Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of  12 January 2006  in Case C-311/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam in Algemene Scheeps Agentuur Dordrecht BV v Inspecteur der Belastingdienst — Douanedistrict Rotterdam (Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Classification of consignments of rice — Additional Note 1(f) to Chapter 10 of the Combined Nomenclature — Validity — Post-clearance recovery of import duties — Article 220(2)(b) of the Community Customs Code — Interpretation — Good faith of the person liable for payment)
Date: 2006-03-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, customs regulations, customs tariff, interpretation of the law, rice, statistical nomenclature

11.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 60/7

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 12 January 2006

in Case C-311/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Gerechtshof
te Amsterdam in Algemene Scheeps
Agentuur Dordrecht BV v Inspecteur der Belastingdienst
— Douanedistrict Rotterdam (1)

(Grand Chamber)

of 10 January 2006

in Case C-344/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's
Bench Division, The Queen on the application of Interna-
tional Air Transport Association, European Low Fares
Airline Association v Department for Transport (1)

(Carriage by air — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Articles
5, 6 and 7 — Compensation and assistance to passengers in
the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay
of flights — Validity — Interpretation of Article 234 EC)

(Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Classifica-
tion of consignments of rice — Additional Note 1(f) to
Chapter 10 of the Combined Nomenclature — Validity —
Post-clearance recovery of import duties — Article 220(2)(b)
of the Community Customs Code — Interpretation — Good
faith of the person liable for payment)

(2006/C 60/14)

(Language of the case: English)

(2006/C 60/13)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

In Case C-311/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Gerechtshof
te Amsterdam
(Amsterdam Regional Court of Appeal) (Netherlands), made by
decision of 28 June 2004, received at the Court on 22 July
in the proceedings Algemene Scheeps Agentuur
2004,
Dordrecht BV v Inspecteur der Belastingdienst — Douane-
district Rotterdam — the Court (Third Chamber), composed
of A. Rosas, President of
J. Malenovský
the Chamber,
(Rapporteur),
J.-P. Puissochet, S. von Bahr and U. Lõhmus,
Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a
judgment on 12 January 2006, in which it ruled as follows:

Examination of the first question raised has revealed no factor of such
a kind as to affect the validity of Additional Note 1(f) to Chapter 10
of Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July
1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common
Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No
2388/2000 of 13 October 2000.

received at

In Case C-344/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the High Court of Justice of England and
Wales, Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court), made
by decision of 14 July 2004,
the Court on
12 August 2004, in the proceedings between The Queen, on
the application of the International Air Transport Association
and European Low Fares Airline Association, and the Depart-
ment for Transport — the Court (Grand Chamber), composed
of V. Skouris, President, P.
Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, A.
Rosas, K. Schiemann and J. Malenovský (Rapporteur), Presidents
of Chambers, C. Gulmann, R. Silva de Lapuerta, K. Lenaerts, P.
Kūris, E. Juhász, G. Arestis and A. Borg Barthet, Judges; L.A.
Geelhoed, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Adminis-
trator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 10 January 2006,
the operative part of which is as follows:

1. Where a court against whose decisions there is a judicial remedy
under national law considers that one or more arguments for inva-
lidity of a Community act which have been put forward by the
parties or, as the case may be, raised by it of its own motion are
well founded, it must stay proceedings and make a reference to the
Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling on the act's validity.

2. Examination of the questions referred to the Court has revealed no
factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Articles 5, 6 and
7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common
rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of
denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and
repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91.

(1) OJ C 239, 25.09.2004.

(1) OJ C 251 of 09.10.2004.