Case C-325/01: Action brought on 29 August 2001 by the Kingdom of the Netherlands against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2001-10-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Netherlands, action for annulment (EU), import licence, overseas countries and territories, sugar

27.10.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 303/11

Action brought on 29 August 2001 by the Kingdom of
the Netherlands against the Commission of the European
Communities

(Case C-325/01)

(2001/C 303/18)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 29 August 2001 by the Kingdom of the
Netherlands, represented by H.G. Sevenster, Head of
the
European Law Section in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. Annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 1325/2001 (1) of
29 June 2001 providing for the continued application of
safeguard measures with regard to imports of sugar
sector products with EC/OCT originating status from the
overseas countries and territories for the period 1 July to
1 December 2001;

2. Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceed-

ings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

(1) OJ L 177 of 30.6.2001, p. 57.
(2) OJ C 45 of 10.2.2001, p. 12.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court
of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division,
Administrative Court, by order of that court of 20 July
2001, in the case of the Queen on the application of British
Sugar plc against Intervention Board for Agricultural
Produce

(Case C-329/01)

(2001/C 303/19)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the High Court of
Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division, Adminis-
trative Court, of 20 July 2001, which was received at the Court
Registry on 4 September 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of the Queen on the application of British Sugar plc
against Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce, on the
following questions:

1.

In circumstances where:

(a)

(b)

a trader has exported a quantity of C sugar which
exceeds the amount for which export was authorised
by the licence concerned; and/or

a trader has exported C sugar after the expiry of the
validity of the licence authorising the said export;
and

(c)

even if, as a matter of fact, the relevant C sugar left
the Customs territory of the Community;

has the proof required by the first indent of Article 2(2)
of Regulation 2670/81 (1) been furnished in relation to
that export, or that element of the relevant export, which
was not covered by a valid licence?

2.

In the circumstances described in paragraph 1(a) above is
the answer to the above question different in circum-
stances where:

(a)

(b)

the trader presented to the customs authority a
customs declaration form (C88) amended in manu-
script to reflect the amount actually exported; and

the customs authority has endorsed the relevant
licence extract against the trader’s entry in the actual
amount exported?

3.

Is the answer to question 1 above different on the
assumption that the circumstances were as follows:

(a)

the trader intended to apply for an extract for
2 900 tonnes;

(b) owing to an error on the part of the trader, a licence
extract was issued for 2,9 tonnes and this 2,9 tonnes
was recorded in the records of both the Intervention
Board and the trader;

(c)

(d)

(e)

the licence extract was attributed, with the authority
of the trader, by the trader’s agent, accurately to
record
exporting
2 900 tonnes;

intention

trader’s

the

of

that licence extract was subsequently endorsed by
H.M. Customs & Excise to certify the export of
2 900 tonnes of sugar;

the sugar was subject to a Form C88 export licence
for 2 900 tonnes, which was subsequently attributed
and endorsed by H.M. Customs & Excise;

(f)

2 900 tonnes of sugar were in fact exported;