CELEX: C1998/234/15
Language: en
Date: 1998-07-25 00:00:00
Title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 19 May 1998 in Case C-3/96: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands, supported by the Federal Republic of Germany (Conservation of wild birds - Special protection areas)

C 234/8               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      25.7.98
refund of money paid over, a situation in which the                       markets. In that regard, the capacity in which the
purchaser of a package holiday who has paid the travel                    Member State grants aid under Council Regulation
organiser for the costs of his accommodation before                       (EEC) No 1765/92 of 30 June 1992 establishing a
travelling on his holiday is compelled, following the travel              support system for producers of certain arable crops,
organiser's insolvency, to pay the hotelier for his                       the fact that the rules of that Member State on set-off
accommodation again in order to be able to leave the                      require, for set-off to be available, reciprocity of debts
hotel and return home.                                                    as between debtor and creditor, the practice generally
                                                                          followed by the Member State regarding set-off and
(1) OJ C 9 of 11.1.1997.                                                  the legal basis of the debt to the State involved in the
                                                                          set-off are of no importance, provided that the
                                                                          national authorities ensure that the effectiveness of
                                                                          Community law is not in any way undermined and
                                                                          that economic operators enjoy equal treatment. It is
                                                                          for the national court to determine whether that is the
                                                                          case.
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       of 19 May 1998                                2. On a proper construction of Article 15(3) of
                                                                          Regulation No 1765/92, Member States are not
in Case C-132/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                 precluded from requiring a national intervention
the éstre Landsret): Bent Jensen and Korn- og                             agency to effect set-off with debts payable to the State
Foderstofkompagniet A/S v Landbrugsministeriet, EF-                       in the case of a beneficiary of compensatory payments.
                        Direktoratet (1)
(Community law Ð Principles Ð Set-off of amounts paid                3. On a proper construction of Article 10(1) of
under Community law against debts payable to a Member                     Regulation No 1765/92, payment of the compensatory
State Ð Common agricultural policy Ð Regulation (EEC)                     payments to which it refers may be deferred until it
No 1765/92 Ð Support system for producers of certain                      has been verified whether the State has any claim
                          arable crops)                                   against the beneficiary thereof for which set-off may
                         (98/C 234/14)                                    be available, provided that the payment is made no
                                                                          later than 31 December in the year in question.
                (Language of the case: Danish)                       (1) OJ C 189 of 22.7.1995.
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-132/95: reference to the Court under Article 177                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
of the EC Treaty from the éstre Landsret (Eastern                                            of 19 May 1998
Regional Court) (Denmark), for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings pending before that court between Bent               in Case C-3/96: Commission of the European
Jensen and Korn- og Foderstofkompagniet A/S and                      Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands, supported by
Landbrugsministeriet, EF-Direktoratet Ð on the                                    the Federal Republic of Germany (1)
interpretation of Community law with regard to set-off                  (Conservation of wild birds Ð Special protection areas)
between amounts paid under Community law and debts
payable to a Member State and of Articles 10(1) and                                           (98/C 234/15)
15(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1765/92 of 30 June
1992 establishing a support system for producers of                                  (Language of the case: Dutch)
certain arable crops (OJ L 181 of 1.7.1992, p. 12) Ð the
Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President,
C. Gulmann, M. Wathelet (Presidents of Chambers),                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
G. F. Mancini (Rapporteur), J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,                         published in the European Court Reports)
J. L. Murray, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and L. Sevón,
Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate General; H. von Holstein,
Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment            In Case C-3/96: Commission of the European
on 19 May 1998, in which it has ruled:                               Communities, represented by W. Wils, v Kingdom of the
                                                                     Netherlands, represented by M. A. Fierstra and J. S. van
                                                                     den Oosterkamp, supported by the Federal Republic of
1. Community law does not preclude a Member State                    Germany, represented by E. Röder and S. Maaû Ð
     from effecting set-off between an amount due to a               application for a declaration that, by failing sufficiently to
     beneficiary of aid payable under Community                      designate special protection areas within the meaning of
     legislation and an outstanding debt to that Member              Article 4(1) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April
     State. The position would be different only if that             1979 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ L 103 of
     practice were to interfere with the proper functioning          25.4.1979, p. 1), the Kingdom of the Netherlands has
     of the common organisation of the agricultural                  failed to comply with its obligations under that directive
