Case C-486/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 5 November 2007 — Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA) v Consorzio Agrario di Ravenna Soc. Coop. Arl
Date: 2007-11-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: cereals, interpretation of the law, intervention agency, maize, product quality, reduced price, sale

26.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/25

Questions referred

1. Having regard to the wording, objective and nature of
Article 6(1) of Decision 3/80 (1) and to the objective and
nature of the Association Agreement (2), does that provision
contain a clear and accurately defined obligation whose fulfil-
require any supplementary
ment and effect does not
measures, it therefore being appropriate for that provision to
have direct effect?

2. If the answer to the first question is affirmative:

2.1 In the application of Article 6(1) of Decision 3/80, must
account be taken in any way of the amendments to
Regulation No 1408/71 (3), such as those which have
been made since 19 September 1980 with respect to
special benefits which are not based on the payment of
premiums or contributions?

2.2 In this connection,

the Additional
to the Association Agreement of signifi-

is Article 59 of

Protocol (4)
cance?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema
lodged on 5 November 2007 —
di Cassazione (Italy)
in Agricoltura (AGEA) v
Agenzia per

le Erogazioni

Consorzio Agrario di Ravenna Soc. Coop. Arl

(Case C-486/07)

(2008/C 22/47)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte Suprema di Cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA)

Defendant: Consorzio Agrario di Ravenna Soc. Coop. Arl

3. Must Article 9 of the Association Agreement be interpreted
as precluding the application of a Member State's legislation,
such as Article 4a of the Netherlands TW, which results in
an indirect distinction being made on grounds of nationality,

Question referred

— firstly, because the number of nationals of countries
other than the Netherlands, including a large group of
Turkish nationals, who are not, or no longer, entitled to a
supplementary benefit because they are no longer resi-
is higher than such persons
dent in the Netherlands,
having Dutch nationality, and

— secondly, because the supplementary benefits of Turkish
nationals resident in Turkey have been withdrawn since
1 July 2003, whereas the phasing out of the supplemen-
tary benefits of nationals of a Member State of the EU
and of third countries, provided that they are resident in
the territory of the EU, did not begin until 1 January
2007?

‘On the basis of the EEC regulations in force at the time of the
facts of the case (1994 to 1995) on the sale of cereals held by
intervention agencies, do the price reductions laid down in
respect of the presence of a higher moisture content than that
of the standard quality apply also to the sale of maize?’

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht
lodged on 6 November 2007 — Pia
Lahr (Germany)

Messner v Firma Stefan Krüger

(1) Decision 3/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on
the application of the social security schemes of the Member States
of the European Communities to Turkish workers and members of
their families (OJ 1983 C 110, p. 60).

(2) Agreement establishing an Association between the European
Economic Community and Turkey, which was signed in Ankara on
12 September 1963 by the Republic of Turkey on the one hand and
the Member States of the EEC and the Community on the other
hand and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Com-
munity by Council Decision 64/732/EEC of 23 December 1963
(OJ 1973 C 133, p. 1).

(3) Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on
the application of social security schemes to employed persons and
their families moving within the Community (OJ, English special
edition 1971 (II), p. 416).

(4) Additional Protocol signed at Brussels on 23 November 1970 and
concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2760/72 of 19 December 1972
(OJ 1973 C 133, p. 17).

(Case C-489/07)

(2008/C 22/48)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Lahr

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pia Messner

Defendants: Stefan Krüger, SFK Laptophandel