Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 January 2004 in Case C-230/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division): The Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce v Penycoed Farming Partnership (Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 — Additional levy in the milk and milk products sector — Deliveries by a producer to a purchaser — Payment of levy — Recovery from the producer)
Date: 2004-02-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: agricultural levy, interpretation of the law, milk, milk product

C 47/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.2.2004

Community law on freedom to provide services precludes a business
from being subject to an obligation to be entered on the trades register
which delays, complicates or renders more onerous the provision of its
services in the host Member State where the conditions prescribed by
the directive governing recognition of professional qualifications
which is applicable to pursuit of that activity in the host Member
State are satisfied.

The mere fact that a business established in one Member State
supplies identical or similar services in a repeated or more or less
regular manner in a second Member State, without having an
infrastructure there enabling it to pursue a professional activity there
on a stable and continuous basis and, from the infrastructure, to hold
itself out to, amongst others, nationals of the second Member State,
cannot be sufficient for it to be regarded as established in the second
Member State.

(1) OJ C 212 of 28.7.2001.

composed of: V. Skouris, acting for the President of the
Sixth Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, F. Macken and
N. Colneric (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate
General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
has given a judgment on 15 January 2004, in which it has
ruled:

Articles 1 and 2 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of
28 December 1992 establishing an additional levy in the milk and
milk products sector do not authorise the competent body to act
directly, in cases other than that of direct sales, against a producer to
recover the amount owed by him in respect of the additional levy on
milk. However, the Member States’ obligation under Article 10 EC
to take measures to ensure collection of the levy in the event of the
mechanism provided for in Article 2(2) of that regulation being
frustrated includes the power to take direct action against the producer
with a view to recovering the amount payable where it is established
that the producer has not paid it to the purchaser and that the
purchaser is not taking due steps to collect it from the producer. On
the other hand, non-compliance with the conditions laid down in
Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 536/93 of 9 March
1993 laying down detailed rules on the application of the additional
levy on milk and milk products, and in particular the absence of
approval as purchaser, is not in itself relevant.

(1) OJ C 352 of 4.12.1999.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 15 January 2004

in Case C-230/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division):
The Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce v Peny-
coed Farming Partnership (1)

(Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 — Additional levy in the
milk and milk products sector — Deliveries by a producer to
a purchaser — Payment of levy — Recovery from the
producer)

(2004/C 47/06)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case C-230/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division)
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between The Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce
and Penycoed Farming Partnership, on the interpretation of
Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December 1992
establishing an additional levy in the milk and milk products
sector (OJ 1992 L 405, p. 1) and Commission Regulation
(EEC) No 536/93 of 9 March 1993 laying down detailed rules
on the application of the additional levy on milk and milk
products (OJ 1993 L 57, p. 12), the Court (Sixth Chamber),

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 13 January 2004

in Case C-256/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division):
Debra Allonby v Accrington & Rossendale College, Edu-
cation Lecturing Services,
trading as Protocol Pro-
fessional, formerly Education Lecturing Services Sec-
retary of State for Education and Employment (1)

(Principle of equal pay for men and women — Direct effect
— Meaning of worker — Self-employed female lecturer
undertaking work presumed to be of equal value to that
which is undertaken in the same college by male lecturers
who are employees, but under contract with a third company
— Self-employed lecturers not eligible for membership of an
occupational pension scheme)

(2004/C 47/07)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case C-256/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division)