Case C-222/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof by order of 24 April 2001 in the case of British American Tobacco Manufacturing B.V. v Hauptzollamt Krefeld
Date: 2001-09-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Union transit, customs regulations, interpretation of the law, transport document

1.9.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 245/3

The appellant claims that the Court should:

1.

1.

set aside the contested judgment in so far as the Court
of First Instance dismissed the plea in law, that the
Commission wrongly failed to take into account the
quantity judicially determined by the Finanzgericht Ham-
burg in calculating the reference quantity for the years
1997 to 1999 (paragraph 88); and

2.

order the Commission to pay the costs

Is the application of a provision of a bilateral agreement
concluded between a Member State and a non-member
country, under which a simpe/qualified geographical
indication which in the country of origin is the name
neither of a region nor a place nor a country is accorded
the absolute protection, regardless of any misleading, of
a qualified geographical indication within the meaning of
Regulation No 2081/92 (1), compatible with Article 28 EC
and/or Regulation No 2081/92, if on application of that
provision the import of a product which is lawfully
put on the market in another Member State may be
prevented?

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Court of First Instance fails to take proper account of the
scope of Article 5(2) and (3) of Regulation No 2362/98 (1). In
accordance with that provision, any customs duty paid in
respect of the quantity imported constitutes sufficient evidence
of the reference quantity to which the operator is entitled. The
relevant duty is that which was due from the importer on the
day of importation. The duty applicable to the appellant on
the day of importation was the quota duty, which the Court of
First Instance fails to take into account. The Finanzgericht
Hamburg had made an interim order to the effect that the
customs must accept the importation of the ‘quantity judicially
determined’ without a certificate, provided the quota duty was
paid. The competent Hauptzollamt had decided that the duty
due from the appellant was the quota duty. The appellant
actually paid it. In relation to the question of actual payment
of the customs duty by the appellant in its capacity as importer,
the fact that the appeal court annulled the interim order of the
Finanzgericht Hamburg, and that
the Hauptzollamt sub-
sequently amended the duty notice and determined the normal
In relation to the quantity judicially
duty,
determined, it is obvious from the wording of Article 5(3)(b)
that the duty determined by the customs authorities on the
day of
importation and paid for the quantity imported
constitutes sufficient evidence of the reference quantity to
which the appellant was entitled.

is irrelevant.

2. Does this apply also where the geographical indication
which in the country of origin is the name neither of a
region nor a place nor a country is not understood in the
country of origin as a geographical designation for a
specific product, and also not as a simple or indirect
geographical indication?

3. Do the answers to Questions 1 and 2 apply also where
is an agreement which the
the bilateral agreement
Member State concluded before its accession to the
European Union and continued after its accession to the
European Union with a successor State to the original
other State party to the agreement by means of a
declaration of the Federal Government?

4. Does the second paragraph of Article 307 EC oblige the
Member State to interpret such a bilateral agreement,
concluded between that Member State and a non-member
country before the Member State’s accession to the
EU,
in conformity with Community law as stated in
Article 28 EC and/or Regulation No 2081/92, so that
the protection laid down therein for a simple/indirect
geographical indication which in the country of origin is
the name neither of a region nor a place nor a country
comprises merely protection against misleading and
not the absolute protection of a qualified geographical
Regulation
indication within
No 2081/92?

the meaning

of

(1) OJ 1998 L 293, p. 32.

(1) OJ L 208 of 24.7.1992, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Handels-
gericht Wien by order of that court of 26 February
2001 in the case of Budejovicky Budvar, n.p. v Rudolf
Ammersin GmbH

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-
hof by order of 24 April 2001 in the case of British
American Tobacco Manufacturing B.V. v Hauptzollamt
Krefeld

(Case C-216/01)

(2001/C 245/05)

(Case C-222/01)

(2001/C 245/06)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Handelsgericht
Wien (Commercial Court, Vienna) of 26 February 2001, which
was received at the Court Registry on 25 May 2001, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Budejovicky Budvar, n.p. v
Rudolf Ammersin GmbH on the following questions:

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of
the Bundesfinanzhof
(Federal Finance Court) of 24 April 2001, received at the Court
Registry on 5 June 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of British American Tobacco Manufacturing B.V. v
Hauptzollamt Krefeld on the following questions:

C 245/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

1.9.2001

1. Are goods which have been cleared for Community
transit removed from customs supervision if the transit
document T1 is temporarily removed from the consign-
ment?

