Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) 4 March 2004 In Case C-290/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation): Receveur principal des douanes de Villepinte v Derudder & Cie SA
Date: 2004-04-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: customs regulations, import, import levy, interpretation of the law, right of action

17.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/3

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

4 March 2004

(Sixth Chamber)

19 February 2004

In Case C-290/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Cour de cassation): Receveur principal des douanes de
Villepinte v Derudder & Cie SA (1)

(Free movement of goods — Release for free circulation
— Taking of a sample — Possibility of challenging the
representativeness of that sample)

In Case C-329/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Queen's
Bench Division (Administrative Court)): The Queen v
Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce (1)

(2004/C 94/04)

(Language of the case: French)

(Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets —
Sugar — Regulation (EEC) No 2670/81 — Proof of export
— Regulation (EEC) No 3719/88 — Correction of an
licence — Obvious inaccuracy — Principle of
export

proportionality)

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

(2004/C 94/05)

In Case C-290/01: References to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Cour de cassation (France) for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings pending before that court between Receveur
principal des douanes de Villepinte and Derudder & Cie SA;
third party: Tang Frères, on the interpretation of Article 70(1)
of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992
establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p.
1), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmer-
mans
the Fifth
Chamber, A. La Pergola and S. von Bahr, Judges; F.G. Jacobs,
Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 4 March 2004, in which it
has ruled:

(Rapporteur), acting for

the President of

Council Directive 79/695/EEC of 24 July 1979 on the harmo-
nisation of procedures for the release of goods for free circula-
tion and Commission Directive 82/57/EEC of 17 December
1981 laying down certain provisions for implementing Direc-
tive 79/695, as amended by Commission Directive 83/371/EEC
of 14 July 1983, together with Council Regulation (EEC) No
2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community
Customs Code, must be interpreted as meaning that
is
permissible for a customs declarant or his
representative
present when a sample was taken by the customs authorities of
imported goods and who did not at the time challenge the
representativeness of that sample to challenge its representa-
tiveness when requested by those authorities to pay additional
import duties following their analysis of that sample, provided
that the goods concerned have not been released or, if they
have been released, that they have not been altered in any way
whatsoever, which is for that declarant to prove.

it

(1) OJ C 289 of 13.10.2001.

(Language of the case: English)

In Case C-329/01: References to the Court under Article 234
EC by the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Queen's
Bench Division (Administrative Court) for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings pending before that court The Queen, on
the application of British Sugar plc, and Intervention Board for
Agricultural Produce, on the interpretation of Commission
Regulation (EEC) No 2670/81 of 14 September 1981 laying
down detailed implementing rules in respect of sugar produc-
tion in excess of the quota (OJ 1981 L 262, p. 14), as amended
by Commission Regulation (EC) No 158/96 of 30 January
1996 (OJ 1996 L 24, p. 3), and on the interpretation and
validity of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3719/88 of 16
November 1988 laying down common detailed rules for the
application of the system of import and export licences and
advance-fixing certificates for agricultural products (OJ 1988 L
331, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No
1199/95 of 29 May 1995 (OJ 1995 L 119, p. 4), the Court
(Sixth Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, acting for the Presi-
dent of the Sixth Chamber, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, F.
Macken and N. Colneric (Rapporteur),
Judges; C. Stix-Hackl,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on
19 February 2004, in which it has ruled:

1. The proof provided for in Article 2(2)(a) of Commission
Regulation (EEC) No 2670/81 of 14 September 1981 laying
down detailed implementing rules
in respect of sugar
production in excess of the quota, as amended by Commis-
sion Regulation (EC) No 158/96 of 30 January 1996, has
not been supplied in respect of a quantity of C sugar actu-
ally exported where that quantity exceeds the total quantity