Case C-467/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte di Appello di Genova by order of that court of 15 November 2001 in the case of Ministero delle Finanze and Eurico Italia SpA
Date: 2002-02-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law, agricultural product, customs duties, export refund, interpretation of the law

16.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 44/7

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte di Appello
di Genova by order of that court of 15 November 2001
in the case of Ministero delle Finanze and Eurico Italia
SpA

Article 47(2) of that regulation) to be granted further
time and may it fix that duration on the basis of the time
actually taken to obtain and forward the prescribed
documentation?

(1) OJ L 351, 14.12.1987, p. 1.

(Case C-467/01)

(2002/C 44/12)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Corte di Appello di
Genova (Genoa Court of Appeal) by order of 15 November
2001, which was received at the Court Registry on 6 December
2001, on the following questions:

1. On the basis of the combined provisions of Articles 47(4)
and 48 of Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 (1), must it be
concluded that (a) the further time which may be granted
to an exporter may not in any circumstances exceed the
maximum duration of 18 months; or (b) that, conversely,
the reduction of 15 % applies only where the ordinary
time-limit and any extension thereof granted to the
exporter is exceeded by more than six months?

If the interpretation given in question 1(b) above is
correct, are there, on the basis of the two abovementioned
articles, maximum time-limits — in the light of the
various forms, including those indicated in the grounds
of this order, which they may take from the Community
law point of view — within which the extensions of time
may be granted?

If the interpretation given in question 1(b) is correct,
what are those maximum time-limits and what extensions
of time are available under the two abovementioned
articles?

If the interpretation given in question 1(b) is correct,
may a private individual, on the basis of
the two
abovementioned articles, claim a legally protected right
to the setting of a particular duration (regarded as
commensurate with the difficulties of obtaining the
prescribed documentation) for the extension of time?

2.

3.

4.

5.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Civile
e Penale di Trento (Civil and Criminal Court, Trento) by
order of 6 December 2001 in the case of Francesca Caprini
v Conservatore C.C.I.A.A.

(Case C-485/01)

(2002/C 44/13)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 6 December 2001 by the
Tribunale Civile e Penale di Trento, which was received at the
Court Registry on 14 December 2001, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Francesca Caprini v Conservatore C.C.I.A.A. on
the following questions:

Does Council Directive 86/653/EEC (1) of 18 December 1986
on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating
to self-employed commercial agents preclude a rule of national
law which makes the enrolment of a commercial agent in the
register of undertakings conditional on that agent’s name
having been entered in an appropriate register?

(1) OJ L 382, 31.12.1986, p. 17.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden by decision of 14 December 2001 in the case
of Gemeente Leusden and Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-487/01)

(2002/C 44/14)

If the interpretation given in question 1(b) is correct, may
the national court, on the basis of the two abovemen-
tioned articles — if the administrative authority fails to
grant further time — recognise the exporter’s right (if he
has acted diligently to obtain the documents and forward
them within the period of 12 months laid down in

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by decision of 14 December 2001 by
the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of
the
Netherlands), which was received at the Court Registry on
17 December 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Gemeente Leusden and Staatssecretaris van Financiën on the
following questions: