CELEX: C2002/261/08
Language: en
Date: 2002-10-26 00:00:00
Title: Case C-295/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Niedersächsisches Oberverwaltungsgericht by order of that Court of 1 August 2002 in the administrative-law case of Mrs Gisela Gerken against Amt für Agrarstruktur Verden

26.10.2002             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 261/5
3.    Are the administrative and control procedures for the            Is the amount of aid also to be reduced under the second
      reduction in excise duty which is possible under                 indent of Article 10(2)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 (1)
      Article 8(2)(f) of Directive 92/81/EEC governed by               where the special premium for male bovine animals applied
      Article 8(8) of Directive 92/81/EEC without the appli-           for when this provision of Community law was in force cannot
      cation of a marker or by Article 1(1) of Directive 95/60/        for legal reasons be granted to the farmer but where in the
      EC ( 2)?                                                         words of Article 44(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 (2),
                                                                       the farmer submitted factually correct information or can
                                                                       show otherwise that he was not at fault?
4.    If the third question should be answered to the effect that
      the Member States which exercise the power under
      Article 8(2)(f) of Directive 92/81/EEC are obliged, in
      an instance comparable to the present case, to grant             (1 ) OJ L 391, 31.12.1992, p. 36.
                                                                       (2 ) OJ L 327, 12.12.2001, p. 11.
      reductions in duty also in the form of a refund of excise
      duty, is a reduction in excise duty for agricultural works
      contrary to the freedom to provide services if the
      reduction is linked to a marking procedure under
      Article 1(1) of Directive 95/60/EC that is not applied in
      this context by other Member States, which on the
      contrary impose excise-duty penalties in the case of
      markings for which no provision is made under their
      legal systems?
                                                                       Action brought on 21 August 2002 by the Italian Republic
5.    If the answer to the fourth question should be in the               against the Commission of the European Communities
      affirmative, does the breach of the freedom to provide
      services mean that liability to pay duty is expunged, or
                                                                                               (Case C-298/02)
      would the claimant, in order to achieve exemption from
      duty, be obliged to ask for unmarked mineral oil and
      apply for a refund of excise duty in the Member State in                                 (2002/C 261/09)
      which it obtains marked gas oil at a reduced rate of duty?
( 1) OJ L 316, 31.10.1992, p. 12.
( 2) OJ L 291, 6.12.1995, p. 46.                                       An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                       ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                       Communities on 21 August 2002 by the Commission of the
                                                                       European Communities, represented by Umberto Leanza,
                                                                       acting as Agent, assisted by Maurizio Fiorilli, avvocato dello
                                                                       Stato.
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Niedersächsi-                —     annul Commission decision No 2281 (1) of 26 June
sches Oberverwaltungsgericht by order of that Court of                       2002 in so far as it makes a financial correction of
1 August 2002 in the administrative-law case of Mrs Gisela                   EUR 12 253 816 in respect of account headings B1-
        Gerken against Amt für Agrarstruktur Verden                          1512-001 and B1-1512-004 so far as concerns Italy.
                         (Case C-295/02)
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
                         (2002/C 261/08)
                                                                       Aid for peaches and pears intended for the production of fruit
                                                                       salad — financial correction
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Niedersächsisches
Oberverwaltungsgericht (Lower Saxony, Higher Administrat-              According to the Commission, during the 1995-96, 1996-
ive Court) of 1st August 2002, received at the Court Registry          97 and 1997-98 marketing years, aid was granted for a final
on 19 August 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the administrat-        product which did not conform to the definitions contained in
ive-law case of Mrs Gisela Gerken against Amt für Agrar-               Regulations (EEC) No 1558/91 (2) and (EC) No 504/97 (3). The
struktur (Office for Agriculture) Verden on the following              two regulations provided for the payment of aid for whole or
question:                                                              sliced peaches and pears provided that they had undergone