Judgment of the Court of 10 December 2002 in Case C-491/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court): The Queen v Secretary of State for Health, ex parte: British American Tobacco (Investments) Ltd and Imperial Tobacco Ltd, supported by Japan Tobacco Inc. and JT International SA (Directive 2001/37/EC — Manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products — Validity — Legal basis — Articles 95 EC and 133 EC — Interpretation — Applicability to tobacco products manufactured in the Community and intended for export to non-member countries)
Date: 2003-02-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer information, export, interpretation of the law, marketing, tobacco, tobacco industry

8.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 31/3

preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between F. W. L. de Groot and Staatssecretaris van
Financiën, on the interpretation of Article 48 of the EC Treaty
(now, after amendment, Article 39 EC) and Article 7 of
Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October
1968 on freedom of movement
for workers within the
Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475), the
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet (Rappor-
the Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans,
teur), President of
D.A.O. Edward, P.
Judges; P. Léger,
Jann and A. Rosas,
Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Administrator, for the Regis-
trar, has given a judgment on 12 December 2002, in which it
has ruled:

1. Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39
EC) precludes
issue in the main
rules such as those at
proceedings — irrespective of whether or not they are laid down
in a convention for the avoidance of double taxation — whereby
a taxpayer forfeits, in the calculation of the income tax payable
by him in his State of residence, part of the tax-free amount of
that income and of his personal tax advantages because, during
the year in question, he also received income in another Member
State which was taxed in that State without his personal and
family circumstances being taken into account.

2.

Community law contains no specific requirement with regard to
the way in which the State of residence must take into account
the personal and family circumstances of a worker who, during
a particular tax year, received income in that State and in
another Member State, except that the conditions governing the
way in which the State of residence takes those circumstances
into account must not constitute discrimination, either direct or
indirect, on grounds of nationality, or an obstacle to the exercise
of a fundamental freedom guaranteed by the EC Treaty.

( 1) OJ C 372 of 23.12.2000.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 12 December 2002

in Case C-281/01: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v Council of the European Union (1)

(International agreements — Community competence —
Legal basis — Articles 133 EC and 175(1) EC — Energy
Star Agreement — Energy-efficient labelling programmes
for office equipment)

(2003/C 31/05)

(Language of the case: English)

cation for annulment of Council Decision 2001/469/EC of
14 May 2001 concerning the conclusion on behalf of the
European Community of the Agreement between the Govern-
ment of the United States of America and the European
Community on the coordination of energy-efficient labelling
programs for office equipment (OJ 2001 L 172, p. 1), the Court
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet
(Rapporteur),
President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola,
P. Jann and S. von Bahr, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General;
H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
a judgment on 12 December 2002, in which it:

1. Annuls Council Decision 2001/469/EC of 14 May 2001
concerning the conclusion on behalf of the European Community
of the Agreement between the Government of the United States
of America and the European Community on the coordination
of energy-efficient labelling programs for office equipment;

2. Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 275 of 29.9.2001.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 10 December 2002

in Case C-491/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s
Bench Division (Administrative Court): The Queen v
Secretary of State for Health, ex parte: British American
Tobacco (Investments) Ltd and Imperial Tobacco Ltd,
supported by Japan Tobacco Inc. and JT International
SA (1)

(Directive 2001/37/EC — Manufacture, presentation and
sale of tobacco products — Validity — Legal basis —
Articles 95 EC and 133 EC — Interpretation — Applicability
to tobacco products manufactured in the Community and
intended for export to non-member countries)

(2003/C 31/06)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case C-281/01, Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: H. van Lier and B. Martenczuk) v Council of the
European Union (Agents: J.-P. Jacqué and E. Karlsson): Appli-

In Case C-491/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Queen’s
Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that

C 31/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.2.2003

court between The Queen and Secretary of State for Health, ex
parte: British American Tobacco (Investments) Ltd and
Imperial Tobacco Ltd, supported by Japan Tobacco Inc. and JT
International SA, on the validity and interpretation of Directive
2001/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
5 June 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning
the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products
(OJ 2001 L 194, p. 26), the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrí-
guez Iglesias, President,
J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet,
R. Schintgen and C.W.A. Timmermans (Presidents of Cham-
bers), D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur), P. Jann,
V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and J.N. Cunha
Rodrigues, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; L. Hew-
lett, Principal Administrator, and M.-F. Contet, Administrator,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 December 2002,
in which it has ruled:

1.

Consideration of the first question has not disclosed any factor
of such a kind as to affect the validity of Directive 2001/37/
EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June
2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the
manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products.

2. Article 7 of Directive 2001/37 is to be construed as applying
only to tobacco products marketed within the European
Community.

( 1) OJ C 56 of 02.03.2002.

Action brought on 8 November 2002 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
Denmark

(Case C-392/02)

(2003/C 31/07)

has failed to fulfil its obligations under Community law
and in particular infringed Article 10 EC and Articles 2
and 8 of Council Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom of
31 October 1994 on the system of
the European
Communities own resources (1);

— order the Kingdom of Denmark to pay the costs of the

present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

the Community financing scheme,

The Community Customs Code regulates the relationship
between undertakings and the national authorities, which
governs the collection of the traditional own resources on
behalf of the Community, whereas the relationship between
the Community and the Member States is regulated by the
is,
provisions of
that
in particular, Council Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom,
the
implementing provisions of Council Regulation No 1552/
89 (2) and also the general obligations under Article 10 EC.
The fact that a purely technical link is created between the two
aforementioned sets of rules, in that Regulation No 1552/89
covers to a certain extent various stages which under the
Community Customs Code are carried out as part of the
determination of the amount of duty owing and the rules for
collection thereof, has no bearing on the issue of national
authorities’ financial liability to the Community for any errors
committed in the course of collecting the traditional own
resources. The protection given to the person liable for
payment by the Customs Code, in particular Article 220(2)(b)
thereof, cannot be relied on by the Member State as against
the Commission when that Member State has not collected the
resources in question. If a Member State fails to collect the
traditional own resources, it can, subject to certain conditions,
be freed from the obligation to place those resources at the
disposal of the Commission only under Article 17 of Regu-
lation No 1552/89.

An action against the Kingdom of Denmark was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
8 November 2002 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by H.P. Hartvig and G Wilms, acting
as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— rule that since the Danish authorities have not transferred
to the Commission an amount of DKK 140 409,60 from
its own resources together with default interest thereon
as from 20 December 1999, the Kingdom of Denmark

In a number of cases in the period 1996-1997 the Danish
authorities allowed the zero-rated import of frozen sugar peas
from the People’s Republic of China, despite the fact that the
undertaking in question did not have a permit to import the
goods at such a rate because of their particular end-use. There
were even divergent opinions amongst the regional Danish
authorities, which led to a finding on the part of
the
Commission, at the request of the Danish authorities and
pursuant to Article 220(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community
Customs Code (3) that, due to an error on the part of the
Danish authorities, it could not require the importer to pay
duty for any of the imports in question.