CELEX: 62014CN0051
Language: en
Date: 2014-02-04 00:00:00
Title: Case C-51/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (Germany) lodged on 4 February 2014 — Pfeifer & Langen GmbH & Co. KG v Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung

12.5.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 142/11
            
         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (Germany) lodged on 4 February 2014 — Pfeifer & Langen GmbH & Co. KG v Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung
   (Case C-51/14)
   2014/C 142/14
   Language of the case: German
   
      Referring court
   
   Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Appellant: Pfeifer & Langen GmbH & Co. KG
   
      Respondent: Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung
   
      Questions referred
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Does Article 14(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 1998/78 (1) contain the definitive provisions governing the replacement of sugar for storage-cost-reimbursement purposes and is it not a precondition under that provision that the replacement sugar must be produced by another manufacturer established on the territory of the same Member State?
            
         
               2.
            
            
               If the answer is in the affirmative: Does Article 14(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 1998/78 make it a condition for claiming reimbursement of storage costs that the replacement C sugar is ‘physically replaced’ at the premises of the sugar manufacturer?
            
         
               3.
            
            
               If Article 2(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2670/81 (2) is applicable to the replacement of sugar: Does Article 2(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2670/81 make it a condition for claiming reimbursement of storage costs that the replacement C sugar is ‘physically replaced’ at the premises of the sugar manufacturer?
            
         
               4.
            
            
               In the alternative: Is Article 2(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2670/81 invalid in so far as it requires the replacement sugar to have been ‘produced by another manufacturer established on the territory of the same Member State’?
            
         
      (1)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1998/78 of 18 August 1978 laying down detailed rules for the offsetting of storage costs for sugar (OJ 1978 L 231, p. 5).
   
      (2)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2670/81 of 14 September 1981 laying down detailed implementing rules in respect of sugar production in excess of the quota (OJ 1981 L 262, p. 14).