Case C-311/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam by decision of that court of 28 June 2004 in the case of B.V. Algemene Scheeps Agentuur Dordrecht against Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst – Douanedistrict Rotterdam
Date: 2004-09-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, common customs tariff, customs regulations, interpretation of the law, rice, statistical nomenclature

25.9.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 239/3

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechtshof te
Amsterdam by decision of that court of 28 June 2004 in
the case of B.V. Algemene Scheeps Agentuur Dordrecht
against Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst – Douanedistrict
Rotterdam

(Case C-311/04)

(2004/C 239/04)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by decision of
te
Amsterdam (Amsterdam Regional Court of Appeal, Nether-
lands) of 28 June 2004, received at the Court Registry on
22 July 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of B.V. Alge-
mene Scheeps Agentuur Dordrecht against Inspecteur van de
Belastingdienst – Douanedistrict Rotterdam on the following
questions:

the Gerechtshof

1. Is Additional Note (EC) 1 to Chapter 10 of the Common
Customs Tariff, as set out
in Council Regulation (EEC)
No 2658/87 (1) of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical
nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, valid in
so far as it lays down requirements in respect of the term
‘semi-milled rice’ that differ from those laid down in the
Customs Cooperation Council's Explanatory Note
to
subheading 1006 of the Harmonised System?

2. If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, is it
possible for an appellant to plead good faith pursuant to the
fourth subparagraph of Article 220(2)(b) of the Community
Customs Code in a situation where the appellant was or
ought to have been aware of Additional Note (EC) 1(f) to
Chapter 10 of the CN but did not know or may at least
have had doubts as to whether that note was valid in the
light of the different description set out in the Custom
Cooperation Council's Explanatory Note to subheading
1006 of the Harmonised System?

(1) OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungs-
gericht Frankfurt am Main by order of that court of 24
June 2004 in the case of Franz Egenberger GmbH Molkerei
Land-
und Trockenwerk

against Bundesanstalt

für

wirtschaft und Ernährung

(Case C-313/04)

(2004/C 239/05)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht (Admin-
istrative Court), Frankfurt am Main of 24 June 2004, received
at the Court Registry on 26 July 2004, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Franz Egenberger GmbH Molkerei und Trocken-
werk against Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung
on the following question:

1. Is Article

of

35(2)

Commission Regulation

(EC)
No 2535/2001 contrary to higher-ranking Community
law (1),
in particular the prohibition in Article 28 EC of
quantitative restrictions on imports and of measures having
equivalent effect, the prohibition of discrimination in the
second subparagraph of Article 34(2) EC and Article 26(2)
of Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 (2), and is it
therefore invalid?

2. Is Article

of

25(1)

Commission Regulation

(EC)
No 2535/2001 contrary to higher-ranking Community law,
in particular the prohibition of discrimination in the second
subparagraph of Article 34(2) EC, the prohibition of discri-
mination in the second subparagraph of Article 29(2) of
Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999, Article 28 EC and
the first paragraph of Article 82 EC, and is it therefore
invalid?

3. Are Articles 25(1) and 35(2) of Commission Regulation (EC)
No 2535/2001 contrary to Article XVII: 1(a) of the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and Article 1(3) of
the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures (3), and are
they therefore invalid?

(1) OJ L 341, p. 29.
(2) OJ L 160, p. 48.
(3) OJ L 336, de 23.12.1994, p. 151.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van
Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven by order of that court of 22
July 2004 in the case of Stichting Zuid-Hollandse Milieu-
federatie against College voor de toelating van bestrij-
dingsmiddelen (Ctb)

(Case C-316/04)

(2004/C 239/06)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the College van Beroep voor het
bedrijfsleven of 22 July 2004, received at the Court Registry on
26 July 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Stichting
Zuid-Hollandse Milieufederatie against College voor de toelating
van bestrijdingsmiddelen (Ctb) on the following questions:

1(a) Can Article 8 of the Plant Protection Products Directive (1)
be applied by the national court after the period referred
to in Article 23 thereof has expired?

1(b) Can Article 16 of the Biocidal Products Directive (2) be
applied by a national court after the period referred to in
Article 34 thereof has expired?

2. Must Article 16 of the Biocidal Product Directive be inter-
preted as having the same meaning as Article 8(2) of the
Plant Protection Products Directive?