Case C-382/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supreme Court, Ireland, by order of that court dated 2 April 2003, in the case of Ryanair Ltd against Aer Rianta cpt
Date: 2003-11-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: airport, interpretation of the law, right to stopover

C 275/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

15.11.2003

Furthermore,
the substantive amendments made by the
Council following the Opinion of the Parliament give rise to a
the Parliament’s rights under the co-decision
claim that
procedure under Article 251 EC were infringed.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzh-
of by order of that Court of 30 July 2003 in the case of
Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas against Käserei Champig-
non Hofmeister GmbH & Co. KG

Finally the Federal Government claims in the alternative that
the principle of proportionality has been infringed since the
total bans provided for in Articles 3 and 4 on advertising in
the press and/or printed publications as well as on the radio
and the internet deliberately and specifically target local or
regional situations with no cross-border element almost
exclusively, with the result that the extensive prohibitions,
within the meaning of Article 14(1) EC on the improvement
of the internal market, are not necessary and are therefore
disproportionate. The infringement of the principle of pro-
portionality is all the more serious because the prohibitions
have a significant adverse effect on the basic right of freedom
of thought and press freedom, owing to the excessively
broad and unspecific definition of the terms ‘advertising’ in
Article 2(b) and ‘the press and other printed publications’ in
Articles 1(a) and 3 of the Directive.

(1) OJ L 152, p. 16.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supreme Court,
Ireland, by order of that court dated 2 April 2003, in the
case of Ryanair Ltd against Aer Rianta cpt

(Case C-385/03)

(2003/C 275/48)

Reference has been made to the Court of
Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof
(Federal Finance Court) of 30 July 2003, received at the Court
Registry on 12 September 2003, for a preliminary ruling in
the case of Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas against Käserei
Champignon Hofmeister GmbH & Co. KG on the following
question:

Must the first and second subparagraphs of Article 11(1) of
Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 (1), as amended by Regulation
(EC) No 2945/94 (2), be interpreted — also in the light of
the principle of proportionality — as meaning that false
information relating to individual items listed in the export
declaration, which could result in the exporter receiving a
higher export refund than that to which it is entitled, is by
itself sufficient to give rise to a punitive reduction in the export
refund in the amount set out in those provisions, even though
the exporter expressly stated in connection with the separate
application for payment which must be submitted under
national law that it would not be applying for an export refund
in respect of the relevant items in the export declaration?

(Case C-382/03)

(2003/C 275/47)

(1) OJ L 351 of 14.12.1987, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 310 of 3.12.1994, p. 57.

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Supreme Court,
Ireland, dated 2 April 2003, which was received at the Court
Registry on 10 September 2003, for a preliminary ruling in
the case of Ryanair Ltd and Aer Rianta cpt on the following
questions:

A.

B.

Is an airport check-in desk an ‘airport installation’ within
the meaning of Article 16 (3) of the Directive (1)?

If the answer to A is in the affirmative, is a rent charged
for the exclusive right to occupy a particular check-in
desk for a period of one year or greater a fee for access to
airport installations within the meaning of Article 16 (3)
of the Directive?

(1) Council Directive 96/67/EC of 15 October 1996 on access to
the groundhandling market at Community airports OJ L 272,
25.10.1996, p. 36-45.

Action brought on 5 September 2003 by the Kingdom of
the Netherlands against the Commission of the European
Communities

(Case C-388/03)

(2003/C 275/49)

An action against the Commission was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 September
2003 by the Kingdom of the Netherlands, represented by
H.G. Sevenster, Head of the European Law Division of the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs in The Hague.