Case C-62/06: 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 — Importaçao e Exportaçao de Produtos Alimentares, Lda.
Date: 2006-04-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: criminal procedure, export tax, import tax, interpretation of the law, redemption

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