Case C-142/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Luleå tingsrätt by order of that court of 21 March 2005 in Åklagaren v Percy Mickelsson and Joakim Roos
Date: 2005-06-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: free movement of goods, interpretation of the law, navigational code, pleasure craft, quantitative restriction

11.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 143/23

that were already on the market two years after the date
of notification of that directive, regard must also be had
to the provisions of Article 8(3) thereof?

7. Must Article 8(3) of the Plant Protection Products Directive
be interpreted as meaning that an examination of an new
application of a plant protection product already on the
market, whereby it is considered whether there are unaccep-
table risks to the operator/worker, human health and the
environment in connection with a temporary measure as
referred to in Article 16aa of the Law on Pesticides, is to be
regarded as a review within the meaning of Article 8(3)
thereof?

8. Must Article 8(3) of the Plant Protection Products Directive
be interpreted as meaning that it contains only rules relating
to the provision of data before a review or must it be
construed as meaning that the requirements set out therein
are also relevant to the way in which a review must be orga-
nised and carried out?

(1) Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the
placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ L 230,
19/08/1991 p. 1)

(2) Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on
the market (OJ L 123, 24/04/1998 p. 1)

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger
Finanzsenat by order of that court of 17 March 2005 in
the proceedings between Amalia Valesko and Zollamt
Klagenfurt

(Case C-140/05)

(2005/C 143/32)

(Language of the case: German)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat
(Austria) of 17 March 2005, received at the Court Registry on
29 March 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
between Amalia Valesko and Zollamt Klagenfurt on the
following questions:

Question 1:

of 23.9.2003, L 236), which state that, without prejudice to
Article 8 of Council Directive 92/12/EEC on the general
arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the
holding, movement and monitoring of such products, and
having informed the Commission, Member States may, as long
as the derogation from Article 2(1) of Directive 92/79/EEC —
as last amended — applies,
‘maintain’ the same quantitative
limits for cigarettes which may be brought into their territories
from Slovenia without further excise duty payment as those
applied with regard to cigarette imports from third countries,
do they — in the light of the technical term ‘maintain’ —
permit quantitative limits which applied in a Member State in
respect of imports from inter alia the Republic of Slovenia as a
third country until the accession of that country?

Question 2:

If the Court of Justice concludes that the Treaty provisions in
question are not in fact to be construed as permitting quantita-
tive limits which applied in a Member State in respect of
imports from inter alia the Republic of Slovenia as a third
country until the accession of that country:

On a proper construction of Articles 23, 25 and 26 of the EC
Treaty, do the rules of a Member State, under which the
exemption from excise duty applicable to tobacco products
imported in the personal luggage of travellers who are normally
resident in the tax territory of that Member State and enter that
territory directly via a land border or inland waters is limited to
25 cigarettes on entry from certain other Member States,
comply with the principles of the free movement of goods
where a quantitative limit of that kind exists only in respect of
a customs exclave in a single third country (Switzerland) whilst
from any other third country importation of 200 cigarettes free
of excise duty into that Member State is allowed?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Luleå tingsrätt
by order of that court of 21 March 2005 in Åklagaren v
Percy Mickelsson and Joakim Roos

(Case C-142/05)

(2005/C 143/33)

(Language of the case: Swedish)

On a proper construction of the provisions contained in the
... the Republic of
Documents concerning the accession of
Slovenia ... to the European Union, Annex XIII: List referred to
in Article 24 of the Act of Accession: Slovenia; Heading 6.
Taxation, paragraph 2 (Official Journal of the European Union

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by decision of the Luleå tingsrätt (Sweden)
of 21 March 2005, received at the Court Registry on 24 March
2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between
Åklagaren and Percy Mickelsson and Joakim Roos on the
following questions:

C 143/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

11.6.2005

1. a) Do Articles 28 to 30 EC preclude national provisions,
such as those in the Swedish jet-ski regulations, prohi-
biting the use of personal watercraft other than on a
general navigable waterway or waters in respect of
which the local authority has issued rules permitting
their use?

b) In the alternative, do Articles 28 to 30 EC prevent a
Member State from applying provisions of that kind in
such a way as to prohibit the use of personal watercraft
also on waters which have not yet been the subject of an
investigation by the local authority of whether or not
rules permitting their use in the area are to be issued?

2. Does Directive 2003/44/EC (1) of the European Parliament
and of the Council amending Directive 94/25/EC on the
approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative
provisions of the Member States relating to recreational
craft preclude such national provisions prohibiting the use
of personal watercraft as set out above?

(1) of 16 June 2003, OJ L 214, 26.8.2003, p. 18.

2. order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for implementing the directive in national
expired on 23 November 2003.

law

(1) OJ 2002 L 324, p. 53.

Action brought on 30 March 2005 by the Commission of
the Kingdom of
the European Communities against

Belgium

(Case C-144/05)

(2005/C 143/35)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

Action brought on 29 March 2005 by the Commission of
the Kingdom of
the European Communities against

Belgium

An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before
the Court of
the European Communities on 30
March 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by K. Simonsson and W. Wils, of its Legal Service.

Justice of

(Case C-143/05)

The Commission claims that the Court should:

(2005/C 143/34)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before
the Court of
the European Communities on 29
March 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by K. Simonsson and W. Wils, of its Legal Service.

Justice of

The Commission claims that the Court should:

1. declare that by not taking all necessary legal and administra-
tive measures to comply with Directive 2002/84/EC (1)of
the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 November
2002 amending the Directives on maritime safety and the
prevention of pollution from ships, or by not notifying the
Commission of such measures, the Kingdom of Belgium has
failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1. declare that by not taking all necessary legal and administra-
tive measures to comply with Directive 2002/59/EC (1)of
the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June
2002 establishing a Community vessel traffic monitoring
and information system and repealing Council Directive
93/75/EEC, or by not notifying the Commission of such
measures, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
obligations under that directive;

2. order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for implementing the directive in national
expired on 5 February 2004.

law

(1) OJ 2002 L 208, p. 10