Case C-63/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Vyriausiasis Administracinis Teismas by order of that court of  20 December 2005  in UAB  Profisa  v Muitines Departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos Finansų Ministerijos
Date: 2006-04-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: alcohol, confectionery product, excise duty, interpretation of the law, tax exemption, tax harmonisation

C 86/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.4.2006

The Commission claims that the Court should:

1. declare that by failing to submit its national annual report
on the promotion of biofuels before 1 July 2004, the Italian
Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1)
of Directive 2003/30/EC (1) of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 8 May 2003 on the promotion of the use
of biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport;

2. order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The report referred to in Article 4(1) of the directive should
have been sent to the Commission before 1 July 2004. To date,
the Commission has not received any information from the
Italian authorities.

The Commission therefore maintains that as matters now stand
Italy has not communicated the report on the promotion of
the use of biofuels and other renewable fuels for transport
required under Article 4(1) of the directive.

(1) OJ L 123, p. 42.

2. In the latter hypothesis, is it sufficient for the competent
criminal authority (in the case of Portugal, the Public Prose-
cutor's Office) simply to lay a charge, or is it instead neces-
sary that the debtor should be convicted in the relevant
criminal proceedings?

3. Still in the latter hypothesis, are different conclusions to be
drawn from the fact that the court acquits the debtor by
virtue of the application of the principle in dubio pro reo, or
acquits him because it has been proved that the debtor did
not commit the offence in question?

4. What consequences follow if the Public Prosecutor's Office
does not lay a charge against the debtor, holding that there
is no evidence of an act that could give rise to criminal
court proceedings? Will such a decision preclude any action
to recover the duty not collected?

5. If the Public Prosecutor's Office or the criminal court itself
should close the case because the criminal proceedings are
time-barred, will such a decision make it
impossible to
bring the corresponding action to recover the duty not
collected?

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 of 24 July 1979 on the post-
clearance recovery of import duties or export duties which have not
been required of the person liable for payment on goods entered for
a customs procedure involving the obligation to pay such duties.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo
Tribunal Administrativo by judgment of that court of 11
January 2006 in the proceedings Fazenda Pública —
Director Geral das Alfândegas v Z.F. ZEFESER — Impor-
taçao e Exportaçao de Produtos Alimentares, Lda.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos
Vyriausiasis Administracinis Teismas by order of
that
court of 20 December 2005 in UAB ‘Profisa’ v Muitines
Departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos Finansų Minis-
terijos

(Case C-62/06)

(2006/C 86/25)

(Language of the case: Portuguese)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
the Supremo Tribunal
pean Communities by judgment of
Administrativo of 11 January 2006, received at
the Court
Registry on 6 February 2006, for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings between Fazenda Pública — Director Geral das
Alfândegas and Z.F. ZEFESER — Importaçao e Exportaçao de
Produtos Alimentares, Lda. on the following questions:

1. For the purposes of Article 3 of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 1697/79 (1) of 24 July 1979,
is classification by the
customs authority as ‘an act that could give rise to criminal
court proceedings’ sufficient, or is it instead necessary that
that classification should be made by the competent crim-
inal court?

(Case C-63/06)

(2006/C 86/26)

(Language of the case: Lithuanian)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of
the Lietuvos Vyriausiasis
Administracinis Teismas (Supreme Administrative Court of
Lithuania) (Lithuania) of 20 December 2005, received at the
Court Registry on 3 February 2006, for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings between UAB 'Profisa' and Muitines Departa-
Finansų Ministerijos
mentas
(Customs Department of
the
Republic of Lithuania) on the following question:

the Ministry of Finances of

Lietuvos Respublikos

prie

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/15

Having regard to the differences in various language versions in
the wording of Council Directive 92/83/EEC (1) of 19 October
1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties
on alcohol and alcoholic beverages, is Article 27(1)(f) of that
directive to be understood as imposing an obligation on
Member States to exempt
from excise duty ethyl alcohol
imported into the customs territory of the European Commu-
nities and contained in chocolate products intended for direct
use, where the alcohol content does not exceed 8.5 litres for
every 100 kilograms of the chocolate products?

sanctions for infringements of the Regulation which are effec-
tive, proportionate and dissuasive.

(1) 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 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

(1) OJ L 316, p. 21.

Action brought on 7 February 2006 — Commission of the
European Communities v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-70/06)

(2006/C 86/28)

(Language of the case: Portuguese)

Action brought on 6 February 2006 by the Commission of
the Kingdom of
the European Communities against

Belgium

(Case C-65/06)

(2006/C 86/27)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

Parties

Justice of

An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before
the Court of
the European Communities on 6
February 2006 by the Commission of the European Commu-
nities, represented by Ramón Vidal Puig and Wouter Wils,
acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

Applicant(s): Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: Xavier Lewis and António Caeiros)

Defendant(s): Portuguese Republic

The Commission of the European Communities claims that the
Court should:

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. declare that, by not laying down sanctions for infringements
of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) of the European Parlia-
ment and of the Council of 11 February 2004, the Kingdom
of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article
16(3) of that regulation;

2. order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Article 16(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 provides: ‘The sanc-
tions laid down by Member States for infringements of this
Regulation shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive’.
Article 19 provides that Regulation No 261/2004 was to enter
into force on 17 February 2005. According to the information
before the Commission, Belgium has not as yet laid down any

— declare that, by having failed to take the measures necessary
to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of the
European Communities of 14 October 2004 in Case C-
275/03 Commission v Portuguese Republic [2004] ECR I-
0000, concerning the transposition into domestic law of
Council Directive 89/665/EEC (1) of 21 December 1989 on
the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative
provisions relating to the application of review procedures
to the award of public supply and public works contracts,
the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
under Article 228(1) of the EC Treaty;

— order the Portuguese Republic to pay to the Commission,
into the account
‘European Community own resources’,
mentioned in Article 9 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom)
No 1150/2000, (2) a penalty payment of EUR 21 450 for
every day of delay in complying with the judgment in Case
C-275/03 from the day on which the Court of Justice deli-
vers judgment in the present case until the day on which
the judgment in Case C-275/03 is complied with;