 ---pagebreak--- 25.7.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 234/9
and Articles 5 and 189 of the EC Treaty Ð the Court,                 interpretation of Article 21 of that Convention (OJ L 304
composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President,                    of 30.10.1978, p. 36), as amended by the Convention of
C. Gulmann, (Rapporteur), H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet                  9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of
and R. Schintgen, Presidents of Chamber, J. C. Moitinho              Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great
de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, D. A. O.                 Britain and Northern Ireland (OJ L 304 of 30.10.1978,
Edward, G. Hirsch and P. Jann, Judges; N. Fennelly,                  p. 1; amended version of the Convention, p. 77) and the
Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has             Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the
given a judgment on 19 May 1998, in which it:                        Hellenic Republic (OJ L 388 of 31.12.1982, p. 1) Ð the
                                                                     Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann,
                                                                     President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet, J. C. Moitinho de
1. Declares that, by classifying as special protection areas
                                                                     Almeida, D. A. O. Edward, (Rapporteur) and L. Sevón,
     territories whose number and total area are clearly
                                                                     Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,
     smaller than the number and total area of the
                                                                     Principal Administrator for the Registrar, has given a
     territories suitable for classification as special
                                                                     judgment on 19 May 1998, in which it has ruled:
     protection areas within the meaning of Article 4(1) of
     Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the
     conservation of wild birds, the Kingdom of the
     Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under          Article 21 of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on
     that directive;                                                 Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil
                                                                     and Commercial Matters, as amended by the Convention
                                                                     of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of
2. Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the                  Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great
     costs;                                                          Britain and Northern Ireland and by the Convention of
                                                                     25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic
3. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its                Republic, is not applicable in the case of two actions for
     own costs.                                                      contribution to general average, one brought by the
                                                                     insurer of the hull of a vessel which has foundered against
                                                                     the owner and the insurer of the cargo which the vessel
(1) OJ C 77 of 16.3.1996.                                            was carrying when it sank, the other brought by the latter
                                                                     two parties against the owner and the charterer of the
                                                                     vessel, unless it is established that, with regard to the
                                                                     subject-matter of the two disputes, the interests of the
                                                                     insurer of the hull of the vessel are identical to and
                                                                     indissociable from those of its insured, the owner and the
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                charterer of that vessel.
                       (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                     (1) OJ C 370 of 7.12.1996.
                       of 19 May 1998
in Case C-351/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Cour de Cassation, France): Drouot Assurances SA v
Consolidated Metallurgical Industries (CMI Industrial
Sites), Protea Assurance, Groupement d'InteÂreÃt EÂcono-
             mique (GIE) ReÂunion EuropeÂenne (1)
(Brussels Convention Ð Interpretation of Article 21 Ð Lis                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
alibi pendens Ð Definition of same parties Ð Insurance                                      (Fifth Chamber)
                   company and its insured)
                                                                                            of 28 May 1998
                        (98/C 234/16)
                                                                     in Case C-7/95 P: John Deere Ltd v Commission of the
                 (Language of the case: French)                                        European Communities (1)
                                                                     (Appeal Ð Admissibility Ð Question of law Ð Question
                                                                     of fact Ð Competition Ð Information exchange system Ð
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                     Restriction of competition Ð Refusal to grant an
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                               exemption)
In Case C-351/96: reference to the Court, pursuant to the                                    (98/C 234/17)
Protocol of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the
Court of Justice of the Convention of 27 September 1968
on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil                           (Language of the case: English)
and Commercial Matters, by the Cour de Cassation,
France, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
pending before that court between Drouot Assurances SA               In Case C-7/95 P: John       Deere Ltd, a company whose
and Consolidated Metallurgical Industries (CMI Industrial            registered office is in      Edinburgh (United Kingdom),
Sites),     Protea    Assurance,     Groupement       d'InteÂreÃt    represented by Hans-Jörg     Niemeyer and Rainer Bechtold,
EÂconomique (GIE) ReÂunion EuropeÂenne Ð on the                      Rechtsanwälte, Stuttgart,    with an address for service in