent (Belgium) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
European Community, represented by the Commission of the
European Communities, and First NV, Franex NV, on the
interpretation of the second paragraph of Article 228 EC, the
Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President,
J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet and R. Schintgen (Presidents of
Chambers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola,
P. Jann, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur) and J.N. Cunha
Rodrigues, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
on 26 November 2002, in which it has ruled:

Article 235 EC, in conjunction with Article 240 EC and the second
paragraph of Article 288 EC, preclude a national court from
ordering, with respect to one of the institutions of the Community,
proceedings for an expert report whose purpose is to determine the
role of that institution in events alleged to have caused damage,
for the purposes of subsequent proceedings against the European
Community to establish its non-contractual liability.

( 1) OJ C 257 of 9.9.2000.

In Case C-304/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s
Bench Division (Crown Office), for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings pending before that court between The Queen
and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte:
W.H. Strawson (Farms) Ltd, and J.A. Gagg & Sons (a firm), on
the interpretation of Article 9(2) of Commission Regulation
(EEC) No 3887/92 of 23 December 1992 laying down detailed
rules for applying the integrated administration and control
system for certain Community aid schemes (OJ 1992 L 391,
p. 36), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puisso-
chet, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, V. Skouris,
F. Macken (Rapporteur) and N. Colneric, Judges; P. Léger,
Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Administrator, for the Regis-
trar, has given a judgment on 19 November 2002, in which it
has ruled:

On a proper construction of the first and second paragraphs of
Article 9(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 of
23 December 1992 laying down detailed rules for applying the
integrated administration and control system for certain Community
aid schemes, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1648/
95 of 6 July 1995, where the competent authority discovers that an
applicant for ‘area’ aid has made an incorrect declaration, neither
intentionally nor as the result of serious negligence, which has
entailed overdeclaration of the area eligible for aid and that the same
mistake was made in the years prior to that in which the mistake was
discovered, thus leading to overdeclaration of the area eligible for aid
in each of those years, that authority is required, subject to observance

11.1.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 7/3

of the limitation periods laid down in Article 3(1) of Council
Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on
the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests, to
reduce the area actually determined in order to calculate the aid
payable in respect of the previous years.

In accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 9(2) of Regulation
No 3887/92, the reductions referred to in the first and second
paragraphs of that article are not to be applied if the farmer shows
that his determination of the area was accurately based on information
recognised by the competent authority. It is for the national court to
establish whether or not that has been shown in the case in the main
proceedings.

the implementation of

Point 3 of Section A of the Annex to Council Directive 93/22/EEC
of 10 May 1993 on investment services in the securities field, which
investments, precludes national
defines managing portfolios of
legislation which departs from that definition by not requiring, for
the purposes of
that the
management of portfolios of investments should be ‘on a discriminat-
ory, client-by-client basis’ and ‘in accordance with mandates given by
investors’. However, there is nothing to prevent a Member State from
extending by national legislation the applicability of the provisions of
that directive to operations not covered by it, provided that it is made
clear that the national legislation in question does not constitute the
transposition of the directive, but arises from the independent will of
the legislature.

that directive,

( 1) OJ C 285 of 7.10.2000.

(1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 21 November 2002

in Case C-356/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Toscana):
Antonio Testa, Lido Lazzeri v Commissione Nazionale
per le Società e la Borsa (Consob) (1)

(Directive 93/22/EEC — Investment services in the securities
field — Managing portfolios of investments)

(2003/C 7/04)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 21 November 2002

in Case C-436/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Regeringsrätten): X, Y v Riksskatteverket (1)

(Freedom of establishment — Free movement of capital —
Income tax — Tax advantages for the transfer at undervalue
of shares to companies in which the transferor has a holding)

(Language of the case: Italian)

(2003/C 7/05)

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

(Language of the case: Swedish)

In Case C-356/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Toscana
(Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Antonio Testa, Lido Lazzeri and
Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob),
intervener: Banca Fideuram SpA, on the interpretation of
Point 3 of Section A of the Annex to Council Directive 93/22/
EEC of 10 May 1993 on investment services in the securities
field (OJ 1993 L 141, p. 27), the Court (Fifth Chamber),
the Chamber,
composed of: M. Wathelet, President of
C.W.A. Timmermans, A. La Pergola, P.
Jann and S. von
Bahr (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General;
L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
a judgment on 21 November 2002, in which it has ruled:

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

In Case C-436/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Regeringsrätten (Sweden) for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings pending before that court between X, Y and
Riksskatteverket, on the interpretation of Articles 43 EC, 46
EC, 48 EC, 56 EC and 58 EC, the Court (Fifth Chamber),
composed of: M. Wathelet, President of
the Chamber,
C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann
and A. Rosas, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; H. von
Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 No-
vember 2002, in which it has ruled: