Case C-344/06 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 October 2007 — J.C. Blom v Council of the European Union, Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Action for damages — Non-contractual liability — Milk — Additional levy — Reference quantity — Producers who entered into a non-marketing undertaking — SLOM 1983 producers — Failure to resume production on expiry of the undertaking)
Date: 2007-12-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, General Court (EU), action for annulment (EU), agricultural levy, appeal, farmer, milk, non-marketing premium

C 315/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

22.12.2007

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(1)(g) and (3)(b) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July
1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended
by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985 and by the Act
concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Austria, the
Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments
to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, must be inter-
preted to the effect that the waiver by a Member State of the charging
of capital duty does not preclude a company falling within one of the
categories referred to in Article 3(1)(a) of that directive from being
classified as a capital company for the purposes of charging capital
duty within the meaning of Article 4(1)(g) of that directive if its effec-
tive centre of management is transferred from that Member State to
another Member State in which that duty is still levied. Nevertheless,
the result of such an interpretation cannot be to encourage conduct
characterised by the putting in place of artificial arrangements with the
sole aim of obtaining a fiscal advantage. It is for the national court to
verify whether there is objective evidence of action constituting an
abusive practice of that kind in the circumstances of the main proceed-
ings.

(1) OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 November
2007 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Cour
d'appel de Montpellier, France) — Criminal proceedings
Bonnarel
against Daniel

(C-260/06),

Escalier

Jean

plant protection product
from another Member State by a
farmer solely for the needs of his own farm when that product
already has marketing authorisation in another Member State
granted in accordance with Directive 91/414/EEC subject to a
simplified authorisation procedure designed to verify that the
product meets identity conditions and subject to the payment of
a charge of EUR 800

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Declares that a Member State may subject to a simplified marketing
authorisation procedure the parallel
import of a plant protection
product from another Member State in which it already has the benefit
of such an authorisation, where the importation is made by a farmer
solely for the needs of his farm, and the marketing authorisation thus
granted is personal to each operator. It cannot be made a condition of
that authorisation that the imported product be named with the brand
name belonging to the operator concerned where he is a farmer who is
making the parallel importation solely for the needs of his own farm.
That authorisation cannot be subject to payment of a charge which
bears no relation to the costs incurred by the control or the administra-
tive steps needed for examination of the authorisation application. An
appraisal of such costs as a fixed sum is however permissible provided
that the principle of proportionality is observed.

(1) OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.

(C-261/06)

(Joined Cases C-260/06 and C-261/06) (1)

(Plant protection products — Parallel imports — Marketing
authorisation procedure — Whether permissible — Conditions
— Observance of the principle of proportionality)

(2007/C 315/29)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d'appel de Montpellier, France

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 October
the European Union,
2007 — J.C. Blom v Council of

Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-344/06 P) (1)

(Appeal — Action for damages — Non-contractual liability
— Milk — Additional levy — Reference quantity — Produ-
cers who entered into a non-marketing undertaking —
SLOM 1983 producers — Failure to resume production on
expiry of the undertaking)

(2007/C 315/30)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties in the main criminal proceedings

Daniel Escalier (C-260/06), Jean Bonnarel (C-261/06)

Parties

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour d'appel de Montpel-
lier — Interpretation of Articles 28 and 30 of the EC Treaty and
of Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning
the placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ 1991
L 230, p. 1) — National legislation making the importation of a

Appellant: J.C. Blom (represented by: E. Pijnacker Hordijk and S.
C.H Molin, advocaten)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union
(represented by: A.-M. Colaert, Agent), Commission of
the
European Communities (represented by: T. van Rijn and M. van
Heezik, Agents)

22.12.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 315/19

Re:

Defendant:
kantoor Utrecht

Inspector

van de Belastingdienst Utrecht-Gooi/

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth
Chamber) of 30 May 2006 in Case T-87/94 J.C. Blom v Council
and Commission by which the Court dismissed an application for
compensation under Article 178 of
the EC Treaty (now
Article 235 EC) and the second paragraph of Article 215 of the
EC Treaty (now the second paragraph of Article 288 EC) for the
loss allegedly suffered as a result of
the applicant's being
prevented from marketing milk pursuant to 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), as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC)
No 1371/84 of 16 May 1984 laying down detailed rules for the
application of the additional levy referred to in Article 5c of
Regulation No 804/68 (OJ 1984 L 132, p. 11)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mr Blom to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 261 of 28.10.2006.

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Gerechtshof te Amsterdam
— Interpretation of Article 4(1) of Sixth Council Directive
77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws
of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common
system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977
L 145, p. 1) — Meaning of independent economic activity —
Natural person having the sole activity of actually carrying out
all the work of a private limited company as sole director, share-
holder and member of staff.

Operative part of the judgment

the purposes of

the application of

the second paragraph of
For
Article 4(4) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May
1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating
to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
basis of assessment, a natural person carrying out all work in the
name and on behalf of a company that is a taxable person pursuant to
a contract of employment binding him to that company of which he is
also the sole shareholder, the sole manager and the sole member of
staff,
is not himself a taxable person within the meaning of
Article 4(1) of that Directive.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 October
2007 (reference
a preliminary ruling from the
Gerechtshof te Amsterdam (Netherlands)) — J.A. van der
Steen v Inspector van de Belastingdienst Utrecht-Gooi/
kantoor Utrecht

for

(Case C-355/06) (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive — Independent economic activity —
Private limited company — Company's activities carried out
by a natural person as sole director, sole shareholder and sole
member of staff)

(2007/C 315/31)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof te Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: J.A. van der Steen

(1) OJ C 294, 2.12.2006.

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 October
the European Communities v
2007 — Commission of

Hellenic Republic

(Case C-440/06) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
91/271/EEC — Pollution and nuisance — Treatment of urban
waste water — Articles 3 and 4)

(2007/C 315/32)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and M. Konstantinidis, Agents)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E. Skandalou,
Agent)