Hans-Josef Schlebusch contra Hauptzollamt Trier.

JurisdictionEuropean Union
CourtCourt of Justice (European Union)
Date25 May 2000
EUR-Lex - 61998J0273 - EN 61998J0273

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 May 2000. - Hans-Josef Schlebusch v Hauptzollamt Trier. - Reference for a preliminary ruling: Bundesfinanzhof - Germany. - Additional levy on milk - Original and special reference quantities - Accumulation - Definitive allocation of a special reference quantity - Conditions - Temporary transfer of part of an original reference quantity before the definitive allocation of a special reference quantity. - Case C-273/98.

European Court reports 2000 Page I-03889


Summary
Parties
Grounds
Decision on costs
Operative part

Keywords

Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Milk and milk products - Additional levy on milk - Award of reference quantities exempt from the levy - Producers who suspended deliveries under the non-marketing premium scheme - Grant of a special reference quantity - Definitive allocation to a producer holding an original reference quantity but who has not himself used the provisional special reference quantity in order to increase current milk production on his holding - Excluded

(Council Regulation No 857/84, Art. 3(3), first sentence, as amended by Regulation No 1639/91)

Summary

$$The first sentence of Article 3a(3) of Regulation No 857/84 adopting general rules for the application of the additional levy on milk, as amended by Regulation No 1639/91, must be interpreted in the light of the principles governing the system for the grant of a special reference quantity as meaning that a producer holding an original reference quantity who provisionally receives a special reference quantity in addition may not be definitively allocated that special reference quantity, regardless of the other conditions required, when he himself has not used it in order to increase current milk production on his holding. That is the case where a producer leases out his original reference quantity and produces on his holding only his provisional special reference quantity of milk.

( see para. 40 and operative part )

Parties

In Case C-273/98,

REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between

Hans-Josef Schlebusch

and

Hauptzollamt Trier

on the interpretation of the first sentence of Article 3a(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for the application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector (OJ 1984 L 90, p. 13), as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1639/91 of 13 June 1991 (OJ 1991 L 150, p. 35),

THE COURT (Second Chamber),

composed of: R. Schintgen, President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch (Rapporteur) and V. Skouris, Judges,

Advocate General: G. Cosmas,

Registrar: R. Grass,

after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:

- Mr Schlebusch, by J. Lukanow, Rechtsanwalt, Euskirchen,

- the Commission of the European Communities, by M. Niejahr, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent,

having regard to the report of the Judge-Rapporteur,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 10 February 2000,

gives the following

Judgment

Grounds

1 By order of 14 May 1998, received at the Court on 20 July 1998, the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court) referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) a question on the interpretation of the first sentence of Article 3a(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for the application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector (OJ 1984 L 90, p. 13), as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1639/91 of 13 June 1991 (OJ 1991 L 150, p. 35) (the provision at issue).

2 That question was raised in proceedings between Mr Schlebusch, a milk producer at the material time in the case in the main proceedings, and the Hauptzollamt (Principal Customs Office) (the HZA) Trier concerning the definitive allocation of a special reference quantity in addition to an original reference quantity.

The Community legislation

3 On account of the surpluses then a feature of milk production in the Community, the Council adopted Regulation (EEC) No 1078/77 of 17 May 1977 introducing a system of premiums for the non-marketing of milk and milk products and for the conversion of dairy herds (OJ 1977 L 131, p. 1). That regulation provided for the payment of a non-marketing or a conversion premium to producers undertaking not to market milk or milk products for a period of five years or to convert their dairy herds to meat production during a period of four years.

4 Since there was again an excess of milk produced in 1983, Council Regulation (EEC) No 856/84 of 31 March 1984 amending Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products (OJ 1984 L 90, p. 10) introduced an additional levy on quantities of milk delivered exceeding a reference quantity to be determined, for each producer or purchaser, within a total quantity guaranteed to each Member State. In accordance with Regulation No 857/84, the reference quantity exempt from the levy is equal to the quantity of milk or milk equivalent delivered by a producer or purchased by a dairy, depending on the formula chosen by the Member State, during the reference year. The reference year was chosen by each Member State from the years 1981 to 1983.

5 Following the judgments of the Court of 28 April 1988 in Case 120/86 Mulder v Minister van Landbouw en Visserij [1988] ECR 2321 and Case 170/86 Von Deetzen v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas [1988] ECR 2355 (Von Deetzen I), the Council adopted Regulation (EEC) No 764/89 of 20 March 1989 amending Regulation No 857/84 (OJ 1989 L 84, p. 2). That regulation added a new Article 3a to Regulation No 857/84, making it possible in certain circumstances to allocate a special reference quantity to those producers, commonly called SLOM producers, who, pursuant to an undertaking entered into under Regulation No 1078/77, did not deliver milk during the reference year adopted by the Member State concerned (the SLOM I system).

6 Following the judgments of the Court of 11 December 1990 in Case C-189/89 Spagl v Hauptzollamt Rosenheim [1990] ECR I-4539 and Case C-217/89 Pastätter v Hauptzollamt Bad Reichenhall [1990] ECR I-4585 declaring invalid various provisions of Article 3a of Regulation No 857/84, as amended by Regulation No 764/89, the Council enacted Regulation No 1639/91 in order to comply with those judgments (the SLOM II system).

7 Article 3a of Regulation No 857/84, as amended by Regulation No 1639/91, was worded as follows:

1. Producers referred to in the third paragraph of Article 12(c):

- whose period of non-marketing or conversion, pursuant to...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex
4 cases
  • Edouard Bouma and Bernard M. J. B. Beusmans v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities.
    • European Union
    • Court of Justice (European Union)
    • 18 September 2003
    ...que hace el Tribunal de Justicia entre normas SLOM I, normas SLOM II y normas SLOM III en su sentencia de 25 de mayo de 2000, Schlebusch (C‑273/98, Rec. p. I‑3889), apartados 5 a 11. 39 – A este respecto, véanse las consideraciones que he efectuado en los puntos 17 y 18 40 – Véanse el punto......
  • Comunità montana della Valnerina v Commission of the European Communities.
    • European Union
    • Court of Justice (European Union)
    • 19 January 2006
    ...Antillean Rice Mills y otros/Comisión, C‑390/95 P, Rec. p. I‑769, apartado 29, y de 15 de junio de 2000, Dorsch Consult/Consejo y Comisión, C‑273/98 P, Rec. p. I‑4549, apartado 35). 64 A este respecto, procede recordar que CMV no ha invocado una desnaturalización de los hechos. Por lo tanto......
  • Santen
    • European Union
    • Court of Justice (European Union)
    • 23 January 2020
    ...2016, Mc Fadden (C‑484/14, EU:C:2016:689, punti da 68 a 70). V. anche le conclusioni dell’avvocato generale Cosmas nella causa Schlebusch (C‑273/98, EU:C:2000:78, paragrafo 55 V. conclusioni dell’avvocato generale Saugmandsgaard Øe nella causa Abraxis Bioscience (C‑443/17, EU:C:2018:1020, i......
  • AEPI Elliniki Etaireia pros Prostasian tis Pnevmatikis Idioktisias AE v Commission of the European Communities.
    • European Union
    • Court of Justice (European Union)
    • 23 April 2009
    ...Antillean Rice Mills y otros/Comisión, C‑390/95 P, Rec. p. I‑769, apartado 29, y de 15 de junio de 2000, Dorsch Consult/Consejo y Comisión, C‑273/98 P, Rec. p. I‑4549, apartado 35). 45 En consecuencia, no pueden prosperar los argumentos formulados por la recurrente para demostrar la afectac......