Case C-250/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches Finanzgericht by order of that court of 14 April 2005 in Turbon International GmbH — as universal successor in title to Kores Nordic Deutschland GmbH v Oberfinanzdirektion Koblenz — Zoll- und Verbrauchsteuerabteilung
Date: 2005-09-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, interpretation of the law, office supplies

C 217/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

3.9.2005

Action brought on 9 June 2005 by Commission of the
the
European Communities against

the Kingdom of

Netherlands

In the present case the Commission is of the view that transpo-
sition of the directive into the Netherlands legal system cannot
in several respects be regarded as ‘adequate’.

(Case C-247/05)

(1) OJ 1996 L 257, p. 26.

(2005/C 217/51)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9
June 2005 by Commission of
the European Communities,
represented by Minas Konstantinidis and Michel Van Beck,
acting as Agents.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Declare that, by incorrectly transposing Council Directive
96/61/EC (1) of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated
pollution prevention and control, the Kingdom of the Neth-
erlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2(6)
and (11), 5(1), 9(3) to (6), the second indent to Article
13(2), the second indent to Article 14 and annexes III and
IV to the abovementioned directive;

— Order the Netherlands to pay the costs.

Pleas and main arguments:

The Netherlands Government adopted in due time the requisite
legislative and administrative measures in order to comply with
the directive and the legislative proposal in course of prepara-
tion serves merely to clarify and elucidate the various headings
of the directive.

The Commission further points out that the way in which
Member States are bound to transpose directives in their
national
systems has on numerous occasions been
expounded by the Court. For example, in the judgment in Case
C-361/88 Commission v Germany [1991] ECR I-2567, the Court
used the following formulation:

legal

‘…The transposition of a directive into domestic law does
not necessarily require that its provisions be incorporated
formally and verbatim in express, specific legislation; a
general legal context may, depending on the content of the
directive, be adequate for the purpose provided that it does
indeed guarantee the full application of the directive in a
sufficiently clear and precise manner so that, where the
directive is intended to create rights for individuals, the
persons concerned can ascertain the full extent of their
rights and, where appropriate, rely on them before the
national courts.’

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches
Finanzgericht by order of that court of 14 April 2005 in
Turbon International GmbH — as universal successor in
title to Kores Nordic Deutschland GmbH v Oberfinanz-
direktion Koblenz — Zoll- und Verbrauchsteuerabteilung

(Case C-250/05)

(2005/C 217/52)

(Language of the case: German)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Hessisches Finanzgericht of
14 April 2005, received at the Court Registry on 15 June
2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between
Turbon International GmbH — as universal successor in title to
Kores Nordic Deutschland GmbH and Oberfinanzdirektion
Koblenz — Zoll- und Verbrauchsteuerabteilung — on the
following question:

In the judgment of 7 February 2002 in Case C-276/00 (1) it
was held that Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/
87 (2) of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature
and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commis-
sion Regulation (EC) No 1734/96 (3) of 9 September 1996, had
to be interpreted as meaning that an ink-cartridge without inte-
grated print head, consisting of plastic casing, foam, a metal
screen, seals, tape seal, labels, ink and packing material, which,
as regards both the cartridge and the ink, could only be used in
a printer with the same characteristics as Epson Stylus Colour
ink-jet printers, was
subheading
3215 90 80 of the Combined Nomenclature.

classified under

to be

Contrary to that ruling, should not the ink-cartridge described
above in fact be classified as a part or accessory of a printer
under CN heading 8473 because the mechanical and electronic
functioning of the printer is dependent upon the presence of a
cartridge of that kind?

(1) [2002] ECR I-1389.
(2) OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1.
(3) OJ 1996 L 238, p. 1.