Case C-42/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van beroep voor het bedrĳfsleven by order of that Court of 23 January 2004 in the case of Maatschap J.B. en R.A.M. Elshof against the Minister for Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality
Date: 2004-04-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Netherlands, State aid, aid system, beef, foot-and-mouth disease, interpretation of the law, pigmeat

C 85/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

3.4.2004

(c) whether, and if so to what extent, the provisions of
§ 40 of the Työturvallisuuslaki mentioned in point
10 above conflict with Community law, having
regard to the consequences as regards criminal law
and the law on compensation, described in points 12
to 15 above, which derive from failure to comply
with them.

(1) Directive 98/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 22 June 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member
States relating to machinery (OJ L 207 of 23.7.1998, p. 1).

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van
beroep voor het bedrijfsleven by order of that Court of
23 January 2004 in the case of Maatschap J.B. en R.A.M.
Elshof against the Minister for Agriculture, Nature and
Food Quality

(Case C-42/04)

(2004/C 85/26)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the College van beroep
voor het bedrijfsleven of 23 January 2004, received at the
Court Registry on 3 February 2004, for a preliminary ruling in
the case of Maatschap J.B. en R.A.M. Elshof against the Minister
for Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality on the following
question:

Does the term ‘batch’ in Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No
1046/2001 (1) have the same meaning as the term ‘load’ in
point 1 of Annex II to that regulation or must the term ‘batch’
be taken to mean all the animals which are delivered for
rendering by a holding on one day or pursuant to one decision
to purchase?

(1) OJ L 145 of 31 May 2001, p. 31.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-
hof by order of that Court of 27 November 2003 in the
case of Finanzamt Arnsberg against Stadt Sundern

(Case C-43/04)

(2004/C 85/27)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
the Bundesfinanzhof
European Communities by order of

(Federal Finance Court) of 27 November 2003, received at the
Court Registry on 4 February 2004, for a preliminary ruling in
the case of Finanzamt Arnsberg against Stadt Sundern on the
following questions:

1. May or must the Member States which have incorporated
into their domestic law the common flat-rate scheme for
farmers provided for in Article 25 of Directive 77/388/
EEC (1) ultimately exempt flat-rate farmers from payment
of turnover tax?

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Is that the
case only for supplies of agricultural products and for
agricultural services or also for other transactions of a
flat-rate farmer, or are the other transactions subject to
the general scheme under Directive 77/388/EEC?

What are the consequences for the grant of a hunting
licence by a flat-rate farmer?

(1) OJ L 145, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
Gorizia by order of that Court of 18 December 2003,
nos. 1259/2003 and 1260/2003, in the proceedings pend-
ing between Azienda Agricola Bogar Roberto & Andrea
and AGEA

(Case C-44/04 and C-45/04)

(2004/C 85/28)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Gorizia
(Italy) of 18 December 2003, received at the Court Registry on
4 February 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
pending between Azienda Agricola Bogar Roberto & Andrea
and AGEA on the following questions:

Must Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 856/84 (1) of 31 March
1984 and Articles 1 to 4 of Regulation No 3950/92 (2) of
28 December 1992 be interpreted as meaning that
the
additional levy on milk and milk products is in the nature of
an administrative penalty with the result that producers are
liable to pay it only where quantities allocated have been
exceeded by them intentionally or as a result of negligence?

(1) OJ L 90 of 1.4.1984, p. 10.
(2) OJ L 405 of 31.12.1992, p. 1.