Case C-170/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 23 April 2008 — H.J. Nijemeisland v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit
Date: 2008-04-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU aid, aid system, aid to agriculture, interpretation of the law

C 197/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

2.8.2008

V

(Announcements)

COURT PROCEEDINGS

COURT OF JUSTICE

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundes-
lodged on 20 March 2008 —
gerichtshof

(Germany)

Bayerischer Brauerbund e.V. v Bavaria N.V.

(Case C-120/08)

(2008/C 197/02)

Language of the case: German

3. May the national provisions on the protection of geogra-
phical designations be applied in the case where the indica-
tion ‘Bayerisches Bier’ fulfils the conditions for registration (3)
under Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 and Regulation (EC)
No 510/2006, but Regulation (EC) No 1347/2001 is invalid?

(1) OJ 2006 L 93, p. 12.
(2) OJ 1992 L 208, p. 1.
(3) OJ 1992 L 182, p. 3.

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bayerischer Brauerbund e.V.

Defendant: Bavaria N.V.

Questions referred

1. The following questions are referred to the Court of Justice
of the European Communities for a preliminary ruling on
the interpretation of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006
of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical
indications
agricultural
and designations of origin for
products and foodstuffs (1). Does Article 14(1) of Regulation
(EC) No 510/2006 apply in the case where the protected
indication has been validly registered in accordance with the
simplified procedure under Article 17 of Regulation (EEC)
No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geogra-
phical indications and designations of origin for agricultural
products and foodstuffs (2)?

2.

(a) If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, what
date should be taken as the basis for determining the
classification in time of the protected geographical indi-
cation within the meaning of Article 14(1) of Regulation
(EC) No 510/2006?

(b) If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative, what
provision governs the conflict between a geographical
indication validly registered in accordance with the
simplified procedure under Article 17 of Regulation
(EEC) No 2081/92 and a trade mark, and what deter-
mines the classification in time of the protected geogra-
phical indication?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van
Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands)
lodged on
23 April 2008 — H.J. Nijemeisland v Minister van
Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

(Case C-170/08)

(2008/C 197/03)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: H.J. Nijemeisland

Defendant: Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

2.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 197/3

Question referred

Must Article 3a of Regulation (EC) No 795/2004 (1), read in
conjunction with Article 2(r) and (s) of Regulation (EC)
No 2419/2001 (2), be interpreted as preventing only the perpe-
tuation of a reduction or exclusion applied under Regulation
(EC) No 2419/2001, or is that provision also applicable to
reductions or exclusions applied on the basis of other regula-
tions?

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 795/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying
down detailed rules for the implementation of the single payment
scheme provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003
establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the
common agricultural policy and establishing certain support
schemes for farmers (OJ 2004 L 41, p. 1).

(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 of 11 December 2001
laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration
and control system for certain Community aid schemes established
by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 (OJ 2001 L 327, p. 11).

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundes-
verwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 29 April 2008 —
Aydin Salahadin Abdulla v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-175/08)

(2008/C 197/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Aydin Salahadin Abdulla

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Questions referred

1. Is Article 11(1)(e) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of
29 April 2004 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that — apart
from the second clause of Article 1(C)(5) of the Convention
of 28 July 1951 relating to the Status of Refugees (Geneva
Convention on Refugees) — refugee status ceases to exist if
the refugee's well-founded fear of persecution within the
terms of Article 2(c) of that directive, on the basis of which
refugee status was granted, no longer exists and he also has
no other reason to fear persecution within the terms of
Article 2(c) of Directive 2004/83?

2. If Question 1 is to be answered in the negative: does the
cessation of refugee status under Article 11(1)(e) of Directive
2004/83 also require that,
in the country of the refugee's
nationality,

(a) an actor of protection within the meaning of Article 7(1)
of Directive 2004/83 be present, and is it sufficient in
that regard if protection can be assured only with the
help of multinational troops,

(b) the refugee should not be threatened with serious harm,
within the meaning of Article 15 of Directive 2004/83,
which leads to the granting of subsidiary protection
under Article 18 of that directive, and/or

(c) the security situation be stable and the general
conditions ensure a minimum standard of living?

living

3. In a situation in which the previous circumstances, on the
basis of which the person concerned was granted refugee
status, have ceased to exist, are new, different circumstances
founding persecution to be

(a) measured against the standard of probability applied for
recognising refugee status, or is another standard to be
applied in favour of the person concerned, and/or

(b) assessed having regard to the relaxation of the burden of

proof under Article 4(4) of Directive 2004/83?

(1) OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundes-
verwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 29 April 2008 —
Kamil Hasan v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-176/08)

(2008/C 197/05)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Kamil Hasan

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany