Case C-449/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands), lodged on 13 October 2008 — G. Elbertsen v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit
Date: 2008-10-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU aid, aid system, aid to agriculture, interpretation of the law

C 6/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

10.1.2009

— order French Republic to pay the costs.

Questions referred

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant submits that the concepts of ‘small installation’
and ‘substantial change’, as defined in Articles 2(3) and 2(4) of
Directive 1999/13/EC, are necessary in order
to ensure a
harmonised and efficient application of that directive in so far
as they specify the obligations applying to certain categories of
industrial
installations referred to by that directive. There are
many omissions in that regard in the transposition of the direc-
tive into French law because the defendant did not include any
definition of the concept ‘small installation’, while its definition
of the concept ‘substantial change’ does not take into account
the thresholds for the increase of emissions of volatile organic
compounds, above which the change in an installation must be
considered to be substantial.

The applicant also criticises the lack of precision and clarity in
the transposition of Article 4(4) of the Directive concerning the
obligations applying to substantial changes in existing installa-
tions. The rules relating to new installations being stricter than
those applicable to old installations, clearer rules should in fact
be drawn up also in the cases where an existing installation
undergoes significant changes in order to ensure the directive,
the purpose of which is to guarantee a high level of protection
of the environment, remains effective.

(1) OJ 1999 L 85, p. 1.

1. Should Article

of

42(4)

Council

Regulation

(EC)
No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 (1) be interpreted as
permitting a Member State to establish a reference amount
of EUR 0 and not to allocate entitlements to payments from
the national reserve to a farmer who finds himself
in a
special situation as described in Article 21 of Commission
Regulation (EC) No 795/2004 of 21 April 2004 (2)?

2. If the answer to that question is in the affirmative, does
Community law preclude the application of a provision such
as Article 17(1)(b) of the Regeling GLB-inkomenssteun 2006
(2006 Netherlands Regulations on CAP income support),
under which any increase in the amount of additional
payments arising as a result of an investment in production
capacity or a purchase of land is subject to a deduction of
EUR 500 before a reference amount is established as the
basis for the allocation of entitlements to payments from the
national reserve?

schemes

(1) Regulation establishing common rules for direct support schemes
the common agricultural policy and establishing certain
under
(EEC)
support
(EC)
No 2019/93,
No 1454/2001,
(EC)
No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC)
No 2529/2001 (OJ 2003 L 270, p. 1).

farmers and amending Regulations
(EC) No 1453/2001,
(EC) No 1251/1999,

(EC) No 1452/2001,
(EC) 1868/94,

for

(2) Regulation laying down detailed rules for the implementation of the
single payment scheme provided for in Council Regulation (EC)
No 1782/2003 establishing common rules
support
schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing
certain support schemes for farmers (OJ 2004 L 141, p. 1).

for direct

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van
lodged on
Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands),
13 October 2008 — G. Elbertsen v Minister van Landbouw,
Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandes-
lodged on 16 October
(Germany)
gericht Düsseldorf
für
2008 — Helmut Müller GmbH v Bundesanstalt

Immobilienaufgaben

(Case C-449/08)

(2009/C 6/19)

Language of the case: Dutch

(Case C-451/08)

(2009/C 6/20)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Claimant: G. Elbertsen

Applicant: Helmut Müller GmbH

Defendant: Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

Defendant: Bundesanstalt für Immobilienaufgaben