- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
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
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62008CN0365
62008CN0365
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
Official Journal of the European Union
C 285/22
(Case C-365/08)
(2008/C 285/36)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
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 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 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.