Case C-136/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof, by order of that court of 3 February 2004 in the case of Deutsches Milch-Kontor GmbH against Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
Date: 2004-04-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, cheese, export refund, food processing, interpretation of the law

C 118/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

ORDER OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE

(Third Chamber)

of 1 April 2004

in Case C-229/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
für Zivilrechtssachen Wien): Monica
the Landesgericht

Herbstrith v Republic of Austria (1)

(Preliminary ruling — Inadmissibility)

(2004/C 118/58)

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Case C-229/03: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien (Austria) for
a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Monica Herbstrith and Republic of Austria, on,
first, the direct effect of ‘Community law concerning equal
treatment of men and women at work and, more specifically,
of Council Directive 76/207/EEC’ of 9 February 1976 on the
implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men
and women as regards access to employment, vocational
training and promotion, and working conditions (OJ 1976 L
39, p. 40) or the circumstances in which a Member State may
be liable to pay compensation for prejudice suffered by indivi-
duals as a result of infringements of Community law, and,
second, ‘the rules on the burden of proof laid down in Article
4 of Council Directive 97/80/EC of 15 December 1997’ on the
burden of proof in cases of discrimination based on sex (OJ
1998 L 14, p. 6) – the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A.
Rosas, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur)
and N. Colneric, Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; R. Grass,
Registrar, made an order on 1 April 2004, the operative part
of which is as follows:

The reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Landesgericht für
Zivilrechtssachen Wien by order of 7 April 2003 is inadmissible.

(1) OJ C 47 of 21. 2. 2004.

February 2004, received at the Court Registry on 15 March
2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Deutsches Milch-
Kontor GmbH against Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas on the
following question:

Must Regulation (EEC) No 3445/89 (1) and Regulation (EEC) No
1706/89 (2) be interpreted as meaning that cheese under
subheading 0406 90 of the Combined Nomenclature, intended
for processing in a third country and therefore to be classified
for customs tariff purposes under subheading 0406 90 11 of
the Combined Nomenclature in the version in Regulation (EEC)
No. 2886/89 (3),
is excluded from the grant of an export
refund?

(1) OJ L 336, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 166, p. 36.
(3) OJ L 282, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione
Tributaria Provinciale di Genova by order of that court of
11 February 2004 in the case of Unicredito Italiano SpA
and Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Genova (1)

(Case C-148/04)

(2004/C 118/60)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Commissione Tributaria
Provinciale di Genova (Provincial Tax Commission, Genoa) of
11 February 2004, received at the Court Registry on 23 March
2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Unicredito Italiano
SpA and Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Genova on the following
questions:

1. Is Commission Decision 2002/581/EC (2) of 11 December
2001 (OJ 2002 L 184, p. 27) invalid and incompatible with
Community law, in that the provisions of the Ciampi Law
and the related legislative decree regarding banks are
compatible with the Common Market, contrary to the
opinion of the European Commission, or do they in any
case fall within the scope of the derogations provided for by
Article 87(3)(b) and (c) of the EC Treaty?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundes-
finanzhof, by order of that court of 3 February 2004 in
the case of Deutsches Milch-Kontor GmbH against Haupt-
zollamt Hamburg-Jonas

2. In particular, is Article 4 of the above-mentioned decision
invalid and incompatible with Community law, in that the
Commission:

(Case C-136/04)

(2004/C 118/59)

a) failed in its duty to provide adequate reasons in accord-

ance with Article 253 of the EC Treaty; and/or

b) infringed the principle of legitimate expectations; and/or

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
the Bundesfinanzhof of 3
pean Communities by order of

c) infringed the principle of proportionality?