Case C-230/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema Di Cassazione (Italy) of 12 January 2006 — Militzer & Münch GmbH v Ministero delle Finanze
Date: 2006-08-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Union transit, customs document, customs formalities, customs regulations, interpretation of the law

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?