Case C-409/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that Court of 15 July 2003 in the proceedings between SEPA Société d'Exportation de Produits Agricoles S.A. and Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
Date: 2003-11-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: agricultural product, export refund, interpretation of the law

C 275/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

15.11.2003

— the possibility of giving notification of an order to leave
the territory to citizens of the Union who have not
produced the documents necessary for the issue of a
residence permit within the prescribed period.

A Member State may refuse or terminate the right of
residence of a citizen of the Union only if the conditions
of this right are not or are no longer fulfilled. By contrast,
the fact that the administrative procedures for the grant
of the residence permit evidencing the right have not
been complied with may not lead to a penalty such as
refusal to grant the right of residence or removal from
the territory, which would effectively deny the actual
right of residence conferred and guaranteed by the Treaty.
The notification of an order to leave the territory may be
based not on exclusively administrative grounds, but on
facts leading to the conclusion that the person concerned
does not fulfil the conditions set for his right of residence
by one of the relevant directives.

(1) OJ 1990 L 180, p. 26.
(2) OJ English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 485.
(3) OJ 1973 L 172, p. 14.
(4) OJ 1993 L 317, p. 59.
(5) OJ 1990 L 180, p. 28.

ple, the ordering of a specific inspection as to fitness
for human consumption or a restriction to certain
distribution channels?

2. Does the concept of ‘fair marketable quality’ in Article 13
of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 Nov-
ember 1987 require that the product to be exported be
of average quality, and does it therefore disqualify from
the grant of an export refund a product of inferior quality,
which, however, usually appears under the description of
the object of trade given in the refund application? Is that
also the case where the inferior quality has in no way
affected the completion of the commercial transaction?

(1) OJ L 351, p. 1.

Action brought on 2 October 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities against Ireland

(Case C-413/03)

(2003/C 275/58)

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzh-
of by order of that Court of 15 July 2003 in the
proceedings between SEPA Société d’Exportation de
Produits Agricoles S.A. and Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 2 October 2003 by
the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by Mr Xavier Lewis, acting as agent, with an address for service
in Luxembourg.

(Case C-409/03)

(2003/C 275/57)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof
(Federal Finance Court) of 15 July 2003, received at the Court
Registry on 1 October 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings between SEPA Société d’Exportation de Produits
Agricoles S.A. and Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas on the
following questions:

1. Does the concept of ‘fair marketable quality’ in Article 13
of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 (1) of
27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules
for the application of the system of export refunds on
agricultural products require that the manufacture and
distribution of the products in question be subject only
to generally valid legal conditions as they apply to any
product of that type, and does it consequently disqualify
from the grant of an export refund a product to which
special restrictions apply,
in particular as regards its
production, treatment or distribution, such as, for exam-

The Applicant claims that the Court should:

1)

declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release
into the environment of genetically modified organisms
and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC (1), or by
failing to notify such provisions to the Commission,
Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 34
of this Directive.

2)

order Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period within which the directive had to be transposed
expired on 17 October 2002.

(1) OJ L 106, 17.4.2001, p. 1.