Case C-305/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam by decision of that court of 13 July 2004 in the case of Eagle International Freight B.V. against Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst – Douanedistrict Arnhem.
Date: 2004-09-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, common customs tariff, expansion card, interpretation of the law, statistical nomenclature, tariff nomenclature

11.9.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/29

5. Does Community law impose requirements as to the nature
of the legal redress to be provided in the case where the
national courts – on the basis of,
inter alia, the answers
given by the Court of Justice of the European Communities
to the above questions – conclude that persons resident or
living in the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba and having
Netherlands nationality were improperly refused registration
for the elections of 10 June 2004?

unlawful, in so far as it applies to products coming from
another Member State of the European Union?

(1) OJ L 204 of 21.7.1998, p.37.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechtshof te
Amsterdam by decision of that court of 13 July 2004 in
the case of Jacob Meijer B.V against Inspecteur van de
Belastingdienst – Douanedistrict Arnhem

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
Voghera, by order of that court of 1 July 2004 in the case
of Lidl Italia Srl against Comune di Stradella

(Case C-304/04)

(2004/C 228/60)

(Case C-303/04)

(2004/C 228/59)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Tribunale di Voghera, of 1
July 2004, received at the Court Registry on 16 July 2004, for
a preliminary ruling in the case of Lidl
Italia Srl against
Comune di Stradella on the following question:

— Are the provisions in Article 1 of Directive 83/189/EEC
(now Directive 98/34/EC (1)) on technical standards and
regulations to be interpreted as meaning that a national
legislative provision such as Article 19 of Law No 93 of
23.3.2001, which prohibits the marketing in Italy of non-
biodegradable cotton buds for cleaning ears, comes within
the meaning of ‘technical regulation’
in Article 1 of that
directive?

— If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative,
should the provision in Article 19 of Law No 93 of
23.3.2001 have been notified beforehand to the European
Commission on the initiative of the Italian Government in
accordance with Article 8 of Directive 83/189/EEC (now
Directive 98/34/EC) in order to authorise its application in
Italy under Articles 8 and 9 of that directive?

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by decision of
te
Amsterdam (Amsterdam Regional Court of Appeal) of 13 July
2004, received at the Court Registry on 19 July 2004, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Jacob Meijer B.V. against
Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst – Douanedistrict Arnhem on
the following question:

the Gerechtshof

Is Commission Regulation (EC) No 2086/97 (1) of 4 November
1997 amending Annex I
to Council Regulation (EEC) No
2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the
Common Customs Tariff valid in so far as it provides that
heading 8543 89 79 of the Combined Nomenclature includes
the sound cards described at paragraph 2.3 above?

(1) OJ L 312 of 14.11.1997, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechtshof te
Amsterdam by decision of that court of 13 July 2004 in
the case of Eagle International Freight B.V. against Inspec-
teur van de Belastingdienst – Douanedistrict Arnhem.

(Case C-305/04)

(2004/C 228/61)

— If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative
and if Article 19 of Law No 93 cited above was not notified
to the European Commission, do the principles and rules
on the free movement of goods laid down in Article 28 of
the EC Treaty, in conjunction with the provisions of Direc-
tive 83/189/EEC (now Directive 98/34/EC), allow the Italian
to apply that national provision as being
court not

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by decision of
te
Amsterdam (Amsterdam Regional Court of Appeal) of 13 July
2004, received at the Court Registry on 19 July 2004, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Eagle International Freight
B.V. against Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst – Douanedistrict
Arnhem on the following question:

the Gerechtshof

C 228/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

11.9.2004

Are Commission Regulation (EC) No 2086/97 (1) of 4
November 1997 and Commission Regulation (EC) No
2261/98 (2) of 26 October 1998, both of which amend Annex
I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and
statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff,
valid in so far as they provide that heading 8543 89 79 of the
Combined Nomenclature includes the sound cards described at
paragraph 2.3 above?

(1) OJ L 312 of 14.11.1997, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 292 of 30.10.1998, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechtshof te
Amsterdam by decision of that court of 13 July 2004 in
the case of Compaq Computer International Corporation
against Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst – Douanedistrict
Arnhem.

(Case C-306/04)

(2004/C 228/62)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by decision of the Gerechtshof te Amster-
edam (Amsterdam Regional Court of Appeal) of 13 July 2004,
received at the Court Registry on 19 July 2004, for a preli-
minary ruling in the case of Compaq Computer International
Corporation against Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst – Doua-
nedistrict Arnhem on the following question:

Where computers on which operating systems installed by the
seller are imported, must the value of the software made avail-
able to the seller by the buyer free of charge be added to the
transaction price of
to Article
32(1)(b) of the Community Customs Code (1) where the value
thereof is not included in the transaction price?

those computers pursuant

(1) OJ L 302 of 19 October 1992, p. 1.

Action brought on 22 July 2004 by the Kingdom of Spain
against the Council of the European Union

(Case C-310/04)

(2004/C 228/63)

An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Commu-

nities on 22 July 2004 by the Kingdom of Spain, represented
by M. Muñoz Pérez, Abogado del Estado, acting as Agent, with
an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Chapter 10a of Title IV of Council Regulation (EC)
No 1782/2003, inserted by Article 1(20) of Council Regu-
lation (EC) No 864/2004 amending Regulation (EC) No
1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support
schemes under the common agricultural policy and estab-
lishing certain support schemes for farmers, and adapting it
by reason of the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia,
Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia
and Slovakia to the European Union (1);

— order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

— Infringement of the Treaty or of rules relating to its imple-
mentation in that the Council has contravened Article 3 of
Protocol No 4 to the Act of Accession of the Hellenic
Republic to the European Communities, since the new
Article 110b of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of
29 September 2003, inserted by Regulation No 864/2004,
does not provide for production aid for cotton.

— Breach of an essential procedural requirement in that the
Council failed to provide reasons for its selection, in new
Article 110b of Council Regulation No 1782/2003, of the
stage of boll opening as the decisive time for the grant of
aid.

— Misuse of powers in that the Council has used the power
conferred on it by paragraph 6 of Protocol 4, cited above,
that is to say the procedure for adapting the system of aid
for cotton laid down in the Protocol, for an end which is
different from that provided for therein.

— Infringement of the Treaty or of rules relating to its imple-
mentation in that
in adopting the
the Council has,
contested provisions, acted in breach of general principles
of Community law: (i) proportionality, since the measures
reforming the system of aid for cotton are manifestly
contrary to the objectives which the Council itself has set
less onerous
and since,
measures for attaining those objectives, and (ii) legitimate
expectations.

there were other

furthermore,

(1) OJ L 161 of 30.04.2004, p. 48. Corrigendum to the regulation in

OJ L 204 of 09.06.2004, p. 20.