Case C-420/06: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 11 March 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Schwerin (Germany)) — Rüdiger Jager v Amt für Landwirtschaft Bützow (Common agricultural policy — Regulations (EC) No 1254/1999 and (EC) No 1782/2003 — Beef and veal — Integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes — Regulations (EEC) No 3887/92, (EC) No 2419/2001 and (EC) No 796/2004 — Applications for livestock aid — Suckler cow premium — Irregularities — Non-compliance with the provisions concerning the identification and registration of unclaimed bovine animals — Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 — Exclusion from the benefit of aid — Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 — Principle of retroactive application of the more lenient penalty)
Date: 2008-03-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU control, administrative sanction, aid to agriculture, fraud against the EU, interpretation of the law, support policy

C 107/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.4.2008

tariffs, applied to business customers who themselves transport
pre-sorted postal
items to the sorting offices of dispatch, to
professional suppliers of postal services who collect the postal
items from the senders and then, like the business customers,
pre-sort and deliver them to a sorting office of dispatch

to a permanent establishment set up in another Member State
— Not possible to take that loss into account for purposes of
taxation in the Member State in which the company is estab-
lished

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The fifth indent of Article 12 of Directive 97/67/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common
rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal
services and the improvement of quality of service, as amended by
Directive 2002/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 10 June 2002, must be interpreted as precluding refusal to apply to
businesses which consolidate, on a commercial basis and in their own
name, postal items from various senders the special tariffs which the
national universal postal service provider grants, within the scope of its
exclusive licence, to business customers for the deposit of minimum
quantities of pre-sorted mail at its sorting offices.

(1) OJ C 261, 28.10.2006.

1) It is contrary to Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment
Article 43 EC) in conjunction with Article 58 of the EC Treaty
(now Article 48 EC) for a Member State, when determining the
national basis of assessment, to exclude a currency loss suffered by
a company with a registered office in that State upon the repatria-
tion of start-up capital granted to its permanent establishment in
another Member State.

2) It is also contrary to Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after
amendment, Article 43 EC) in conjunction with Article 58 of the
EC Treaty (now Article 48 EC) for a Member State to allow a
currency loss to be deducted as operating expenditure in respect of
an undertaking with a registered office in a Member State only in
so far as its permanent establishment in another Member State
does not make any tax-free profits.

(1) OJ C 237, 30.9.2006.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 February
a preliminary ruling from the
2008 (reference
Finanzgericht Hamburg, Germany) — Deutsche Shell
GmbH v Finanzamt für Großunternehmen in Hamburg

for

(Case C-293/06) (1)

(Freedom of establishment — Taxation of companies —
Monetary effects upon the repatriation of start-up capital
granted by a company established in one Member State to its
permanent establishment in another Member State)

(2008/C 107/05)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Deutsche Shell GmbH

Defendant: Finanzamt für Großunternehmen in Hamburg

Re:

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 11 March 2008
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungs-
gericht Schwerin (Germany)) — Rüdiger Jager v Amt für
Landwirtschaft Bützow

(Case C-420/06) (1)

agricultural

policy — Regulations

(Common
(EC)
No 1254/1999 and (EC) No 1782/2003 — Beef and veal —
Integrated administration and control system for certain Com-
munity aid schemes — Regulations (EEC) No 3887/92, (EC)
No 2419/2001 and (EC) No 796/2004 — Applications for
‘livestock’ aid — Suckler cow premium — Irregularities —
Non-compliance with the provisions concerning the identifica-
tion and registration of unclaimed bovine animals — Regu-
lation (EC) No 1760/2000 — Exclusion from the benefit of
aid — Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95
— Principle of retroactive application of the more lenient
penalty)

(2008/C 107/06)

Language of the case: German

Preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Hamburg — Interpretation
of Articles 43 EC and 48 EC — Currency exchange loss
incurred by a company established in one Member State at the
time of repatriation of the start-up capital which it had granted

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Schwerin

26.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/5

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Rüdiger Jager

Defendant: Amt für Landwirtschaft Bützow

Re:

the European Communities'

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht
Schwerin — Interpretation of Article 2(2) of Council Regulation
(EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the
protection of
interests
(OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1) — Refusal of an application for livestock
aid on account of a discrepancy of more than 20 % found
between the number of animals declared and the number estab-
lished during a check — Retroactive application of subsequent
less severe administrative penalties concerning livestock aid
which applied only after the abolition of
the livestock aid
scheme in the Member State concerned

financial

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 February
2008 (reference for
a preliminary ruling from the
College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven, Netherlands) —
A.G. Winkel v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en
Voedselkwaliteit

(Case C-446/06) (1)

(Beef and veal — Common organisation of the markets —
Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 — Article 3(f) — Grant of a
suckler cow premium — Conditions consistent with usual
animal husbandry practice)

(2008/C 107/07)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A.G. Winkel

Defendants: Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

Operative part of the judgment

Re:

The second sentence of Article 2(2) of Council Regulation (EC,
Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of
the European Communities' financial interests is to be interpreted as
meaning that the provisions laid down by Articles 66 and 67 of
Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 of 21 April 2004
laying down detailed rules for the implementation of cross compliance,
modulation and the integrated administration and control system
provided for
in Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of
29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support
schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain
support schemes for farmers, as amended and corrected by Commission
Regulation (EC) No 239/2005 of 11 February 2005, may not be
applied retroactively to an application for ‘livestock’ aid falling within
the
of Commission Regulation (EEC)
No 3887/92 of 23 December 1992 laying down detailed rules for
applying the integrated administration and control system for certain
Community aid schemes, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC)
No 2801/1999 of 21 December 1999, which gave rise to an exclu-
sion from the benefit of aid under Article 10c of that regulation.

temporis

ratione

scope

Reference for a preliminary ruling — College van Beroep voor
het bedrijfsleven — Interpretation of Article 3(f) of Council
Regulation (EC) No 1254 of 17 May 1999 on the common
organisation of the market in beef and veal (OJ L 1999 L 160,
p. 21) — Compatibility of national legislation which makes the
award of a suckler-cow premium subject to conditions corre-
sponding to a usual animal husbandry practice

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(f) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 of 17 May
1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal, as
amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1512/2001 of 23 July
2001, does not preclude national rules which make the right to a
suckler cow premium subject to conditions consistent with usual animal
husbandry practice that require, first, a certain frequency of calving and
secondly, that the calf should have been suckled by its mother for a
period of four months after its birth.

(1) OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.

(1) OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.