Case C-246/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that Court of 7 May 2002 in the case of Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen against Ricardas Jonusas
Date: 2002-08-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: carriage of goods, customs formalities, interpretation of the law, road transport

C 202/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

24.8.2002

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Supre-
mo, Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo, Seccio´ n: Ter-
cera by order of that Court of 16 May 2002 in the
appeal brought by Asociacio´ n Profesional de Empresas de
Reparto y Manipulado de Correspondencia and Asocia-
cio´ n Nacional de Empresas de Externalizacio´ n y Gestio´ n
de Envı´os y Pequen˜ a Paqueterı´a

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-
hof by order of that Court of 7 May 2002 in the case of
Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen against Ricardas Jonusas

(Case C-246/02)

(2002/C 202/20)

(Case C-240/02)

(2002/C 202/19)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Tribunal Supremo, Sala
de lo Contencioso-Administrativo, Seccio´ n: Tercera (Supreme
Court, Contentious-Administrative Chamber, Third Section) of
16 May 2002, received at the Court Registry on 1st July 2002,
for a preliminary ruling in the appeal brought by Asociacio´ n
Profesional de Empresas de Reparto y Manipulado de Corres-
pondencia (Trade Association of Mail Delivery and Handling
Companies) and Asociacio´ n Nacional de Empresas de Exter-
nalizacio´ n y Gestio´ n de Envı´os y Pequen˜ a Paqueterı´a (National
Association of Companies dedicated to the Externalisation and
Handling of Letters and Small Packages) on the following
questions:

Does the interpretation of Recital 21 to Directive 97/67/EC (1)
permit the exclusion from ‘self-provision’ of postal services
provided by the sender (or another person acting exclusively
on his behalf), if that person is not also the receiver, if the
services are provided in the course of his commercial activity,
or carried out using the mailbag system or other similar
methods, or if self-provision disrupts the services reserved to
the universal service provider?

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of
the Bundesfinanzhof
(Federal Finance Court) of 7 May 2002, received at the Court
Registry on 8 July 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen against Ricardas Jonusas on the
following questions:

1.

Is Article 4(19) of the Customs Code to be interpreted as
meaning that the notification to the customs authorities
of the arrival at a particular place of goods introduced into
the Community customs territory must refer expressly
to goods which are hidden or concealed in secret
compartments?

2.

If Question 1 is answered affirmatively:

Is Article 40 of the Customs Code to be interpreted as
meaning that such notification must also be made by the
driver of a lorry who was not aware and should not have
been aware of the goods hidden or concealed in the lorry?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia Sezione
staccata di Brescia by order of that Court of 22 June 2002
in the case of Sintesi S.p.A. against Autorità per la
Vigilanza sui Lavori Pubblici; intervener: Ingg. Provera e
Carrassi S.p.A.

May money order services be included amongst those reserved
to the universal postal service provider?

(Case C-247/02)

(2002/C 202/21)

(1) Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of
the internal market of Community postal services and the
improvement of quality of service. (OJ L 15 of 21.1.1998, p. 14.)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Tribunale Amministra-
tivo Regionale per la Lombardia Sezione staccata di Brescia
(Lombardy Regional Administrative Court, Brescia Chamber)
of 22 June 2002, received at the Court Registry on 8 July
2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Sintesi S.p.A.
against Autorità per la Vigilanza sui Lavori Pubblici; intervener:
Ingg. Provera e Carrassi S.p.A. on the following questions: