Case C-272/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel d'Angers (France) lodged on 26 June 2006 — EARL Mainelvo v Denkavit France SARL
Date: 2006-09-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: beef, common organisation of markets, contract, farmers' income, interpretation of the law, slaughter premium

C 212/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

2.9.2006

Since the present statutory obligation on the relevant credit
institutions is equally unnecessary for the protection of the
integrity and the good reputation of the Austrian financial
sector and for the achievement of effective supervision of finan-
cial institutions, it constitutes a disproportionate restriction on
the free movement of capital.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsger-
icht Wien (Austria) lodged on 22 June 2006 — Auto Peter
Petschenig GmbH v Toyota Frey Austria GmbH

(Case C-273/06)

(2006/C 212/31)

Language of the case: German

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel
d'Angers (France) lodged on 26 June 2006 — EARL Main-
elvo v Denkavit France SARL

Referring court

Handelsgericht Wien

(Case C-272/06)

(2006/C 212/30)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d'appel d'Angers

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: EARL Mainelvo

Respondent: Denkavit France SARL

Question referred

by Council Regulation

Is the immediate assignment by the farmer, under an integra-
tion contract concluded with a French company, which is a
subsidiary of an international group producing and supplying
feedstuffs for calves, of 67.63 to 71.35 % of the slaughter
premium established
(EC) No
1254/1999 of 17 May 1999 (1) [on the common organisation
of the market in beef and veal (OJ 1999 L 160, p. 21)], within
the limits fixed by an internal inter-trade agreement between
the national trade organisations representing integration under-
takings and veal farmers, compatible with the objectives of
market regulation and of ensuring a fair standard of living for
the agricultural community stated in that regulation and with
the internal market measures, established for those purposes
and set out in Commission Regulation (EC) No 2342/1999 of
28 October 1999 (2) [laying down detailed rules for the applica-
tion of Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 on the
common organisation of the market in beef and veal as regards
premium schemes (OJ 1999 L 281, p. 30)]?

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the
common organisation of the market in beef and veal (OJ 1999 L
160, p. 21).

(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2342/1999 of 28 October 1999
laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation
(EC) No 1254/1999 on the common organisation of the market in
beef and veal as regards premium schemes (OJ 1999 L 281, p. 30).

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Auto Peter Petschenig Gmbh

Defendant: Toyota Frey Austria GmbH

Questions referred

1. Is the first indent of Article 5(1)(1)(a) of Commission Regu-
lation (EC) No 1475/95 of 28 June 1995 on the application
of Article 85(3) of the Treaty to certain categories of motor
vehicle distribution and servicing agreements (‘Regulation
(EC) No 1475/95’) (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the
mere entry into force of Commission Regulation (EC) No
1400/2002 of 31 July 2002 on the application of Article
81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and
concerted practices in the motor vehicle sector (‘Regulation
(EC) No 1400/2002’) (2) and the consequent mere adjust-
ment of a distribution system, which was in line with Regu-
lation (EC) No 1475/95 and was exempt under that regu-
lation, to meet the requirements for exemption of a selective
distribution system in accordance with Regulation (EC) No
1400/2002 is to be regarded as necessitating reorganisation
within the meaning of the first indent in the first paragraph
of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1475/95?

2. If the answer to the first question is in the negative: Is the first
indent in the first paragraph of Article 5(3) of Commission
Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 of 28 June 1995 on the appli-
cation of Article 85(3) of the Treaty to certain categories of
motor vehicle distribution and servicing agreements (‘Regu-
lation (EC) No 1475/95’) to be interpreted as meaning that
the mere loss — in relation to selective distribution systems
— of
the territorial protection previously afforded to
authorised dealers, even if combined with the authorisation
of repairers who are not authorised dealers in those makes,
which was not previously allowed under Regulation (EC)
1475/95, represents reorganisation within the meaning of
the first indent in the first paragraph of Article 5(3) of Regu-
lation (EC) No 1475/95, or is it necessary to show that reor-
ganising measures have actually been taken?

(1) OJ L 145, p. 25.
(2) OJ L 203, p. 30.