Case C-203/01: 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 Pública against Antero & CC.a, Lda
Date: 2001-08-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: customs debt, customs duties, customs regulations, interpretation of the law

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?

C 227/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

11.8.2001

6.

Prior
to the entry into force of Regulation (EC)
No 2700/2000 (2) of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 16 November 2000, which amended
Article 221(3) of the Community Customs Code, was
there any provision of Community law which provided
for the suspension of the period of three years for post-
clearance recovery as soon as an appeal is lodged?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal
Superior de Justicia, Castilla-La-Mancha, Sala de lo Conten-
cioso-Administrativo del Tribunal, Seccio´ n Segunda, by
order of 3 April 2001 in the case of Isabel Parras Medina
and Adelina Paras Medina v Conséjeria de Agricultura de
la Junta, de Comunidades de Castilla-La-Mancha

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 of 24 July 1979 on the
post-clearance recovery of import duties or export duties which
have not been required of the person liable for payment on goods
entered for a customs procedure involving the obligation to pay
such duties (OJ 1979 L 197, p. 1).
(2) Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 of

the European Parliament
and of the Council of 16 November 2000 amending Council
Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Cus-
toms Code (OJ 2000 L 311, p. 17).

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-
richtshof by order of that court of 25 April 2001 in the
case of Dr Tilmann Klett against the Federal Minister for
Education, Science and Culture

(Case C-204/01)

(2001/C 227/15)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgerichts-
hof of 25 April 2001, received at the Court Registry on
16 May 2001,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Dr Tilmann Klett against the Federal Minister for Education,
Science and Culture on the following question:

Are Article 19b of Council Directive 78/686/EEC (1) of 25 July
1978 concerning the mutual recognition of diplomas, certifi-
cates and other evidence of
the formal qualifications of
practitioners of dentistry, including measures to facilitate the
effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to
provide services, as amended by the Act of Accession, Official
Journal C 241 of 29 August 1994; p. 218, Article 12 EC and
Article 39 EC, and Article 1; read in conjunction with Article 3
and Article 9, of Council Directive 93/16/EEC (2) to facilitate
the free movement of doctors and the mutual recognition of
formal
their diplomas, certificates and other evidence of
qualifications, to be interpreted as precluding legislation under
which admission to a training course in dentistry covered by
Article 19b of Directive 78/686/EEC requires a degree in
medicine obtained at an Austrian university?

(1) OJ 1978 L 233, p. 1.
(2) OJ 1993 L 165, p. 1.

(Case C-208/01)

(2001/C 227/16)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 3 April 2001 by the
Tribunal Superior de Justicia, Castilla-La-Mancha, Sala de lo
Contencioso-Administrativo del Tribunal, Seccio´ n Segunda
(Second section of the Administrative-law Chamber of the
High Court of Justice, Castilla-La-Mancha) which was received
at the Court Registry on 18 May 2001, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Isabel Parras Medina and Adelina Paras Medina v
Conséjeria de Agricultura de la Junta de Comunidades de
Castilla-La-Mancha on the following questions:

1. Must the scope of the concept of force majeure used in
Article 12 of Regulation No 1294/96 of 4 July 1996 be
altered so as to equate to that of unforeseen and
compelling circumstances, as described in this decision,
of such a kind that negligence as regards compliance with
the time-limit in question would not be regarded as such?

2. Are the consequences provided for in the abovemen-
tioned Article 12 in the nature of a sanction or a penalty
and, if that is the a case, does that fact contribute to the
need to alter the scope of the said concept of force majeure?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundespa-
tentgericht by order of that court of 10 April 2001 in the
case of Henkel KGaA

(Case C-218/01)

(2001/C 227/17)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundespatentgericht
(Federal Patents Court) of 10 April 2001 which was received
at the Court Registry on 29 May 2001, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Henkel KGaA on the following questions on the
interpretation of Article 3(1)(b), (c) and (e) of First Council
Directive 89/104/EEC(1) of 21 December 1988 to approximate
the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ
1989 L 40, p. 1):

1.

In the case of three-dimensional trade marks which
consist of the packaging of goods which are normally
traded in packaged form (such as liquids, for example) is
the packaging of the goods to be equated with the shape
of the goods for the purpose of trade mark law in such a
way that