Case C-224/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Gorizia by order of that court of 7 April 2004 in the case of Azienda Agricola Roberto and Andrea Bogar against Agenzia per le erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA) and Cospalat Friuli Venezia Giulia
Date: 2004-08-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: agricultural levy, interpretation of the law, milk, milk product, producer co-responsibility, regulation of agricultural production

7.8.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 201/9

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
Gorizia by order of that court of 7 April 2004 in the case
of Azienda Agricola Roberto and Andrea Bogar against
in Agricoltura (AGEA) and
Agenzia per le erogazioni

Cospalat Friuli Venezia Giulia

gericht in Bremen (Germany) of 27 May 2004, received at the
Court Registry on 2 June 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Crailsheimer Volksbank eG against Klaus Conrads,
Frank Schulzke and Petra Schulzke-Lösche, and Joachim
Nitschke, on the following questions:

(Case C-224/04)

(2004/C 201/16)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
the Tribunale di Gorizia
pean Communities by order of
(District Court, Gorizia, Italy) of 7 April 2004, received at the
Court Registry on 28 May 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Azienda Agricola Roberto and Andrea Bogar against
Agenzia per le erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA) and Cospalat
Friuli Venezia Giulia on the following question:

— Since the legal nature of the additional levy on milk and
milk products must therefore be determined in the light of
the provisions of Community law under which that levy
was introduced and the basic rules governing its application
were established (in particular Regulation No 856/84 (1) of
31 March 1984 and Regulation No 3950/92 (2) of 28
December 1992), must Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No
856/84 of 31 March 1984 and Articles 1 to 4 of Regu-
lation No 3950/92 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. Is

it

1(1)

of Directive
compatible with Article
85/577/EEC (1) for the rights of consumers,
in particular
their right of cancellation, to be made subject not only to
the existence of a doorstep-selling situation as referred to in
Article 1(1) of the directive but also to additional criteria for
responsibility, such as a trader's deliberate use of a third
party in the conclusion of the agreement or a trader's negli-
gence in respect of the third party's conduct in connection
with the doorstep selling?

2. Is it compatible with Article 5(2) of Directive 85/577/EEC
for a mortgage borrower, who not only concluded the loan
agreement in a doorstep-selling situation but also arranged,
in that situation, for the loan to be paid into an account
which, in practice, is no longer at his disposal, to have to
pay back the loan to the lender
is
cancelled?

the agreement

if

3. Is it compatible with Article 5(2) of Directive 85/577/EEC
for the mortgage borrower, if he is required to pay back the
loan following cancellation, to have to do so not on the
instalment repayment dates laid down in the agreement but
immediately in a one-off sum?

4. Is it compatible with Article 5(2) of Directive 85/577/EEC
for the mortgage borrower,
if he is also required to pay
back the loan following cancellation, to have to pay interest
on it at the normal market rate?

(1) OJ L 90 of 1. 4. 1984, p. 10.
(2) OJ L 405 of 31. 12. 1992, p. 1.

(1) OJ L 372, p. 31.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hanseatisches
Oberlandesgericht in Bremen by order of that court of 27
May 2004 in case of Crailsheimer Volksbank eG against
Klaus Conrads, Frank Schulzke and Petra Schulzke-Lösche,
and Joachim Nitschke.

(Case C-229/01)

(2004/C 201/17)

Action brought on 2 June 2004 by the Commission of the
European Communities against the French Republic

(Case C-230/04)

(2004/C 201/18)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Hanseatisches Oberlandes-

An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 2 June 2004
by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by G. Rozet, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.