Case C-445/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf by order of that court of 13 October 2004 in the case of Possehl Erzkontor GmbH against Hauptzollamt Duisburg
Date: 2004-12-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, chemical product, interpretation of the law, mining product, tariff nomenclature

C 314/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

18.12.2004

3. If so, is a national rule which, contrary to Articles 28/30
EC, prohibits the sale of silver jewellery by way of calling on
private individuals for the purposes of selling, and collecting
orders for, silver jewellery not contrary to the right of an
individual
to sell silver jewellery by way of calling on
private individuals for the purposes of selling, and collecting
orders for, silver jewellery?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht
Düsseldorf by order of that court of 13 October 2004 in
the case of Possehl Erzkontor GmbH against Hauptzollamt
Duisburg

(Case C-445/04)

(2004/C 314/09)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf
(Düsseldorf Finance Court)
(Germany) of 13 October 2004,
received at the Court Registry on 21 October 2004, for a preli-
minary ruling in the case of Possehl Erzkontor GmbH against
Hauptzollamt Duisburg on the following question:

Does fused magnesia of the kind described in detail
in this
order, which is caustic-burned from natural mined magnesite
and obtained in a second processing stage by fusion in an elec-
tric arc furnace, come under subheading 2519 90 10 of
Annex I to the Combined Nomenclature?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgerichts
Innsbruck by decision of that court of 30 September 2004
in the case of Autohaus Ostermann GmbH against VAV
Versicherungs AG

(Case C-447/04)

(2004/C 314/10)

liability in respect of

of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against
civil
the use of motor vehicles and
amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC
(Fourth motor insurance Directive) (1)
to be interpreted as
meaning that the insurance company against which a claim has
been made is always subject to a three-month time-limit to deal
with the matter, even in the case of a simple factual and legal
situation, or that this refers merely to a ‘setting of the due date’,
which does not exclude earlier settlement of the claim by the
insurance company after the setting of an ‘appropriate’ time-
limit for payment which is also within the three-month period?

(1) OJ L 181, p. 65.

Action brought on 27 October 2004 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg

(Case C-448/04)

(2004/C 314/11)

An action against
the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Commu-
nities on 27 October 2004 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by C. O'Reilly and A.-M. Rouchaud-
Joët, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg.

The Commission of the European Communities claims that the
Court should:

1. declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions which are necessary in order to
comply with Council Directive 2001/40/EC of 28 May
2001 on the mutual recognition of decisions on the expul-
sion of third country nationals (1) or, in any event, by failing
to inform the Commission of them, the Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg has failed to fulfil
its obligations under that
directive;

2. order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by decision of the Landesgericht Innsbruck
(Austria) of 30 September 2004, which was received at the
Court Registry on 27 October 2004, for a preliminary ruling in
the case of Autohaus Ostermann GmbH against VAV Versi-
cherungs AG.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposing the directive into national
expired on 2 December 2002.

law

The Landesgericht Innsbruck asks the Court of Justice to give a
preliminary ruling on the following question:

(1) OJ L 149 of 2.6.2001, p. 34.

Is Article 4(6) of Directive 2000/26/EC of the European Parlia-
ment and the Council of 16 May 2000 on the approximation