Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 December 2000 in Case C-213/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Fiscal Aduaneiro do Porto, Portugal): José Teodoro de Andrade v Director da Alfândega de Leixões, intervener: Ministério Público (Release of goods for free circulation — Expiry of the period within which a customs-approved use must be assigned — Procedure for putting goods up for sale or levying an ad valorem duty)
Date: 2001-04-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, customs duties, customs formalities, customs regulations, free movement of goods, interpretation of the law

C 118/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

21.4.2001

measures necessary to comply with its obligations under
Article 3(1) and (2) and Article 5 of Council Directive
91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection
of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural
sources (OJ 1991 L 375, p. 1), the United Kingdorn has failed
to fulfil its obligations under that directive and the EC Treaty
— the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann,
President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet and F. Macken
(Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 December 2000, in
which it:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the
obligations laid down in Article 3(1) and (2) and Article 5
of Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991
concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by
nitrates from agricultural sources, the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations
under that directive;

2. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern

Ireland to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 136 of 15.5.1999.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 7 December 2000

in Case C-79/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main): Julia Schnor-
bus v Land Hessen (1)

(Equal treatment for men and women — Rules on access to
practical
legal training in Land Hesse — Priority for
applicants who have completed military or civilian service)

(2001/C 118/03)

(Language of the case: German)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-79/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Verwaltungsge-
richt Frankfurt am Main (Administrative Court, Frankfurt am
Main), Germany for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
pending before that court between Julia Schnorbus and Land
Hessen - on the interpretation of Council Directive 76/207/EEC
of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of

equal treatment for men and women as regards access to
employment, vocational training and promotion, and working
conditions (OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40) — the Court (Sixth Chamber),
composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, V. Skou-
ris, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen and F. Macken,
Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
given a judgment on 7 December 2000, in which it has ruled:

1. National provisions governing the date of admission to the
practical
legal training which is a necessary prerequisite of
access to employment in the civil service fall within the scope of
Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the
implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and
women as regards access to employment, vocational training
and promotion, and working conditions.

2. National provisions such as those at

issue in the main
proceedings do not constitute discrimination directly based on
sex.

3. National provisions such as those at

issue in the main

proceedings constitute indirect discrimination based on sex.

4. Directive 76/207 does not preclude national provisions such as
those at issue in the main proceedings,
in so far as such
provisions are justified by objective reasons and prompted solely
by a desire to counterbalance to some extent the delay resulting
from the completion of compulsory military or civilian service.

(1) OJ C 136 of 15.5.1999.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 7 December 2000

in Case C-213/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal Fiscal Aduaneiro do Porto, Portugal): José
Teodoro de Andrade v Director da Alfândega de Leixo˜ es,
intervener: Ministério Pu´ blico (1)

(Release of goods for free circulation — Expiry of the period
within which a customs-approved use must be assigned —
Procedure for putting goods up for sale or levying an ad
valorem duty)

(2001/C 118/04)

(Language of the case: Portuguese)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-213/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunal Fiscal

21.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 118/3

Aduaneiro do Porto, (Customs Court, Oporto) Portugal, for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between José Teodoro de Andrade and Director da
Alfândega de Leixo˜ es, intervener: Ministério Publico — on the
interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of
12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code
(OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) and, in particular, Articles 6, 53 and
243 thereof, and of the Community rules relating to value
added tax, — the Court
(Sixth Chamber), composed of:
C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, V. Skouris, J.-P. Puisso-
chet (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen and F. Macken, Judges; N. Fen-
nelly, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 7 December 2000, in which it has ruled:

1. Article 53 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of
12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code
does not preclude the automatic application, without prior
notification, of a procedure such as
that established by
Portuguese legislation, which provides for goods to be put up
for sale where the statutory time-limits for making a declaration
for release for free circulation or an application for another
customs-approved treatment or use for the goods have expired.

2. Use of a procedure providing either for such goods to be put up
for sale or for an ad valorem surcharge to be levied in order to
regularise the situation of the goods is not in itself contrary to
the principle of proportionality. It is for the national court to
determine whether the surcharge applied in the present case
complies with that principle.

3. Article 6(3) and Article 243 of Regulation No 2913/92 do
not preclude use of a procedure, such as that at issue in the
main proceedings, which does not provide for interested parties
to receive prior notification.

4. A surcharge intended to penalise a failure to comply with
customs formalities cannot be subject to value added tax.

(1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 7 December 2000

in Case C-214/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tampereen Käräjäoikeus, Finland): Neste Markkinointi
Oy v Yötuuli Ky and Others (1)

(Competition — Exclusive purchasing agreements — Ser-
vice-station agreements — Duration — Significant contri-
bution made by one supplier’s contracts to the closing-off of
the market — Distinction between the contracts of the same
supplier)

(2001/C 118/05)

(Language of the case: Finnish)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-214/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tampereen
Käräjäoikeus (Tampere District Court), Finland, for a prelimi-
nary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
between Neste Markkinointi Oy and Yötuuli Ky and Others —
on the interpretation of Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now
Article 81(1) EC) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, V. Skou-
ris,
Judges;
N. Fennelly, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Adminis-
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 December
2000, in which it has ruled:

J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and F. Macken,

The prohibition laid down by Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now
Article 81(1) EC) does not apply to an exclusive purchasing
agreement entered into by a motor-fuels supplier which the retailer
may terminate upon one year’s notice at any time where all
that supplier’s exclusive purchasing agreements, whether considered
separately or as a whole, taken together with the network of similar
agreements made by the totality of suppliers, have an appreciable
effect on the closing-off of the market but where the agreements of
the same kind as the agreement at issue in the main proceedings by
reason of their duration represent only a very small part of the totality
of one supplier’s exclusive purchasing agreements, of which the
majority are fixed term contracts entered into for more than one year.

(1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.