CELEX: C2001/275/08
Language: en
Date: 2001-09-29 00:00:00
Title: Case C-266/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, by judgment of 18 May 2001, in the case of Préservatrice Foncière T.I.A.R.D. Compagnie d'Assurances against the State of the Netherlands (Ministry of Finance)

29.9.2001             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 275/5
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der                       territory (Thuringia) which, under the direction of the
Nederlanden, by judgment of 18 May 2001, in the case of                       manager of the holding, has been produced from its cows
Préservatrice Foncière T.I.A.R.D. Compagnie d’Assuran-                        installed in leased facilities in the accession territory
ces against the State of the Netherlands (Ministry of                         (Mecklenburg-Vorpommern)?
                            Finance)
                        (Case C-266/01)                                 2.    Or is the milk quantity thus acquired to be imputed to
                                                                              the provisionally allocated reference quantity of the
                        (2001/C 275/08)                                       lessor farmer who is himself partly producing and the
                                                                              provisionally allocated milk reference quantity withdrawn
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        in favour of Thuringia where, as in this case, federal land
European Communities, by judgment of the Hoge Raad der                        borders divide the part of the holding to which the
Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of 18 May                      reference quantity was allocated from the part of the
2001, which was received at the Court Registry on 5 July                      holding in which the milk is produced and, in contradis-
2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Préservatrice                   tinction to the situation in the Ballmann case, cited above,
Foncière T.I.A.R.D. Compagnie d’Assurances v the State of the                 the holding or part of the holding to which the milk
Netherlands (Ministry of Finance) on the following questions:                 reference quantity was provisionally allocated is maintai-
1.    Is a claim lodged by the State under a private-law contract             ned only, as it were, as the holding’s head office and
      of suretyship which it has concluded in fulfilment of a                 produces and delivers only a proportion of less than
      condition determined by it pursuant to Article 6(1) of the              5 % of the milk reference quantity (dairy herd/milk
      1975 TIR Convention, and therefore in exercise of its                   production)?
      public powers, to be regarded as a civil or commercial
      matter within the meaning of Article 1 of the Brussels            3.    Is it material to the reply to these questions that the
      Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of                       holding producing the milk was formerly in the territory
      Judgments in Civil and Commercial matters?                              of the GDR but that this territory was transferred to
                                                                              Niedersachsen (Lower Saxony) by state treaty between
2.    Must proceedings which are brought by the State and                     the two länder of the Federal Republic of Germany known
      which have as their subject-matter a private-law contract               as Niedersachsen and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern?
      of suretyship be regarded as a customs matter within the
      meaning of Article 1 of the Brussels Convention on
      Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil            (1) OJ L 405, 31.12.1992, p. 1.
      and Commercial Matters, on the ground that pleas may              (2) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 73.
      be put forward by the defendant which necessitate an              (3) ECR I-25 [1991].
      investigation into, and a ruling on, the existence and
      content of the customs debts to which that contract
      relates?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungs-                References for preliminary rulings by the Tribunale di
gericht Weimar by order of that court of 23 May 2001                    L’Aquila by orders of 20 June 2001 in the case of Flora
in the case of Agrargenossenschaft Alkersleben e.G. v                   Panepucci v Rina Iannarelli (Case C-269/01) and in that of
                      Freistaat Thüringen                                  Attilio Maria Cecchini v Mario Basile (Case C-270/01)
                                                                                         (Cases C-269/01 and C-270/01)
                        (Case C-268/01)
                                                                                                  (2001/C 275/10)
                        (2001/C 275/09)
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by orders of 20 June 2001 by the
European Communities by an order of the Verwaltungsgericht
                                                                        Tribunale di L’Aquila (District Court, L’Aquila), which were
(Administrative Court), Weimar, of 23 May 2001, which was
                                                                        received at the Court Registry on 6 July 2001, for preliminary
received at the Court Registry on 6 July 2001, for a preliminary
                                                                        rulings in the cases of Flora Panepucci v Rina Iannarelli and
ruling in the case of Agrargenossenschaft Alkersleben e.G. v
                                                                        Attilio Maria Cecchini v Mario Basile on the following
Freistaat Thüringen on the following questions:
                                                                        questions:
1.    Is Article 9(c) of Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 (1)
      (amended by Regulation (EC) No 1256/99 (2)), or other             (1) Is the provision of binding minimum tariffs contrary to
      provisions concerning guaranteed quantities of milk, to                 free competition on the ground that it prevents the free
      be interpreted, by reference to Case C-341/89                           fixing of fees for a lawyer’s services, as provided for under
      Ballmann (3), as meaning that in the case of a holding or               Article 81(1)(a) EC, and does it also have the effect
      part of a holding in the territory of the former GDR a                  of reinforcing the compartmentalisation of markets at
      milk quantity is also to be imputed to the reference                    national level, thereby hindering the economic integration
      quantity provisionally allocated to it in the accession                 intended by the Treaty?