Case C-560/07: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 June 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tallinna Halduskohus (Republic of Estonia)) — Balbiino AS v Põllumajandusminister, Maksu- ja Tolliameti Põhja maksu- ja tollikeskus (Accession of Estonia — Transitional measures — Agricultural products — Sugar — Surplus stocks — Regulations (EC) Nos 1972/2003, 60/2004 and 832/2005)
Date: 2009-06-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU stock, Estonia, agricultural product, interpretation of the law, judgment of the Court (EU), sugar product, surplus stock








C_2009180EN.01000901.xml










1.8.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 180/9





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 June 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tallinna Halduskohus (Republic of Estonia)) — Balbiino AS v Põllumajandusminister, Maksu- ja Tolliameti Põhja maksu- ja tollikeskus
(Case C-560/07) (1)

(Accession of Estonia - Transitional measures - Agricultural products - Sugar - Surplus stocks - Regulations (EC) Nos 1972/2003, 60/2004 and 832/2005)
2009/C 180/14
Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Tallinna Halduskohus

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Balbiino AS

Defendants: Põllumajandusminister, Maksu- ja Tolliameti Põhja maksu- ja tollikeskus

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tallinna Halduskohus (Estonia) — Interpretation of Article 6 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 60/2004 of 14 January 2004 laying down transitional measures in the sugar sector by reason of the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (OJ 2004 L 9, p. 8), Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1972/2003 of 10 November 2003 on transitional measures to be adopted in respect of trade in agricultural products on account of the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (OJ 2003 L 293, p. 3), and Commission Regulation (EC) No 832/2005 of 31 May 2005 on the determination of surplus quantities of sugar, isoglucose and fructose for the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (OJ 2005 L 138, p. 3) — Charge on surplus stocks of agricultural products held by operators — Method of determining the amount of the transitional stock and surplus stock for the purpose of that charge

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 4(1) and (2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1972/2003 of 10 November 2003 on transitional measures to be adopted in respect of trade in agricultural products on account of the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia, Article 6(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 60/2004 of 14 January 2004 laying down transitional measures in the sugar sector by reason of the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia, and Commission Regulation (EC) No 832/2005 of 31 May 2005 on the determination of surplus quantities of sugar, isoglucose and fructose for the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia do not preclude a national measure, such as the Law on the surplus stock charge (Üleliigse laovaru tasu seadus) of 7 April 2004, as amended on 25 January 2007, under which an operator’s surplus stock is determined by deducting from the stock actually held on 1 May 2004 the transitional stock defined as the average stock on 1 May of the previous four years of activity multiplied by a coefficient of 1.2 corresponding to the growth of agricultural production observed in the Member State in question during that period.










2.


Regulation No 1972/2003 does not preclude the entire stock held by an operator on 1 May 2004 from being regarded as surplus stock if it is shown, on the basis of consistent evidence, that that stock is not normal in relation to the operator’s activity and has been built up for speculative purposes.










3.


Article 4 of Regulation No 1972/2003 and Article 6 of Regulation No 60/2004 do not preclude a national measure under which an operator who has commenced an activity less than one year before 1 May 2004 is required to prove that the amount of stock he held at that date corresponds to the stock normally produced, sold, transferred or acquired for payment or without payment.










4.


Regulations Nos 1972/2003 and 60/2004 do not preclude the levying of a charge on an operator’s surplus stock even if he is able to prove that he obtained no advantage when marketing that stock after 1 May 2004.










5.


Article 6(3) of Regulation No 60/2004 cannot be interpreted as meaning that an increase in an operator’s storage capacity in the year preceding accession justifies a reduction of the surplus stock, regardless of the subsequent development of the economic activity of the holder of the stock, the volume processed and the amount of the stock.










6.


Article 10 of Regulation No 1972/2003 does not preclude the validity of a tax notice received by an operator who is liable to pay the surplus stock charge after 30 April 2007, where it is shown that the notice was issued by the national authorities on or before that date.






(1)  OJ C 64, 08.03.2008.