Case C-198/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale, Lazio, by order of 24 January 2001 in the case of Consorzio Industrie Fiammiferi (CIF) v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato
Date: 2001-08-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: competition policy, fixing of prices, interpretation of the law, intervention policy, restrictive trade practice

11.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 227/9

tories of sugar sector products with EC/OCT cumulation
of origin for the period 1 March to 30 June 2001;

2. Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supremo
Tribunal Administrativo, 2a Secçao, by judgment of that
court of 4 April 2001 in the case of Fazenda Pu´ blica
against Antero & CC.a, Lda

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Netherlands refers to the application made in Case
C-452/00 (2).

(1) OJ L 58 of 28.02.2001, p. 13.
(2) OJ C 45 of 10.02.2001, p. 12.

(Case C-203/01)

(2001/C 227/14)

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
Amministrativo Regionale, Lazio, by order of 24 January
2001 in the case of Consorzio Industrie Fiammiferi (CIF)
v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato

(Case C-198/01)

(2001/C 227/13)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 24 January 2001 by the
First Chamber of the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale
(Regional Administrative Court), Lazio, which was received at
the Court Registry on 11 March 2001, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Consorzio Industrie Fiammiferi (CIF) v Autorità
Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato on the following
questions:

(1) Where an agreement between undertakings adversely
affects Community trade, and where that agreement is
legislation which
required or facilitated by national
legitimises or reinforces those effects, specifically with
regard to the determination of prices or market-sharing
arrangements, does Article 81 [EC] require or permit the
official anti-trust Authority to disapply that measure
the
and to penalise the anti-competitive conduct of
undertakings or, in any event, to prohibit it for the future,
and if so, with what legal consequences?

(2)

is
For the purposes of applying Article 81(1) [EC],
it possible to regard national
legislation under which
competence to fix the selling prices of a product is
delegated to a ministry and power to allocate production
between undertakings is entrusted to a consortium to
which the relevant producers are obliged to belong, as
leaving room for competition which is open to hindrance,
restriction or distortion by the autonomous conduct of
those undertakings?

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Supremo Tribunal
Administrativo, 2a Secçao (Second Chamber of the Supreme
Administrative Court), of 4 April 2001, which was received at
the Court Registry on 17 May 2001, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Fazenda Pu´ blica against Antero & CC.a, Lda on
the following questions:

1. What

is the meaning and scope of

the expression
‘prise en compte’ used in the second subparagraph of
Article 2(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 (1)
of 24 July 1979?

2. Was the official act by which the amount of the import
duties or export duties to be collected by the competent
authorities is duly determined referred to in Article 1(2)(c)
of that regulation ‘registo de liquidaçao’ (entry in the
accounts) or was it ‘liquidaçao’ (assessment), calculation
or computation of those duties by the customs auth-
orities?

3. On 19 April 1988, was ‘registo de liquidaçao’ (entry in
the accounts) a procedural requirement essential
for
the validity of the assessment or was it a procedural
requirement rendering it enforceable or payable?

4. On 19 April 1988, did assessment (calculation or compu-
tation) of import duties duly notified to the debtor for
post-clearance recovery, even where there is no entry in
the accounts, render the customs debt due and payable?

5. Did the appeal against the order for payment of the
customs authorities which had refused to grant
the
application for remission of post-clearance recovery of
duty and which was before the Portuguese courts from
1988 until 15 November 1995 have the effect of
suspending the period of three years for post-clearance
recovery?