Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 May 2003 in Case C-355/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Dioikitiko Protodikeio Thessalonikis): Freskot AE v Elliniko Dimosio (Common agricultural policy — Free movement of goods — Freedom to provide services — State aid — Special contribution in favour of an agricultural insurance organisation)
Date: 2003-07-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, agricultural insurance, common agricultural policy, free movement of goods, freedom to provide services, interpretation of the law, poultrymeat

C 171/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

19.7.2003

2. Articles 82 EC and 86(1) EC in principle preclude national
legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under
which additional frequencies in the frequency band reserved for
the DCS 1800 standard may be allocated to a public
undertaking in a dominant position which already holds a
licence to provide digital mobile telecommunications services
according to the GSM 900 standard without the imposition of
a separate fee, whereas a new entrant to the market at issue has
had to pay a fee to obtain a licence to provide digital mobile
services according to the DCS 1800
telecommunications
standard. However,
those provisions do not preclude such
national legislation if the fee imposed on the public undertaking
in a dominant position for its GSM 900 licence, including the
subsequent allocation without additional payment of additional
frequencies in the frequency band reserved for the DCS 1800
standard, appears to be equivalent in economic terms to the fee
imposed on the competitor which was granted the DCS 1800
licence.

3. Article 2(3) and (4) of Commission Directive 96/2/EC of
16 January 1996 amending Directive 90/388/EEC with
regard to mobile and personal communications in principle
precludes national legislation such as that at issue in the main
proceedings, under which additional frequencies in the frequency
band reserved for the DCS 1800 standard may be allocated to
a public undertaking in a dominant position which already
holds a licence to provide digital mobile telecommunications
services according to the GSM 900 standard without the
imposition of a separate fee, whereas a new entrant to the
market at issue has had to pay a fee to obtain a licence to
provide digital mobile telecommunications services according to
the DCS 1800 standard. However, that provision does not
preclude such national legislation if the fee imposed on the
public undertaking in a dominant position for its GSM 900
licence, including the subsequent allocation without additional
payment of additional frequencies in the frequency band reserved
for the DCS 1800 standard, appears to be equivalent in
economic terms to the fee imposed on the competitor which was
granted the DCS 1800 licence.

4. Article 2(3) and (4) of Directive 96/2 does not preclude
national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceed-
ings, under which a limited number of additional frequencies in
the frequency band reserved for the DCS 1800 standard may
be allocated to existing holders of a licence to provide digital
mobile telecommunications services according to the GSM 900
including a public undertaking in a dominant
standard,
least three years have elapsed since the
position, after at
1997 decision to grant the licence to provide digital mobile
telecommunications
services according to the DCS 1800
standard. Nor does that provision preclude national legislation
such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allows such
an allocation before that period has elapsed if it is established
that the user capacity of those operators has been exhausted
despite the use of all commercially viable technical possibilities.

5.

The prohibition on discrimination laid down in Articles 9(2)
and 11(2) of Directive 97/13/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 10 April 1997 on a common framework
for general authorisations and individual licences in the field of
telecommunications services does not preclude national legis-
lation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under
which additional frequencies in the frequency band reserved for
the DCS 1800 standard may be allocated to existing holders
of a licence to provide digital mobile telecommunications services
according to the GSM 900 standard without the imposition of
a separate fee, whereas the operator which was granted a licence
to provide digital mobile telecommunications services according
to the DCS 1800 standard has had to pay a fee, if the fee
charged to existing operators for their GSM 900 licence,
including the subsequent allocation without additional payment
of additional frequencies in the frequency band reserved for the
DCS 1800 standard, appears to be equivalent in economic
terms to the fee imposed on the operator which holds the
DCS 1800 licence.

(1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 22 May 2003

in Case C-355/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Dioikitiko Protodikeio Thessalonikis): Freskot AE v
Elliniko Dimosio (1)

(Common agricultural policy — Free movement of goods
— Freedom to provide services — State aid — Special
contribution in favour of an agricultural insurance organis-
ation)

(2003/C 171/02)

(Language of the case: Greek)

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

In Case C-355/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Diikitiko Protodikio Thessalonikis (Greece) for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Freskot AE and Elliniko Dimosio, on the
interpretation of Articles 30 and 38 of the EC Treaty (now,
after amendment, Articles 28 EC and 32 EC), Article 39 of the
EC Treaty (now Article 33 EC), Articles 40 and 59 of the EC
Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 34 EC and 49 EC),
Article 60 of the EC Treaty (now Article 50 EC) and Article 92
of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87 EC), and
First Council Directive 73/239/EEC of 24 July 1973 on the
coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions

19.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/3

relating to the taking-up and pursuit of the business of direct
insurance other than life assurance (OJ 1973 L 228, p. 3), as
amended by Second Council Directive 88/357/EEC of 22 June
1988 (OJ 1988 L 172, p. 1), the Court (Fifth Chamber),
composed of: M. Wathelet, President of
the Chamber,
C. W. A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), D. A. O. Edward, P. Jann
and S. von Bahr, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General;
H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
given a judgment on 22 May 2003, in which it has ruled:

4.

those Treaty provisions. It is for the referring court to determine
whether that scheme is in fact justified by social policy objectives
and to examine, in particular, whether the cover provided by
that compulsory insurance scheme is proportionate to those
objectives.

The term ‘undertaking’ within the meaning of Article 92 of the
EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87 EC) does not
cover a body such as the Organismos Ellenikon Georgikon
Asfaliseon (ELGA)
the
compulsory insurance scheme against natural risks.

its activities under

in respect of

1.

2.

3.

The EC Treaty provisions on the common agricultural policy
and Regulation (EEC) No 2777/75 of the Council of 29 Octo-
ber 1975 on the common organisation of the market in
poultrymeat, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC)
No 1235/89 of 3 May 1989, do not preclude a quasi-fiscal
charge established by a Member State, such as a special
insurance contribution levied on sales and purchases of domestic
agricultural products which fall within the common organis-
ation for the market in poultrymeat, the revenue from which is
used to fund a public body responsible for the prevention of,
and compensation for, damage caused to agricultural holdings
by natural risks in that State.

Those Treaty provisions and Regulation No 2777/75, as
amended by Regulation No 1235/89, do preclude such a
quasi-fiscal charge however where it is such as to undermine the
aims and objects of the common organisation of the market in
question and, in particular, where it does in fact restrict intra-
Community trade.

It is for the national court to decide whether the contribution
does in fact have that effect.

Community law on the free movement of goods, in particular
Articles 9 and 12 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
Articles 23 EC and 25 EC), Article 16 of the EC Treaty
(repealed by the Treaty of Amsterdam) and Article 95 of the
EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 90 EC), does not
preclude a contribution such as that referred to in paragraph 1
of the operative part of the present judgment.

(1) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2000.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 20 May 2003

in Joined Cases C-465/00, C-138/01 and C-139/01 (Refer-
ence for a preliminary ruling from the Verfassungsgericht-
shof and Oberster Gerichtshof): Rechnungshof (C-465/00)
v Österreichischer Rundfunk and Others and between
Christa Neukomm (C-138/01), Joseph Lauermann (C-139/
01) and Österreichischer Rundfunk (1)

(Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of
personal data — Directive 95/46/EC — Protection of private
life — Disclosure of data on the income of employees of
bodies subject to control by the Rechnungshof)

(2003/C 171/03)

(Language of the case: German)

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

Benefits such as those provided by the Organismos Ellenikon
Georgikon Asfaliseon (ELGA) under the compulsory insurance
scheme against natural risks do not fall within the scope of
either Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
Article 49 EC) and Article 60 of the EC Treaty (now Article 50
EC) or First Council Directive 73/239/EEC of 24 July 1973
on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative
provisions relating to the taking-up and pursuit of the business
of direct insurance other than life assurance, as amended by
Second Council Directive 88/357/EEC of 22 June 1988.

Such a compulsory insurance scheme may, however, constitute
a restriction on the freedom of insurance companies established
in other Member States, who wish to offer services covering
such risks in Greece, to provide services, within the meaning of

In Joined Cases C-465/00, C-138/01 and C-139/01: References
to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Verfassungsgerichts-
hof (C-465/00) and the Oberster Gerichtshof (C-138/01 and
C-139/01) (Austria) for preliminary rulings in the proceedings
pending before those courts between Rechnungshof (C-465/
00) and Österreichischer Rundfunk, Wirtschaftskammer Stei-
ermark, Marktgemeinde Kaltenleutgeben, Land Niederösterre-
ich, Österreichische Nationalbank, Stadt Wiener Neustadt,
and
Austrian Airlines, Österreichische Luftverkehrs-AG,
between Christa Neukomm (C-138/01),
Joseph Lauermann
(C-139/01) and Österreichischer Rundfunk, on the interpret-
ation of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of
individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and
on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31),
the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President,