Case C-38/06: Action brought on  24 January 2006  by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic
Date: 2006-03-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Portugal, abolition of customs duties, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, import, military equipment, own resources

25.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 74/7

— Société des Sucreries du Marquenterre SA v Directeur
général des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur prin-
cipal des douanes et droits indirects (Case C-24/06)

— SA des Sucreries de Fontaine Le Dun, Bolbec, Auffay
(SAFBA) v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects
and Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects (Case
C-25/06)

— Lesaffre Frères SA v Directeur général des douanes et droits
indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et droits indir-
ects (Case C-26/06)

— Sucreries, Distilleries des Hauts de France v Directeur
général des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur prin-
cipal des douanes et droits indirects (Case C-27/06)

— Sucreries & Distilleries de Souppes — Ouvré Fils SA v
Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects and Rece-
veur principal des douanes et droits indirects (Case C-28/
06)

— Sucreries de Toury et usines annexes SA v Directeur général
des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des
douanes et droits indirects (Case C-29/06)

— Tereos v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects
and Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects (Case
C-30/06)

— SAS Sucrerie du Littoral Groupe S.D.H.F v Directeur général
des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des
douanes et droits indirects (Case C-31/06)

— Cristal Union v Directeur général des douanes et droits
indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et droits indir-
ects (Case C-32/06)

— Sucrerie Bourdon v Directeur général des douanes et droits
indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et droits indir-
ects (Case C-33/06)

— Sucrerie de Bourgogne SA v Directeur général des douanes
et droits indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et
droits indirects (Case C-34/06)

— SAS Vermendoise

Industries v Directeur général des
douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des
douanes et droits indirects (Case C-35/06)

— Sucreries et Raffineries d'Erstein SA v Directeur général des
douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des
douanes et droits indirects (Case C-36/06)

The Tribunal de Grande Instance de Nanterre asks the Court of
Justice of the European Communities to give a ruling on the
following questions:

proportionality,
in that, with regard to calculation of the
production levy, it does not provide for the exclusion from
the ‘exportable surplus’ of the sugar contained in processed
products which are exported without export refunds?

If the answer to this question is in the negative:

2. Are Regulations (EC) Nos 1837/2002, 1762/2003 and
1775/2004 invalid in the light of Commission Regulation
(EC) No 314/2002 and Article 15 of Council Regulation
(EC) No 1260/2001 and of the principles of equality and
proportionality, in that they lay down a production levy for
sugar which is calculated on the basis of the 'average loss'
per tonne exported, which does not take account of the
quantities exported without refund, although these quanti-
ties exported without refund, although these quantities are
included in the total used to evaluate the total loss to be
financed?

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 314/2002 of 20 February 2002
laying down detailed rules for the application of the quota system
in the sugar sector (OJ L 50, p. 40)

(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1837/2002 of 15 October 2002
fixing the production levies and the coefficient for the additional
levy in the sugar sector for the marketing year 2001/02 (OJ L 278,
p. 13)

(3) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1762/2003 of 7 October 2003
fixing the production levies in the sugar sector for the 2002/03
marketing year (OJ L 254, p. 4)

(4) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1775/2004 of 14 October 2004
setting the production levies in the sugar sector for the 2003/04
marketing year (OJ L 316, p. 64)

(5) Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the
common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (OJ L 178,
p. 1)

Action brought on 24 January 2006 by the Commission of
the Portuguese
the European Communities

against

Republic

(Case C-38/06)

(2006/C 74/14)

(Language of the case: Portuguese)

1. Is Article 6(4) of Commission Regulation (EC) No
314/2002 (1) and/or Regulations (EC) Nos 1837/2002, (2)
1762/2003 (3) and 1775/2004 (4) adopted to implement it
invalid in the light of Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC)
No 1260/2001 (5) and in the light of
the principle of

Justice of

An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before
the European Communities on 24
the Court of
January 2006 by the Commission of the European Commu-
nities, represented by Günter Wilms and Margarida Afonso,
acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

C 74/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

25.3.2006

The Commission claims that the Court should:

1. Declare that, by refusing to establish and to make available
to the Commission the own resources due as a result of
imports of equipment and goods for specifically military use
in the period from 1 January 1998 to 31 December 2002
inclusive, and by refusing to pay the related default interest,
the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
under Articles 2, 9, 10 and 11 of Regulation No
1552/89, (1) in so far as the period 1 January 1998 to 30
May 2000 inclusive is concerned and, after the latter date,
the corresponding provisions of Regulation No
under
1150/2000; (2)

2. Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission believes that Article 296 EC does not allow a
Member State to exempt from customs duties imports of mili-
tary matériel,
in that the levying of those duties cannot be
considered to threaten that Member State's essential security
interests.

In the absence of concrete argument that might furnish specific
justification of the need to derogate from the customs rules in
order to protect the essential interests of the security of the
Portuguese Republic, the Commission takes the view that the
Portuguese authorities have failed to fulfil
their obligations
under Article 26 EC, Article 20 of the Community Customs
Code (3) and, in consequence, the Common Customs Tariff.

It is unacceptable that a Member State should avoid its obliga-
tions with regard to the joint and several co-financing of the
Community's budget by pleading the need to fund its military
expenditure at lower cost.

Where the rules laid down are not complied with, all the
Member States must bear the respective financial consequences,
for such a case gives rise to the application of the mechanism
in
which, by means of ‘GNP’ resources, offsets the shortfall
traditional own resources and VAT. Observance of the principle
of good financial management, and also of the fundamental
concepts of
the
Member States that caused the own resources made available to
fall short of the amount due should alone bear the conse-
quences for the Community budget resulting therefrom and,
therefore, pay the sums not collected by reason of their respec-
tive failures to fulfil obligations.

fairness and responsibility, demands that

The Portuguese authorities ought to have credited the customs
duties in the accounting ledgers in accordance with the rules
fixed by the Community Customs Code for the imports at
issue, and also to have established and made available to the
Commission the own resources so resulting pursuant to Arti-
cles 2, 9, 10 and 11 of Regulation No 1552/89 and the corre-
sponding provisions of Regulation No 1150/2000. An infringe-
ment of the customs legislation having been committed, the
Community must be credited with a sum equivalent to the own
resources lacking. To that sum must be added the default
interest provided for by Article 11 of Regulation No
1150/2000.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989
implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the
Communities' own resources (OJ 1989 L 155, p. 1).

(2) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000
implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the
Communities' own resources (OJ 2000 L 130. p. 1).

(3) Approved by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October
1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302,
p. 1).

(4) Council Regulation (EC) No 150/2003 of 21 January 2003
suspending import duties on certain weapons and military equip-
ment (OJ 2003 L 25, p. 1).

Action brought on 27 January 2006 by the Commission of
the Kingdom of
the European Communities against

Belgium

(Case C-42/06)

(2006/C 74/15)

(Language of the case: French)

Justice of

An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before
the Court of
the European Communities on 27
January 2006 by the Commission of the European Commu-
nities, represented by B. Stromsky, acting as Agent, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

The failure at issue continued until 31 December 2002, seeing
that Regulation No 150/2003 (4) has been applicable since 1
January 2003. It is only from that date that that regulation has
made it possible to suspend, on certain conditions, customs
duties on the import of certain weapons and military equip-
ment.

— declare that, by imposing, in the Brussels-Capital Region, a
system of approval of natural and legal persons manufac-
the
turing and/or distributing refuse
detailed rules of which infringe the principle of proportion-
ality, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obliga-
tions under Articles 28 and 30 of the EC Treaty;

collection bags,