Case C-379/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Østre Landsret by order of that Court of 15 October 2002 in the case of Skatteministeriet against Imexpo Trading A/S
Date: 2003-01-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, floor coverings, furniture industry, interpretation of the law, plastics

11.1.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 7/11

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Østre Landsret
by order of that Court of 15 October 2002 in the case of
Skatteministeriet against Imexpo Trading A/S

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger
Verwaltungssenat des Landes Vorarlberg by order of
that Court of 15 October 2002 in the case of Fantom
Gebäudereinigung Gesellschaft GmbH against Dornbirn

(Case C-379/02)

(2003/C 7/18)

(Case C-380/02)

(2003/C 7/19)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Østre Landsret of
15 October 2002, received at the Court Registry on 21 October
2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Skatteministeriet
against Imexpo Trading A/S on the following question:

Must Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (1) of
23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature, as
amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1734/96 (2) of
9 September 1996, Commission Regulation (EC) No 2086/
97 (3) of 4 November 1997, Commission Regulation (EC)
No 2261/98 (4) of 26 October 1998 and Commission Regu-
lation (EC) No 2204/99 (5) of 12 October 1999, be construed
as meaning that chairmats consisting of loose sheets of clear
plastic

— with straight, round or bevelled sides, which may be

machine-milled or cast

— with grippers on the under side for carpeted floors and
without grippers for wooden and other hard-surface
floors,

— with or without anti-slip film,

— with or without a punched handle,

— which are used as mats for chairs in order to protect the
existing floor covering or for reasons of ergonomics,

— and which are further described in the attached brochure

(Annex 1),

were to be classified, over the period from 15 July 1997 to
20 March 2000, as floor coverings of plastics under tariff
subheading 3918 10 90 90 in Chapter 39 or as furniture of
plastics under tariff subheading 9403 70 90 00 in Chapter 94?

( 1) OJ L 256, p. 1.
( 2) OJ L 238, p. 1.
( 3) OJ L 312, p. 1.
( 4) OJ L 292, p. 1.
( 5) OJ L 278, p. 1.

Reference has been made to the Court of
Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Unabhängiger Verwal-
tungssenat des Landes Vorarlberg (independent administrative
chamber for Vorarlberg) of 15 October 2002, received at the
Court Registry on 21 October 2002, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Fantom Gebäudereinigung Gesellschaft GmbH
against Dornbirn on the following questions:

Question 1

Is Article 1(3) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 Decem-
ber 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions relating to the application of review
procedures to the award of public supply and public works
contracts (1)
to be interpreted as meaning that under it
entitlement to apply for a review procedure is available to any
person seeking to receive a specific public contract whose
award is pending, irrespective of whether such person has
suffered or may suffer loss as a result of the infringement of
the law alleged?

Question 2

In the event that the answer to Question 1 is no:

Is the abovementioned provision of
the directive to be
construed as meaning that, where a bid was not eliminated by
the contracting authority but the review body assumes and
establishes as a preliminary matter that the bid had properly
to be eliminated, an alleged infringement of the law — namely
the contracting authority’s acceptance of another bid as the
best bid, has occasioned or may occasion loss to the bidder
concerned, and the review procedure must
therefore be
available to that bidder?

(1) OJ L 395 [1989], p. 33.