CELEX: C1997/295/10
Language: en
Date: 1997-09-27 00:00:00
Title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 17 July 1997 in Case C-354/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division): The Queen v. Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte: National Farmers' Union and Others (Common agricultural policy - Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 - Integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes - Implementing rules - Interpretation and validity of penalties)

C 295/6                1 EN 1               Official Journal of the European Communities                                   27 . 9 . 97
     substantial part of the common market, it is contrary             Oberverwaltungsgericht fur das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen
     to Article 90 (1 ) in conjunction with Article 86 of the          ( Higher Administrative Court for the Land of North
     Treaty for that undertaking to levy port duties of an             Rhine Westphalia ) ( Germany ) for a preliminary ruling in
     unreasonable amount pursuant to regulations adopted               the proceedings pending before that court between SAM
     by the Member State to which it is answerable or for              Schiffahrt GmbH, Heinz Stapf and Federal Republic of
     it to exempt its own ferry services from payment of               Germany — on the validity of Council Regulation ( EEC )
     those duties and, reciprocally, some of its trading               No 1101 /89 of 27 April 1989 on structural improvements
     partners ' ferry services, in so far as such exemptions           in inland waterway transport ( OJ L 116 , 28 . 4. 1989 ,
     involve application of dissimilar .conditions to                  p. 25 ), and of Commission Regulation ( EEC) No 1102/89
     equivalent transactions. It is for the national court to          of 27 April 1989 laying down certain measures for
     determine whether, having regard to the level of the              implementing Regulation ( EEC ) No 1101/89 ( OJ L 116 ,
     duties and the economic value of the services supplied,           28 . 4 . 1989, p. 30 ), as amended by Commission
     the amount of duty is actually unfair. It is also for the         Regulation ( EEC ) No 3685/89 of 8 December 1989 ( OJ
     national court to determine whether exempting its                 L 360, 9 . 12 . 1989 , p. 20 ) — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ),
     own ferry services, and reciprocally those of some of             composed of: J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, President of the
     its trading partners, from payment of duties in fact              Chamber, C. Gulmann ( Rapporteur), D. A. O. Edward, J.­
     amounts to the application of dissimilar conditions to            R Puissochet and M. Wathelet, Judges; F. G. Jacobs,
     equivalent transactions.                                          Advocate-General; H. A. Riihl, Principal Administrator,
                                                                       for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 July 1997,
                                                                       in which it has ruled :
4 . Article 90 (2) of the Treaty does not permit a public
     undertaking which owns and operates a commercial
     port to levy port duties charged for the use of port
     facilities which are contrary to Community law and                Examination of the questions referred has revealed no
     which are not necessary for the performance of the                factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Council
     particular task assigned to it.                                   Regulation (EEC) No 1101 /89 of 27 April 1989, on
                                                                       structural improvements in inland waterway transport,
                                                                       and of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1102/89 of
5 . The persons or undertakings on whom the duty was                   27 April 1989 laying down certain measures for
     imposed in breach of Article 90 (1 ) in conjunction               implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1101 /89, as amended
     with Article 86 of the Treaty by a public undertaking             by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3685/89 of
     which is responsible to a national ministry and whose             8 December 1989 .
     budget comes under the Finance Act have in principle
     the right to repayment of the duty unduly paid.
                                                                        H OJ C 248 , 23 . 9 . 1995 .
(•) OJ C 248 , 23 . 9 . 1995 .
                                                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                                      ( Sixth Chamber)
                           of 17 July 1997                                                       of 17 July 1997
in Joined Cases C-248/95 and C-249/95 ( references for a               in Case C-3 54/95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht fur                  the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division): The
das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen ): SAM Schiffahrt GmbH,                    Queen v. Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex
        Heinz Stapf v. Federal Republic of Germany ( ] )                       parte: National Farmers' Union and Others ( ')
 (Inland waterway transport — Structural improvements —                 (Common agricultural policy — Regulation (EEC)
Contributions to Scrapping Fund — Validity of                           No 3887/92 — Integrated administration and control
                       Community legislation)                           system for certain Community aid schemes —
                            ( 97/C 295/09 )                             Implementing rules — Interpretation and validity of
                                                                                                     penalties)
                 (Language of the case: German)                                                   ( 97/C 295/ 10 )
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                        (Language of the case: English)
           published in the European Court Reports)
In Joined Cases C-248/95 and C-249/95 : references to the               In Case C-354/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the                       of the EC Treaty from the High Court of Justice, Queen's
 ---pagebreak--- 27 . 9 . 97           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 295/7
Bench Division, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings               imposes the sanction of loss of the entire payment
pending before that court between The Queen and                           related to a specific area on a farmer when the area of
Minister for Agriculture , Fisheries and Food, ex parte:                  land as actually determined is found to be more than
National Farmers' Union and Others, on the                                20% smaller than that declared in the aid application
interpretation and validity of Article 9 of Commission                    and there is no false intention or serious negligence.
