Case C-411/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal d'Instance de Metz, by judgment of that court of 8 October 2001, in the case of SA GEFCO v Receveur Principal des Douanes
Date: 2001-12-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: CCT duties, customs regulations, import, interpretation of the law, legal code, outward processing

22.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 369/9

the view — which is challenged by the Netherlands —
that not only imports of mixtures of sugar and cocoa
with EC/OCT originating status, but also imports of
mixtures of sugar and cocoa with ACP/OCT originating
status, have an adverse effect on the sugar sector, it has
failed in any way whatever to substantiate this;

— Infringement of Article 109(2) of the OCT Decision: the
Commission has failed to ensure that
the safeguard
measures adopted pursuant to the contested regulation
will cause as little disruption as possible to the functioning
of the association. The Commission has also failed to
determine whether those safeguard measures will have
the intended effect. Finally, the safeguard measures which
have been adopted go further than is necessary: a
safeguard measure providing simply for a minimum
import price for ACP/OCT mixtures would have been
adequate to achieve the desired objective and would have
been less onerous for the OCT and the undertakings
concerned;

— Misuse of powers: Article 109 of the OCT Decision does
not confer on the Commission any discretionary power
to correct or supplement the opportunities for ACP/OCT
originating status intended by the Council in cases where
the use of such an opportunity has consequences which
were envisaged or even intended when the OCT Decision
was adopted;

— Infringement of the principle of the protection of legit-

imate expectations;

— Infringement of Article 253 EC: the safeguard measure in
issue is in no way whatever supported by facts or figures.

(1) OJ C ... of ..., p. ...

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal d’In-
stance de Metz, by judgment of that court of 8 October
2001, in the case of SA GEFCO v Receveur Principal des
Douanes

(Case C-411/01)

(2001/C 369/15)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal d’Instan-
ce (District Court), Metz, of 8 October 2001, which was
received at the Court Registry on 17 October 2001, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of SA GEFCO v Receveur
Principal des Douanes on the following questions:

Upon triangular outward processing, is an operator prohibited,
upon a proper interpretation of Articles 145 to 151 of the
Community Customs Code (Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92) (1)
from deducting, on release of compensating products for free
circulation, the amount of the import duties which would be
applicable to the temporary export goods in accordance with
their correct tariff heading where their tariff heading declared
on their exportation was different because it was incorrect?

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992
establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ L 302 of
19.10.1992, p. 1).

Action brought on 19 October 2001 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
Belgium

(Case C-415/01)

(2001/C 369/16)

An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
19 October 2001 by the Commission of
the European
Communities, represented by G.V. Jordana and J. Adda, acting
as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Declare that, inasmuch as the Flemish Region and the
Walloon Region have failed to transpose Article 4(1) and
(2) of and Annex I to Council Directive 79/409/EEC (1),
to define special protection areas within their territories
which are capable of being relied upon as against third
parties and to take the measures necessary to ensure that
the classification of a site as a special protection area
automatically and simultaneously entails the application
of a system of protection and conservation which is in
line with Community law, the Kingdom of Belgium has
failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and (2) of
Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the
conservation of wild birds, together with Article 4(4)
thereof, as partially amended, in accordance with Article 7
of Directive 92/43/EEC (2), by Article 6(2), (3) and (4) of
that same directive,