Joined Cases C-7/05 to C-9/05: Judgement of the Court (Second Chamber) of  8 June 2006  (references for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) — Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH v Ulrich Deppe, Hanne-Rose Deppe, Thomas Deppe, Matthias Deppe, Christine Urban (née Deppe) (C-7/05), Siegfried Hennings (C-8/05), Hartmut Lübbe (C-9/05), (Plant varieties — Level of equitable remuneration to be paid to the holder of a Community plant variety right — Article 5(2), (4) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 1768/95, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2605/98 — Concept of  level of remuneration sensibly lower than the amount charged for the licensed production of propagating material )
Date: 2006-07-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: industrial property, interpretation of the law, patents licence, plant propagation, plant variety right

C 178/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

29.7.2006

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to
transpose, within the prescribed period, Directive 2002/58/EC
of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002
concerning the processing of personal data and the protection
of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive
on privacy and electronic communications) (OJ 2002 L 201, p.
37)

Operative part of the judgement

Reference for a preliminary ruling — College van Beroep voor
het bedrijfsleven — Compatibility with Community law, in par-
ticular Articles 25 EC and 90 EC, of a charge imposed in a
Member State on operators landing shrimp with a vessel regis-
tered in that State — Charge also payable by such an operator
in respect of shrimp transported elsewhere in the Community
— Charge intended to finance shrimp sieving and peeling in
that State — Charge having an equivalent effect — Whether a
charge applicable to operators or to products

The Court:

Operative part of the judgment

regulations and administrative provisions necessary

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the
to
laws,
comply with Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of
personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic
communications
(Directive on privacy and electronic
communications), the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obli-
gations under that directive.

sector

2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 314, 18.12.2004.

Judgement of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 June 2006
(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van
Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands)) — Visserijbe-
drijf D.J. Koornstra & Zn. vof v Productschap Vis

(Case C-517/04) (1)

(Charge on the landing of shrimp with fishing vessels regis-
tered in a Member State intended to finance shrimp sieving
and peeling equipment in the same Member State — Article
25 EC — Charges having an effect equivalent to customs
duties — Article 90 EC — Internal taxation)

(2006/C 178/06)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Visserijbedrijf D.J. Koornstra & Zn. vof

Defendant: Productschap Vis

A charge levied by an association governed by public law of a
Member State, on the basis of identical criteria, on national products
intended for the national market or for export to other Member States
constitutes a charge having an effect equivalent to an export duty,
prohibited by Articles 23 EC and 25 EC, if the revenue from that
charge is used to finance activities which benefit only the national
products intended for the national market and the advantages stem-
ming from the use of the revenue from that charge fully offset the
burden borne by those products. On the other hand, if the advantages
accruing to the national products processed or marketed on the
national market from the use of the revenue generated by that charge
offset only partially the burden borne by those products, such a charge
would constitute a breach of the prohibition on discrimination laid
down by Article 90 EC.

(1) OJ C 69, 19.3.2005.

Judgement of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 June 2006
(references for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesger-
ichtshof
(Germany) — Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs
GmbH v Ulrich Deppe, Hanne-Rose Deppe, Thomas
Deppe, Matthias Deppe, Christine Urban (née Deppe) (C-7/
05), Siegfried Hennings (C-8/05), Hartmut Lübbe (C-9/05),

(Joined Cases C-7/05 to C-9/05) (1)

(Plant varieties — Level of equitable remuneration to be paid
to the holder of a Community plant variety right — Article
5(2), (4) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 1768/95, as amended
by Regulation (EC) No 2605/98 — Concept of ‘level of remu-
neration sensibly lower than the amount charged for the
licensed production of propagating material’)

(2006/C 178/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

29.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/5

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH

Defendants: Ulrich Deppe, Hanne-Rose Deppe, Thomas Deppe,
Matthias Deppe, Christine Urban (née Deppe) (C-7/05), Sieg-
fried Hennings (C-8/05), Hartmut Lübbe (C-9/05)

Re:

Preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of
Article 5(2), (4) and (5) of Commission Regulation (EC) No
1768/95 of 24 July 1995 implementing rules on the agri-
cultural exemption provided for in Article 14(3) of Council
Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 on Community plant variety
rights (OJ 1995 L 173, p. 14), as amended by Commission
Regulation (EC) No 2605/98 of 3 December 1998 (OJ 1998
L 328, p. 6) — Level of equitable remuneration to be paid to
the holder of a Community plant variety right — Concept of a
level ‘sensibly lower’ than the amount charged for the licensed
production of propagating material — Remuneration of 80 %
of the amounts payable for such production

Communities and published in the Official Bulletin of the Com-
munity Plant Variety Office and that is so even if it was concluded
before the date on which Regulation No 2605/98 entered into
force. Such an agreement may provide for a rate of remuneration
different from that laid down, in the alternative, in Article 5(5) of
Regulation No 1768/95, as amended by Regulation No
2605/98.

4. In the absence of an applicable agreement between organisations
of holders and of farmers, the remuneration of a holder of a Com-
munity plant variety right has to be established, pursuant
to
Article 5(5) of Regulation No 1768/95, as amended by Regu-
lation No 2605/98, as a fixed amount which constitutes neither
an upper limit nor a lower limit.

(1) OJ C 82, 2.4.2005.

Judegment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 June 2006
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale
amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) — WWF
Italia, Gruppo Ornitologico Lombardo (GOL), Lega aboli-
zione della caccia (LAC), Lega antivivisezionista (LAV) v
Regione Lombardia

Operative part of the judgement

(Case C-60/05) (1)

1. Without prejudice to the assessment made by the national court of
the other circumstances relevant to each of the main proceedings, a
flat-rate remuneration of 80 % of the amount charged for the
licensed production of propagating material of the lowest category
qualified for official certification, of the same variety in the same
area, in the event of recourse to the agricultural exemption referred
to in Article 14(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 of
27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights does not satisfy
the condition that remuneration has to be ‘sensibly lower’ than the
amount charged for the licensed production of propagating mate-
rial within the meaning of Article 5(2) of Commission Regulation
(EC) No 1768/95 of 24 July 1995 implementing rules on the
agricultural exemption provided for in Article 14(3) of Council
Regulation (EC) No 2100/94, as amended by Commission Regu-
lation (EC) No 2605/98 of 3 December 1998.

2. The criteria for determining the remuneration to be paid to the
holder of a Community plant variety right are set out in Article
5(4) and (5) of Regulation No 1768/95, as amended by Regu-
lation No 2605/98. Those criteria have no retroactive effect but
they may serve as a guide for the calculation of that remuneration
with respect to planting carried out before the entry into force of
Regulation No 2605/98.

(Conservation of wild birds — Directive 79/409/EEC —
Derogations from the system of protection)

(2006/C 178/08)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: WWF Italia, Gruppo Ornitologico Lombardo (GOL),
Lega abolizione della caccia (LAC), Lega antivivisezionista
(LAV)

3. In order for an agreement concluded between organisations of
holders and of farmers, as referred to in Article 5(4) of Regulation
No 1768/95, as amended by Regulation No 2605/98, to be
used as a guideline as regards all its parameters, that agreement
the European
must have been notified to the Commission of

Defendant: Regione Lombardia

Intervener: Associazione migratoristi italiani