Regulation ( EEC ) No 3887/92 of 23 December 1992
laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated              (>) OJ C 351 , 30 . 12 . 1995 .
administration and control system for certain Community
aid schemes ( OJ L 391 , 31 . 12 . 1992, p. 36 ), the Court
( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: G. F. Mancini
( Rapporteur ), President of the Chamber, J. L. Murray and
R J. G. Kapteyn, Judges; R Leger, Advocate-General; L.
Flewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment
on 17 July 1997, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                               ( First Chamber)
1 . Article 9 (2) to (4) of Commission Regulation (EEC)
     No 3887/92 of 23 December 1992 laying down                                                of 17 July 1997
     detailed rules for applying the integrated                     in Case C-17/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
     administration and control system for certain                  the Bundesverwaltungsgericht ): Badische Erfrischungs­
     Community aid schemes, prior to the entry into force           Getränke GmbH & Co. KG v. Land Baden-Württemberg (')
     of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1648/95 of 6 July
     199S, must be interpreted as precluding any payment            (Natural mineral water — Definition — Water favourable
     linked to the arable areas when the difference between                                         to health )
     the area of set-aside land declared and that determined
                                                                                                 ( 97/C 295/ 11 )
     on inspection by the competent authorities exceeds
     20% and there is no false intention or serious
     negligence. However, in the light of Articles 1 (2) and                         (Language of the case: German)
     2 (2) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/
     95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the
     European Communities ' financial interests, under
     which less severe penalties introduced by subsequent              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
     amendments to Community provisions must be                                published in the European Court Reports)
     applied retroactively, the amendments made to
     Article 9 (4) of Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 by
     Regulation (EC) No 1648/95 apply to circumstances              In Case C-17/96 : reference to the Court under Article 177
     which occurred before its entry into force.                    of the EC Treaty from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht
     Consequently, the calculation of the maximum eligible          ( Federal Administrative Court ) for a preliminary ruling in
     area for the compensatory payments for arable crop             the proceedings pending before that court between
     producers must be made, under Article 9 (4) of                 Badische Erfrischungs-Getranke GmbH & Co . KG and
     Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92, as amended by                     Land Baden-Wurttemberg — on the interpretation of
     Regulation (EC) No 1648/95, on the basis of the area           Council Directive 80/777/EEC of 15 July 1980 on the
     of set-aside land actually determined and on a pro rata        approximation of the laws of the Member States relating
     basis for each crop concerned.                                 to the exploitation and marketing of natural mineral
                                                                    waters ( OJ L 229, 3 . 8 . 1980 , p. 1 ) — the Court ( First
                                                                    Chamber ), composed of: L. Sevon, President of the
2 . Article 9 (2) to (4) of Regulation    (EEC) No 3887/92          Chamber, P. Jann and M. Wathelet ( Rapporteur ), Judges;
     must be interpreted as precluding   the payment of any         M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General ; H. von Holstein,
     premium for bovine animals to         farmers when the         Assistant Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
     forage area as actually determined   is found to be more       on 17 July 1997, in which it has ruled:
     than 20% smaller than that declared in the area aid
     application and there is no false intention or serious
     negligence.                                                    Article 1 (1 ) of Council Directive 80/777/EEC of 15 July
                                                                     1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member
                                                                    States relating to the exploitation and marketing of
 3 . Consideration of Article 9 (2) to (4) of Regulation            natural mineral waters, in conjunction with Annex I,
      (EEC) No 3887/92 has disclosed no factors of such a           Section I, paragraphs 1 and 2, thereto, must be interpreted
     kind as to affect its validity in the light of the             as precluding a Member State from making the
     principles of proportionality, legal certainty and non­        recognition of water as natural mineral water dependent
     discrimination .                                                on its possessing properties favourable to health.
                                                                     (') OJ C 77, 16 . 3 . 1996 .
 4 . Consideration of Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 has
     disclosed no factors of such a kind as to affect the
      validity of Article 9 (2) to (4) thereof in so far as it