Case C-517/04: Judgement of the Court (Second Chamber) of  8 June 2006  (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands)) — Visserijbedrijf D.J. Koornstra & Zn. vof v Productschap Vis (Charge on the landing of shrimp with fishing vessels registered 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)
Date: 2006-07-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Netherlands, competition law, customs regulations, export levy, import levy, interpretation of the law

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