Case C-461/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van Beroep voor het bedrĳfsleven by order of that Court of 24 October 2003 in the case of Gaston Schul Douane-Expediteur B.V. against the Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit
Date: 2004-01-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: customs duties, import, interpretation of the law, representative price, sugar

C 7/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

10.1.2004

Action brought on 30 October 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities against Ireland

(Case C-459/03)

(2004/C 7/39)

An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 30 October 2003 by
the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by P.J. Kuijper and B. Martenczuk, acting as agents, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.

The Applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by instituting dispute settlement proceedings
against the United Kingdom under the UN Convention
for the Law of the Sea concerning the MOX Plant located
at Sellafield, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations
under Article 10 and 292 EC and Article 192 and 193
Euratom;

— order Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission submits that
Ireland has instituted the
proceedings against the United Kingdom without taking due
account of the fact that the European Community is a party to
the UN Convention for the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). It has
further failed to appreciate that the provisions of UNCLOS
invoked by it, as well as a number of other Community acts
invoked by Ireland, are provisions of Community law. By
submitting the dispute to a Tribunal outside the Community
legal order, Ireland has violated the exclusive jurisdiction of
the Court of Justice enshrined in Articles 292 EC and 193
Euratom. Furthermore, Ireland has also violated the duty of
cooperation incumbent on it under Articles 10 EC and 192
Euratom.

Industry) of 24 October 2003, received at the Court Registry
on 4 November 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Gaston Schul Douane-Expediteur B.V. against the Minister van
Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit on the following
questions:

1.

Is a court or tribunal as referred to in the third paragraph
of Article 234 EC also required under that provision to
submit to the Court of Justice a question such as that set
out below, concerning the validity of provisions of a
regulation where the Court of Justice has ruled that
analogous provisions of another, comparable regulation
are invalid, or may it refrain from applying the first-
mentioned provisions in view of the clear analogies
between them and the provisions declared invalid?

2. Are Article 4(1) and (2) of Commission Regulation (EC)
No 1423/95 (1) of 23 June 1995 laying down detailed
implementing rules for the import of products in the
sugar sector other than molasses invalid inasmuch as
they provide that the additional duty referred to therein
is, as a general rule, established on the basis of the
representative price referred to in Article 1(2) of Regu-
lation (EC) No 1423/95 and that that duty is established
on the basis of the cif import price of the shipment
concerned only if the importer so requests?

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1423/95 of 23 June 1995 laying
down detailed implementing rules for the import of products in
the sugar sector other than molasses (OJ L 141 of 24.06.1995,
p. 16).

Action brought on 4 November 2003 by Kingdom of
Spain against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties

(Case C-464/03)

(2004/C 7/41)

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van
Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven by order of that Court of
24 October 2003 in the case of Gaston Schul Douane-
Expediteur B.V. against the Minister van Landbouw,
Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

(Case C-461/03)

(2004/C 7/40)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 4 November 2003 by the Kingdom of Spain,
represented by Nuria Díaz Abad, Abogado del Estado, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the College van Beroep
voor het bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court for Trade and

— annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 1438/2003 (1) of
12 August 2003 laying down implementing rules on the
Community Fleet Policy as defined in Chapter III of
Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002; and