Case C-5/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf by order of that court of  2 January 2006  in Jülich AG v Hauptzollamt Aachen
Date: 2006-03-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: common organisation of markets, export, export refund, interpretation of the law, production quota, production surplus, sugar

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?

25.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 74/5

3. If Question 1 is to be answered in the negative: Is Article 15
of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001
on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar
sector to be interpreted as meaning that, when determining
both the exportable surplus and the average loss per tonne
of sugar, all exports are to be taken into account, even
where no export refunds were paid in respect of a portion
of those exports in the relevant marketing year?

4. If Questions 1, 2 or 3 are to be answered in the affirmative:
Is Commission Regulation (EC) No 1775/2004 (4) of 14
October 2004 setting the production levies in the sugar
sector for the 2003/04 marketing year invalid?

(1) OJ L 178, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 50, p 40.
(3) OJ L 160, p. 33.
(4) OJ L 316, p 64.

Appeal brought on 11 January 2006 by the Regione
Siciliana against
the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber,
Extended Composition) of 18 October 2005 in Case T-60/
the European
03 Regione Siciliana v Commission of

the judgment of

Communities

(Case C-15/06 P)

(2006/C 74/11)

(Language of the case: Italian)

2.

in any event, order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant claims that the contested judgment is flawed by
reason of:

1.

2.

infringement and erroneous application of Articles 18(1)
and 32(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1787/84 (1) of 19
June 1984 on the European Regional Development Fund, as
amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3641/85 (2) of 20
December 1985;

infringement and erroneous application of Article 24 of
Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December
1988 (3)
laying down provisions for implementing Regu-
lation (EEC) No 2052/88 (4) as regards coordination of the
activities of the different Structural Funds between them-
selves and with the operations of the European Investment
Bank and the other existing financial
instruments, as
amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2082/93 (5) of 20
July 1984;

3.

inaccurate statement of reasons on a key issue of
dispute.

the

(1) No longer in force.
(2) No longer in force.
(3) No longer in force.
(4) No longer in force.
(5) OJ L 193 of 31.7.1993, p. 20.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel
de Nancy by judgment of that court of 9 January 2006 in
S.A.R.L. CELINE v S.A. CELINE

the European Communities

An appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance
(First Chamber, Extended
of
Composition) of 18 October 2005 in Case T-60/03 Regione
Siciliana v Commission of the European Communities was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
11 January 2006 by the Regione Siciliana, represented by I.M.
Braguglia, acting as Agent, and G. Aiello, avvocato dello Stato

(Case C-17/06)

(2006/C 74/12)

The appellant claims that the Court should:

(Language of the case: French)

1. set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance and
consequently annul
the Commission Decision C (2002)
4905 of 11 December 2002 relating to the cancellation of
the aid granted by the European Regional Development
Fund, ERDF, as infrastructure investment, for a sum no less
than ECU 15 million,
in Italy (region: Sicily), and to the
recovery of the advance on that assistance made by the
Commission, and order the release of the balance;

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by judgment of the Cour d'appel de Nancy
the Court Registry on 17
of 9 January 2006, received at
January 2006,
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
between S.A.R.L. CELINE and S.A. CELINE on the following
question: