Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 September 2005 in Case C-140/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen: United Antwerp Maritime Agencies NV v Belgische Staat, and Seaport Terminals NV v Belgische Staat, United Antwerp Maritime Agencies NV (Customs union — Creation of a customs debt on importation — Goods in temporary storage — Unlawful removal of the goods from customs supervision — Person liable for the debt)
Date: 2005-11-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law, customs debt, customs regulations, interpretation of the law

12.11.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 281/3

2. Article 141 EC and Directive 75/117 must be construed as
meaning that the following do not constitute discrimination on
grounds of sex:

— a rule of a sick-leave scheme which provides,

in regard to
female workers absent prior to maternity leave by reason of an
illness related to their pregnancy, as also in regard to male
workers absent by reason of any other illness, for a reduction
in pay in the case where the absence exceeds a certain dura-
tion, provided that the female worker is treated in the same
way as a male worker who is absent on grounds of illness and
provided that the amount of payment made is not so low as
to undermine the objective of protecting pregnant workers;

— a rule of a sick-leave scheme which provides for absences on
illness to be offset against a maximum total
grounds of
number of days of paid sick-leave to which a worker is entitled
over a specified period, whether or not the illness is pregnancy-
related, provided that the offsetting of the absences on grounds
of a pregnancy-related illness does not have the effect that,
during the absence affected by that offsetting after the mater-
nity leave, the female worker receives pay that is lower than
the minimum amount to which she was entitled during the
illness which arose while she was pregnant.

(1) OJ C 158 of 05. 07. 2003.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 8 September 2005

in Case C-512/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Gerechtshof te 's-Hertogenbosch) in J.E.J. Blanckaert v
Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Particulieren/Onderne-
mingen buitenland te Heerlen (1)

(Direct taxation — Tax on income from savings and invest-
ments — Tax convention — Tax credits allowed only for
persons insured under the national social security system)

(2005/C 281/06)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

by decision of 4 December 2003, received at the Court on 8
December 2003, in the proceedings between J.E.J. Blanckaert
and Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Particulieren/Onderne-
mingen buitenland te Heerlen — the Court (First Chamber),
composed of K. Lenaerts, (Rapporteur) President of the Fourth
Chamber, acting for the President of the First Chamber, N.
Colneric, K. Schiemann, E. Juhász and M. Ilešič, Judges; C. Stix-
Hackl, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator
for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 8 September 2005, the
operative part of which is as follows:

Articles 56 EC and 58 EC must be interpreted as not precluding a
law of a Member State under which a non-resident taxpayer who
receives income in that State only from savings and investments and
who is not insured under the social security system of that Member
State cannot claim entitlement to tax credits in respect of national
taxpayer who is insured under that
insurance, whereas a resident
social security system is entitled to those credits when his taxable
income is calculated, even if he receives only income of that same kind
and does not pay social security contributions.

(1) OJ C 47 of 21.02.2004.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 15 September 2005

in Case C-140/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen: United Antwerp Mari-
time Agencies NV v Belgische Staat, and Seaport Terminals
NV v Belgische Staat, United Antwerp Maritime Agencies
NV (1)

(Customs union — Creation of a customs debt on importa-
tion — Goods in temporary storage — Unlawful removal of
the goods from customs supervision — Person liable for the
debt)

(2005/C 281/07)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

In Case C-512/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Gerechtshof te 's-Hertogenbosch ('s-
Hertogenbosch Regional Court of Appeal) (Netherlands), made

In Case C-140/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen
(Belgium), made by decision of 11 March 2004, received at the
Court on 16 March 2004, in the proceedings between United
Antwerp Maritime Agencies NV v Belgische Staat, and Seaport

C 281/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

12.11.2005

Terminals NV and Belgische Staat, United Antwerp Maritime
Agencies NV — the Court (First Chamber) composed of P.
Jann, President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts, J.N. Cunha Rodri-
gues (Rapporteur), E. Juhász and M. Ilešič, Judges; D. Ruiz-
Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General, M. Ferreira, Principal
administrator,
for the, Registrar, gave a judgment on 15
September 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

The fourth indent of Article 203(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No
2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs
Code must be interpreted as meaning that ‘the person required to fulfil
the obligations arising from temporary storage of the goods’ is the
person who holds the goods after they have been unloaded in order to
move or store them.

(1) OJ C 106 of 30.04.2004.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 8 September 2005

in Case C-303/04 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunale di Voghera): Lidl Italia Srl v Comune di Stra-
della (1)

(Technical standards and regulations — Directive 98/34/EC
— Concept of ‘technical regulation’ — Non-biodegradable
cotton buds)

(2005/C 281/08)

(Language of the case: Italian)

93 of 23 March 2001 on the environment constitutes a technical
regulation to the extent to which it includes a prohibition on the
marketing of cotton buds which are not manufactured from biode-
gradable materials in accordance with a national standard.

2. The first subparagraph of Article 8(1) of Directive 98/34, as
amended by Directive 98/48, must be interpreted as meaning that
a national provision which constitutes a technical regulation, such
as Article 19 of Law No 93 of 23 March 2001, must be notified
to the Commission of the European Communities prior to its
adoption.

3. The first subparagraph of Article 8(1) of Directive 98/34, as
amended by Directive 98/48, must be interpreted as meaning that
the national courts may refuse to apply a national legal provision
constituting a technical regulation, such as Article 19 of Law No
93/2001 of 23 March 2001, if it has not been notified to the
Commission of the European Communities prior to its adoption.

(1) OJ C 228 of 11.09.2004.

Appeal brought on 28 July 2005 (Fax: 27 July 2005) by
Hans-Peter Wilfer against the judgment delivered on 8
June 2005 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities in Case T-315/03
Hans-Peter Wilfer v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-301/05 P)

(2005/C 281/09)

(Language of the case: German)

In Case C-303/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Tribunale di Voghera (District Court
of Voghera) (Italy), made by decision of 1 July 2004, received
at the Court on 16 July 2004, in the proceedings between Lidl
Italia Srl and Comune di Stradella — the Court
(Fifth
Chamber), composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta, President of the
Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur) and J. Klučka, Judges; J.
Kokott, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment
on 8 September 2005,
the operative part of which is as
follows:

1. Article 1(11) of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for
the provision of information in the field of technical standards and
rules on Information Society services, as
regulations and of
amended by Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 20 July 1998, must be interpreted as meaning
that a national legislative provision such as Article 19 of Law No

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 8 June 2005 by
the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the Euro-
pean Communities in Case T-315/03 between Hans-Peter Wilfer
and Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
and Designs)(OHIM) was brought before the Court of Justice of
the European Communities on 28 July 2005 by Hans-Peter
Wilfer,
lawyer, of Kanzlei
Meissner, Bolte & Partner, Widenmayerstraße 48, D-80538
Munich, Germany.

represented by A. Kockläuner,

The appellant claims that the Court should:

1. set aside, in its entirety, paragraph 1 of the operative part of
the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 June 2005
in Case T-315/03 (1) under appeal, and set aside paragraphs
2 and 3 of the operative part, in so far as to order OHIM to
pay all of its own costs and those incurred by the applicant;