Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 November 2001 in Case C-80/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d'Instance de Châteauroux): Michel SARL v Recettes des douanes (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Question the answer to which may manifestly be deduced from the case-law — Directive 92/12/EEC — General arrangements for, holding, movement and monitoring of products subject to excise duty — Directive 92/81/EEC — Harmonization of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils — Non-reimbursement of an internal tax on petroleum products)
Date: 2002-04-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: France, excise duty, interpretation of the law, mineral oil, petroleum product, tax system

C 84/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

6.4.2002

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

2. Anton Dürbeck GmbH shall pay the costs.

3.

The French Republic and the Kingdom of Spain shall bear their
own cost.

(1) OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001.

Article 3(a) and (b) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
Article 3(a) and (b) EC), the first recital in the preamble to, and
Article 3(2) of, Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992
on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and
on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products and the
sixth and eighth recitals in the preamble to Council Directive
92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the
structures of excise duties on mineral oils of 19 October 1992 on
the harmonization of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils
must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude a Member
State refusing, upon the failure to pay by the customer of a trader in
petroleum products, to reimburse an excise duty such as the domestic
duty on petroleum products paid by such a trader.

ORDER OF THE COURT

(1) OJ C 108 of 7.4.2001.

(First Chamber)

of 22 November 2001

in Case C-80/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal d’Instance de Châteauroux): Michel SARL v
Recettes des douanes (1)

(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Question the
answer to which may manifestly be deduced from the case-
law — Directive 92/12/EEC — General arrangements for,
holding, movement and monitoring of products subject to
excise duty — Directive 92/81/EEC — Harmonization of
the structures of excise duties on mineral oils — Non-
reimbursement of an internal tax on petroleum products)

(2002/C 84/56)

(Language of the case: French)

ORDER OF THE COURT

of 24 October 2001

in Case C-186/01 R (reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart): Alexander Dory
v Federal Republic of Germany (1)

(Applications for interim relief — Preliminary reference
procedure — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

(2002/C 84/57)

(Language of the case: German)

(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-80/01: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
from the Tribunal d’Instance (District Court), Châteauroux
(France), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Michel SARL and Recettes des
douanes — on the interpretation of Article 3(a) and (b) of the
EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 3(a) and (b) EC), the
first recital in the preamble to, and Article 3(2) of, Council
Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general
arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the
holding, movement and monitoring of such products (OJ
1992 L 76, p. 1), and the sixth and eighth recitals in the
preamble to Council Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992
on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on
mineral oils of 19 October 1992 on the harmonization of the
structures of excise duties on mineral oils (OJ 1992 L 316,
p. 12), the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann,
President of Chamber, L. Sevo´ n and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur),
Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a
judgment on 22 November 2001, the operative part of which
is as follows:

In Case C-186/01 R: reference to the Court under Article 234
EC from the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart (Germany) for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Alexander Dory and The Federal Republic of
Germany — on the interpretation of Article 2 of Council
Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implemen-
tation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women
as regards access to employment, vocational training and
promotion, and working conditions (OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40) —
the Court has made an order on 24 October 2001 in which it
has ruled as follows:

The application for interim relief is inadmissible.

(1) OJ C 200 of 14.7.2001.