Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 May 2005 in Case C-542/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof in Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas v Milupa GmbH & Co. KG (Agriculture — Export refunds — Agricultural products which are processed and incorporated into goods not covered by Annex II of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Annex I EC) — Inaccurate declaration — Sanction)
Date: 2005-08-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: export refund, interpretation of the law, skimmed milk powder

20.8.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/3

Dal Bello Sife Srl, established in Padua, Frigofrutta Srl, estab-
lished in Palermo (Italy), Garletti Snc, established in Bergamo
(Italy), London Fruit Ltd, established in London (United
(Lawyers: W. Viscardini Donà and G. Donà), the
Kingdom)
other party to the proceedings being the Commission of the
European Communities
and L.
Visaggio, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer) — appeal under Article 56
of the Statute of the Court of Justice, brought on 2 July 2003
— the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmer-
mans, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, R. Schintgen
(Rapporteur), G. Arestis and J. Klučka, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo
Colomer, Advocate General: M. Ferreira, Principal Adminis-
in
trator, for Registrar, gave a judgment on 30 June 2005,
which it:

(Agents: C. Cattabriga

1. Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the Euro-
pean Communities of 10 April 2003 in Joined Cases T-93/00
and T-46/01 Alessandrini and Others v Commission;

2. Dismisses

the applications brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities in Cases T-93/00 and T-
46/01;

3. Orders Alessandrini Srl, Anello Gino di Anello Luigi & C. Snc,
Arpigi SpA, Bestfruit Srl, Co-Frutta SpA, Co-Frutta Soc. coop.
arl, Dal Bello Sife Srl, Frigofrutta Srl, Garletti Snc and London
Fruit Ltd to pay the costs incurred both at first instance and in
connection with the appeal.

Jari-Antero Viljaniemi, Veli-Matti Paananen against Vahinkova-
kuutusosakeyhtiö Pohjola, Jarno Ruokoranta, the Court (First
Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, K.
Lenaerts, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), E. Juhász and M.
Ilešič,
Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; H. von
Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, gave a judgment
on 30 June 2005, in which it ruled:

In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, Article 2(1)
of Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance
against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles and Article
1 of Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance
against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, preclude a
national rule which allows the compensation borne by the compulsory
motor vehicle insurance to be refused or limited in a disproportionate
manner on the basis of the passenger's contribution to the injury or
loss he has suffered. The fact that the passenger concerned is the
owner of the vehicle the driver of which caused the accident is irrele-
vant.

(1) OJ C 59 of 06.03.2004

(1) OJ C 213 of 06.09.2003

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 12 May 2005

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 30 June 2005

in Case C-537/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Korkein Oikeus in Katja Candolin and Others. v Vahin-
kovakuutusosakeyhtiö Pohjola and Others (1)

(Compulsory motor vehicle insurance — Directives 84/5/EEC
and 90/232/EEC — Rules on civil liability — Passenger's
contribution to the loss or injury — Refusal or limitation of
the right to compensation)

(2005/C 205/05)

(Language of the case: Finnish)

In Case C-537/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Korkein Oikeus (Finland), made by
decision of 19 December 2003, received at the Court on 22
December 2003, in the proceedings between Katja Candolin,

in Case C-542/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Bundesfinanzhof in Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas v
Milupa GmbH & Co. KG (1)

(Agriculture — Export refunds — Agricultural products
which are processed and incorporated into goods not covered
by Annex II of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Annex
I EC) — Inaccurate declaration — Sanction)

(2005/C 205/06)

(Language of the case: German)

In Case C-542/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany), made by
decision of 18 November 2003, received at the Court on 23
December 2003,
in the proceedings between Hauptzollamt
Hamburg-Jonas and Milupa GmbH & Co. KG — the Court
(Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas (Rapporteur), President
of the Chamber, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, U. Lõhmus and
A. Ó Caoimh, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass,
Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 May 2005, in which it ruled:

C 205/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.8.2005

The second sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 7(1), the first
subparagraph of Article 7(2) and Article 7(5) of Commission Regu-
lation (EC) No 1222/94 of 30 May 1994 laying down common
detailed rules for the application of the system of granting export
refunds on certain agricultural products exported in the form of goods
not covered by Annex II to the Treaty, and the criteria for fixing the
amount of such refunds, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC)
No 229/96 of 7 February 1996, are to be interpreted as meaning
that where an exporter has declared in a request for an export refund
that,
in the production of the goods in issue, a product was used
which, by virtue of Article 1(2) of that regulation, is assimilated to
the skimmed milk powder described in Annex A (PG 2), whereas in
fact another product was used which, by virtue of the same provision,
is also assimilated to the same skimmed milk powder, he is entitled to
the grant of an export refund, corrected if appropriate in accordance
with Article 11 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of
27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for the
application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products,
as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2945/94 of 2
December 1994.

(1) OJ C 59 of 06.03.2004.

in the proceedings between
the Court on 28 January 2004,
intervener:
Tod's SpA, Tod's France SARL and Heyraud SA,
Technisynthèse,
(Second Chamber), composed of
C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber,
R. Silva de Lapuerta, R. Schintgen, P. Kūris and G. Arestis,
Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General: R. Grass, Registrar, gave
a judgment on 30 June 2005, in which it ruled:

the Court:

Article 12 EC, which lays down the general principle of non-discrimi-
nation on grounds of nationality, must be interpreted as meaning that
the right of an author to claim in a Member State the copyright
protection afforded by the law of that State may not be subject to a
distinguishing criterion based on the country of origin of the work.

(1) OJ C 71 of 20.03.2004

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 30 June 2005

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 2 June 2005

in Case C-174/04: Commission of the European Commu-
nities v Italian Republic (1)

in Case C-28/04 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal de grande instance de Paris): Tod's SpA,
Tod's France SARL v Heyraud SA (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 56
EC — Automatic suspension of voting rights in privatised
undertakings)

(Equal

treatment — Principle of non-discrimination on

grounds of nationality — Copyright and related rights)

(2005/C 205/08)

(Language of the case: Italian)

(2005/C 205/07)

(Language of the case: French)

In Case C-28/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Tribunal de grande instance de Paris
(France), made by decision of 5 December 2003, received at

In Case C-174/04, Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: E. Traversa and C. Loggi) v Italian Republic (Agent:
I.M. Braguglia, assisted by P. Gentili, avvocato) — action under
Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 13
April 2004 — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann
the Chamber, K. Lenaerts, N.
(Rapporteur), President of
Colneric, K. Schiemann and E. Juhász, Judges; J. Kokott, Advo-
cate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 2 June
2005 in which it: