CELEX: C2007/297/08
Language: en
Date: 2007-12-08 00:00:00
Title: Case C-375/05: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 October 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Erhard Geuting v Direktor der Landwirtschaftskammer Nordrhein-Westfalen (Beef and veal — Premium for maintaining suckler cows)

8.12.2007   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 297/5
            
         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 October 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Erhard Geuting v Direktor der Landwirtschaftskammer Nordrhein-Westfalen
   (Case C-375/05) (1)
   
   (Beef and veal - Premium for maintaining suckler cows)
   (2007/C 297/08)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesverwaltungsgericht
   Parties to the main proceedings
   
      Applicant: Erhard Geuting
   
      Defendant: Direktor der Landwirtschaftskammer Nordrhein-Westfalen
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Interpretation of Article 4a(ii) of Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 of the Council of 27 June 1968 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (I), p. 187), as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2066/92 of 30 June 1992 amending Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 468/87 laying down general rules applying to the special premium for beef producers and Regulation (EEC) No 1357/80 introducing a system of premiums for maintaining suckler cows (OJ 1992 L 215, p. 49) and Article 33(2) and (4) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3886/92 of 23 December 1992 laying down detailed rules for the application of the premium schemes provided for in Council Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 on the common organisation of the market in beef and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 1244/82 and (EEC) No 714/89 (OJ 1992 L 391, p. 20), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2311/96 of 2 December 1996 amending Regulation (EEC) No 3886/92 laying down detailed rules for the application of premium schemes in the beef and veal sector (OJ 1996 L 313, p. 9) — Premium for maintaining suckler cows — Meaning of ‘suckler cow’ and ‘use of rights’ — Repayment of advances received and reduction of individual ceiling following the refusal to take into account, for the grant of the premium, in-calf heifers, which did not replace suckler cows in respect of which a premium had been applied for.
   Operative part of the judgment
   
               1.
            
            
               Point (ii) of the third indent of Article 4a of Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 of the Council of 27 June 1968 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2222/96 of 18 November 1996, must be interpreted as meaning that an in-calf heifer may be regarded as a suckler cow within the meaning of Section 1 of that regulation only if it replaces, after the premium application for the marketing year has been lodged, a suckler cow included in that application;
            
         
               2.
            
            
               An in-calf heifer which, for a marketing year, replaced a suckler cow in respect of which a premium application was made and which was accepted as being eligible for that premium may be regarded as a suckler cow within the meaning of point (ii) of the third indent of Article 4a of Regulation No 805/68, as amended by Regulation No 2222/96, where it fulfils, in the following year, the requirements for replacing a suckler cow again;
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Point (ii) of the third indent of Article 4a of Regulation No 805/68, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2222/96, is to be interpreted as meaning that an in-calf heifer in respect of which a premium application has been made is not eligible for the premium if it calves before the deadline for lodging that application;
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Article 33(2) and (4) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3886/92 of 23 December 1992 laying down detailed rules for the application of the premium schemes provided for in Regulation No 805/68 and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 1244/82 and (EEC) No 714/89, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2311/96 of 2 December 1996, is to be interpreted as meaning that a producer must be considered as not having made use of his premium rights during a marketing year if he has applied for a premium but his application has been rejected because the animals concerned were not eligible, and this is also the case if there is no indication of an improper application having been made. Such an interpretation is not contrary to the principle of proportionality;
            
         
               5.
            
            
               It is for the national court to decide whether, in the light of all the duly justified circumstances of the situation of the applicant in the main proceedings, that situation constitutes an exceptional case in which the derogation provided for in the final indent of Article 33(2) of Regulation No 3886/92, as amended by Regulation No 2311/96, falls to be applied, whilst taking account of the need to apply that provision restrictively;
            
         
               6.
            
            
               Article 33(4) of Regulation No 3886/92, as amended by Regulation No 2311/96, read in conjunction with Article 4f(4) of Regulation No 805/68, as amended by Regulation No 2222/96, is to be interpreted as meaning that Member States may, on expiry of the two-year exclusion period, grant to a producer, on a preferential basis, the premium rights which were withdrawn from him because he had made use of more than 70 % but less than 90 % of his premium rights in the 1998 marketing year.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 330, 24.12.2005.