Case C-375/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht by order of that court of  23 August 2005  in Erhard Geuting v Direktor der Landwirtschaftskammer Nordrhein-Westfalen
Date: 2005-12-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: aid to agriculture, common organisation of markets, eligibility criteria, farmers' income, heifer, interpretation of the law, suckler cow

24.12.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 330/9

Pleas in law and main arguments

1992 (3) as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No
2311/96 of 2 December 1996 (4):

The applicant submits that the Court of First Instance wrongly
found that Bart Nijs's application was inadmissible, while he
maintains that the pre-litigation procedure, and more specifi-
cally Article 90(2) of the Statute, was complied with.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesver-
waltungsgericht by order of that court of 23 August 2005
in Erhard Geuting v Direktor der Landwirtschaftskammer
Nordrhein-Westfalen

(Case C-375/05)

(2005/C 330/17)

(Language of the case: German)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Bundesverwaltungsgericht
of 23 August 2005, received at the Court Registry on 12
October 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
between Erhard Geuting and the Direktor der Landwirtschafts-
kammer Nordrhein-Westfalen on the following questions:

1. For the purposes of Article 4a(ii) of Regulation (EEC) No
805/68 of the Council of 27 June 1968 (1) as amended by
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2066/92 of 30 June 1992 (2):

(a) Is an in-calf heifer only a suckler cow within the
meaning of
it
replaces a suckler cow for which an application for a
premium has been made?

the first section of

the regulation if

(b) Is an in-calf heifer also a suckler cow within the
meaning of the first section of the regulation if, in the
previous marketing year, it replaced a suckler cow for
which an application for a premium had been made and
was regarded as eligible for a premium?

(c) Is an in-calf heifer for which application for a premium
has been made to be regarded at any rate as eligible for
a premium if it calves before the end of the period for
lodging applications?

2. The following questions are also referred to the Court of
Justice of
the European Communities for a preliminary
ruling on the interpretation of Article 33(2) and (4) of
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3886/92 of 23 December

(a) Has a producer not made use of premium rights during a
marketing year if he has applied for a premium but his
application has been rejected
animals
concerned were not eligible for premiums?

because

the

Is this also the case if there is no indication of an improper
application having been made?

Would this be compatible with the Community principle of
proportionality?

(b) Should Article 33(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 3886/92 be
interpreted as meaning that,
in an instance such as this,
premium rights are maintained because it constitutes a
(duly justified) exceptional case?

(c) Should premium rights that are withdrawn from a producer
under Article 33(4) of Regulation (EEC) No 3886/92
because he made use of more than 70 % but less than 90 %
of his premium rights in the 1998 marketing year be
granted to that producer on a preferential basis on the
expiry of the two-year exclusion period?

(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (I), p. 187.
(2) OJ L 215, p. 49.
(3) OJ L 391, p. 20.
(4) OJ L 313, p. 9.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassa-
tion (Belgium) by judgment of that court of 9 September
2005 in Samotor SPRL v Belgian State

(Case C-378/05)

(2005/C 330/18)

(Language of the case: French)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by judgment of
the Cour de cassation
(Belgium) of 9 September 2005, received at the Court Registry
on 14 October 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceed-
ings between Samotor SPRL and the Belgian State on the
following questions: