Case C-3/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte d'Appello di Cagliari by order of that court of 12 November 2004 in the case of Gaetano Verdoliva against J.M. Van Der Hoeven B.N.
Date: 2005-03-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European convention, Italy, enforcement of ruling, interpretation of the law, jurisdiction

C 69/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

19.3.2005

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte d'Appello
di Cagliari by order of that court of 12 November 2004 in
J.M. Van Der
the case of Gaetano Verdoliva against

lands), which was received at the Court Registry on 10 January
2005, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Staatssecretaris
van Financiën v B.F. Joustra on the following questions:

Hoeven B.N.

(Case C-3/05)

(2005/C 69/12)

(Language of the case: Italian)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Corte d'Appello di Cagliari
(Italy) of 12 November 2004, received at the Court Registry on
6 January 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Gaetano
Verdoliva and J.M. Van Der Hoeven B.N. on the following ques-
tions:

— ‘Does the Brussels Convention provide its own definition of
notice of procedural documents or is that concept left to be
defined by national rules?

— Can it be inferred from the rules of the Brussels Conven-
tion, and in particular from Article 36 thereof, that the
decision authorising enforcement referred to in Article 36
of the Convention may be the subject of acts equivalent to
service?

— Does notice of the decision authorising enforcement,

in
cases of failure of, or defective, service, none the less cause
time to run for the purposes of the time-limit referred to in
that article? If not, is the Brussels Convention to be inter-
preted as limiting the ways in which there may be found to
be notice of the decision authorising enforcement?’

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden of 7 January 2005 in the case of Staatssecre-
taris van Financiën v B.F. Joustra

(Case C-5/05)

(2005/C 69/13)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by judgment of 7 January 2005 of the
Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Nether-

1. Must Article 8 of Council Directive 92/12/EEC (1) be
construed as meaning that excise duty may not be levied
other than in the Member State of acquisition in the case
where an individual purchases goods subject to excise duty
personally and for his own use in one Member State and
has them transported by a transport undertaking to another
Member State?

2. Must Article 8 of Council Directive 92/12/EEC be construed
as meaning that excise duty may not be levied other than in
the Member State of acquisition in the case where, as in the
present, individuals arrange for goods subject to excise duty
to be purchased in one Member State by another individual
who is not operating commercially or with a view to
making a profit and who arranges for the goods to be trans-
ported on behalf of the purchasers by a transport under-
taking to another Member State?

3. If the answer to (one of) those questions should be in the
negative: must Articles 7 and 9 of Council Directive
92/12/EEC be construed as meaning that, if an individual
arranges for goods subject to excise duty which have been
released for consumption in one Member State to be trans-
ported by a third party operating on his behalf to another
Member State, where they are intended for his own personal
requirements and for the personal requirements of others
whom that individual also represents, that individual holds
in that other Member State those goods subject to excise
duty, that is to say, both those intended for his own use and
those intended for the use of those other individuals, for
commercial purposes within the terms of Articles 7 and 9
of the Directive, even if he is not acting commercially or
with a view to making a profit?

4. If the answer to Question 3 should be in the negative, does
it follow from any other provision of Directive 92/12 that
the individual referred to in Question 3 owes excise duty in
the other Member State?

(1) Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general
arrangements for products subject
to excise duty and on the
holding, movement and monitoring of such products (OJ 1992 L 76,
p. 1).