Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62008CN0365

    Case C-365/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 11 August 2008 — Agrana Zucker GmbH v Bundesminister für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft

    IO C 285, 8.11.2008, p. 22–23 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    8.11.2008   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 285/22


    Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 11 August 2008 — Agrana Zucker GmbH v Bundesminister für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft

    (Case C-365/08)

    (2008/C 285/36)

    Language of the case: German

    Referring court

    Verwaltungsgerichtshof

    Parties to the main proceedings

    Applicant: Agrana Zucker GmbH

    Defendant: Bundesminister für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft

    Questions referred

    1.

    Must Article 16 of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (1) be interpreted as meaning that even a sugar quota which cannot be utilised as a consequence of a preventive withdrawal in accordance with Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 290/2007 of 16 March 2007 establishing, for the 2007/2008 marketing year, the percentage (2) provided for in Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 318/2006, must be included in the assessment of the production charge?

    2.

    In the event that the first question is answered in the affirmative:

    Is Article 16 of Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 compatible with primary law, in particular with the principle of proportionality and the principle of non-discrimination derived from Article 34 EC?


    (1)  OJ L 58, p. 1.

    (2)  OJ L 78, p. 20.


    Top