You are on page 1of 1

30.12.

2006 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 326/37

4. Does the limitation period for a claim which seeks to estab- Parties to the main proceedings
lish State liability under Community law and is based on the
inadequate transposition of a directive and an accompanying
(de facto) import ban commence, irrespective of the applic- Applicant: A.G. Winkel
able national law, only with the full transposition of the
directive, or can the limitation period begin to run, in
accordance with national law, when the first injurious effects
have already been produced and further injurious effects are Defendant: Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit
foreseeable? If full transposition has a bearing on the
commencement of the limitation period, is this true in
general or only if the directive confers a right on individuals?

5. Given that the Member States may not frame the conditions Questions referred
for reparation of loss and damage in respect of claims
seeking to establish State liability under Community law less
favourably than those relating to similar domestic claims and
1. Are rules which, as regards the right to a suckler-cow
it may not be made virtually impossible or excessively diffi-
premium, require, on the basis of the usual animal
cult to obtain reparation, are there, generally, objections to a
husbandry practice, that a cow has calved at least once in the
national rule under which liability for damages does not
period which runs from twenty months before to four
arise where the injured party has wilfully or negligently failed
months after the date on which the application period
to avert the damage by employing a legal remedy? Are there
started and its calf was not removed from the herd within
also objections to this ‘primacy of primary legal protection’
four months after its birth, compatible with Article 3(f) of
where it is subject to the proviso that it must be reasonable
Regulation (EC) (1) No 1254/1999?
for the party concerned? Is the fact that the relevant court is
likely to be unable to answer the questions of Community
law at issue without making a reference to the Court of 2. If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative, what criteria
Justice of the European Communities or that Treaty infringe- must be applied to establish whether the herd is intended for
ment proceedings under Article 226 EC are already pending rearing calves for meat production and which cows belong
sufficient to make it unreasonable under European Com- to that herd?
munity law?

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999, of 17 May 1999, on the common


(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1963-64, p. 185. organisation of the market in beef and veal (OJ 1999 L 160, p. 21).
(2) OJ 1991 L 268, p. 69.
(3) OJ 1989 L 395, p. 13.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi


Bíróság lodged on 2 November 2006 — Vodafone Magyar-
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van ország Mobil Távközlési Zártkörűen Működő Részvénytár-
Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 31 saság, Innomed Medical Orvostechnikai Részvénytársaság v
October 2006 — A.G. Winkel v Minister van Landbouw, Hungarian State, Budapest Főváros Képviselő-testülete,
Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit Esztergom Város Önkormányzat Képviselő-testülete

(Case C-446/06) (Case C-447/06)

(2006/C 326/78) (2006/C 326/79)

Language of the case: Dutch Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court Referring court

College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven Fővárosi Bíróság