Case C-112/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Vestre Landsret by order of 9 March 2001 in the case of ApS SPKR 4 No 3482 v (1) Skatteministeriet, (2) Public limited company of 11/9 1996, and (3) A.T.S. I/S Arden Transport & Spedition, represented by Søren Lauritsen and Lene Lauritsen
Date: 2001-05-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Union transit, customs debt, customs regulations, exchange of information, infringement of EU law, interpretation of the law

C 134/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

5.5.2001

8 February 2001, which was received at the Court Registry on
7 March 2001,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of
1) Consorzio del Prosciutto Di Parma 2) Salumificio S. Rita
S.P.A. against 1) Asda Stores Limited 2) Hygrade Foods
Limited, on the following question:

2.

As a matter of Community law, does Council Regulation
(EEC) No 2081/92 (1) read with Commission Regulation (EC)
No 1107/96 (2) and the specification for the PDO (3)‘prosciutto
di Parma’ create a valid Community right, directly enforceable
in the court of a member state, to restrain the retail sale as
‘Parma ham’ of sliced and packaged ham derived from hams
duly exported from Parma in compliance with the conditions
of the PDO but which have not been thereafter sliced, packaged
and labelled in accordance with the specification?

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the
protection of geographical indications and designations of origin
for agricultural products and foodstuffs (JO L 208, 24.07.1992,
p. 1).

(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 of 12 June 1996 on
the registration of geographical indications and designations of
origin under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 (JO L 148, 21.06.1996, p. 1).

(3) (protected designation of origin).

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster
Gerichtshof, Austria, by order of that court of 22 February
2001 in the case of Gantner Electronic GmbH v Basch
Exploitatie Maatschappij B.V.

(Case C-111/01)

(2001/C 134/15)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Oberster Gerichts-
hof (Supreme Court), Austria, of 22 February 2001, which was
received at the Court Registry on 12 March 2001, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Gantner Electronic GmbH v
Basch Exploitatie Maatschappij B.V. on the following questions:

1. Does the concept of

‘the same cause of action’

in
Article 21 of the Brussels Convention extend also to the
defence of the defendant that he has extinguished a part
of the claim sued for by extra-judicial set-off, where the
part of this counterclaim that is allegedly not extinguished
is the subject-matter of a legal dispute between the same
parties on the basis of an action that has already been
brought earlier in another Contracting State?

In the examination of the question whether ‘the same
cause of action’ has been brought, are exclusively the
pleadings of the plaintiff in the proceedings initiated by a
later action decisive and the defences and submissions of
the defendant therefore irrelevant, in particular also the
defence of the procedural objection of set-off concerning
a claim that is the subject-matter of a legal dispute
between the same parties on the basis of an action that
has already been brought earlier in another Contracting
State?

3. Where, on the basis of an action to enforce a contract
seeking damages for unlawful termination of a long-term
obligation, the question as to whether such a long-term
obligation existed at all is decided, is that decision also
binding in subsequent proceedings between the same
parties?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Vestre Landsret
by order of 9 March 2001 in the case of ApS SPKR 4
No 3482 v (1) Skatteministeriet, (2) Public limited com-
pany of 11/9 1996, and (3) A.T.S. I/S Arden Transport &
Spedition, represented by Søren Lauritsen and Lene
Lauritsen

(Case C-112/01)

(2001/C 134/16)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 9 March 2001 by the
Vestre Landsret (Western Regional Court), which was received
at the Court Registry on 12 March 2001, for a preliminary
ruling in the case of ApS SPKR 4 No 3482 v (1) Skatteministe-
riet (Ministry of Fiscal Affairs), (2) Public limited company of
11/9 1996, and (3) AT.S. I/S Arden Transport & Spedition,
represented by Søren Lauritsen and Lene Lauritsen, on the
following questions:

Question 1

Must the provisions in Council Regulation No 2913/92 (1) (the
Customs Code) and in Commission Regulation No 2454/93 (2)
(the implementing regulation), in particular Article 379(1) of
the implementing regulation, be construed as meaning that a
customs debt arising by reason of an offence or irregularity
in connection with external Community transit cannot be
recovered by the office of departure from the principal in so
far as the principal did not, before the end of the eleventh
month following the date of registration of the Community
transit declaration, receive the notification referred to in
Article 379 of the implementing regulation?

5.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 134/11

Question 2

Pleas in law and main arguments

Does the fact that the office of departure did not follow an
administrative instruction for the transmission of information
laid down in the Customs Code Committee (early warning
system) or that the authorities in the office of departure can be
criticised for failure to notify in good time have any bearing
on the answer to Question 1?

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992
establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302,
p. 1).

(2) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying
down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation
(EEC) No 2913/92 (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1).

The mandatory nature of the provisions of Articles 10 and
249 EC is such as to oblige Member States to adopt the
measures necessary in order to transpose directives which are
addressed to them into their national legal order prior to the
expiry of the time-limits prescribed for so doing. Those time-
limits, laid down in Article 5 of Directive 1999/20/EC and in
Article 2 of Directive 96/51/EC, expired on 30 September and
1 October 1999 respectively.

(1) OJ L 80 of 25.3.1999, p. 20.
(2) OJ L 235 of 17.9.1996, p. 39.

Action brought on 16 March 2001 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the French Republic

Action brought on 19 March 2001 by Commission of the
European Communities against Finland

(Case C-118/01)

(2001/C 134/17)

(Case C-119/01)

(2001/C 134/18)

An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 16 March
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by A. Bordes, acting as Agent, with an address for
service in Luxembourg.

An action against Finland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 19 March 2001 by
the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by Lena Ström, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Go´ mez de la Cruz, Wagner
Center, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.

The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should:

The Commission claims that the Court should:

1.

declare that, by failing to bring into force within the
prescribed time-limits the laws, regulations and adminis-
trative measures necessary in order to comply with:

— Council Directive 1999/20/EC of 22 March 1999
amending Directives 70/524/EEC concerning addi-
tives in feedingstuffs, 82/471/EEC concerning cer-
tain products used in animal nutrition, 95/53/EC
fixing the principles governing the organisation of
official inspections in the field of animal nutrition
and 95/69/EC laying down the conditions and
arrangements for approving and registering certain
establishments and intermediaries operating in the
animal feed sector (1);

— Council Directive 96/51/EC of 23 July 1996
amending Directive 70/524/EEC concerning addi-
tives in feedingstuffs (2),

the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
under the abovementioned directives and under the third
paragraph of Article 249 and the first paragraph of
Article 10 of the EC Treaty;

2.

order the French Republic to pay the costs.

— declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations,
and administrative provisions necessary to implement
Directive 96/61/EC (1) concerning integrated pollution
prevention and control with regard to the province of
Åland, or in any case by failing to communicate them to
the Commission, Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations
under the directive;

— order Finland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for implementing the directive expired on 30 Octo-
ber 1999. As regards the province of Åland the Commission
was informed that a provincial law on the protection of the
environment and environmental planets was adopted by the
Lagtinget, but that it does not depend upon the Finnish
president’s ratification.

(1) Text of 24.9.1996 (OJ L 257 of 10.10.1996, p. 26).