Case C-272/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that Court of 13 May 2003 in the proceedings between Hauptzollamt Neubrandenburg and Jens Christian Siig, trading as "Internationale Transport" Export-Import
Date: 2003-09-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: commercial vehicle, customs regulations, customs territory (EU), extra-EU trade, interpretation of the law, vehicle registration

6.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/13

value of the product/service, the size of the market for
the product/service or the effect of a new national
provision on use, which could be either a total prohibition
on use or prohibition or restriction within one of many
possible areas of use?

a view to being transported subsequently by another road
tractor to the consignee of the goods, who is established
outside the customs territory of the Community?

(1) OJ L 253 of 11.10.1993, p. 1.

( 1) of 28 March 1983 laying down a procedure for the provision of
information in the field of technical standards and regulations (OJ
L 109 of 26.04.1983, p. 8).

( 2) of 22 March 1988 amending Directive 83/189/EEC laying down
a procedure for the provision of information in the field of
technical standards and regulations (OJ L 81 of 26.03.1988,
p. 75).

( 3) of 23 March 1994 materially amending for the second time
Directive 83/189/EEC laying down a procedure for the provision
of information in the field of technical standards and regulations
(OJ L 100 of 19.04.1994, p. 30).

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-
hof by order of that Court of 13 May 2003 in the
proceedings between Hauptzollamt Neubrandenburg and
Jens Christian Siig, trading as ‘Internationale Transport’
Export-Import

(Case C-272/03)

(2003/C 213/22)

Action brought on 25 June 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Portuguese
Republic

(Case C-275/03)

(2003/C 213/23)

An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 25 June
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by António Caeiros and Klaus Wiedner, acting as
Agents.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Declare that, by failing to transpose correctly and com-
pletely Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December
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), the Portuguese Republic has
failed to fulfil its obligations under Community law;

— Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
the Bundesfinanzhof
European Communities by order of
(Federal Finance Court) of 13 May 2003, received at the Court
Registry on 24 June 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings between Hauptzollamt Neubrandenburg and Jens
Christian Siig, trading as ‘Internationale Transport’ Export-
Import on the following question:

in conjunction with Article 670(p) of
Is Article 718(3)(d)
Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (1) to be interpreted as meaning
that
that regulation prohibits the use of a road tractor
registered outside the customs territory of the Community to
transport a semi-trailer from a place within the customs
territory of the Community, where the semi-trailer is loaded
with goods, to another place within the customs territory of
the Community, where the semi-trailer is merely parked with

Pleas in law and main arguments

Portuguese law as it stands makes the award of damages for
infringements of Community law in the field of public
procurement or national rules implementing that law subject
to proof, by the person harmed by the infringment, that the
misconduct of the State or of the public body was culpably or
maliciously intended by the relevant body or office holders or
administrative officials. Such evidence can be extremely diffi-
cult or impossible to produce. The difficulty or impossibility
of producing such evidence may result in persons harmed by
an infringement not obtaining the compensation to which
they are entitled. It is therefore clear that that obligation, not
provided for by Directive 89/665, on persons who have
suffered damage is likely to undermine the effectiveness of
Article 2(1)(c) of that directive.