Case C-278/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht, lodged on 26 June 2006 — Manfred Otten v Landwirtschaftskammer Niedersachsen
Date: 2006-09-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: agricultural levy, farm lease, interpretation of the law, milk, regulation of agricultural production

C 212/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

2.9.2006

Question referred

Questions referred

in particular electronic commerce,

Does Community law, in particular Articles 15(2) and 18 of
Directive 2000/31/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information
society services,
in the
Internal Market; Article 8(1) and (2) of Directive 2001/29/EC (2)
of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May
2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and
related rights in the information society; Article 8 of Directive
2004/48/EC (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property
rights; and Articles 17(2) and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental
Rights of the European Union, permit Member States to limit
the duty of operators of electronic communications networks
and services, providers of telecommunications network access
and providers of data storage services to retain and make avail-
able connection and traffic information generated during the
supply of an information society service to where it is required
in connection with a criminal
investigation or the need to
protect public safety and national defence, thus excluding civil
proceedings?

(1) OJ L 178, p. l.
(2) OJ L 167, p. 10.
(3) OJ L 157, p. 45.

1. Does point 48.7(a) of Chapter VII of the Annex to Directive
91/628/EEC (1) define the basic conditions for transport by
sea so that, in principle, — provided that the conditions laid
down in points 48.3 and 48.4 of Chapter VII of the Annex
to Directive 91/628/EEC, except for journey times and rest
periods, are met — the journey times by road before and
after transport by sea are not interconnected, even where
animals are being transported on so-called roll-on/roll-off
ferries?

2. Does point 48.7(b) of Chapter VII of the Annex to Directive
91/628/EEC include a special provision for so-called roll-on/
roll-off ferries operating in the Community which applies
alongside or in addition to the conditions laid down in
point 48.4(a) of Chapter VII of the Annex to Directive
91/628/EEC, so that a new maximum journey time of 29
hours (cf. point 48.4(d) of Chapter VII of the Annex to the
Directive) does not commence after arrival of the ferry at
the port of destination (the animals having instead to be
rested for 12 hours) only if the journey time at sea is such
that the voyage has exceeded the general scheme of points
48.2 to 48.4 of Chapter VII of the Annex to the Directive
— namely 29 hours in accordance with point 48.4(d)?

(1) OJ L 340, p. 17.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 26 June 2006 — Inter-
boves GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesver-
lodged on 26 June 2006 — Manfred
waltungsgericht,

Otten v Landwirtschaftskammer Niedersachsen

(Case C-277/06)

(2006/C 212/34)

(Case C-278/06)

(2006/C 212/35)

Language of the case: German

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Interboves GmbH

Applicant: Manfred Otten

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

Defendant: Landwirtschaftskammer Niedersachsen

2.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 212/21

Question(s) referred

Is Article 7(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of 28
December 1992 (1), as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No
1256/1999 of 17 May 1999 (2), to be interpreted as meaning
that on expiry of rural leases on a milk-production holding or
a milk-production area the attached reference quantities can
revert to the lessor even if that lessor is not, or is not about to
become, a producer himself, insofar as he transfers the refer-
ence quantity as soon as possible through a State sales office to
a third party who has that status?

(1) OJ 1992 L 405, p. 1.
(2) OJ 1999 L 160, p. 73.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia
Provincial de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 27 June 2006 —
CEPSA, Estaciones de Servicio SA v LV Tobar e Hijos SL

(Case C-279/06)

(2006/C 212/36)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Madrid

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: CEPSA, Estaciones de Servicio SA

Defendant: LV Tobar e Hijos SL

Questions referred

1 (a) Is Article 81(1) EC to be construed as meaning that a
exclusive supply contract under a brand name concluded
in 1996 by a distributor of petroleum products and the
proprietor of a service station requiring the latter to sell
exclusively the supplier's motor-vehicle and other fuels
for a fixed period, and to undertake not to sell such
products supplied by other distributors, falls within the
ambit of
that provision in so far as that obligation
involves a no-competition agreement, even though that
contract might, given its commercial significance, be
regarded as an agency contract?

(b) If the contract does fall within the ambit of Article
81(1) EC, is it possible to claim the benefit of exemption

from the prohibition if it satisfies the requirements of
Regulation No 1984/83 (1), especially those relating to
duration?

(c) If that should be the case, does the fact that Articles 10
and 12 of that regulation permit the duration of the no-
competition agreement to exceed five years as considera-
tion for the granting of commercial or financial advan-
tages by the supplier to the service station proprietor,
require those commercial or financial advantages to be
substantial or is it enough that they are not insignificant?
Can those provisions be interpreted as meaning that
such commercial or
financial advantages have been
conferred in exclusive supply contracts under a brand
name in which the supplier of petroleum products bears
the costs of installing and maintaining its brand image in
the service station, or transfers fuel-tanks and -pumps
which the service station proprietor may not use without
the authorisation in writing of
the sole supplier for
products not supplied by the latter and which it must
hand back when it ceases to use them as authorised, and
the value of which is covered by the guarantee on first
demand that the service station proprietor has provided
in favour of the supplier?

(d) If that exemption should not be applicable, does the
automatic nullity provided for by Article 81(2) EC affect
the contract in its entirety?

2 (a) Is Article 81(1) EC be interpreted as meaning that a an
exclusive supply contract under a brand name, in so far
as it provides that the service station proprietor must sell
motor-vehicle and other fuels supplied by the exclusive
supplier at the prices for sale to the public fixed by the
supplier, is in theory caught by the prohibition of restric-
tion of competition because it fixes sale prices, taking
account of its economic significance and in particular of
the risks assumed by the service-station proprietor and
its contribution to the costs connected with the supply
of goods under the contract or of the sales promotion of
those goods, given the following relevant points:

(1) The service-station proprietor undertakes

to sell
exclusively the supplier's lubricants, vehicle products
and motor-vehicle and other fuels,
in accordance
with the retail prices, conditions and sales and busi-
ness methods stipulated by the supplier for a period
of 10 years, which may be extended for successive
periods each of five years by express agreement in
writing on notice of at least six months.

(2) The service-station proprietor assumes the risk asso-
ciated with the motor-vehicle and other fuels as soon
as they are received from the supplier in the storage
tanks, including the risk of discrepancies in volume.
From the moment of receipt the proprietor assumes
the obligation to keep the products in the conditions
necessary to ensure that they undergo no loss or
deterioration and is liable, where applicable, to the
supplier and to third parties for any loss, contamina-
tion or adulteration which may affect the products
and for any damage arising as a result thereof.