Case C-560/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tallinna Halduskohus (Estonia) lodged on 18 December 2007 — AS Balbiino v EV Põllumajandusministeerium, Maksu- ja Tolliameti Põhja maksu- ja tollikeskus
Date: 2007-12-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU stock, Estonia, agricultural product, interpretation of the law, sugar product, surplus stock

C 64/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.3.2008

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State
(Netherlands) lodged on 12 December 2007 — College van
burgemeester en wethouders van Rotterdam v M.E.E.
Rijkeboer

(Case C-553/07)

(2008/C 64/29)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Defendant: Tele2 Telecommunication GmbH

Questions referred

1. Is the term ‘intermediary’ in Article 5(1)(a) and Article 8(3)
of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of
certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the informa-
tion society (1)
to be interpreted as including an access
provider who merely provides a user with access to the
network by allocating him a dynamic IP address but does
not himself provide him with any services such as e-mail,
FTP or
file-sharing services and does not exercise any
control, either in law or in fact, over the services which the
user makes use of?

Parties to the main proceedings

2. If the first question is answered in the affirmative:

Appellant: College
Rotterdam

van burgemeester

en wethouders

van

Respondent: M.E.E. Rijkeboer

Question referred

Is the restriction, provided for in the Netherlands Law on local-
authority personal records, on the communication of data to
one year prior to the relevant request compatible with Article
12(a) of Directive 95/46/EC (1) of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of indivi-
duals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the
free movement of such data, whether or not read in conjunction
with Article 6(1)(e) of that directive and the principle of propor-
tionality?

(1) OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster
Gerichtshof (Austria)
lodged on 14 December 2007 —
LSG-Gesellschaft zur Wahrnehmung von Leistungsschutz-
rechten GmbH v Tele2 Telecommunication GmbH

(Case C-557/07)

(2008/C 64/30)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Is Article 8(3) of Directive 2004/48/EC of
the European
Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the
enforcement of intellectual property rights (2), having regard
to Article 6 and Article 15 of Directive 2002/58/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002
concerning the processing of personal data and the protec-
tion of privacy in the electronic communications sector, to
be interpreted (restrictively) as not permitting the disclosure
of personal
the
purpose of civil proceedings for alleged infringements of
exclusive rights protected by copyright (rights of exploitation
and use)?

traffic data to private third parties for

(1) OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10.
(2) OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tallinna
Halduskohus (Estonia) lodged on 18 December 2007 — AS
ja
Balbiino v EV Põllumajandusministeerium, Maksu-

Tolliameti Põhja maksu- ja tollikeskus

(Case C-560/07)

(2008/C 64/31)

Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Tallinna Halduskohus

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: AS Balbiino

Applicant:
tungsschutzrechten GmbH

LSG-Gesellschaft

zur Wahrnehmung

von Leis-

Defendants: EV Põllumajandusministeerium, Maksu- ja Tolliameti
Põhja maksu- ja tollikeskus

8.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/21

Questions referred

1. Does

the

law of

the European Union,

in particular
Article 6(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 60/2004 (1),
in conjunction with recital 3 in the preamble to Commission
Regulation (EC) No 832/2005 (2), and Article 4(1) and (2) of
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1972/2003 (3), preclude the
ascertainment of the amount of an operator's surplus stock
by automatically deducting from the surplus stock (regarded
as transitional stock) the average stock as at 1 May of the
operator's years of activity preceding 1 May 2004, but not
more than four years of activity, multiplied by 1.2?

If the answer is in the affirmative, would the answer be
different if in determining the transitional stock and surplus
stock it were possible also to take into account the growth of
the operator's production, processing or sales volume, the
maturation period of the agricultural product, the time when
the stocks were built up, and other circumstances indepen-
dent of the operator?

2. It is compatible with the law of the European Union, in par-
ticular
the objective of Commission Regulation (EC)
No 1972/2003, to regard the entire stock of an agricultural
product in the operator's possession as at 1 May 2004 as the
operator's surplus stock?

3. If the operator started to deal

in the corresponding agri-
cultural product less than one year before 1 May 2004, does
the law of the European Union, in particular Article 4 of
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1972/2003 and Article 6
of Commission Regulation (EC) No 60/2004, preclude that
operator himself having to prove that the amount of the
stock of the agricultural product in his possession on 1 May
2004 is equivalent to the amount of the stock of the agri-
cultural product customarily produced, sold, otherwise trans-
ferred for payment or without payment or acquired by him?

If the answer is in the affirmative, would the answer be
different if, regardless of the operator's obligation to provide
proof, the administrative body had an obligation to take into
account, on the basis of the declaration of the agricultural
product submitted by the operator, in assessing the opera-
tor's transitional stock and surplus stock, the growth of the
operator's production, processing or sales volume and stock
after 1 May 2004?

inter alia of

determining surplus quantities of sugar, isoglucose or fruc-
tose,
storage capacities, be interpreted as
meaning that in a situation in which the operator's storage
capacities have increased during the year preceding accession
that is a basis for reducing the surplus stock of the agri-
cultural product in the possession of the operator as at 1 May
2004, regardless of
the
volume of
the agricultural product processed and the
amount of stocks of the agricultural product in the years of
activity preceding 1 May 2004 and during the two years
following 1 May 2004?

the operator's economic activity,

6. Does Article

of

10

Regulation

Commission

(EC)
No 1972/2003 preclude the demanding of a surplus stock
charge from an operator by a tax notice in a situation in
which the tax notice was indeed drawn up while the regu-
lation was applicable, on 30 April 2007, but according to
national law became enforceable against the operator after
the final date of application of the Commission regulation,
and national
for
demanding the stock charge?

law does not establish a time-limit

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 60/2004 of 14 January 2004 laying
down transitional measures in the sugar sector by reason of the
accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania,
Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (OJ 2004 L 9, p. 8).
(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 832/2005 of 31 May 2005 on the
determination of surplus quantities of sugar, isoglucose and fructose
for the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary,
Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (OJ 2005 L 138, p. 3).

(3) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1972/2003 of 10 November 2003
on transitional measures to be adopted in respect of trade in agri-
cultural products on account of the accession of the Czech Republic,
Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia
and Slovakia (OJ 2003 L 293, p. 3).

Action brought on 18 December 2007 — Commission of
the European Communities v Italian Republic

(Case C-561/07)

(2008/C 64/32)

Language of the case: Italian

4. Is it compatible with the objective of Commission Regulation
(EC) No 1972/2003 and Commission Regulation (EC)
No 60/2004 to levy the surplus stock charge where the
operator is found to have a surplus stock as at 1 May 2004
but the operator shows that he has not obtained a real
advantage in terms of a price difference from marketing the
surplus stock after 1 May 2004?

Parties

5. Must the provisions of Article 6(3) of Commission Regu-
lation (EC) No 60/2004, under which account is taken, in

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: J. Enegren and L. Pignataro, Agents)