Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 1 April 2004 inCase C-389/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg): Deutsche See-Bestattungs-GenossenschafteG v HauptzollamtKiel (‘Exciseduties — Exemption from tax on mineral oils — Directive 92/81/EEC — Article8(1)(c) — The term“navigatio”’)
Date: 2004-04-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU waters, excise duty, interpretation of the law, maritime transport, mineral oil, pleasure craft, tax harmonisation

C 106/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

1. The

first

indent

of Article 2(2)

of Council Decision
2000/766/EC of 4 December 2000 concerning certain protection
measures with regard to transmissible spongiform encephalopathies
and the feeding of animal protein, and Article 1(1) of Commis-
sion Decision 2001/9/EC of 29 December 2000 concerning
the implementation of Decision
control measures required for
2000/766, together with the other Community rules on which
those provisions are based, must be interpreted as meaning that
the presence, even accidental, of unauthorised substances in fish
flour used in the production of feedingstuffs intended for animals
other than ruminants is not permitted and that they allow traders
no level of tolerance. The destruction of consignments of contami-
nated flour is a preventive measure provided for by Article 3(1) of
Decision 2000/766.

2. Article 13 of the European Economic Area Agreement of 2 May
1992 must be interpreted as meaning that Decisions 2000/766
and 2001/9 are not incompatible therewith.

(Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate
General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 1 April 2004,
the operative part of which is as follows:

1. Article 26a of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17
May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member
States relating to turnover taxes – Common system of value added
tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive
94/5/EC of 14 February 1994, must be interpreted as meaning
that live animals may be considered to be second-hand goods
within the meaning of that provision .

2. Thus an animal bought from a private individual (other than the
breeder) which is sold on after training for a specific use may be
considered to be second-hand goods within the meaning of that
provision.

(1) OJ C 247 of 12.10.2002

(1) OJ C 274 of 9.11.2002

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 1 April 2004

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 1 April 2004

in Case C-320/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Regeringsrätten): Förvaltnings AB Stenholmen v Rikss-
katteverket (1)

(‘Sixth VAT Directive — Article 26a — Special arrange-
ments applicable to second-hand goods — The term “second-
hand goods” — Horse sold on after training’)

in Case C-389/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Finanzgericht Hamburg): Deutsche See-Bestattungs-
Genossenschaft eG v Hauptzollamt Kiel (1)

(‘Excise duties — Exemption from tax on mineral oils —
Directive 92/81/EEC — Article 8(1)(c) — The term “naviga-
tion”’)

(2004/C 106/22)

(Language of the case: Swedish)

(2004/C 106/23)

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Case C-320/02: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
from the Regeringsrätten (Sweden) for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings pending before that court between Förvalt-
nings AB Stenholmen v Riksskatteverket on the interpreta-
tion of Article 26a of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of
17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member
States relating to turnover taxes – Common system of value
added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1),
as amended by Council Directive 94/5/EC of 14 February 1994
(OJ 1994 L 60, p. 16) – the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed
of: P. Jann, acting as President of the Fifth Chamber, A. Rosas

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

In Case C-389/02: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Finanzgericht (Finance Court) Hamburg (Germany) for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
between Deutsche See-Bestattungs-Genossenschaft eG, and
Hauptzollamt Kiel – on the interpretation of Article 8(1)(c) of
Council Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the
harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils
(OJ 1992 L 316, p. 12) – the Court (First Chamber), composed
of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, A. Rosas, A. La Pergola,
R. Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur) and K. Lenaerts, Judges; M.
Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
given a judgment on 1 April 2004, in which it ruled:

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/15

Article 8(1)(c) of Council Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October
1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties
on mineral oils should be interpreted to mean that the term
‘navigation within Community waters (including fishing), other
than in private pleasure craft’ includes all forms of navigation,
irrespective of the purpose of the voyage, when that voyage is
made for commercial purposes.

(1) OJ C 19 of 25.1.2003.

2) orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 101 of 26.4.2003.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 30 March 2004

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

in Case C-201/03: Commission of the European Commu-
nities v Kingdom of Sweden (1)

(Third Chamber)

of 1 April 2004

in Case C-64/03: Commission of the European Commu-
nities v Federal Republic of Germany (1)

(‘Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to
implement Directive 98/30/EC’)

(2004/C 106/24)

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Case C-64/03: Commission of the European Commu-
nities (Agents: J. Grunwald and H. Støvlbaek), with an address
for service in Luxembourg, v Federal Republic of Germany
(Agents: W.-D. Plessing and M. Lumma) – application for a
declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive
98/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22
June 1998 concerning common rules for the internal market in
natural gas (OJ 1998 L 204, p. 1), the Federal Republic of
Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive
– the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: A. Rosas, President
of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), and N. Colneric,
Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
given judgment on 1 April 2004, in which it:

1) declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and admin-
istrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 98/30/EC
of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998
concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas,
the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations
under that Directive;

(‘Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Disposal
of waste oils — Failure to transpose Directive 75/439/EEC’)

(2004/C 106/25)

(Language of the case: Swedish)

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

In Case C-201/03: Commission of the European Commu-
nities (Agents: L. Ström and M. Konstantinidis), with an
address for service in Luxembourg, v Kingdom of Sweden
(Agent: A. Kruse) – application for a declaration that, by failing
to adopt the necessary measures under Article 3(1) of Council
Directive 75/439/EEC of 16 June 1975 on the disposal of
waste oils (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 23), as amended by Council
Directive 87/101/EEC of 22 December 1986 (OJ 1987 L 42, p.
43), to ensure that priority is given to the processing of waste
oils by regeneration where technical, economic and organisa-
tional constraints so allow, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed
to fulfil its obligations under that directive – the Court (Fifth
Chamber),
the
Chamber, S. von Bahr and R. Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur),
Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
given a judgment on 30 March 2004, in which it:

composed of: C. Gulmann, President of

1. Declares that, by failing to take the necessary measures under
Article 3(1) of Council Directive 75/439/EEC of 16 June 1975
on the disposal of waste oils, as amended by Council Directive
87/101/EEC of 22 December 1986, to ensure that priority is
given to the processing of waste oils by regeneration where tech-
the
nical,
Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
directive;

economic and organisational

constraints

so allow,

2. Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs

(1) OJ C 158 of 5.7.2003