Case C-229/01: 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
Date: 2001-09-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: advertising, approximation of laws, consumer information, foodstuff, interpretation of the law, labelling

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?