Case C-384/05: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 January 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) — Johan Piek v Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij (Milk and milk products — Additional levy on milk — Special reference quantity — Second subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 857/84)
Date: 2007-02-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: dairy farm, farm development plan, interpretation of the law, milk, regulation of agricultural production

24.2.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 42/7

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 January 2007
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van
Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands)) — Vonk
Dairy Products BV v Productschap Zuivel

(Case C-279/05) (1)

(Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets —
Cheese — Articles 16 to 18 of Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87
— Differentiated export refunds — Almost immediate re-
exportation from the country of importation — Evidence of
abuse — Recovery of payments wrongly made — Second sub-
paragraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No
2988/95 — Continuous or repeated irregularity)

(2007/C 42/11)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

is

continuous or

repeated where

it
interests, an irregularity
committed by a Community operator who derives economic advan-
tages from a body of similar transactions which infringe the same
provision of Community law. The fact that the irregularity relates
to a relatively small proportion of all the transactions carried out in
a given period and that the transactions in which the irregularity
has been detected always concern different consignments is imma-
terial in this respect.

(1) OJ C 257, 15.10.2005.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 January
2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge
Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) — Johan Piek v
Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij

College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands)

(Case C-384/05) (1)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vonk Dairy Products BV

Defendant: Productschap Zuivel

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — College van Beroep voor
het bedrijfsleven Interpretation of Articles 16 to 18 of Commis-
sion Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987
laying down common detailed rules for the application of the
system of export refunds on agricultural products (OJ 1987 L
351, p. 1) in the version in force at the material time — Inter-
pretation of the second subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Council
Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995
on the protection of the European Communities' financial inter-
ests (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1) — Differentiated refunds not due in
the case of re-exports by the exporter that constitute an abuse
— Determination of the criteria for a finding to that effect —
Continuous or repeated irregularity

(Milk and milk products — Additional
levy on milk —
Special reference quantity — Second subparagraph of Article
3(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 857/84)

(2007/C 42/12)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Johan Piek

Defendant: Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij

Operative part of the judgment

Re:

1. In proceedings for the withdrawal and recovery of differentiated
export refunds which have been definitively paid on the basis of
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November
1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application of
the system of export refunds on agricultural products, a finding
that those refunds have been wrongly paid must be substantiated by
evidence of abuse on the part of the exporter, furnished in accord-
ance with the rules of national law.

2. For the purposes of the second subparagraph of Article 3(1) of
Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December
1995 on the protection of the European Communities' financial

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Neder-
landen — Interpretation of Article 3(1) of Council Regulation
(EEC) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for
the application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation
(EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector (OJ
1984 L 90, p. 13) — Determination of reference quantities
exempt from levy — National measures providing for the alloca-
tion of special reference quantities to producers who have
incurred investment obligations, whether or not under a devel-
opment plan, between 1 September 1981 and 31 March 1984
— Compatibility with Community legislation providing for the
period between 1 January 1981 and 31 March 1984

C 42/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

24.2.2007

Operative part of the judgment

The second subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for the appli-
cation of the levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No
804/68 in the milk and milk products sector must be interpreted as
not precluding a national rule such as that at issue in the main
proceedings which restricts the category of milk producers who may
obtain a special reference quantity to those who incurred investment
obligations after 1 September 1981 but before 1 March 1984.

(1) OJ C 330, 24.12.2005.

by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2261/98 of
amended
26 October 1998, must be interpreted as meaning that it covers
dumpers within the meaning of that subheading which are designed
specifically and primarily for use off paved, public roads. The fact that
dumper trucks have distinctive characteristics which enable them to be
driven, incidentally, on paved, public roads does not preclude their clas-
sification as dumpers within the meaning of that subheading.

(1) OJ C 36, 11.2.2006.

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 January 2007
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden, Netherlands) — B.A.S. Trucks BV v Staatsse-
cretaris van Financiën

(Case C-400/05) (1)

(Common Customs Tariff — Combined Nomenclature —
Tariff classification — Subheading 8704 10 — Vehicle
designed for use on construction sites for the transport and
unloading of materials and also for use on the highway)

Appeal brought on 27 November 2006 by British Aggre-
gates Association against the judgment of the Court of
First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition)
delivered on 13 September 2006 in Case T-210/02: British
Aggregates Association v Commission of the European
Communities

(Case C-487/06 P)

(2007/C 42/14)

Language of the case: English

(2007/C 42/13)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: B.A.S. Trucks BV

Appellant: British Aggregates Association (represented by: C.
Pouncey, Solicitor, L. Van den Hende, advocaat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European
Communities, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

— set aside the judgment of the CFI of 13 September 2006 in

Re:

Preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Tariff clas-
sification of a vehicle designed for use on construction sites for
the transport and unloading of materials and also for use on the
highway — Whether or not it should be classified under CN
subheading 8704 10 as a ‘dumper designed for off-highway use’

Case T-210/02;

— annul Commission decision C(2002) 1478fin of 24 April
2002 ‘State aid N863/01-United Kingdom/Aggregates Levy’,
save as regards the exemption for Northern Ireland; and

— to order the Commission to pay the Appellant's costs in this
appeal and the procedure in Case T-210/01 in the CFI.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Operative part of the judgment

Subheading 8704 10 of the combined nomenclature, in Annex I to
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff
and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as

The applicant submits that the contested judgment of the Court
of First Instance should be set aside on the following grounds:

— The Court of First Instance erred in law by assessing the

existence of state aid in a non-objective way.