CELEX: C2000/302/33
Language: en
Date: 2000-10-21 00:00:00
Title: Case C-305/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main by order of 1 August 2000 in the case of Christian Schulin v Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH

21.10.2000              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 302/17
      ascertaining whether or not the contracts for the lease or           No 2100/94, using the variety in question or has at least
      sale of those quotas are lawful, that those originally               — otherwise — used that variety on his holding?
      allocated to the transferor were inaccurately determined,
      for reasons for which the authorities are not responsible?
                                                                           (1) OJ L 227 of 1.9.1994, p. 1.
                                                                           (2) OJ L 173 of 25.7.1995, p. 14.
(2) Are the abovementioned provisions of Community law
      valid, in the light of Article 33 (ex Article 39) of the
      Treaty, in so far as they do not provide, in the case
      of subsequent verification of the individual reference
      quantities leased or sold, for the possibility of retrospec-
      tive allocation of the quota, correcting the quantities
      incorrectly stated in the notices on account of facts for
      which the authorities are not responsible?                           Appeal brought on 17 August 2000 by the Commission
                                                                           of the European Communities against the judgment deliv-
                                                                           ered on 8 June 2000 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court
                                                                           of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined
                                                                           Cases T-79/96, T-260/97 and T-117/98 between, on the
(1) OJ L 405 of 31.12.1992, p. 1.                                          one hand, Camar srl, applicant in Cases T-79/96, T-260/97
(2) OJ L 57 of 10.3.1993, p. 12. The number of this Regulation has         and T-117/98, and Tico srl, applicant in Case T-117/98,
    been corrected, since it was incorrectly cited in the request for a    the applicant in Case T-79/96 being supported by the
    preliminary ruling.                                                    Italian Republic, and, on the other hand, the Commission
                                                                           of the European Communities, defendant in Cases
                                                                           T-79/96, T-260/97 and T-117/98, and the Council of the
                                                                           European Union, defendant in Case T-260/97, supported
                                                                           by the French Republic, intervener in Cases T-79/96 and
                                                                                                        T-260/97
                                                                                                  (Case C-312/00 P)
                                                                                                   (2000/C 302/34)
                                                                           An appeal against the judgment delivered on 8 June 2000 by
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesge-                    the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
richt Frankfurt am Main by order of 1 August 2000 in the                   European Communities in Joined Cases T-79/96, T-260/97
case of Christian Schulin v Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs                    and T-117/98 between, on the one hand, Camar srl, applicant
                               GmbH                                        in Cases T-79/96, T-260/97 and T-117/98, and Tico srl,
                                                                           applicant in Case T-117/98, the applicant in Case T-79/96
                                                                           being supported by the Italian Republic, and, on the other
                         (Case C-305/00)                                   hand, the Commission of the European Communities, defend-
                                                                           ant in Cases T-79/96, T-260/97 and T-117/98, and the Council
                                                                           of the European Union, defendant in Case T-260/97, supported
                         (2000/C 302/33)                                   by the French Republic, intervener in Cases T-79/96 and
                                                                           T-260/97, was brought before the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities on 17 August 2000 by the Com-
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     mission of the European Communities, represented by Chris-
European Communities by order of 1 August 2000 by the                      topher Van der Hauwaert and Luca Visaggio, of its Legal
Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court) Frankfurt am Main,               Service, acting as Agents, assisted by Alberto Dal Ferro, of the
which was received at the Court Registry on 11 August 2000,                Vicenza Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Christian Schulin v                office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner
Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH on the following ques-                    Centre, Kirchberg.
tion:
                                                                           The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           —     set aside the contested judgment;
Are the provisions of Article 14(3), sixth indent, of Council
Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994(1), in conjunc-
tion with Article 8 of Commission Regulation (EC)                          and consequently:
No 1768/95 of 24 July 1995 (2), to be construed as meaning
that the owner of a plant variety which is protected under                 —     declare the application in Case T-79/96 unfounded;
Regulation No 2100/94 can require any farmer to provide the
information specified in the above provisions irrespective of              —     declare the application in Case T-260/97 unfounded,
whether there is anything to suggest that the farmer has carried                 including the claim for compensation for damage suf-
out any act, within the meaning of Article 13(2) of Regulation                   fered;