Case C-94/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht by judgment of that court of 9 December 2004 in Emsland-Stärke GmbH v Bezirksregierung Weser-Ems
Date: 2005-04-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative sanction, agricultural guidance, fraud against the EU, interpretation of the law, minimum price, potato, quantitative restriction

C 93/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.4.2005

The Commission claims that the Court should:

1. declare that, by failing to bring into force all the laws, regu-
lations and administrative provisions necessary to comply
with Directive 2002/59/EC of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 27 June 2002 (1) establishing a Com-
munity vessel traffic monitoring and information system
and repealing Council Directive 93/75/EEC, or at least by
failing to communicate them to the Commission,
the
Republic of Finland has failed to comply with its obligations
under the directive;

2. order the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between
Emsland-Stärke GmbH and Bezirksregierung Weser-Ems on the
following questions

1.

(a) Does Article 13(4) in conjunction with Article 4(5) of
Regulation (EC) No 97/95 as amended by Regulation
(EC) No 1125/96 apply where a contract said to be a
cultivation contract is concluded and is accepted by the
competent authority under Article 4(2) and (3) of the
Regulation but where the contract is not concluded with
a potato producer but with a dealer who obtains the
potatoes directly or indirectly from potato producers?

The period prescribed for implementation of
expired on 5 February 2004.

the directive

(b) Does Article 13(4) of Regulation (EC) No 97/95 as
amended by Regulation (EC) No 1125/96 require the
starch-producing undertaking to have exceeded its sub-
quota by taking delivery of the potatoes?

(1) OJ L 208 of 5.8.2002, p. 10.

2.

(a) Does the system of sanctions provided for in Article
13(4) of Regulation (EC) No 97/95 as amended by Regu-
lation (EC) No 1125/96, by contradistinction to Article
13(3) of that Regulation, satisfy Community-law stan-
dards of certainty?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesver-
waltungsgericht by judgment of that court of 9 December
2004 in Emsland-Stärke GmbH v Bezirksregierung Weser-
Ems

(b) Is the sanction provided for in Article 13(4) of Regu-
lation (EC) No 97/95 as amended by Regulation (EC) No
1125/96, in view of its amount, necessary to protect the
financial
the Community within the
meaning of Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No
2988/95 in cases such as this? Is it commensurate with
protection of the financial interests of the Community
in cases such as this?

interests of

(Case C-94/05)

(2005/C 93/37)

(Language of the case: German)

3. Is an irregularity liable to a sanction under Article 13(4) of
Regulation (EC) No 97/95 as amended by Regulation (EC)
No 1125/96 caused by negligence within the meaning of
Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 even
if the authority has approved the premium in full knowl-
edge of the facts?

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
the Bundesverwaltungs-
pean Communities by judgment of
gericht
(Germany) of 9
December 2004, received at the Court Registry on 22 February

(Federal Administrative Court)