Sie sind auf Seite 1von 1

7.2.

98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 41/1

I
(Information)

COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT OF JUSTICE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 2. The first subparagraph of Article 3 (1) of Regulation


(Sixth Chamber) (EEC) No 1765/92 must be interpreted as meaning
that a Member State which, under the third sentence
of 27 November 1997 of the second subparagraph of Article 2 (2) of that
in Case C-356/95 (application for a preliminary ruling by Regulation, has not designated its whole territory as a
the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Oberverwaltungsgericht): regional base area but merely different parts of it, is
Matthias Witt v. Amt für Land- und Wasserwirtschaft (1) entitled to establish the whole territory of a specific
regional base area as a production region, and that the
(Common agricultural policy Ð Regulation (EEC) specific characteristics that influence yields do not
No 1765/92 Ð Support system for producers of certain require regional base areas to be further subdivided
arable crops Ð Establishment of production regions Ð into different production regions.
Obligation to indicate the criteria used Ð Relevance of
soil fertility) (1) OJ C 16, 20.1.1996.
(98/C 41/01)

(Language of the case: German)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be JUDGMENT OF THE COURT


published in the European Court Reports) (Sixth Chamber)
of 27 November 1997
In Case C-356/95: reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty by the Schleswig-Holsteinisches in Case C-369/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
Oberverwaltungsgericht (Germany) for a preliminary the Tribunale di Salerno): Somalfruit SpA, Camar SpA v.
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court Ministero delle Finanze, Ministero del Commercio con
between Matthias Witt and Amt für Land- und l'Estero (1)
Wasserwirtschaft, on the interpretation of the first
(Bananas Ð Common organization of the markets Ð
subparagraph of Article 3 (1) of Council Regulation (EEC)
Import arrangements Ð ACP States Ð Somalia Ð Validity
No 1765/92 of 30 June 1992 establishing a support
of Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 and Commission
system for producers of certain arable crops (OJ L 181,
Regulations (EEC) No 1442/93 and (EEC) No 1443/93)
1.7.1992, p. 12) Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber) composed
of: H. Ragnemalm, President of the Chamber, R. (98/C 41/02)
Schintgen, G. F. Mancini (Rapporteur), J. L. Murray and
G. Hirsch, Judges; P. LeÂger, Advocate-General; D. (Language of the case: Italian)
Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, gave a
judgment on 27 November 1997, the operative part of
which is as follows: (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
published in the European Court Reports)
1. The first subparagraph of Article 3 (1) of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 1765/92 of 30 June 1992 In Case C-369/95: reference to the Court under Article 177
establishing a support system for producers of certain of the EC Treaty from the Tribunale (District Court),
arable crops does not require the Member States, in Salerno (Italy), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
establishing production regions, to indicate the criteria pending before that court between Somalfruit SpA, Camar
used in the provisions implementing that Regulation. SpA and Ministero delle Finanze, Ministero del