Case C-446/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 31 October 2006 — A.G. Winkel v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit
Date: 2006-12-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: agricultural guidance, beef, interpretation of the law, livestock farming, regulation of agricultural production, suckler cow

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/37

4. Does the limitation period for a claim which seeks to estab-
lish State liability under Community law and is based on the
inadequate transposition of a directive and an accompanying
(de facto) import ban commence, irrespective of the applic-
able national
law, only with the full transposition of the
in
directive, or can the limitation period begin to run,
accordance with national law, when the first injurious effects
have already been produced and further injurious effects are
transposition has a bearing on the
foreseeable?
full
commencement of
is this true in
the limitation period,
general or only if the directive confers a right on individuals?

If

5. Given that the Member States may not frame the conditions
for reparation of
loss and damage in respect of claims
seeking to establish State liability under Community law less
favourably than those relating to similar domestic claims and
it may not be made virtually impossible or excessively diffi-
cult to obtain reparation, are there, generally, objections to a
national rule under which liability for damages does not
arise where the injured party has wilfully or negligently failed
to avert the damage by employing a legal remedy? Are there
also objections to this ‘primacy of primary legal protection’
where it is subject to the proviso that it must be reasonable
for the party concerned? Is the fact that the relevant court is
likely to be unable to answer the questions of Community
law at issue without making a reference to the Court of
Justice of the European Communities or that Treaty infringe-
ment proceedings under Article 226 EC are already pending
sufficient to make it unreasonable under European Com-
munity law?

(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1963-64, p. 185.
(2) OJ 1991 L 268, p. 69.
(3) OJ 1989 L 395, p. 13.

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A.G. Winkel

Defendant: Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

Questions referred

1. Are rules which, as regards the right

require, on the basis of

to a suckler-cow
premium,
the usual animal
husbandry practice, that a cow has calved at least once in the
period which runs from twenty months before to four
months after
the date on which the application period
started and its calf was not removed from the herd within
four months after its birth, compatible with Article 3(f) of
Regulation (EC) (1) No 1254/1999?

2. If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative, what criteria
must be applied to establish whether the herd is intended for
rearing calves for meat production and which cows belong
to that herd?

(1) 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).

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van
Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 31
October 2006 — A.G. Winkel v Minister van Landbouw,
Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi
Bíróság lodged on 2 November 2006 — Vodafone Magyar-
ország Mobil Távközlési Zártkörűen Működő Részvénytár-
saság, Innomed Medical Orvostechnikai Részvénytársaság v
Hungarian State, Budapest Főváros Képviselő-testülete,
Esztergom Város Önkormányzat Képviselő-testülete

(Case C-446/06)

(2006/C 326/78)

(Case C-447/06)

(2006/C 326/79)

Language of the case: Dutch

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

Fővárosi Bíróság