Case C-429/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Amsterdam (The Netherlands) lodged on 22 May 2006 — Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst v X BV
Date: 2007-12-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Netherlands, competition law, fine, infringement of EU law, interpretation of the law

8.12.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/23

b) Where a Member State's internal constitutional arrange-
ments provide that different devolved administrations
shall have legislative competence in relation to different
constituent parts of that Member State, can it give rise to
impermissible discrimination for constituent parts to have
different standards of good agricultural and environ-
mental condition under Article 5 of and Annex IV to the
Council Regulation?

(1) OJ L 270, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State
(The Netherlands)
lodged on 17 September 2007 —
Exportslachterij J. Gosschalk & Zoon B.V. v Minister van
Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

(Case C-430/07)

(2007/C 297/38)

Language of the case: Dutch

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof
Amsterdam (The Netherlands) lodged on 22 May 2006 —
Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst v X BV

Referring court

Raad van State

(Case C-429/07)

(2007/C 297/37)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst

Defendant: X BV

Question referred

Is the Commission competent, under Article 15(3) of Regulation
No 1/2003, to submit, on its own initiative, written observa-
tions in proceedings relating to the deductibility from the
(taxable) profit realised by the party concerned in 2002 of a
fine for infringement of Community competition law, which
was imposed by the Commission on X KG and (partially) passed
on to the party concerned?

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Exportslachterij J. Gosschalk & Zoon B.V.

Defendant: Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

Questions referred

to

implement

1. Are the BSE tests which from 1 January 2001 were obliga-
tory under the Regeling uitvoer vers vlees en vleesberei-
dingen (Regulation on the export of fresh meat and meat
preparations) 1985 (Staatscourant 2001, No. 218), which
served
Decision
2000/764/EC (1) on the testing of bovine animals for the
presence
and
amending Decision 98/272/EC on epidemio-surveillance for
transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, tests within the
meaning of Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2777/2000
adopting
the beef
market (2)?

spongiform encephalopathy

support measures

exceptional

bovine

Article

1(3)

for

of

of

2. If so, should Article 2(1) of Regulation No 2777/2000 be
seen as an intervention intended to stabilise the beef market
(market support) within the meaning of Article 1(2)(b) of
Regulation No 1258/1999 on the financing of the common
agricultural policy (3), or as a specific veterinary measure
within the meaning of subparagraph (d) of this provision, or
both?

3. If it is (also) a case of market support, does it then mean,
given the judgment of the Court in Case C-239/01 Federal
Republic of Germany v Commission (4), that the tests should be
financed exclusively by the Community and that therefore
Article 2(2) of Regulation No 2777/2000 is invalid because
of conflict with Regulation No 1254/1999 (5)
it
provides that the Community only partially contributes to
the costs of the BSE tests?

in that