Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 May 2003 in Case C-335/02: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Incomplete transposition of Directive 89/391/EEC — Safety and health of workers)
Date: 2003-07-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Luxembourg, accident prevention, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, application of EU law, occupational health, occupational safety

C 171/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

19.7.2003

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 22 May 2003

(Fourth Chamber)

of 22 May 2003

in Case C-56/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
IHW Rebmann GmbH v
from the Bundesfinanzhof):

Hauptzollamt Weiden (1)

(Free movement of goods — Trade with third countries —
Procedure for returned goods — Article 187 of Regulation
(EEC) No 2913/92 — Reimportation of compensating
products originally re-exported subsequent to an inward
processing procedure — Determination of the import duty
legally owed — Burden of proof in respect of the proportion
of the value of the reimported products corresponding to
inward processing)

in Case C-335/02: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Incomplete
transposition of Directive 89/391/EEC — Safety and health
of workers)

(2003/C 171/11)

(2003/C 171/10)

(Language of the case: French)

(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-56/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings pending before that court between IHW
Rebmann GmbH and Hauptzollamt Weiden, on the interpret-
ation of the second paragraph of Article 187 of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing
the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1), the
Court (First Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of
the Chamber, P.
Judges;
D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Princi-
pal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
22 May 2002, in which it has ruled:

Jann and A. Rosas (Rapporteur),

The second paragraph of Article 187 of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community
Customs Code must be interpreted as meaning that, where an
importer has provided proof that the imported goods are compensating
products qualifying for application of the procedure for returned
goods under Article 848 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/
93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of
Regulation No 2913/92, but is unable to provide all the information
necessary for calculating the duty legally owed, the administrative
cooperation procedure provided for in Articles 611(2)(b) and 613 of
Regulation No 2454/93 must be used by the customs authorities
responsible for accepting the declaration. Those authorities must
therefore ask the supervising customs office, using the INF 1 sheet, to
communicate to them the amount of duty legally owed.

In Case C-335/02, Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: H. Kreppel and D. Martin) v Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg (Agent: S. Schreiner): Application for a declar-
ation that, by failing to define the necessary capabilities and
aptitudes for persons designated to carry out activities related
to protection against and prevention of occupational risks, the
Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations
under Articles 10 EC and 249 EC and Article 7(8) of Council
Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of
measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health
of workers at work (OJ 1989 L 183, p. 1), the Court (Fourth
Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of
the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and S. von Bahr (Rapporteur),
Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,
has given a judgment on 22 May 2003, in which it:

1. Declares that, by failing to define the necessary capabilities and
aptitudes for persons designated to carry out activities related to
protection against and prevention of occupational risks, the
Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations
under Article 7(8) of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of
12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage
improvements in the safety and health of workers at work.

2. Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

( 1) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.

(1) OJ C 261, 26.10.2002.