2000 (2) on the approximation of the laws of the Member
States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertis-
ing of foodstuffs (hereinafter ‘Directive 79/112’), and in
particular Article 15 thereof; or

2.

3.

If the Court answers Question 1 in the negative:
Have goods cleared for Community transit been removed
from customs supervision if the customs seal affixed to
ensure their identification was opened and the goods
were partially unloaded, without the consignment first
being duly produced for customs, even though the
operation was arranged with the persons in question by
customs investigation officers operating incognito and
observed in every detail by those officers?

If the Court answers one of Questions 1 and 2 in the
affirmative:
Do special circumstances exist within the meaning of
Article 13 of Regulation No 1430/79 (1) if a customs
investigation officer acting undercover has provoked
infringements of the Community transit procedure? Does
the deception or obviously negligent conduct of persons
used by the principal in fulfilling the obligations assumed
by him under the Community transit procedure preclude
repayment to him of the duties incurred by the removal
from customs supervision of goods cleared for Com-
munity transit?

(1) OJ L 175 of 12.7.1979, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger
Verwaltungssenat im Land Niederösterreich by order of
that court of 1 June 2001 in the case of an appeal by
Susanne Müller

(Case C-229/01)

(2001/C 245/07)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Unabhängiger Verwal-
tungssenat im Land Niederösterreich (Independent Adminis-
trative Chamber in the Land of Niederösterreich), of 1 June
2001, received at the Court Registry on 11 June 2001, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of an appeal by Susanne Muller
on the following questions:

Does

— Council Directive 79/112/EEC of 18 December 1978(1)
on the approximation of the laws of the Member States
relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of
foodstuffs for sale to the ultimate consumer in the version
prior to the entry into force of Directive 2000/13/EC of
the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March

— Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of
the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling,
presentation and advertising of foodstuffs (hereinafter
‘Directive 00/13’), and in particular Article 18 thereof

preclude a national rule which provides that, where foodstuffs
are offered for sale after the period of their minimum durability
has expired, that fact must, even though their expiry date is
displayed, be communicated clearly and in a generally intelli-
gible manner?

(1) OJ 1979 L 33, p. 1.
(2) OJ 2000 L 109, p. 29.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Giudice di Pace
di Palermo by order of that court of 4 May 2001 in the
case of Riunione Adriatica di Sicurtà (RAS) Spa against
Dario Lo Bue

(Case C-233/01)

(2001/C 245/08)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Giudice di Pace
(District Court), Palermo of 18 June 2001, received at the
Court Registry on 18 June 2001, for a preliminary ruling in
the case of Riunione Adriatica di Sicurta (RAS) Spa against
Dario Lo Bue on the following questions:

(1) Must the third subparagraph of Article 8(3) of Council
Directive 73/239/EEC (1) as amended by Article 6 of
Council Directive 92/49/EEC (2), be interpreted as pre-
cluding national legislation which, for the purposes of
curbing inflation, applies only to insurance against third-
party liability in connection with the use of motor
vehicles, mopeds and motor cycles and makes no pro-
vision for intervention in matters concerning prices of
goods and services in general (as distinct from vehicle
insurance), which are also factors in the calculation of the
consumer price index?

(2) Must the third subparagraph of Article 8(3) of Council
Directive 73/239/EEC, as amended by Article 6 of
Council Directive 92/49/EEC, be interpreted as precluding
national legislation which, for the purposes of curbing
inflation, prohibits the alteration, not only of premium
rates but also of the number of risk categories, the
coefficients for determining the premium and differential
premium rate systems under which the premium payable
depends on the claims record?