Case C-400/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal d'instance du VIIème arrondissement de Paris by judgment of that Court of 21 August 2003 in the case of Waterman SA against Directeur Général des Douanes et Droits Indirects
Date: 2003-11-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, interpretation of the law, plastics

C 275/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

15.11.2003

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal d’in-
stance du VIIème arrondissement de Paris by judgment of
that Court of 21 August 2003 in the case of Waterman SA
against Directeur Général des Douanes et Droits Indirects

(Case C-400/03)

(2003/C 275/53)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal d’instance
du VIIème arrondissement de Paris of 21 August 2003,
received at the Court Registry on 26 September 2003, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Waterman SA against
Directeur Général des Douanes et Droits Indirects on the
following question:

Is the Explanatory Note to the Combined Nomenclature
relating to subheadings 4202 12 11 and 4202 12 19, which
clarifies the term ‘in the form of plastic sheeting’ as follows: ‘if
a container has an outer material that is a combination of
materials where the outer layer being visible to the naked eye
is plastic sheeting (e.g., woven fabric of textile fibres in
combination with plastic sheeting) it is irrelevant for classifi-
cation purposes whether the sheeting was manufactured
separately before creating the combined material or whether
the plastic layer is the result of applying a coating or covering
of plastics to the material ... provided that the resultant outer
layer being visible to the naked eye has the same visual
appearance as an applied layer of manufactured plastic sheet-
ing’, contrary to the tariff?

Do the provisions of Community law relating to restrictions
on the marketing of dangerous substances and preparations,
and in particular the provisions of Directive 76/769 (1) and
Directive 94/60 (2) of 20 December 1994, prohibit the placing
on the market for sale to the public of drying agent products
containing lead compounds classified as toxic for reproductive
purposes, or do those provisions permit the relevant dero-
gation laid down for ‘artists’ paints’ to be applied to those
products?

(1) Council Directive 76/769/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approxi-
mation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of
the Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing and
use of certain dangerous substances and preparations (OJ L 262
of 27.9.1976, p. 201).
(2) European Parliament

and Council Directive 94/60/EC of
20 December 1994 amending for the 14th time Directive 76/
769/EEC on the approximation of
the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions of the Member States relating to restric-
tions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances
and preparations (OJ L 365 of 31.12.1994, p. 1).

Action brought on 29 September 2003 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities against the Repub-
lic of Finland

(Case C-407/03)

(2003/C 275/55)

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de
Grande Instance du Mans by judgment of that Court of
8 September 2003 in the case of The Procureur de la
Republique against Oliver Dupuy and Hervé Rouvre

An action against
the Republic of Finland was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
29 September 2003 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by M. van Beek and M. Huttunen,
acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

(Case C-404/03)

(2003/C 275/54)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal de
Grande Instance du Mans (Regional Court, Le Mans) of
8 September 2003, received at the Court Registry on 29 Sep-
tember 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of The
Procureur de la Republique against Oliver Dupuy and Hervé
Rouvre on the following question:

The Commission claims that the Court should:

1. Declare that, by failing to require in its legislation with
sufficient legal certainty that an appropriate assessment
is to be made with respect to all projects, including those
impact
which are the subject of an ‘environmental
assessment’, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its
obligations under Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/
43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural
habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1);

2. Order the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.