Case C-229/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany), lodged on 22 May 2006 — Sunshine Deutschland Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Hauptzollamt Kiel
Date: 2006-08-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, bakery, fruit vegetable, interpretation of the law

C 190/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

12.8.2006

3. If question one is answered in the negative,

is the then
applicable provision in Chapter VII 48 point 7(a) of the
annex to Directive 91/628/EEC to be understood as
meaning that the journey time by sea on a regular and
direct link between a geographical point of the Community
and a geographical point in a third country by means of
vehicles loaded on to vessels without unloading of
the
animals is immaterial provided that the animals are regularly
fed and watered and, in such a case, does a further period of
29 hours of
transport by road begin immediately after
unloading the lorry at the port of destination?

4. If question three (point 2.3) is answered in the affirmative,
is the first indent of Article 5A point 2(d)(ii) of Directive
91/628/EEC to be understood as meaning that the staff in
charge of the transport are required to state in the route
plan the times at which the animals transported were fed
and watered during the ferry journey and that a pre-typed
statement indicating that 'during the ferry journey, animals
are fed and watered in the evenings and mornings, at
midday, and in the evenings and mornings' does not meet
the requirements of Directive 91/628/EEC, with the effect in
law that the failure to sate the measures actually taken to
care for the animals leads to a loss of the right to an export
refund in so far as the proof required cannot by provided
by any other means?

(1) OJ 1998 L 82, p. 19.
(2) OJ 1991 L 340, p. 17.

Questions referred

1. Is Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol of 23 November
1970 (1)
to the Agreement establishing an Association
between the European Economic Community and Turkey to
be interpreted in such a way that it constitutes a restriction
on freedom to provide services if a Turkish national who
works in international transport for a Turkish undertaking
as a driver of a lorry registered in Germany has to be in
possession of a Schengen visa to enter Germany under Para-
graph 4(1) and Paragraph 6 of
the Aufenthaltsgesetz
(German law on residence) of 30 July 2004 and Article 1(1)
of Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 (2) even though on the
date on which the Additional Protocol entered into force he
was permitted to enter the Federal Republic of Germany
without a visa?

2. If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative,
should Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol be inter-
preted as meaning that the Turkish nationals mentioned in
(1) do not require a visa to enter Germany?

(1) JO 1972 L 293, p.4.
(2) OJ 2001 L 81, p.1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwal-
tungsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg lodged on 19 May 2006
— Mehmet Soysal, Cengiz Salkim,
Ibrahim Savatli v
Bundesrepublik Deutschland; Joined party: Bundesagentur
für Arbeit

(Case C-228/06)

(2006/C 190/13)

Language of the case: German

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
Hamburg (Germany), lodged on 22 May 2006 — Sunshine
Deutschland Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Hauptzollamt Kiel

(Case C-229/06)

(2006/C 190/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Mehmet Soysal, Cengiz Salkim, Ibrahim Savatli

Parties to the main proceedings

Respondent: Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Federal Republic of
Germany)

Applicant: Sunshine Deutschland Handelsgesellschaft mbH

Joined party: Bundesagentur für Arbeit
Germany)

(Federal Republic of

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Kiel

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/9

Question referred

Should shelled pumpkin seeds from pumpkins cultivated as
vegetables, which have lost their ability to germinate and are
intended for the baking industry, be classified under subheading
1209 91 90 of the Combined Nomenclature (CN) (1) or under
subheading 1212 99 80 of the CN?

(1) Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987
on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common
Customs Tariff — OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1.

customs clearance agent to be held liable for all of the
consequences of an incorrect Community transit opera-
tion?

(2) In circumstances such as those set out in Question 1, is

Article 11a(2) applicable?

(3) Is the question of whether the customs authorities have
competence to be determined according to the criteria laid
down by the second or third indent of Article 215(1) of
Regulation No 92/2913/EEC (3)?

(1) OJ L 107, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 253, p. 1.
(3) OJ L 302, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte
Suprema Di Cassazione (Italy) of 12 January 2006 — Mili-
tzer & Münch GmbH v Ministero delle Finanze

(Case C-230/06)

(2006/C 190/15)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte Suprema Di Cassazione (Italy)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Militzer & Münch GmbH

Defendant: Ministero delle Finanze

Question(s) referred

(1)

(a) Is Article 11a(1) of Regulation No 87/1062/EEC (1), as
amended by Regulation No 93/2454/EEC (2),
to be
interpreted as meaning that the 11- month time-limit
within which the administration of the customs office
of departure must communicate the fact that goods
moving under the Community transit procedure have
not been discharged is applicable in a case where
discharge by the customs office of destination is
evidenced by forged documents and the forgery is not
easily discernible?

(b) For the purposes of the interpretation of that provision,
are the principles set out in the judgments of the Court
of Justice in Case C-325/00 and Case C-222/01 applic-
able?

(c) In circumstances such as those under consideration, is
it contrary to the principle of proportionality for a

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du
travail de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 22 May 2006 —
Office national des pensions v Jonkman

(Case C-231/06)

(2006/C 190/16)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour du travail de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Office national des pensions

Defendant: Émilienne Jonkman

Questions referred

1. With regard to the adjustment contributions (Article 4 of
the Royal Decree of 25 June 1997 inserting Article 16b(2))

sex, originally discriminated against,

Is Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 (1) to be inter-
preted as meaning that it authorises a Member State to
adopt rules intended to allow a category of persons of a par-
ticular
to become
eligible for the pension scheme applicable to the category of
persons of the opposite sex by making retroactive payment
(a single payment of a very large sum) of contributions
recovery of which would be time-barred under the legisla-
tion applicable in that State in the case of the latter category
of persons?