Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 September 2001 in Case C-253/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Bremen): Bacardi GmbH v Hauptzollamt Bremerhaven (Community Customs Code and implementing regulation — Repayment of import duties — Favourable tariff treatment — Post-clearance production of certificate of authenticity — Alteration of the tariff classification stated in the customs declaration — Concept of "special situation")
Date: 2001-11-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: CCT duties, customs duties, import, interpretation of the law, redemption, spirits

C 317/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

10.11.2001

court between Hans Schwarzkopf GmbH & Co. KG and
Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbg eV — on
the interpretation of the last sentence of Article 6(1)(d) of
Council Directive 76/768/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to
cosmetic products (OJ 1976 L 262, p. 169), as amended by
Council Directive 93/35/EEC of 14 June 1993 (OJ 1993 L 151,
p. 32), in conjunction with Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty
(now, after amendment, Articles 28 EC and 30 EC) — the
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola, President
of the Chamber, M. Wathelet, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur),
P. Jann and L. Sevo´ n, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General;
H.A: Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
a judgment on 13 September 2001, in which it has ruled:

It is not ‘impossible for practical reasons’, within the meaning of the
last sentence of Article 6(1)(d) of Council Directive 76/768/EEC of
27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member
States relating to cosmetic products, as amended by Council Directive
93/35/EEC of 14 June 1993, to set out the compulsory warnings
in full on the container and packaging of a cosmetic product in the
language or languages prescribed in the Member State in which it is
to be marketed, where the producer or distributor wishes to label the
product in nine languages, including eight official languages of the
Community, for economic considerations and in order to facilitate the
movement of the product within the Community, and this entails
abbreviating those warnings on the container and packaging.

(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 20 September 2001

in Case C-184/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal du travail de Nivelles): Rudy Grzelczyk
v Centre public d’aide sociale d’Ottignies-Louvain-la-
Neuve (1)

(Articles 6, 8 and 8a of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
Articles 12 EC, 17 EC and 18 EC) — Council Directive
93/96/EEC — Right of residence for students — National
legislation which guarantees a minimum subsistence allow-
ance only for nationals, persons covered by Regulation (EEC)
No 1612/68 and stateless persons and refugees — Foreign
student who has met his own living expenses during the first
years of his studies)

(2001/C 317/03)

(Language of the case: French)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-184/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunal du
travail de Nivelles (Industrial Tribunal, Nivelles), (Belgium) for

a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Rudy Grzelczyk and Centre public d’aide sociale
d’Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve — on the interpretation of
Articles 6, 8 and 8a of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
Articles 12 EC, 17 EC and 18 EC) and Council Directive
93/96/EEC of 29 October 1993 on the right of residence for
students (OJ 1993 L 317, p. 59) — the Court, composed of:
G.C. Rodrı´guez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, M. Wathelet
and V. Skouris (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward.
(Rapporteur), P. Jann, L. Sevo´ n, R. Schintgen and F. Macken,
Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,
Head of Division, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
20 September 2001, in which it has ruled:

Articles 6 and 8 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 12
EC and 17 EC) preclude entitlement to a non-contributory social
benefit, such as the minimex, from being made conditional, in the
case of nationals of Member States other than the host State where
they are legally resident, on their falling within the scope of
Regulation No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on the
freedom of movement for workers within the Community when no
such condition applies to nationals of the host Member State.

(1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 27 September 2001

in Case C-253/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Finanzgericht Bremen): Bacardi GmbH v Hauptzoll-
amt Bremerhaven (1)

(Community Customs Code and implementing regulation —
Repayment of import duties — Favourable tariff treatment
— Post-clearance production of certificate of authenticity —
Alteration of the tariff classification stated in the customs
declaration — Concept of ‘special situation’)

(2001/C 317/04)

(Language of the case: German)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-253/99: reference to the Court under Article 234
EC from the Finanzgericht Bremen (Germany) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Bacardi GmbH and Hauptzollamt Bremerhaven — on the
interpretation of Articles 236 and 239 of Council Regulation

10.11.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 317/3

(EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the
Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1), and of
Article 905(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93
of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation
of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (OJ 1993 L 253,
p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1676/96
of 30 July 1996 (OJ 1996 L 218, p. 1) — the Court
(Sixth Chamber) composed of: C. Gulmann, President of
the Chamber,
J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur),
F. Macken and N. Colneric, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate
General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
gave a judgment on 27 September 2001, the operative part of
which is as follows:

1. Article 236(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of
12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code
does not permit the repayment of import duties where, after a
complete customs declaration has been accepted by the customs
authorities and the goods covered by it have been released into
free circulation, the declarant presents a certificate of authenticity
by virtue of which the goods would, supposing the certificate to
have been produced with the goods, have been eligible for
favourable tariff treatment.

2.

remission of

The fact that repayment or remission of duties pursuant to
Article 236(1) of Regulation No 2913/92 is excluded because
one of the legal conditions laid down for that repayment or
remission has not been satisfied does not, of itself, exclude
those duties on the basis of
repayment or
Articles
and
Article 905(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93
of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation
of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92, as amended by Commission
Regulation (EC) No 1676/96 of 30 July 1996, provided
however that the legal conditions for the application of those
provisions are satisfied.

of Regulation No 2913/92

239(1)

Factors ‘which might constitute a special situation resulting
from circumstances in which no deception or obvious negligence
may be attributed to the person concerned’ for the purposes of
Article 905(1) of Regulation No 2454/93, as amended by
Regulation No 1676/96, exist where, having regard to the
objective of
fairness underlying Article 239 of Regulation
in an
No 2913/92,
exceptional situation as compared with other operators engaged
in the same business are found to exist. It is for the national
court to assess, on the basis of that criterion, whether factors
which might constitute such a special situation do exist,
necessitating examination of the file by the Commission.

factors liable to place the applicant

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 4 October 2001

in Case C-294/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Diikitiko Protodikio Athinon): Athinaiki Zithopiia AE
v Elliniko Dimosio (Greek State) (1)

(Taxation of company profits — Parent companies and
subsidiaries — Directive 90/435/EEC — Concept of with-
holding tax)

(2001/C 317/05)

(Language of the case: Greek)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-294/99: reference to the Court under Article 234
EC from the the Diikitiko Protodikio Athinon (Administrative
Court of First Instance, Athens), Greece, for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Athinaiki Zithopiia AE and Elliniko Dimosio (Greek State) —
on the interpretation of Article 5(1) of Council Directive
90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of
taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and
subsidiaries of different Member States (OJ 1990 L 225, p. 6)
— the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola,
(Rapporteur),
the Chamber, M. Wathelet
President of
D.A.O. Edward, P.
Judges; S. Alber,
Jann and L. Sevo´ n,
Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar,
has given a judgment on 4 October 2001, in which it has
ruled:

There is a withholding tax, within the meaning of Article 5(1) of
Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common
system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and
subsidiaries of different Member States, where national legislation
provides that, in the event of distribution of profits by a subsidiary (a
public limited company or equivalent company) to its parent company,
in order to determine the taxable profits of the subsidiary its total net
profits, including income which has been subject to special taxation
entailing extinction of tax liability and non-taxable income, must be
reincorporated into the basic taxable amount, when income falling
within those two categories would not be taxable on the basis of the
national legislation if they remained with the subsidiary and were not
distributed to the parent company.

(1) OJ C 265 of 18.9.1999.

(1) OJ C 314 of 30.10.1999.