# C_2008285EN.01002602.xml

| 8.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 285/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 285/26

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 1 September 2008 — Brita GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen

(Case C-386/08)

(2008/C 285/43)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Brita GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen

Defendant:

Questions referred

| 1. | Should the importer of goods which originate in the West Bank be granted the preferential treatment requested in any event in light of the fact that preferential treatment is provided under two agreements which come under consideration in the present case — namely the ‘Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the State of Israel, of the other part’ (EMA) (1) and the ‘Euro-Mediterranean Interim Association Agreement on trade and cooperation between the European Community, of the one part, and the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) for the benefit of the Palestinian Authority of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, of the other part’ (EMI-PLO) (2) — for goods originating in the territory of the State of Israel or in the West Bank, even if only a formal certificate of origin from Israel is submitted?
  If Question 1 is to be answered in the negative: |
| --- | --- |

1.

Should the importer of goods which originate in the West Bank be granted the preferential treatment requested in any event in light of the fact that preferential treatment is provided under two agreements which come under consideration in the present case — namely the ‘Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the State of Israel, of the other part’ (EMA) (1) and the ‘Euro-Mediterranean Interim Association Agreement on trade and cooperation between the European Community, of the one part, and the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) for the benefit of the Palestinian Authority of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, of the other part’ (EMI-PLO) (2) — for goods originating in the territory of the State of Israel or in the West Bank, even if only a formal certificate of origin from Israel is submitted?

1

2

If Question 1 is to be answered in the negative:

| 2. | Is the customs authority of a Member State bound under the EMA, vis-à-vis an importer who is requesting preferential treatment for goods which have been imported into Community territory, by a proof-of-origin certificate issued by the Israeli authority — and the verification procedure under Article 32 of Protocol 4 to the EMA has not been opened — as long as the customs authority has no doubt as to the originating status of the goods other than that as to whether the goods originate in an area which is merely under Israeli control — that is, pursuant to the terms of the Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement of 1995 — and as long as no dispute-settlement procedure was carried out pursuant to Article 33 of Protocol 4 to the EMA?
  If Question 2 is to be answered in the negative: |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the customs authority of a Member State bound under the EMA, vis-à-vis an importer who is requesting preferential treatment for goods which have been imported into Community territory, by a proof-of-origin certificate issued by the Israeli authority — and the verification procedure under Article 32 of Protocol 4 to the EMA has not been opened — as long as the customs authority has no doubt as to the originating status of the goods other than that as to whether the goods originate in an area which is merely under Israeli control — that is, pursuant to the terms of the Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement of 1995 — and as long as no dispute-settlement procedure was carried out pursuant to Article 33 of Protocol 4 to the EMA?

vis-à-vis

If Question 2 is to be answered in the negative:

| 3. | May the customs authority of the country of importation refuse automatically to grant preferential treatment for the following reason alone, namely that, pursuant to its request for verification under Article 32(2) of Protocol 4 to the EMA, it was confirmed by the Israeli authorities (only) that the goods were manufactured in an area which is subject to Israeli customs jurisdiction and that they were for that reason of Israeli origin, and where the subsequent request by the customs authority of the country of importation for further specification by the Israeli authorities remained unanswered, in particular without the actual origin of the goods having to be taken into account?
  If Question 3 is to be answered in the negative: |
| --- | --- |

3.

May the customs authority of the country of importation refuse automatically to grant preferential treatment for the following reason alone, namely that, pursuant to its request for verification under Article 32(2) of Protocol 4 to the EMA, it was confirmed by the Israeli authorities (only) that the goods were manufactured in an area which is subject to Israeli customs jurisdiction and that they were for that reason of Israeli origin, and where the subsequent request by the customs authority of the country of importation for further specification by the Israeli authorities remained unanswered, in particular without the actual origin of the goods having to be taken into account?

If Question 3 is to be answered in the negative:

| 4. | May the customs authority refuse automatically to grant preferential treatment under the EMA in the case where — as has become clear in the meantime — the goods originate in the West Bank, or should preferential treatment also be granted under the EMA for goods originating in that area, in any event as long as no dispute-settlement procedure has been carried out under Article 33 of Protocol 4 to the EMA concerning the interpretation of the expression ‘territory of the State of Israel’ used in the EMA? |
| --- | --- |

4.

May the customs authority refuse automatically to grant preferential treatment under the EMA in the case where — as has become clear in the meantime — the goods originate in the West Bank, or should preferential treatment also be granted under the EMA for goods originating in that area, in any event as long as no dispute-settlement procedure has been carried out under Article 33 of Protocol 4 to the EMA concerning the interpretation of the expression ‘territory of the State of Israel’ used in the EMA?

---

(1)  OJ 2000 L 147, p. 3.

1

(2)  OJ 1997 L 187, p. 3.

2

---