Case C-375/05
Erhard Geuting
v
Direktor der Landwirtschaftskammer Nordrhein-Westfalen für den Bereich Landwirtschaft
(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht)
(Beef and veal – Premium for maintaining suckler cows)
Summary of the Judgment
1.Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Beef and veal – Premium for the maintenance of the suckler cow herd – In-calf heifer – Assimilation to a suckler cow
(Council Regulation No 805/68, Art. 4a, third indent, point (ii))
2.Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Beef and veal – Premium for the maintenance of the suckler cow herd
(Council Regulation No 3886/92, Art. 33(2) and (4))
3.Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Beef and veal – Premium for the maintenance of the suckler cow herd
(Commission Regulation No 3886/92, Art. 33(2))
4.Agriculture – Common organisation of the markets – Beef and veal – Premium for the maintenance of the suckler cow herd
(Council Regulation No 805/68, Art. 4f(4); Commission Regulation No 3886/92, Art. 33(4))
1.Point (ii) of the third indent of Article 4a of Regulation No 805/68 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal, as amended by Regulation No 2222/96, 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.
Moreover, 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 the abovementioned provision, where it fulfils, in the following year, the requirements for replacing a suckler cow again. However, 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. Since the lodging of the premium application determines the start of the retention period and the number of suckler cows is ascertained at that time, it is also on that date that the animals must show all the characteristics necessary for eligibility.
(see paras 21, 26, 31, 33, operative part 1-3)
2.Article 33(2) and (4) of Commission Regulation No 3886/92 laying down detailed rules for the application of the premium schemes provided for in Regulation No 805/68 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal and repealing Regulations No 1244/82 and No 714/89, as amended by Regulation No 2311/96, concerning the reversion of unused premium rights to the national reserve, 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. Reversion to the national reserve of unused rights constitutes an appropriate means of achieving the objective of better mobilisation of premium rights which are available but not used.
(see paras 48, 50, operative part 4)
3.Neither the provisions of Regulation No 3886/92 laying down detailed rules for the application of the premium schemes provided for in Regulation No 805/68 and repealing Regulations No 1244/82 and No 714/89, as amended by Regulation No 2311/96, nor the recitals in its preamble determine the types of criterion to be taken into account to justify an exceptional case within the meaning of the second indent of Article 33(2) of the said regulation, which permits derogation from the rule that the unused part of premium rights is to revert to the national reserve. Since the Community legislature did not wish to give a more precise description of that notion or to attach to it particular criteria, it is for the national court to decide whether, in the light of all the duly justified circumstances of the situation of an applicant in a given case, an exceptional case exists which requires that the said derogatory provision be applied, whilst taking account of the need to apply that provision restrictively.
(see paras 52, 54, 57, operative part 5)
4.Article 33(4) of Regulation No 3886/92 laying down detailed rules for the application of the premium schemes provided for in Regulation No 805/68 and repealing Regulations No 1244/82 and No 714/89, 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. Where the Commission has not adopted measures relating to individual rights not used in 1997 and 1998 and returned to the national reserve, Member States retain full discretion with regard to the use of their national reserve.
(see paras 60-61, operative part 6)