CELEX: C2003/007/03
Language: en
Date: 2003-01-11 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 November 2002 in Case C-304/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Crown Office): The Queen v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte: W.H. Strawson (Farms) Ltd, and J.A. Gagg & Sons (a firm) (Common agricultural policy — Integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes — Article 9(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 — Application for "area" aid — Penalties — Limitation period)

C 7/2                   EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                            11.1.2003
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                      of 26 November 2002                                                             (Sixth Chamber)
in Case C-275/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                                          of 19 November 2002
the Hof van Beroep te Gent): European Community,
represented by the Commission of the European Com-
              munities, v First NV, Franex NV (1)
                                                                            in Case C-304/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                            the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s
                                                                            Bench Division (Crown Office): The Queen v Ministry of
(Articles 235 EC, 240 EC and second paragraph of 288 EC                     Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte: W.H. Strawson
— Action for damages — Expert report ordered as an                                   (Farms) Ltd, and J.A. Gagg & Sons (a firm) ( 1)
interlocutory measure by a national court as against the
European Community — Exclusive jurisdiction of the Com-
                          munity Courts)
                                                                            (Common agricultural policy — Integrated administration
                                                                            and control system for certain Community aid schemes —
                                                                            Article 9(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 — Application
                           (2003/C 7/02)                                            for ‘area’ aid — Penalties — Limitation period)
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                                                       (2003/C 7/03)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                          (Language of the case: English)
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                            In Case C-304/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
In Case C-275/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
                                                                            EC by the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s
EC by the Hof van Beroep te Gent (Belgium) for a preliminary
                                                                            Bench Division (Crown Office), for a preliminary ruling in the
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
                                                                            proceedings pending before that court between The Queen
European Community, represented by the Commission of the
                                                                            and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte:
European Communities, and First NV, Franex NV, on the
                                                                            W.H. Strawson (Farms) Ltd, and J.A. Gagg & Sons (a firm), on
interpretation of the second paragraph of Article 228 EC, the
                                                                            the interpretation of Article 9(2) of Commission Regulation
Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President,
                                                                            (EEC) No 3887/92 of 23 December 1992 laying down detailed
J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet and R. Schintgen (Presidents of
                                                                            rules for applying the integrated administration and control
Chambers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola,
                                                                            system for certain Community aid schemes (OJ 1992 L 391,
P. Jann, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur) and J.N. Cunha
                                                                            p. 36), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puisso-
Rodrigues, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,
                                                                            chet, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, V. Skouris,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
                                                                            F. Macken (Rapporteur) and N. Colneric, Judges; P. Léger,
on 26 November 2002, in which it has ruled:
                                                                            Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Administrator, for the Regis-
                                                                            trar, has given a judgment on 19 November 2002, in which it
                                                                            has ruled:
Article 235 EC, in conjunction with Article 240 EC and the second
paragraph of Article 288 EC, preclude a national court from
ordering, with respect to one of the institutions of the Community,
proceedings for an expert report whose purpose is to determine the          On a proper construction of the first and second paragraphs of
role of that institution in events alleged to have caused damage,           Article 9(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 of
for the purposes of subsequent proceedings against the European             23 December 1992 laying down detailed rules for applying the
Community to establish its non-contractual liability.                       integrated administration and control system for certain Community
                                                                            aid schemes, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1648/
                                                                            95 of 6 July 1995, where the competent authority discovers that an
                                                                            applicant for ‘area’ aid has made an incorrect declaration, neither
( 1) OJ C 257 of 9.9.2000.                                                  intentionally nor as the result of serious negligence, which has
                                                                            entailed overdeclaration of the area eligible for aid and that the same
                                                                            mistake was made in the years prior to that in which the mistake was
                                                                            discovered, thus leading to overdeclaration of the area eligible for aid
                                                                            in each of those years, that authority is required, subject to observance
 ---pagebreak--- 11.1.2003               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                                  C 7/3
of the limitation periods laid down in Article 3(1) of Council              Point 3 of Section A of the Annex to Council Directive 93/22/EEC
Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on                  of 10 May 1993 on investment services in the securities field, which
the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests, to         defines managing portfolios of investments, precludes national
reduce the area actually determined in order to calculate the aid           legislation which departs from that definition by not requiring, for
payable in respect of the previous years.                                   the purposes of the implementation of that directive, that the
                                                                            management of portfolios of investments should be ‘on a discriminat-
                                                                            ory, client-by-client basis’ and ‘in accordance with mandates given by
In accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 9(2) of Regulation
                                                                            investors’. However, there is nothing to prevent a Member State from
No 3887/92, the reductions referred to in the first and second              extending by national legislation the applicability of the provisions of
paragraphs of that article are not to be applied if the farmer shows
                                                                            that directive to operations not covered by it, provided that it is made
that his determination of the area was accurately based on information
                                                                            clear that the national legislation in question does not constitute the
recognised by the competent authority. It is for the national court to      transposition of the directive, but arises from the independent will of
establish whether or not that has been shown in the case in the main
                                                                            the legislature.
proceedings.
( 1) OJ C 285 of 7.10.2000.                                                 (1 ) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                                       (Fifth Chamber)
                       of 21 November 2002
in Case C-356/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                                          of 21 November 2002
the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Toscana):
Antonio Testa, Lido Lazzeri v Commissione Nazionale
              per le Società e la Borsa (Consob) ( 1)                       in Case C-436/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                                   the Regeringsrätten): X, Y v Riksskatteverket (1)
(Directive 93/22/EEC — Investment services in the securities
          field — Managing portfolios of investments)                       (Freedom of establishment — Free movement of capital —
                                                                            Income tax — Tax advantages for the transfer at undervalue
                                                                            of shares to companies in which the transferor has a holding)
                            (2003/C 7/04)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                                                      (2003/C 7/05)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                          (Language of the case: Swedish)
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-356/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Toscana
(Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Antonio Testa, Lido Lazzeri and
Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob),                   In Case C-436/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
intervener: Banca Fideuram SpA, on the interpretation of                    EC by the Regeringsrätten (Sweden) for a preliminary ruling in
Point 3 of Section A of the Annex to Council Directive 93/22/               the proceedings pending before that court between X, Y and
EEC of 10 May 1993 on investment services in the securities                 Riksskatteverket, on the interpretation of Articles 43 EC, 46
field (OJ 1993 L 141, p. 27), the Court (Fifth Chamber),                    EC, 48 EC, 56 EC and 58 EC, the Court (Fifth Chamber),
composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber,                         composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber,
C.W.A. Timmermans, A. La Pergola, P. Jann and S. von                        C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann
Bahr (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General;                 and A. Rosas, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; H. von
L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given           Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 No-
a judgment on 21 November 2002, in which it has ruled:                      vember 2002, in which it has ruled: