Case C-34/05: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 1 March 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands)) — Maatschap J. en G.P. en A.C. Schouten v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit (Community aid schemes — Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 — Beef and veal sector — Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 — Available forage area — Definition — Special premium — Conditions for granting — Parcel of land temporarily under water during the period in question)
Date: 2007-04-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: aid to agriculture, area of holding, flood, fodder-growing, interpretation of the law, utilised agricultural area

C 95/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.4.2007

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 March 2007
— Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
Marks and Designs) v Kaul GmbH, Bayer AG

(Case C-29/05 P) (1)

(Appeal — Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings
— Submission of new facts and evidence in support of an
appeal brought before the Board of Appeal of OHIM)

(2007/C 95/08)

Language of the case: German

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 1 March 2007
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van
Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands)) — Maatschap
J. en G.P. en A.C. Schouten v Minister van Landbouw,
Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

(Case C-34/05) (1)

(Community aid schemes — Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 —
Beef and veal sector — Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 —
Available forage area — Definition — Special premium —
Conditions for granting — Parcel of land temporarily under
water during the period in question)

(2007/C 95/09)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Appellant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl
and G. Schneider, Agents)

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands)

Other parties to the proceedings: Kaul GmbH (represented by:
G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, Rechtsanwälte), Bayer AG

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Maatschap J. en G.P. en A.C. Schouten

Re:

the Court of First
Appeal brought against the judgment of
Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 10 November 2004 in Case
T-164/02 Kaul v OHIM and Bayer, by which the Court of First
Instance annulled Decision R 782/2000-3 of the Third Board of
Appeal of OHIM of 4 March 2002 relating to opposition
proceedings between Kaul GmbH and Bayer AG — Examination
of the opposition — Examination of the facts by the Board of
Appeal — Scope — Articles 43(2) and 74(2) of Council Regu-
lation No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community
trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the Euro-
pean Communities of 10 November 2004 in Case T-164/02
Kaul v OHIM — Bayer (ARCOL);

2. Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
(OHIM) of 4 March 2002 (Case R 782/2000-3);

3. Orders OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings both at first

instance and on appeal.

Defendant: Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit,

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — College van Beroep voor
het Bedrijfsleven — Interpretation of Article 12(2)(b) of 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) and of Article 2(1)(c) of Commission Regulation
(EEC) No 3887/92 of 23 December 1992 laying down detailed
rules for applying the integrated administration and control
system for certain Community aid schemes (OJ 1992 L 391,
p. 36) — Available forage area — Parcel of land temporarily
under water during the period in question

Operative part of the judgment

Article 12(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 of
17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and
veal and Article 2(1)(c) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3887/
92 of 23 December 1992 laying down detailed rules for applying the
integrated administration and control system for certain Community
aid schemes must be interpreted as meaning that a parcel of
land
declared as a forage area may be regarded as 'available' where, first, it
is intended to be used exclusively for the feeding of the animals held on
it throughout the calendar year and, secondly, it was in fact possible to
use it to feed them for a minimum period of seven months during that
year, from the date fixed by the national legislation, which must be
between 1 January and 31 March, even though that parcel of land
was not occupied continuously by those animals, in particular because
it was temporarily under water.

(1) OJ C 82, 2.4.2005.

(1) OJ C 93, 16.4.2005.