Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) 4 March 2004 In Joined Cases C-238/02 and C-246/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof): PARTIE 1 v PARTIE 2
Date: 2004-04-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: carriage of goods, customs formalities, drivers, interpretation of the law, road transport

C 94/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

17.4.2004

In Case C-9/02: References to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Conseil d'État (France) for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings pending before that court between Hughes de
Lasteyrie du Saillant and Ministère de l'Économie, des Finances
et de l'Industrie, on the interpretation of Article 52 of the EC
Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC), the Court (Fifth
Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur),
acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber, A. La Pergola and
S. von Bahr, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
on 11 March 2004, in which it has ruled:

The principle of freedom of establishment laid down by Article
52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC)
must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from estab-
tax avoidance, a
to prevent a risk of
lishing,
mechanism for taxing as yet unrealised increases in value such
as that laid down by Article 167a of the French Code Général
des Impôts, where a taxpayer transfers his tax residence outside
that State.

in order

(1) OJ C 56 of 2.03.2002.

1. Examination of the second question has not revealed any
factors affecting the validity of Commission Regulation (EC)
No 306/2001 of 12 February 2001 concerning the classifi-
cation of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature, in
so far as it classifies the products described in points 2 and
3 of the table set out in the annex thereto under subheading
2101 22 02 92 of
the
Common Customs Tariff in the version set out in Commis-
sion Regulation (EC) No 2031/2001 of 6 August 2001,
amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87
on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the
Common Customs Tariff.

the Combined Nomenclature of

2. The classification decided by the Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities in Regulation No 306/2001 in respect of
the products identified at points 2 and 3 of the table set out
in the annex to that regulation is applicable by analogy to
two mixtures intended for the production of beverages with
a basis of tea, both composed of 64 % granulated sugar and
1.9 % extract of tea and water, to which is added, in one of
the two mixtures, 0.8 % citric acid.

(1) OJ C 144 of 15.06.2002.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

4 March 2004

(Fifth Chamber)

4 March 2004

In Case C-130/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Finanzgericht München): Krings GmbH v Oberfinanz-
direktion Nürnberg (1)

(Common Customs Tariff — Combined Nomenclature —
Tariff heading — Preparation with a basis of extract of
tea)

(2004/C 94/10)

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Case C-130/02: References to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Finanzgericht München (Germany) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Krings GmbH and Oberfinanzdirektion Nürnberg, first, on the
interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature of the Common
Customs Tariff (‘the CN’) in the version set out in Commission
Regulation (EC) No 2031/2001 of 6 August 2001, amending
Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff
and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs
Tariff (OJ 2001 L 279, p. 1) and, second, on the validity of
Commission Regulation (EC) No 306/2001 of 12 February
2001 concerning the classification of certain goods in the
Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2001 L 44, p. 25), the Court
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. Rosas (Rapporteur), acting
for the President of the Fifth Chamber, A. La Pergola and S.
von Bahr, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 4 March 2004, in which it
has ruled:

In Joined Cases C-238/02 and C-246/02 (Reference for a
preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof): PARTIE 1 v
PARTIE 2 (1)

(Community Customs Code — Extent of the obligation as
to presentation of goods arriving at customs — National
legislation providing for an express declaration in respect
of hidden goods at the time of presentation of goods at
customs — Persons having brought in the goods and being
under a duty to declare them — Concept of customs
debtor)

(2004/C 94/11)

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Joined Cases C-238/02 and C-246/02: References to the
Court under Article 234 EC by the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt and Kazimieras
Viluckas (C-238/02), Ricardas Jonusas (C-246/02), on the inter-
pretation of Article 4(19), Article 40 and the first indent of
Article 202(3) 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:
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puisso-
chet (Rapporteur) and F. Macken, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 4 March
2004, in which it has ruled:

17.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/7

1. The presentation to customs of goods introduced into the
Community, in terms of Article 4(19) of Council Regulation
(EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the
Community Customs Code concerns all goods,
including
those hidden in a secret compartment specially made for
that purpose. The obligation to present goods as set out in
Article 38 of that Code rests, as provided by Article 40 of
the Code, with the driver and co-driver of a lorry who intro-
duced the goods, even though the goods were hidden in the
vehicle without their knowledge.

2. The person who has introduced goods into the customs
territory of the Community without mentioning them in the
notification of presentation to customs is a customs debtor
within the meaning of the first indent of Article 202(3) of
the Community Customs Code.

(1) OJ C 202 of 24.08.2002.

services and the improvement of quality of service, read in the light
of recital 21 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that it does
not permit self-provision to be subject to the following conditions:

— the receiver must be the same person as the sender;

— the services must not be provided to third parties in the
course of commercial or business activity of the service
provider;

— the services must not be provided by the mailbag system

or other similar methods; and

— such operations must not disrupt the services reserved

to the universal service provider.

2. Money order services, which consist in making payments through
the public postal network to natural or legal persons on behalf of
and on the order of others, are not within the scope of Directive
97/67.

(1) OJ C 202 of 24.08.2002.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

11 March 2004

In Case C-240/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal Supremo): PARTIE 1 v PARTIE 2 (1)

(Postal Services — Directive 97/67/EC — Services reserved
for the providers of the universal postal service — Defini-
self-provision — Inclusion of money order
tion of

services)

(2004/C 94/12)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

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

In Case C-240/02: References to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings pending before that court between Asociación
Profesional de Empresas de Reparto y Manipulado de Corre-
spondencia (Asempre), Asociación Nacional de Empresas de
Externalización y Gestión de Envíos y Pequeña Paquetería and
Entidad Pública Empresarial Correos y Telégrafos, Administra-
ción General del Estado, on the interpretation of Directive
97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 15
December 1997, on the common rules for the development of
the internal market of Community postal services and the
improvement of quality of service (OJ 1998 L 15, p. 14), the
Court
Jann (Rapporteur),
acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber, C.W.A. Timmer-
mans and S. von Bahr, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General;
M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, for the Regis-
trar, has given a judgment on 11 March 2004, in which it has
ruled:

(Fifth Chamber), composed of: P.

1. Article 7 of Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and
of the Council, of 15 December 1997, on the common rules for
the internal market of Community postal
the development of

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

4 March 2004

In Case C-264/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal d'instance de Vienne): Cofinoga Mérignac SA
v Sylvain Sachithanathan (1)

(Directives 87/102/EEC and 90/88/EEC — Consumer credit
— Consumer information — Annual percentage rate of
charge — Variable interest rate — Renewal of an agree-
ment)

(2004/C 94/13)

(Language of the case: French)

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

In Case C-264/02: References to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Tribunal d'instance de Vienne (France) for a preli-
minary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
between Cofinoga Mérignac SA and Sylvain Sachithanathan, on
the interpretation of Council Directive 87/102/EEC of 22
December 1986 for the approximation of the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning
consumer credit (OJ 1987 L 42, p. 48), as amended by Council
Directive 90/88/EEC of 22 February 1990 (OJ 1990 L 61, p.
14), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rappor-
teur), acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber, C.W.A.
Timmermans and S. von Bahr, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate
General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 4 March 2004, in which it
has ruled: