Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 October 2001 in Case C-30/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal)): William Hinton & Sons Lda v Fazenda Pública, intervener: Ministério Público (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure Post-clearance recovery of import duties — Entry in the accounts of the import duties to be collected — Expiry of the time-limit for taking action for recovery — Article 254 of the Act of Accession of Spain and Portugal — Obligation incumbent on the Portuguese Republic to proceed, at its own costs, to the elimination of certain stocks of product)
Date: 2002-04-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Portugal, agricultural levy, customs regulations, interpretation of the law, sugar, surplus stock

C 84/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

6.4.2002

1. Declares that the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to
fulfil its obligations under Article 1(a) of Council Directive
75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by
Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991, and
Commission Decision 94/3/EC of 20 December 1993 estab-
lishing a list of wastes pursuant to Article 1(a) of Directive
75/442;

2. Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 200 of 14.7.2001.

1.

2.

The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

The parties shall bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.

ORDER OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 11 October 2001

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 27 November 2001

in Case C-208/99: Portuguese Republic v Commission of
the European Communities (1)

(EAGGF, Guidance Section — Decision of the Commission
withdrawing financial assistance granted under Article 8
of Regulation (EEC) No 4256/88 — Action for partial
annulment against the designation of a Member State as
recipient — Manifestly inadmissible)

in Case C-30/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal)): William
Hinton & Sons Lda v Fazenda Pu´ blica, intervener: Minis-
tério Pu´ blico (1)

(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure Post-clearance
recovery of import duties — Entry in the accounts of the
import duties to be collected — Expiry of the time-limit for
taking action for recovery — Article 254 of the Act of
Accession of Spain and Portugal — Obligation incumbent
on the Portuguese Republic to proceed, at its own costs, to
the elimination of certain stocks of product)

(2002/C 84/50)

(Language of the case: Portuguese)

(2002/C 84/49)

(Language of the case: Portuguese)

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

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

In Case C-208/99: Portuguese Republic (Agents: L. Fernandes,
Aˆ . Cortesa˜o de Seiça Neves and P. Fraga˜o) v Commission of
the European Communities (Agents: A.M. Alves Vieira and
P. Oliver) — application for partial annulment of C(1999)543,
C(1999)544 and C(1999)545 of 4 March 1999 withdrawing
the assistance granted to Belgravia Lda, Floreurop — Productos
Florestais Lda and Ordinal-Gesta˜o de Investimentos Lda
respectively under the Guidance Section of the European
Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) — the
Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: F. Macken, President,
N. Colneric, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur) and
V. Skouris, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass,
Registrar, gave a judgment on 27 November 2001,
the
operative part of which is as follows:

In Case C-30/00: reference to the Court under Article 234
EC from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Supreme
Administrative Tribunal)
for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings pending before that court between William Hin-
ton & Sons Lda and Fazenda Pu´ blica, intervener: Ministério
Pu´ blico — on the interpretation of Articles 1, 2 and 5 of
Council Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 of 24 July 1979 on the
post-clearance recovery of import duties or export duties
which have not been required of the person liable for payment
on goods entered for a customs procedure involving the
obligation to pay such duties (OJ 1979 L 197, p. 1), Article 254
of the 1985 Act concerning the conditions of accession and
the adjustments to the Treaties (OJ 1985 L 302, p. 23), Article 8
of Council Regulation (EEC) N3771/85 of 20 December 1985
on stocks of agricultural products in Portugal (OJ 1985 L 362,
p. 21) and Articles 4 and 8 of Commission Regulation (EEC)
No 579/86 of 28 February 1986 laying down detailed rules
relating to stocks of products in the sugar sector in Spain and

6.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 84/31

Portugal on 1 March 1986 (OJ 1986 57, p. 21) — the Court
(First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), President
of the Chamber, L. Sevo´ n and M. Wathelet, Judges; A. Tizzano,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on
11 October 2001, in which it has ruled:

— the person liable has complied with all of the provisions
laid down by the rules in force as far as concerns the
declaration of the event to which the collection of the levy
in question relates.

(1) OJ No C 122 of 29 April 2000.

1. Article 1(2)(c) and the second subparagraph of Article 2(1) of
Council Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 of 24 July 1979 on
the post-clearance recovery of import duties or export duties
which have not been required of the person liable for payment
on goods entered for a customs procedure involving the
obligation to pay such duties must be interpreted as meaning
that entry in the accounts of the amount originally required of
the person liable for payment is an official act which precedes
notification regarding recovery and actual recovery and which
does not necessarily consist in entry by the customs authority in
the accounts books, or any other medium used in their stead, of
the amount in question.

2. Article 2(2) of Regulation No 1697/79 must be interpreted as
meaning that, where an initial act determining the amount of
levies payable is annulled and replaced by a second act which,
without altering the basis for recovery, fixes such levies in an
amount lower than that which was initially decided, the action
for recovery must be considered to have been set in motion by
the initial act.

3. Neither Article 254 of the Act of Accession nor the provisions of
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3771/85 of 20 December
1985 on stocks of agricultural products in Portugal nor of
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 579/86 of 28 February
1986 laying down detailed rules relating to stocks of products
in Spain and Portugal preclude the
in the sugar sector
Portuguese Republic from requiring of traders holding surplus
stocks of sugar which they should have been able to export
within the period prescribed for that purpose to pay the levy
provided for by Article 7(1) of Regulation No 579/86.

4.

The customs authorities of a Member State must refrain from
to
carrying out post-clearance recovery of duties pursuant
Article 5(2) of Regulation No 1697/79 where:

— the duties have not been collected on account of an error
of interpretation or application of the provisions on the
levy in question in so far as it is the consequence of acts of
the competent authorities, which excludes errors caused by
incorrect declarations by the person liable

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

3 December 2001

in Case C-59/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Vestre Landsret): Bent Mousten Vestergaard v
Spøttrup Boligselskab (1)

(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Public works
contracts — Contracts with a value below the threshold
values laid down in Directive 93/37/EEC — Clause requiring
the use of a product of a specified make, without any
possibility of using a similar product — Free movement of
goods)

(2002/C 84/51)

(Language of the case: Danish)

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

In Case C-59/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings pending before that court between Bent
Mousten Vestergaard and Spøttrup Boligselskab, on the
interpretation of Articles 6 and 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after
amendment, Articles 12 EC and 28 EC), the Court (Second
Chamber) composed of: N. Colneric, President of the Chamber,
R. Schintgen and V. Skouris (Rapporteur), Judges, Advocate
General: P. Léger, Registrar: R. Grass, after informing the
referring court of its intention to give its decision by reasoned
order in accordance with Article 104(3) of the Rules of
Procedure, after inviting the parties referred to in Article 20 of
the EC Statute of the Court of Justice to submit observations,
has made an order on 3 December 2001, in which it has ruled:

Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC)
precludes a contracting authority from including in the contract
documents for a public works contract which does not exceed the
threshold laid down in Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June
1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of
public works contracts a clause requiring the use in carrying out the
contract of a product of a specified make, where that clause does not
include the words ‘or equivalent’.

— the person liable acting in good faith could not reasonably
have detected that error, despite his professional experience
and the diligence shown by him

(1) OJ C 122 of 29.4.2000.