Case C-353/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 22 July 2004 in the case of Nowaco Germany GmbH against Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
Date: 2004-10-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: customs regulations, export refund, interpretation of the law, marketing standard, poultrymeat, quality standard

23.10.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/19

iv) do the answers to the above questions differ in respect of

exports originating in India as against Pakistan, given:

a) the procedures followed before DSB of the WTO; and/or

b) the findings of the Commission recorded in Regulations

1664/2001, 160/2002 and 696/2002?

v) in the light of the answers to the above questions:

a) must a national customs authority repay all or part of
the anti-dumping duties which it has collected pursuant
to Regulation 2398/97; and

b) if so, to whom and under what conditions should repay-

ment be made?

(1) OJ L 332, 4.12.1997, p.1.
(2) OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p.1.
(3) OJ L 219, 14.8.2001, p.1.
(4) OJ L 26, 30.1.2002, p. 1.
(5) OJ L 109, 25.4.2002, p. 1.

undertakings who collect postal
items from the sender and
supply it already sorted to the postal network to the same
access point and under the same conditions as business custo-
mers, and that the universal service provider is not entitled to
refuse to do so on the ground that it is obliged to provide a
universal service?

(1) OJ L 15 of 21.1.1998, p. 14.
(2) OJ L 176, p. 21.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof
by order of that court of 22 July 2004 in the case of
Nowaco Germany GmbH against Hauptzollamt Hamburg-
Jonas

(Case C-353/04)

(2004/C 262/33)

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungs-
gericht Köln by order of that court of 30 June 2004 in the
case of mdm Versandservice GmbH against Bundes-
republik Deutschland, joined parties: Deutsche Post AG

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal
Finance Court)
(Germany) of 22 July 2004, received at the
Court Registry on 16 August 2004, for a preliminary ruling in
the case of Nowaco Germany GmbH against Hauptzollamt
Hamburg-Jonas on the following questions:

(Case C-352/04)

(2004/C 262/32)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht Köln
(Cologne Administrative Court), Germany, of 30 June 2004,
received at the Court Registry on 16 August 2004, for a preli-
minary ruling in the case of mdm Versandservice GmbH
against Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Federal Republic of
Germany), joined parties: Deutsche Post AG, on the following
question:

in the

version brought

Is Article 47(2) EC, read together with Article 95 EC, read
together with the fifth indent of Article 12 of Directive
97/67/EC, (1) and with Article 7(1) of that directive,
in both
cases
into force by Directive
2002/39/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council,
to be interpreted as meaning that where a universal service
tariffs to business customers who
provider applies special
supply postal
items already sorted to the postal network at
points in the delivery chain that are not access points, the
universal service provider must also apply those tariffs to

1. For the purposes of establishing whether a product

in
respect of which recovery of export duty is sought is of
marketable quality, may reliance be placed on Commission
Regulation (EEC) No 1538/91 of 5 June 1991 (1)
intro-
ducing detailed rules for implementing Regulation (EEC) No
1906/90 on certain marketing standards for poultry?

2. In the event that the reply to Question 1 is yes,

(a) Does Article 70 of Council Regulation (EEC) No
2913/92 (2) of 12 October 1992 establishing the Com-
munity Customs Code apply where it is necessary to
establish whether a product in respect of which recovery
of export duty is sought is of marketable quality?

(b) Does the deeming provision as to condition in Article
70(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 also
apply if only one random sample of the product has
been inspected but the pertinent Community provisions
permit defects in the goods up to a certain quantitative
limit and accordingly require and expressly prescribe
inspection of a specific minimum number of samples to
establish whether that limit has been observed?

C 262/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.10.2004

3. In the event that the replies to Questions 2(a) and (b) are

also yes:

What is the effect of the aforementioned deeming provision
where several samples are taken from an export consign-
ment that was declared as a single unit and upon examina-
tion of a part of those samples some were found to be of
marketable quality but others were not?

(1) OJ L 143, p. 11.
(2) OJ L 302, p. 1.

entitled to pursue such an activity in the Member State of
origin, was excluded from the tender procedure precisely
under the exclusions contained in the earlier rules,
later
removed’.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
Teramo by order of that court of 31 July 2004 in the case
of criminal proceedings against Angelo Sorricchio

(Case C-360/04)

(2004/C 262/35)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Tribunale di Teramo (Italy)
of 31 July 2004 received at the Court Registry on 18 August
2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of criminal proceed-
ings against Angelo Sorricchio on the following questions:

‘May Articles 43(1) and 49 (1) of the Treaty be interpreted as
allowing the Member States to derogate temporarily (6 to 12
years) from the principle of freedom of establishment and of
freedom to provide series within the European Union, by:

1) allocating to certain persons licences for the pursuit of
certain activities involving provision of services, valid for 6
or 12 years, on the basis of a body of rules which excluded
from the tender procedure certain kinds of
(non-Italian)
competitors;

2) amending that system, after subsequently noting that it was
not compatible with the principles enshrined in Articles 43
and 49 of the Treaty, so as to allow in future the participa-
tion of those persons who had been excluded;

3) not revoking the licences granted on the basis of the earlier
system which, as stated, infringed the principles of freedom
of establishment and of free movement of services or setting
up a new tender procedure pursuant to the new rules which
now comply with the abovementioned principles;

4) continuing, on the other hand, to pursue anyone carrying
on business via a link with anyone who, despite being
entitled to pursue such an activity in the Member State of
origin, was excluded from the tender procedure precisely
under the exclusions contained in the earlier rules,
later
removed’.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale de
Teramo by decision of that court of 31 July 2004 in the
case of criminal proceedings against Christian Palazzese

(Case C-359/04)

(2004/C 262/34)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Tribunale de Teramo (Italy)
of 31 August 2004, received at the Court Registry on 18
August 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of criminal
proceedings against Christian Palazzese on the following ques-
tion:

‘May Articles 43(1) and 49 (1) of the Treaty be interpreted as
allowing the Member States to derogate temporarily (6 to 12
years) from the principle of freedom of establishment and of
freedom to provide series within the European Union, by:

1) allocating to certain persons licences for the pursuit of
certain activities involving provision of services, valid for 6
or 12 years, on the basis of a body of rules which excluded
from the tender procedure certain kinds of
(non-Italian)
competitors;

2) amending that system, after subsequently noting that it was
not compatible with the principles enshrined in Articles 43
and 49 of the Treaty, so as to allow in future the participa-
tion of those persons who had been excluded;

3) not revoking the licences granted on the basis of the earlier
system which, as stated, infringed the principles of freedom
of establishment and of free movement of services or setting
up a new tender procedure pursuant to the new rules which
now comply with the abovementioned principles;

4) continuing, on the other hand, to pursue anyone carrying
on business via a link with anyone who, despite being