Case C-1/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Hamburg Finance Court) by order of that court of  15 December 2005  in Bonn Fleisch Ex-und Import GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
Date: 2006-03-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: agricultural product, customs document, export refund, interpretation of the law

C 74/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

25.3.2006

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di
Milano by order of that court of 6 October 2005 in Minis-
tero Pubblico v Giovanni Dell'Orto

the Court Registry on 4 January 2006, for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings between Bonn Fleisch Ex-und Import GmbH
and Hauptzollamt Hamburt-Jonas on the following question:

(Case C-467/05)

(2006/C 74/08)

(Language of the case: Italian)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Tribunale di Milano of 6
October 2005, received at the Court Registry on 27 December
2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between
Ministero Pubblico and Giovanni Dell'Orto on the following
questions:

1. Do Articles 2 and 9 of Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA
apply in criminal proceedings in general to any party affected
by crime, by virtue of Article 1 et seq of Council Directive
2004/80/EC (1) of 29 April 2004 relating to compensation
to crime victims or other provisions of Community law.

2. Do Articles 2 and 9 of Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA
apply in criminal proceedings for enforcement following a
conviction which has become final
(and thus also to a
sentence pursuant to Article 444 CPP) to any party affected by
crime, by virtue of Article 1 et seq of Council Directive
2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 relating to compensation to
crime victims or other provisions of Community law.

1. Is the competent authority entitled and obliged of its own
motion to regard other documents as equivalent under
Article 47(3) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No
3665/87? (1)

2. Alternatively, can a request

that other documents be
regarded as equivalent under Article 47(3) of Commission
Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 also be made by implication?

(1) OJ L 351, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
Düsseldorf by order of that court of 2 January 2006 in
Jülich AG v Hauptzollamt Aachen

(Case C-5/06)

(2006/C 74/10)

(1) OJ L 261 of 6/8/2004, p. 15.

(Language of the case: German)

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
Hamburg (Hamburg Finance Court) by order of that court
of 15 December 2005 in Bonn Fleisch Ex-und Import
GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

(Case C-1/06)

(2006/C 74/09)

(Language of the case German)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Finanzgericht Hamburg
(Hamburg Finance Court) of 15 December 2005, received at

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of
(Finance
Court) Düsseldorf (Germany) of 2 January 2006, received at the
Court Registry on 9 January 2006, for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings between Jülich AG and Hauptzollamt Aachen
on the following questions:

the Finanzgericht

1. Is Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 (1)
of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of
the
markets in the sugar sector to be interpreted as meaning
that, when determining the exportable surplus, account
should be taken only of those export quantities of sugar,
isoglucose and inulin syrup in respect of which export
refunds have actually been paid?

2. If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative: Is Article
6(4) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 314/2002 (2) of 20
February 2002 laying down detailed rules for the applica-
tion of the quota system in the sugar sector, as amended by
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1140/2003 (3) of 27 June
2003, invalid?