Case C-33/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof, Austria lodged on 28 January 2008 — AGRANA Zucker GmbH v Bundesminister für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft
Date: 2008-01-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU financing arrangements, aid for restructuring, common agricultural policy, interpretation of the law, production quota, sugar, sugar industry, withdrawal from the market

C 92/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

12.4.2008

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo
Mercantil Número Uno, Alicante,
lodged on
28 January 2008 — Fundación Española para la Innovación
de la Artesanía (FEIA) v Cul de Sac Espacio Creativo, S.L.
and Acierta Product & Position, S.A.

(Spain),

(Case C-32/08)

(2008/C 92/25)

Language of the case: Spanish

4. In the event that national law is to be relied on, is it possible
to apply national law where it places on an equal footing (as
Spanish law does) designs produced in the context of an
to the
employment
employer, unless it has been agreed otherwise) and designs
produced as a result of a commission (the designs belong to
the party who commissioned them, unless it has been agreed
otherwise)?

relationship (the designs belong

5. In the event that the answer to the fourth question is in the
affirmative, would such a solution (the designs belong to the
party who commissioned them, unless it has been agreed
otherwise) conflict with the negative answer to the second
question?

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Mercantil Número Uno, Alicante

(1) OJ 2002 L 3, p. 1.

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:
Artesanía (FEIA)

Fundación Española para

la

Innovación de

la

Defendant: Cul de Sac Espacio Creativo, S.L. and Acierta Product
& Position, S.A.

Questions referred

1. Must Article 14(3) of [Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002
of 12 December 2001 on Community designs (1)] be inter-
preted as referring only to Community designs developed in
the context of an employment
relationship where the
designer is bound by a contract governed by employment
law whose provisions are such that the designer works under
the direction and in the employ of another? or

2. Must the terms ‘employee’ and ‘employer’ in Article 14(3) of
Regulation No 6/2002 be interpreted broadly so as to
include situations other than employment relationships, such
as a relationship where, in accordance with a civil/commer-
cial contract (and therefore one which does not provide that
an individual habitually works under the direction and in the
employ of another), an individual (designer) undertakes to
execute a design for another individual for a settled price
and, as a result, it is understood that the design belongs to
the person who commissioned it, unless the contract stipu-
lates otherwise?

3. In the event that the answer to the second question is in the
negative, on the ground that
the production of designs
within an employment relationship and the production of
designs within a non-employment relationship constitute
different factual situations,

(a) is it necessary to apply the general rule in Article 14(1)
of Regulation No 6/2002 and, consequently, must the
designs be construed as belonging to the designer, unless
the parties stipulate otherwise in the contract? or

(b) must the Community design court rely on national law
governing designs in accordance with Article 88(2) of
Regulation No 6/2002?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungs-
gerichtshof, Austria lodged on 28 January 2008 —
AGRANA Zucker GmbH v Bundesminister für Land- und
Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft

(Case C-33/08)

(2008/C 92/26)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: AGRANA Zucker GmbH

Defendant: Bundesminister
Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft

für Land- und Forstwirtschaft,

Questions referred

1. Must Article 11 of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 of
20 February 2006 be interpreted as meaning that even a
sugar quota which cannot be utilised as a consequence of a
in accordance with Article 3 of
preventive withdrawal
Commission Regulation (EC) No 493/2006 of 27 March
2006 must be included in the assessment of the temporary
restructuring amount?

12.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92/15

2. In the event that the first question is answered in the affirma-

tive:

Is Article 11 of Regulation No 320/2006 compatible with
primary law, in particular with the principle of non-discrimi-
nation and the principle of
legitimate
expectations derived from Article 34 EC?

the protection of

of the common market yet at the same time excludes all
discrimination between producers or consumers in the Com-
munity, but nevertheless the uniform application of the addi-
tional levy, without identification of those producers who are
in deficit as compared with those who are producing
surpluses, ultimately discriminates against Italian producers
belonging to a milk-deficit country?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale
Ordinario di Padova, Italy lodged on 28 January 2008 —
Azienda Agricola Disarò Antonio v Cooperativa Milka
2000 S.C. a r.l.

(Case C-34/08)

(2008/C 92/27)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Ordinario di Padova

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Azienda Agricola Disarò Antonio

Defendant: Cooperativa Milka 2000 Soc. coop. arl

Questions referred

1. Is

Council

(EC) No

Regulation

1788/2003 (1)

of
29 September 2003, which imposes an additional levy on
production of milk and milk products in excess of
the
national quota allocated, without taking account of periodical
updating of
the quantity allocated to each Community
country following specific verification of the respective quan-
tities produced, compatible with Article 32 of the Treaty and
with the aims of the common agricultural policy which that
article sets out, such as increasing agricultural productivity,
developing technical progress, ensuring rational development
of agriculture and also optimising utilisation of the factors of
production, in particular labour, since that mechanism also
has an impact on Italian milk and milk products producers,
detracting from a fair standard of living and from develop-
ment as a result of inadequate remuneration of the factors of
production and since Italy is in fact a milk-deficit country
(see the government report cited above, paragraph 6.5),
forced to import raw material
to sustain the industries
engaged in the processing and marketing of quality products
(see the agricultural report of 15 February 2004, annexed
hereto)?

3. Is Council Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003 compatible with
Article 34 EC in so far as it provides that pursuit of the
objectives set out in Article 33 ‘shall exclude any discrimina-
tion between producers or consumers within the Com-
munity’, whereas such discrimination is created by the regu-
lation, which, for the purpose of the additional levy, requires
a uniform contribution both from producers belonging to
milk-surplus countries and from those belonging to milk-
deficit countries such as Italy?

4. Is Council Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003 of 29 September
2003 compatible with the principle of proportionality laid
down in Article 5 of the Treaty in so far as the latter states
that Community action ‘shall not go beyond what is neces-
sary to achieve the objectives of this Treaty’, whereas the
uniform application of the additional levy goes further than
the aim of creating a common organisation of the market
because it perpetuates for average Italian farmers low produc-
tivity, low income and the need for permanent reliance on
public support?

(1) OJ L 270, p. 123.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 31 January 2008
— Grundstücksgemeinschaft Busley/Cibrian v Finanzamt
Stuttgart-Körperschaften

(Case C-35/08)

(2008/C 92/28)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Grundstücksgemeinschaft Busley/Cibrian

2. Is Council Regulation (EC) No 1788/2003 compatible with
Article 33 EC, in so far as the latter provides for organisation

Defendant: Finanzamt Stuttgart-Körperschaften