# C_2006165EN.01001601.xml

| 15.7.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 165/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 165/16

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Première Instance de Bruxelles lodged on 4 May 2006 — Raffinerie Tirlemontoise SA v Bureau d'Intervention et de Restitution Belge (BIRB)

(Case C-200/06)

(2006/C 165/28)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de Première Instance de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Raffinerie Tirlemontoise SA

Applicant:

Defendant: Bureau d'Intervention et de Restitution Belge (BIRB)

Defendant:

Questions referred

| 1) | Does Commission Regulation 314/2002 (1) provide, with regard to calculation of the production levy, for exclusion from the financing needs of the quantities of sugar contained in processed products which are exported without export refunds? Is this legislation invalid in the light of Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (2) and in the light of the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination? |
| --- | --- |

1)

Does Commission Regulation 314/2002 (1) provide, with regard to calculation of the production levy, for exclusion from the financing needs of the quantities of sugar contained in processed products which are exported without export refunds? Is this legislation invalid in the light of Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (2) and in the light of the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination?

1

2

| 2) | Do Commission Regulations Nos 1775/2004 (3), 1762/2003 (4), 1837/2002 (5), 1993/2001 (6) and 2267/2000 (7) lay down a production levy for sugar calculated on the basis of the ‘average loss’ per tonne exported, which does not take into account the quantities exported without a refund, although these quantities are included in the total used to evaluate the overall loss to be financed? Are these Regulations invalid in the light of Commission Regulation No 314/2002, Article 15 of Council Regulation No 1260/2001 and the principle of proportionality? |
| --- | --- |

2)

Do Commission Regulations Nos 1775/2004 (3), 1762/2003 (4), 1837/2002 (5), 1993/2001 (6) and 2267/2000 (7) lay down a production levy for sugar calculated on the basis of the ‘average loss’ per tonne exported, which does not take into account the quantities exported without a refund, although these quantities are included in the total used to evaluate the overall loss to be financed? Are these Regulations invalid in the light of Commission Regulation No 314/2002, Article 15 of Council Regulation No 1260/2001 and the principle of proportionality?

3

4

5

6

7

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 314/2002 of 20 February 2002 laying down detailed rules for the application of the quota system in the sugar sector (OJ 2002 L 50, p. 40)

1

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (OJ 2001 L 178, p. 1)

2

(3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1775/2004 of 14 October 2004 setting the production levies in the sugar sector for the 2003/04 marketing year (OJ 2004 L 316, p. 64)

3

(4)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1762/2003 of 7 October 2003 fixing the production levies in the sugar sector for the 2002/03 marketing year (OJ 2003 L 254, p. 4)

4

(5)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1837/2002 of 15 October 2002 fixing the production levies and the coefficient for the additional levy in the sugar sector for the marketing year 2001/02 (OJ 2002 L 278, p. 13)

5

(6)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1993/2001 of 11 October 2001 fixing the production levies in the sugar sector for the 2000/01 marketing year (OJ 2001 L 271, p. 15)

6

(7)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2267/2000 of 12 October 2000 fixing the production levies and the coefficient for calculating the additional levy in the sugar sector for the 1999/2000 marketing year (OJ 2000 L 259, p. 29)

7

---