Case C-11/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam by judgment of that court of 28 December 2004 in Friesland Coberco Dairy Foods BV (trading under the name Friesland Supply Point Ede) v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane Noord/kantoor Groningen
Date: 2005-04-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: customs regulations, economic situation, interpretation of the law, manufactured goods, processing industry, processing under customs control, raw material

C 82/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

2.4.2005

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof
te Amsterdam by judgment of that court of 28 December
2004 in Friesland Coberco Dairy Foods BV (trading under
the name Friesland Supply Point Ede) v Inspecteur van de
Belastingdienst/Douane Noord/kantoor Groningen

(Case C-11/05)

(2005/C 82/16)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

rejection of the application for processing under customs
control?

(1) OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.
(2) OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1.
(3) Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EC) No 993/2001 of 4
May 2001 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 laying down
provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 2913/92 establishing the Community Custom Code (OJ 2001 L
141, p. 1).

the Gerechtshof

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by judgment of
te
Amsterdam (Netherlands) of 28 December 2004, received at
the Court Registry on 14 January 2005, for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings between Friesland Coberco Dairy
Foods BV (trading under the name Friesland Supply Point Ede)
and Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst
(Taxation Service)/
Douane Noord (Customs North)/kantoor Groningen (Office) on
the following questions:

1. How should the words ‘without adversely affecting the
essential interests of Community producers of similar goods’
in Article 133(e) [of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92
of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs
Code (1)] be interpreted? Can only the market
the
finished product be considered or must the economic situa-
tion with regard to the raw materials for processing under
customs control also be investigated?

for

2. In relation to the assessment of the ‘processing activities to
be created or maintained’ under Article 502(3) [of Commis-
sion Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying
down provisions for the implementation of Regulation No
2913/92 (2)], is there a specific number of jobs which must,
as a minimum, be made possible by the activities? What
other criteria also apply to the interpretation of the cited
text?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof
te Amsterdam of 28 December 2004 in the case of
Anagram International Inc. and Inspecteur van de Belas-
tingdienst/Douane Rotterdam

(Case C-14/05)

(2005/C 82/17)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

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 28 December 2004, received at the Court Registry on
19 January 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
between Anagram International
Inc. and Inspecteur van de
Belastingdienst/Douane Rotterdam on the following questions:

the Gerechtshof

1. Must point 3 of

the Annex to Regulation (EC) No
442/2000 (1) be interpreted as meaning that it also relates
to the goods described under the facts (in section 2 of the
reference for a preliminary ruling)?

3. In the light of the answers to questions 1 and 2, can the
Court of Justice examine the validity of a conclusion of the
Committee in preliminary ruling proceedings?

2. If so, is the Regulation valid in that respect?

4. If so, is the conclusion in this case valid with respect to
both the reasons and the economic arguments adduced?

5. If the Court of Justice cannot examine the validity of a
conclusion, what interpretation should then be given to the
words ‘[t]he Committee's conclusion shall be taken into
in Article 504(4) [of
account by the customs authorities’
Regulation No 2454/93 (3)] if – in the first instance – the
customs authorities and/or – on appeal – the national courts
consider that the Committee's conclusion cannot justify the

3. If the Regulation is invalid or if it does not cover the goods
at issue, can the CCT be interpreted as meaning that those
goods must be classified as ‘festive articles’ of heading
9505 90 00?

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 442/2000 of 25 February 2000
concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined
Nomenclature (OJ 2000 L 54, p. 33).