Case C-60/05: 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 abolizione della caccia (LAC), Lega antivivisezionista (LAV) v Regione Lombardia (Conservation of wild birds — Directive 79/409/EEC — Derogations from the system of protection)
Date: 2006-07-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: application of EU law, bird, derogation from EU law, environmental protection, hunting regulations, interpretation of the law, national implementing measure, scientific committee (EU)

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

C 178/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

29.7.2006

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale amministrativo
regionale per la Lombardia — Interpretation of Article 9 of
Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conser-
vation of wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1) — Conditions for
exercise by the Member States of the derogation from the
prohibition on killing and capture of protected species — Finch
and brambling species

Judgement of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 June 2006
— Commission of the European Communities v Grand
Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-71/05) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
2002/30/EC — Air transport — Noise-related operating
restrictions at Community airports — Failure to transpose
within the prescribed period)

Operative part of the judgement

(2006/C 178/09)

Language of the case: French

1. Article 9(1)(c) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April
1979 on the conservation of wild birds requires the Member
States, irrespective of the internal allocation of powers prescribed
by the national legal system, upon adoption of measures imple-
menting that provision to ensure that, in all cases of application
of the derogation provided for therein and for all the protected
species, authorised hunting does not exceed a ceiling consistent
with the restriction on that hunting to small numbers imposed by
that provision, and that ceiling must be determined on the basis of
strict scientific data.

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: M. Huttunen, Agent)

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: S.
Schreiner, Agent)

2. National implementing provisions concerning the ‘small numbers’
referred to in Article 9(1)(c) of Directive 79/409 must enable the
in
authorities
respect of birds of a given species to rely on criteria which are suffi-
ciently precise as to the quantitative ceilings to be complied with.

responsible for authorising hunting derogations

3. Upon implementation of Article 9(1)(c) of Directive 79/409, the
the
Member States are required to ensure that,
number and identity of
territory
responsible for applying that provision, the amount of authorised
hunting derogations in respect of each protected species by each of
those authorities does not exceed the ceiling compatible with the
restriction on that hunting to ‘small numbers’,
fixed for that
species for the entire national territory.

the authorities within their

irrespective of

4. The obligation on the Member States to ensure that hunting of
birds is carried out only in ‘small numbers’, in accordance with
Article 9(1)(c) of Directive 79/409, requires that the administra-
tive procedures provided for are organised in such a way that both
the decisions of
the competent authorities authorising hunting
derogations and the manner in which those decisions are applied
are subject to effective control exercised in a timely manner.

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to
transpose, within the prescribed period, Directive 2002/30/EC
of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 March
2002 on the establishment of rules and procedures with regard
to the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions at
Community airports (OJ 2002 L 85, p. 40)

Operative part of the judgement

The Court:

regulations and administrative provisions necessary

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the
laws,
to
comply with Directive 2002/30/EC of the European Parliament
and the Council of 26 March 2002 on the establishment of rules
and procedures with regard to the introduction of noise-related
operating restrictions at Community airports, the Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

2. Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 93, 16.4.2005.

(1) OJ C 82, 2.4.2005.