# C_2015146EN.01002801.xml

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/28

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Nanterre (France) lodged on 26 February 2015 — Saint Louis Sucre SA, successor in title to Saint Louis Sucre SNC v Direction générale des douanes et droits indirects

(Case C-96/15)

(2015/C 146/34)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal de grande instance de Nanterre

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Saint Louis Sucre SA, successor in title to Saint Louis Sucre SNC

Applicant:

Defendant: Direction générale des douanes et droits indirects

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Are Article 15(2) and (8) of Council Regulation No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 (1), applied in the light of recitals 9 and 11 in the preamble thereto and the judgments in Zuckerfabrik Jülich I and II, and the general Community law principles of proportionality, freedom to conduct a business and the prohibition of unjust enrichment to be interpreted as meaning that a sugar manufacturer is entitled to reimbursement of production levies paid on the basis of the quantities of quota sugar still held in stock on 30 June 2006, as the production levy system was not renewed after that date by Council Regulation No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 (2)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are Article 15(2) and (8) of Council Regulation No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 (1), applied in the light of recitals 9 and 11 in the preamble thereto and the judgments in Zuckerfabrik Jülich I and II, and the general Community law principles of proportionality, freedom to conduct a business and the prohibition of unjust enrichment to be interpreted as meaning that a sugar manufacturer is entitled to reimbursement of production levies paid on the basis of the quantities of quota sugar still held in stock on 30 June 2006, as the production levy system was not renewed after that date by Council Regulation No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 (2)?

1

Zuckerfabrik Jülich I

II

2

| 2. | (a) | If the preceding question is answered in the affirmative, must the amount of levies to be reimbursed to manufacturers be based solely on the tonnage of sugar held in stock on 30 June 2006? |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

(a)

If the preceding question is answered in the affirmative, must the amount of levies to be reimbursed to manufacturers be based solely on the tonnage of sugar held in stock on 30 June 2006?

| (b) | If the preceding question is answered in the negative, must the tonnage of sugar to be taken as the basis for reimbursement of the levies be based on variations in Community sugar stock levels between 1 July 2001and 30 June 2006? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

If the preceding question is answered in the negative, must the tonnage of sugar to be taken as the basis for reimbursement of the levies be based on variations in Community sugar stock levels between 1 July 2001and 30 June 2006?

| 3. | May the calculation of the levy to be repaid reasonably be arrived at by multiplying the quantity of sugar deemed to be held in stock in response to in Question 2 by the weighted average of the ‘average losses’ established during the 2001/2006 COM, or must it be calculated differently and, if so, how? |
| --- | --- |

3.

May the calculation of the levy to be repaid reasonably be arrived at by multiplying the quantity of sugar deemed to be held in stock in response to in Question 2 by the weighted average of the ‘average losses’ established during the 2001/2006 COM, or must it be calculated differently and, if so, how?

| 4. | If the foregoing questions are answered in the affirmative, is Regulation No 164/2007 of 19 February 2007 fixing the production levies in the sugar sector for the 2005/2006 marketing year (3) invalid? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If the foregoing questions are answered in the affirmative, is Regulation No 164/2007 of 19 February 2007 fixing the production levies in the sugar sector for the 2005/2006 marketing year (3) invalid?

3

---

(1)  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).

1

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (OJ 2006 L 58, p. 1).

2

(3)  OJ 2007 L 51, p. 17.

3

---