Case C-170/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by judgment of that Court of 11 April 2003 in the appeal in cassation by the State Secretary for Finances against Mr J.H.M. Feron
Date: 2003-06-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: CCT duties, interpretation of the law, motor car, personal effects, work

C 146/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.6.2003

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden by judgment of that Court of 11 April 2003
in the appeal in cassation by the State Secretary for
Finances against Mr J.H.M. Feron

1.

a.

(Case C-170/03)

(2003/C 146/52)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden (Netherlands Supreme Court) of 11 April 2003,
received at the Court Registry on 14 April 2003, for a
preliminary ruling in the appeal
in cassation by the State
Secretary for Finances against Mr J.H.M. Feron on the following
questions:

1. Must a car which is made available to a natural person by
his employer and is used by him for both business and
private purposes be regarded as personal property within
the meaning of Article 1(2)(c) of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 918/83 (1) of 28 March 1983 setting up a Community
system of reliefs from customs duty?

2. Must Article 3(a) of that regulation requiring property to
have been in the possession of the person concerned at
least six months before the date on which he gave up his
normal place of residence in the country of origin be
interpreted as meaning that the person concerned who
has had property made available to him, albeit free of
charge, in the context of his employment by the owner
of the property in question, is to be deemed to be in
possession of
the
abovementioned provision?

the property for the purposes of

3.

Is it material to the reply to be given to Question 2 that
during the whole period of six months the person
concerned had the right to buy the car?

( 1) OJ L 105 [1983], p. 1.

b.

c.

Is Article 3(2)(c) of Regulation (EEC, Euratom)
No 1182/71 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a
period expressed in weeks such as that laid down by
Article 50a of Regulation (EEC) No 3886/92 (2) ends
with the expiry of whichever day in the last week is
the same day of the week as the day following the
day on which the slaughter took place?

Is a Member State free, when applying Article 50a
of Regulation (EEC) No 3886/92, to establish the
time at which a premium application has been
to national rules of procedure
lodged pursuant
which apply within the national legal system of that
Member State to comparable, national periods for
making applications?

If not, must Article 50a of Regulation (EEC)
No 3886/92 be interpreted as meaning that a
premium application has been ‘lodged’ in due time
if it can be shown to have been posted prior to the
expiry of the three-week period and to have been
received by the competent authority at such a time
that it could have communicated the relevant data
to the Commission on the same day as would have
been the case had the premium application been
received by the competent authority within that
period?

2.

Is Article 50a(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 3886/92 valid in
so far as it prevents applicants from receiving the full
amount of the premium in respect of each occasion on
which the period for making applications is exceeded,
irrespective of the way in which and extent to which this
is done?

(1) OJ L 124 of 8.6.1971, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 391 of 31.12.1992, p. 20.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van
Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven by judgment of that Court
of 2 April 2003 in the proceedings between 1. Maatschap
Toeters, 2. M.C. Verberk, trading under the name of ‘firma
Verbek-Voeten’ and Productschap Vee en Vlees

Action brought on 16 April 2003 against the French
Republic by the Commission of the European Communi-
ties

(Case C-171/03)

(2003/C 146/53)

(Case C-177/03)

(2003/C 146/54)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the College van Beroep
voor het bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court for Trade and
Industry) of 2 April 2003, received at the Court Registry on
14 April 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
between 1. Maatschap Toeters, 2. M.C. Verberk, trading under
the name of ‘firma Verbek-Voeten’ and Productschap Vee en
Vlees on the following questions:

An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 16 April
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Jürgen Grunwald and Bruno Stromsky, acting
as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.