Case C-448/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Paris by judgment of that court of  18 November 2005  in Vestel France SA v Administration des Douanes et Droits Indirects
Date: 2006-02-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: customs regulations, customs territory (EU), interpretation of the law, originating product, television equipment

25.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/17

‘Is Annex 11 to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of
2 July 1993 (1)
invalid as being contrary to Article 24 of
Council Regulation No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 estab-
lishing the Community Customs Code (2)
in that it has the
result that a television receiver manufactured in Poland in the
circumstances described in the proceedings is held to be of
Korean origin?’

(1) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying
down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation
(EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ L
253, p. 1).
(2) OJ L 302, p. 1.

Action brought on 19 December 2005 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg

(Case C-452/05)

(2006/C 48/33)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against
the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Commu-
nities on 19 December 2005 by the Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities, represented by S. Pardo Quintillán and F.
Simonetti, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

1. declare that, as it is not able to ensure that the minimum
percentage of reduction of the overall load entering all treat-
ment plants is at least 75 % for total phosphorus and at
least 75 % for total nitrogen, the Grand Duchy of Luxem-
bourg has failed to fulfil
its obligations by reason of a
misapplication of Article 5(4) of Council Directive
91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water
treatment (1);

2. order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel
de Paris by judgment of that court of 18 November 2005
in Vestel France SA v Administration des Douanes et
Droits Indirects

(Case C-448/05)

(2006/C 48/32)

(Language of the case: French)

Pleas in law and main arguments

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by judgment of the Cour d'appel de Paris
(Paris Court of Appeal) of 18 November 2005, received at the
Court Registry on 16 December 2005, for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings between Vestel France SA and Administra-
tion des Douanes et Droits Indirects on the following question:

‘Is Annex 11 to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of
2 July 1993 (1)
invalid as being contrary to Article 24 of
Council Regulation No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 estab-
lishing the Community Customs Code (2)
in that it has the
result that a television receiver manufactured in Turkey in the
circumstances described in the proceedings is held to be of
Chinese origin?’

(1) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying
down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation
(EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ L
253, p. 1).
(2) OJ L 302, p. 1.

instead of applying more
Luxembourg stated in 1999 that,
stringent treatment to all the treatment plants within its terri-
tory, it was choosing to rely on Article 5(4), which amounts to
making an overall assessment of
the level of reduction in
nitrogen and phosphorus as regards all the agglomerations in
Luxembourg.

However, according to the most recent information received
from Luxembourg concerning the overall percentage of reduc-
tion of the load entering all treatment plants, the conditions for
application of Article 5(4) have not been fulfilled.

the Commission is obliged to conclude that the
Therefore,
the
Luxembourg authorities have failed to establish that
minimum percentage of
load of
nitrogen and phosphorus is at least 75 % as regards each of the
two parameters; consequently, the conditions for application of
Article 5(4) have not been satisfied.

reduction of

the overall

(1) OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40.