Case C-514/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam, by decision of that court of 30 November 2004, in the case of Uroplasty B.V. against Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane District Rotterdam
Date: 2005-03-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, common customs tariff, interpretation of the law, medical device, plastics, tariff nomenclature

5.3.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 57/15

Is Article 56(1) of the EC Treaty (at the material time: Article
73b(1) of the EC Treaty) to be interpreted as precluding a
restriction resulting from a provision in the income tax legisla-
tion of a Member State (in this case, Belgium) by which both
dividends from shares in a company established in that State
and dividends from shares in companies not established in that
State are subject, in the hands of the share owner, to a uniform
rate but where, in regard to share dividends from companies
that are not established in that Member State, no deduction of
taxation at source levied in that other Member State is allowed?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechtshof te
Amsterdam, by decision of that court of 30 November
2004, in the case of Uroplasty B.V. against Inspecteur van
de Belastingdienst/Douane District Rotterdam

3. If not, classification under which other heading results from

the interpretation of the CCT?

Action brought on 21 December 2004 by the Commission
the Hellenic
of

against

the European Communities
Republic

(Case C-518/04)

(2005/C 57/30)

(Language of the case: Greek)

(Case C-514/04)

(2005/C 57/29)

An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 21 December
2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, repre-
sented by Michel van Beek, Legal Adviser in its Legal Service,
and Minas Konstantinidis, member of its Legal Service.

(Language of the case: Dutch)

The Commission claims that the Court should:

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
te
pean Communities by judgment of
Amsterdam, (Amsterdam Regional Court of Appeal) (Nether-
lands) of 30 November 2004, received at the Court Registry on
15 December 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Uroplasty B.V. against Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/
Douane District Rotterdam on the following questions:

the Gerechtshof

1.

(a) Must heading 9021 of

the CCT be interpreted as
meaning that a product consisting of sterile, white flakes
and
of
intended solely for use as a medical/surgical
implant,
can be classified under that heading?

polydimethylsiloxane,

developed

specially

— declare that, by failing to take the necessary measures for
the establishment and application of an effective system of
strict protection for the viper Vipera schweizeri on the island
of Milos in order to avoid any deliberate disturbance of the
species, particularly during the period of breeding, rearing
and hibernation, and any deterioration or destruction of
breeding sites or resting places, the Hellenic Republic has
failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12(1)(b) and (d)
of Directive 92/43/EEC (1) on the conservation of natural
habitats and of wild fauna and flora;

— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

(b) If so, under which subheading of heading 9021 of the

CCT must the product be classified?

2. If heading 9021 is not possible in this case, is the product
eligible for classification under heading 3926 of the CCT?

The aim of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on
the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora
is to contribute towards the protection of biodiversity through
the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora
in the European territory of the Member States to which the
Treaty applies.