Case C-330/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hovrätten för övre Norrland by order of that court of 22 August 2005 in the case of Per Fredrik Lennart Granberg v Lokal åklagare I Haparanda
Date: 2005-10-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: excise duty, free movement of goods, fuel oil, interpretation of the law, tax law, tax-free allowance

29.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/17

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hovrätten för
övre Norrland by order of that court of 22 August 2005 in
the case of Per Fredrik Lennart Granberg v Lokal åklagare
I Haparanda

tion by atypical means of transport within the meaning of
Article 9(3) of the Directive, must lodge a guarantee for
payment of excise duty and carry a simplified accompanying
document and a certificate of the lodging of a guarantee for
excise duty when the goods are moved?

(Case C-330/05)

(2005/C 271/31)

(Language of the case: Swedish)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Hovrätten för övre Norrland
of 22 August 2005, received at
the Court Registry on 6
September 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
between Per Fredrik Lennart Granberg and Lokal åklagare I
Haparanda on the following questions:

1. Does Article 9(3) of Directive 92/12/EEC (‘the Directive’)
allow Member States generally to exempt heating oil from
the Directive, so that a
the application of Article 8 of
Member State may provide that a private individual who
purchases heating oil himself for his own use in another
Member State where it was released for consumption, and
transports it himself to the Member State of destination
must pay excise duty there, regardless of the means of trans-
port used to transport the heating oil?

2. If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, is Article
9(3) of the Directive compatible with the fundamental prin-
ciples in the Treaty on free movement of goods and the
principle of proportionality, in the light of the fact that the
purpose of Article 9(3) of the Directive appears to be to
deter private individuals from transporting mineral oils by
providing for a derogation from the principle that where
goods are purchased by private individuals for their own
use and transported by them excise duty is to be charged in
the Member State in which they are acquired, and is such a
purpose compatible with the legal basis which the Council
relied on for the Directive, or is Article 9(3) invalid?

3. If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative, does the
transport by a private individual of 3 000 litres of heating
oil in three ‘IBC’ containers, which can as such be approved
for the commercial transport of dangerous goods including
liquids, in the hold of a covered van constitute transport by
atypical means within the meaning of Article 9(3) of the
Directive?

Appeal brought on 11 July 2005 by Internationaler Hilfs-
fonds e.V. against the order of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities (Third Chamber) in Case T-
294/04 between Internationaler Hilfsfonds
and
Commission of the European Communities, lodged on 6
September 2005

e.V.

(Case C-331/05 P)

(2005/C 271/32)

(Language of the case: German)

An appeal against the order of 11 July 2005 of the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber)
in Case T-294/04 between Internationaler Hilfsfonds e.V. and
Commission of the European Communities was brought before
the European Communities on 6
the Court of
September 2005 by Internationaler Hilfsfonds e.V., represented
by Dr jur. Hans Kaltenecker, 5 rue Raffet, F-75016 Paris.

Justice of

The appellant claims that the Court should:

1. set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of the Euro-
pean Communities (Third Chamber) of 11 July 2005 in
Case T-294/04 (1) and either refer the case back to the Court
of First Instance or order the defendant to pay to the clai-
mant the amount of EUR 54 037,00;

2. order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant substantiates its appeal against the aforemen-
tioned order of the Court of First Instance by pleading misap-
praisal and misapplication of the rules of procedure and of
Community law and non-observance of decisions of the Com-
munity courts:

4. Is it compatible with Article 7(4) of the Directive for a
Member State's legislation to provide that a private indivi-
dual, who purchases heating oil himself for his own use in
another Member State where it was released for consump-
tion and moves it himself to the Member State of destina-

1. The Court of First Instance disregarded the fact that there is
a legal and factual difference between costs of proceedings
relating to court proceedings and costs arising in the
context of a claim for compensation.