Case C-361/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 4 August 2008 — Stichting Greenpeace Nederland v Minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer, other party: Pioneer Hi-Bred Northern Europe Sales Division
Date: 2008-08-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Netherlands, access to information, agricultural area with environmental restrictions, biotechnology, degradation of the environment, environmental policy, genetically modified organism, interpretation of the law, land register, principle of proportionality

8.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 285/21

(b) If the answer to Question 7(a) is in the affirmative, is
the designation of an area twenty or one hundred times
the size of the trial field proportionate having regard to
the protection of private interests (protection of firms,
including the persons and products therein) and of
public interests (prevention of sabotage for the sake of
the
in the
Netherlands)?

biotechnological

development

climate

(1) Directive 2001/18/EC of

the
Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environ-
ment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Direc-
tive 90/220/EEC (OJ L 106, p. 1).

the European Parliament and of

(2) Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information
and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC (OJ L 41, p. 26).

Article 25(4) of Directive 2001/18/EC (1), in view inter alia
of the objective and general scheme of that Directive, be
interpreted as referring to the parcel of
land in the land
register, or is it sufficient for a larger geographical area to be
indicated?

2.

(a) If the indication of a larger geographical area is sufficient,
what circumstances may be included when it is decided
how the area is to be indicated?

(b) Is Directive 2003/4/EC (2) relevant in the determination

of the size of the area to be indicated?

(c) Does an area twenty times larger than the individual trial

fields satisfy the principle of proportionality?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State
(Netherlands)
lodged on 4 August 2008 — Stichting
Greenpeace Nederland v Minister van Volkshuisvesting,
Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer, other party: Pioneer
Hi-Bred Northern Europe Sales Division

3. Is the principle of proportionality satisfied if, pursuant to the
policy revised on 17 July 2008, a general indication of areas
one hundred times the individual trial fields is chosen?

(Case C-361/08)

(2008/C 285/34)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Stichting Greenpeace Nederland

Defendant: Minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening
en Milieubeheer

Other party: Pioneer Hi-Bred Northern Europe Sales Division

4. If only a reference to an entry in the land register is suffi-
cient, can, despite the rule laid down in Article 25(4) of
Directive 2001/18/EC, a justification for treating confiden-
tially information on the precise location of release none the
less lie in the circumstances defined in Article 4(2) of Direc-
tive 2003/4/EC?

5.

(a) Does Article 4(2) of Directive 2003/4/EC contain an

exhaustive list of justifications?

(b) If so, can the protection of firms, including the persons
and products therein, and the prevention of sabotage for
the sake of the biotechnological development climate in
the Netherlands be subsumed under one of the justifica-
tions set out in Article 4(2) of Directive 2003/4/EC?

6. If the answers to Questions 5(a) and (b) are in the affirma-
tive, is the designation of an area twenty or one hundred
times the size of the trial field, in the light of Article 4(2)(h)
of Directive 2003/4/EC, proportionate having regard to the
protection of private interests (protection of firms, including
the persons and products therein), and of public interests
(prevention of sabotage for the sake of the biotechnological
development climate in the Netherlands)?

Questions referred

7.

1. Must the location of release of genetically modified organ-
isms which cannot be regarded as confidential by virtue of

(a) If the answer to Question 5(a)

is in the negative, do
including the persons and
the protection of
products therein, and the prevention of sabotage for the
sake of the biotechnological development climate in the
Netherlands form a permissible justification?

firms,

C 285/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.11.2008

(b) If the answer to Question 7(a) is in the affirmative, is
the designation of an area twenty or one hundred times
the size of the trial field proportionate having regard to
the protection of private interests (protection of firms,
including the persons and products therein) and of
public interests (prevention of sabotage for the sake of
the
in the
Netherlands)?

biotechnological

development

climate

(1) Directive 2001/18/EC of

the
Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environ-
ment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Direc-
tive 90/220/EEC (OJ L 106, p. 1).

the European Parliament and of

(2) Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information
and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC (OJ L 41, p. 26).

2. Is it relevant to the answer to question 1 that Austria, where
the divorced man remains and where he is exclusively resi-
dent and employed, grants him under certain conditions the
if the
right to family allowances (in respect of the child),
divorced wife's right no longer exists?

3. Does the regulation give the divorced wife a right to family
allowances (in respect of the child) vis-à-vis Austria, where
the divorced man and father of the child is resident and
employed,
if the circumstances as described in question 1
change so that the wife takes up employment in the new
Member State?

(1) OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungs-
gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 7 August 2008 — Romana
Slanina v Unabhängiger Finanzsenat Außenstelle Wien

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungs-
gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 11 August 2008 — Agrana
und
Zucker GmbH v

Land-
Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft

Bundesminister

für

(Case C-363/08)

(2008/C 285/35)

(Case C-365/08)

(2008/C 285/36)

Language of the case: German

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Romana Slanina

Applicant: Agrana Zucker GmbH

Defendant: Unabhängiger Finanzsenat Außenstelle Wien

Defendant: Bundesminister
Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft

für Land- und Forstwirtschaft,

Questions referred

Questions referred

their

1. Does it follow from Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the
Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security
schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and
to members of
families moving within the Com-
munity (1) (‘the regulation’) that the divorced wife, who is
not in employment, of a man who lives in Austria, and who
is not self-employed, maintains her right to family allowance
if she establishes a
(in respect of a child) vis-à-vis Austria,
permanent residence in another Member State and centres
her life there, and if she continues not to be in employment
there?

1. Must Article 16 of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 of
the
20 February 2006 on the common organisation of
markets in the sugar sector (1) be interpreted as meaning that
even a sugar quota which cannot be utilised as a conse-
quence of a preventive withdrawal
in accordance with
Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 290/2007 of
16 March 2007 establishing, for the 2007/2008 marketing
year, the percentage (2) provided for in Article 19 of Regu-
lation (EC) No 318/2006, must be included in the assess-
ment of the production charge?