Case C-285/03: Action brought on 2 July 2003 by the Hellenic Republic against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2003-09-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EAGGF Guarantee Section, European Commission, Greece, action for annulment (EU), amending budget, financial year

C 213/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.9.2003

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van
Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven by judgment of that Court
of 27 June 2003 in the proceedings between A.H. Kuipers
and the Productschap Zuivel

Bruxelles (Court of Appeal, Brussels) of 19 June 2003, received
at the Court Registry on 2 July 2003, for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings between the Belgian State and Temco
Europe S.A. on the following question:

(Case C-283/03)

(2003/C 213/26)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the College van Beroep
voor het Bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court for Trade and
Industry) of 27 June 2003, received at the Court Registry on
30 June 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
between A.H. Kuipers and the Productschap Zuivel on the
following questions:

1.

2.

3.

Is a national system of quality deductions and sup-
plements for raw milk delivered to the dairy, such as that
at issue, consistent with Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 (1)
on the common organisation of the market in milk and
milk products and in particular with the prohibition of
‘equalisation between the prices’ in Article 24(2) (now,
after
text,
Article 38(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1255/99)?

consolidation of

amendments

to the

Is a national system of quality supplements for raw milk
delivered to the dairy, such as that at issue, consistent
with the prohibition of aids in Article 24(1) of Regulation
(EEC) No 804/68?

If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative, is such a
national system to be regarded as aid the grant of which
must be notified beforehand to the Commission under
Article 93(3) of the EC Treaty (now Article 88(3) EC)?

May Article 13B(b) of the Sixth Directive be interpreted to
mean that transactions, corresponding in Belgian law to a
contract of indefinite duration by which one company, by a
number of contracts with associated companies, simul-
taneously grants a licence to occupy a single property in return
for a payment set partially but essentially on the basis of the
area occupied, where the inherent insecurity of a licence is
absent owing to the fact that the transferees and the transferor
are under common management, constitute a letting of
immovable property within the meaning of Community law,
or,
in other words, does the independent Community law
concept of the ‘letting of immovable property’ in Article 13B(b)
of the Sixth Directive (1) cover use, for consideration, of an
immovable asset for purposes other than those of the tax-
payer’s business — which definition is
adopted in
Article 44(3)(2) in fine of the Belgian Code de la TVA — that
is to say, the grant under a licence of indefinite duration of a
non-exclusive right of occupation in return for a monthly
payment, albeit fluctuating and partly dependent on the profits
of one of the contracting parties, where the inherent insecurity
of a licence is absent owing to the fact that the transferees and
the transferor are under common management?

(1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
basis of assessment (OJ L 145 of 13.06.1977, p. 1).

( 1) OJ L 148 of 28.06.1968, p. 13.

Action brought on 2 July 2003 by the Hellenic Republic
against the Commission of the European Communities

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d’Appel
de Bruxelles by judgment of that Court of 19 June 2003
in the proceedings between the Belgian State and Temco
Europe S.A.

(Case C-285/03)

(2003/C 213/28)

(Case C-284/03)

(2003/C 213/27)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Cour d’Appel de

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought on 2 July 2003 by the Hellenic Republic,
represented by Vasilios Kondolaimos, state legal adviser, and
by Yoannis Xhalkias, of the state legal service, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the Greek Embassy, 27 Rue
Marie-Adélaïde.

6.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/17

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Annul or vary Commission Decision C(2003) 1539 in connec-
tion with the exclusion from Community financing of certain
expenditure by the Member States in the context of the EAGGF
— Guarantee section, in regard to the chapter concerning
financial corrections imposed on the Hellenic Republic in the
sector of arable cultivation for the financial years 2000 and
2001.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Misinterpretation of provisions;

— Misappraisal of factual circumstances;

— Defective statement of reasons;

— Misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 5(2)(c)
of Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 in conjunction with
Document VI/5330/97;

— Misinterpretation and misapplication of Articles 6 and 7

of Regulation No 3508/92.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the House of Lords
by order of that court dated 30 June 2003, in the case of
Regina against London Borough of Bromley, ex parte
Diane Barker (FC)

(Case C-290/03)

(2003/C 213/29)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the House of Lords
dated 30 June 2003, which was received at the Court Registry
on 3 July 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Regina
and London Borough of Bromley, ex parte Diane Barker (FC)
on the following questions:

(1)

Is identification of ‘the decision of the competent auth-
ority or authorities which entitles the developer to
proceed with the project’ (article 1(2) of Directive 85/
337/EEC (1) (‘the Directive’)) exclusively a matter for the
national court applying national law?

(2) Does the Directive require an environmental

impact
assessment to be carried out if, following the grant of
outline planning permission subject to conditions that
reserved matters be approved, without an environmental

impact assessment being carried out,
it appears when
approval of reserved matters is sought that the project
may have significant effects on the environment by virtue
inter alia of its nature, size or location (article 2(1) of the
Directive)?

(3)

In circumstances where:

(a) national planning law provides for the grant of
outline planning permission at an initial stage of the
planning process and requires consideration by the
competent authority at that stage as to whether an
environmental
impact assessment is required for
purposes of the Directive; and

(b)

the competent authority then determines that it is
unnecessary to carry out an environmental impact
assessment and grants outline planning permission
subject to conditions reserving specified matters for
later approval; and

(c)

that decision can then be challenged in the national
courts;

may national law, consistently with the Directive, pre-
clude a competent authority from requiring that an
environmental impact assessment be carried out at a later
stage of the planning process?

(1) Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment
of the effects of certain public and private projects on the
environment (OJ L 175, 05.07.1985, p. 40).

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties
Tribunals, Manchester Tribunal Centre, by direction of
that court dated 30 June 2003, in the case of MyTravel plc
against Commissioners of Customs and Excise

(Case C-291/03)

(2003/C 213/30)

Reference has been made to the Court of
Justice of the
European Communities by direction of the VAT and Duties
Tribunals, Manchester Tribunal Centre, dated 30 June 2003,
which was received at the Court Registry on 4 July 2003, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of MyTravel plc and Com-
missioners of Customs and Excise on the following questions: