Case C-94/05: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of  16 March 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht) — Emsland-Stärke GmbH v Landwirtschaftskammer Hannover (Common agricultural policy — Regulation (EC) No 97/95 — Premiums paid to starch-producing undertakings — Conditions for granting premiums — Penalties — Proportionality — Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 — Protection of the European Communities' financial interests)
Date: 2006-06-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative sanction, agricultural guidance, fraud against the EU, interpretation of the law, minimum price, potato, quantitative restriction

3.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 131/25

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 March
2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundes-
verwaltungsgericht) — Emsland-Stärke GmbH v Land-
wirtschaftskammer Hannover

contract’ by the parties to the contract and has been accepted as
such by a competent national authority under Article 4(2) of that
regulation, but cannot be classified as a ‘cultivation contract’ for
the purposes of Article 1(d) and (e) of that regulation.

(Case C-94/05) (1)

(Common agricultural policy — Regulation (EC) No 97/95
— Premiums paid to starch-producing undertakings —
Conditions for granting premiums — Penalties — Propor-
tionality — Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 — Protec-
tion of the European Communities' financial interests)

(2006/C 131/44)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Emsland-Stärke GmbH

Defendant: Landwirtschaftskammer Hannover

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesverwaltungsgericht
— Interpretation of Article 13(4) of Commission Regulation
(EC) No 97/95 of 17 January 1995 laying down detailed rules
for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 as
regards the minimum price and compensatory payment to be
paid to potato producers and of Council Regulation (EC) No
1868/94 establishing a quota system in relation to the produc-
tion of potato starch (OJ 1995 L 16, p. 3), as amended by
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1125/96 of 24 June 1996 (OJ
the
1996 L 150, p. 1) — Conditions governing grant of
premium — Cultivation contract between the potato starch
manufacturer on the one hand and, on the other, not the
producer but a dealer who obtains the potatoes directly or
indirectly from producers — Penalties

Operative part of the judgment

regards

1. The penalty provided for in Article 13(4) of Commission Regu-
lation (EC) No 97/95 of 17 January 1995 laying down detailed
the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No
rules
for
1766/92 as
the minimum price and compensatory
payment to be paid to potato producers and of Council Regulation
(EC) No 1868/94 establishing a quota system in relation to the
production of potato starch, as amended by Commission Regu-
lation (EC) No 1125/96 of 24 June 1996, applies to a starch-
producing undertaking which, although it has not necessarily
exceeded the sub-quota allocated to it, obtains potatoes from a
trader obtaining them directly or indirectly from potato producers,
even where the purchase and delivery contract between that under-
taking and the trader in question is described as a ‘cultivation

2. Consideration of the first part of the second question has disclosed
no factor capable of affecting the validity of Article 13(4) of Regu-
lation No 97/95, as amended by Regulation No 1125/96, from
the point of view of the principle of legal certainty.

3. Consideration of

the second part of

the second question has
disclosed no factor capable of affecting the validity of Article
13(4) of Regulation No 97/95, as amended by Regulation No
1125/96, from the point of view of the principle of proportion-
ality referred to in Article 2(1) and (3) of Council Regulation (EC,
Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection
of the European Communities' financial interests.

4. The fact that the competent national authority was informed that
the starch-producing undertaking had obtained potatoes from a
trader obtaining them directly or indirectly from producers cannot
affect the classification of an irregularity regarded as having been
‘caused by negligence’ within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Regu-
lation No 2988/95, nor, therefore, affect the imposition on that
undertaking of the penalty provided for in Article 13(4) of Regu-
lation No 97/95, as amended by Regulation No 1125/96.

(1) OJ C 93, 16.04.2005.

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 March 2006
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État
(France)) — Ministre de l'Économie, des Finances et de
l'Industrie v Gillan Beach Ltd

(Case C-114/05) (1)

(VAT — Place of taxable transactions — Fiscal connection
— Services provided in connection with boat shows)

(2006/C 131/45)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d'État (France)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ministre de l'Économie, des Finances et de l'Industrie

Defendant: Gillan Beach Ltd