Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 January 2004 In Joined Cases C-133/02 and C-134/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam): Timmermans Transport & Logistics BV, formerly Timmermans Diessen BV, v Inspecteur der Belastingdienst — Douanedistrict Roosendaal, and Hoogenboom Production Ltd and Inspecteur der Belastingdienst — Douanedistrict Rotterdam (Classification of goods for customs tariff purposes — Binding tariff information — Conditions for the revocation of an information)
Date: 2004-04-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: common customs tariff, customs regulations, customs tariff, interpretation of the law

C 85/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

3.4.2004

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 22 January 2004

(Sixth Chamber)

of 12 February 2004

In Joined Cases C-133/02 and C-134/02 (Reference for a
preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam):
Timmermans Transport & Logistics BV, formerly Tim-
mermans Diessen BV, v Inspecteur der Belastingdienst —
Douanedistrict Roosendaal, and Hoogenboom Production
Ltd and Inspecteur der Belastingdienst — Douanedistrict
Rotterdam (1)

(Classification of goods for customs tariff purposes —
Binding tariff information — Conditions for the revocation
of an information)

in Case C-230/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Bundesvergabeamt): Grossmann Air Service,
Bedarfsluftfahrtunternehmen GmbH & Co. KG v Repub-
lik Österreich (1)

(Public procurement — Directive 89/665/EEC — Review
procedures for the award of public contracts — Articles 1(3)
and 2(1)(b) — Persons to whom review procedures must be
available — Definition of ‘interest in obtaining a public
contract’)

(2004/C 85/10)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Joined Cases C-133/02 and C-134/02: Reference to the
Court under Article 234 EC by the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
(Netherlands)
pending before that court between Timmermans Transport &
Logistics BV, formerly Timmermans Diessen BV, and Inspecte-
ur der Belastingdienst — Douanedistrict Roosendaal, and
between Hoogenboom Production Ltd and Inspecteur der
Belastingdienst — Douanedistrict Rotterdam, on the interpret-
ation of Article 9(1) and 12(5)(a)(iii) of Council Regulation
(EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the
Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1), as amended
by Regulation (EC) No 82/97 of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 19 December 1996 (OJ 1997 L 17, p. 1, and
Corrigendum, OJ 1997 L 179, p. 11),
(Sixth
Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), acting for
the President of the Sixth Chamber, J. N. Cunha Rodrigues, J.-
P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and F. Macken, Judges; P. Léger,
Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has
given a judgment on 22 January 2004, in which it has ruled:

the Court

Article 9(1) read in conjunction with Article 12(5)(a)(iii) of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing
the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC)
No 82/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of
19 December 1996, must be interpreted as meaning that they
provide the customs authorities with a legal basis for withdrawing a
binding tariff
change the
information where those authorities
interpretation given therein of the legal provisions applicable to the
tariff classification of the goods concerned.

(1) OJ C 144 of 15.6.2002.

(2004/C 85/11)

(Language of the case: German)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

(Austria)

In Case C-230/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Bundesvergabeamt
for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Grossmann Air Service, Bedarfsluftfahrtunternehmen GmbH
& Co. KG and Republik Österreich, on the interpretation of
Articles 1(3) and 2(1)(b) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of
21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regu-
lations and administrative provisions relating to the application
of review procedures to the award of public supply and public
works contracts (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33), as amended by
Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the
coordination of procedures for the award of public service
contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1), the Court (Sixth Chamber),
composed of: V. Skouris, acting as President of the Sixth
Chamber, C. Gulmann, J. N. Cunha Rodrigues, J.-P. Puissochet
and R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advo-
cate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the
in
Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 February 2004,
which it has ruled:

1. Articles 1(3) and 2(1)(b) of 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, as amended by Council Directive 92/50/EEC
of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for
the award of public service contracts, must be interpreted as not
precluding a person from being regarded, once a public contract
has been awarded, as having lost his right of access to the
review procedures provided for by the Directive if he did not
participate in the award procedure for that contract on the
ground that he was not in a position to supply all the services
for which bids were invited, because there were allegedly
discriminatory specifications in the documents relating to the
invitation to tender, but he did not seek review of
those
specifications before the contract was awarded.