Case C-419/04: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 June 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Poitiers, France) — Conseil général de la Vienne v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects (Post-clearance recovery of import duties — Remission of import duties — Conditions — Article 871 of the regulation implementing the Community Customs Code — Scope of the obligation to submit the case to the Commission — Failure on the part of a person liable for payment acting in good faith to declare additional royalties which should have been incorporated in the customs value of imported goods)
Date: 2006-08-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: customs debt, customs regulations, interpretation of the law

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/3

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Badischer Winzerkeller eG

Defendant: Land Baden-Württemberg

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Amtsgericht Breisach
-am- Rhein — Interpretation of Articles 4, 10 (c) and 12(2)of
Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning
indirect taxes on the raising of capital
(OJ, English Special
Edition 1969 (II), p.412), as amended by Council Directive
73/79/EEC of 9 April 1973 (OJ 1973 L 103, p. 13), Council
Directive 73/80/EEC of 9 April 1973 (OJ 1973 L 103, p. 15),
Council Directive 74/553/EEC of 7 November 1974 (0J 1974 L
303, p. 9), and Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985
(0J 1985 L 156, p. 23) — Fee due for rectification of the land
register following a change of owner of an agricultural coop-
erative company as a result of merger and calculated by refer-
ence to the value of the land

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. A fee charged for rectification of the land register, such as that at
issue in the main proceedings, falls in principle within the prohibi-
tion under Article 10(c) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17
July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as
amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985.

2. A tax such as that at issue in the main proceedings may, in dero-
gation from Article 10(c) of Directive 69/335, as amended by
Directive 85/303, be regarded as a transfer duty authorised by
Article 12(1)(b) of Directive 69/335, as amended by Directive
85/303, provided it is not higher than those applicable to similar
operations in the taxing Member State.

It is for the national court to verify whether that tax complies with
the provisions of Article 12(2) of Directive 69/335, as amended
by Directive 85/303.

(1) OJ C 228, 11.09.2004.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 June 2006
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel
de Poitiers, France) — Conseil général de la Vienne v
Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects

(Case C-419/04) (1)

(Post-clearance recovery of import duties — Remission of
import duties — Conditions — Article 871 of the regulation
implementing the Community Customs Code — Scope of the
obligation to submit the case to the Commission — Failure
on the part of a person liable for payment acting in good
faith to declare additional royalties which should have been
incorporated in the customs value of imported goods)

(2006/C 190/05)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d'appel de Poitiers

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Conseil général de la Vienne

Respondent: Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour d'Appel de Poitiers
(Court of Appeal, Poitiers, France) — Interpretation of Article
871 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July
1993 laying down provisions
the implementation of
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Com-
munity Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1) — Recovery of
the amount of the customs debt — Obligatory nature of refer-
ence to the Commission in the event of doubt as to the scope
of the criteria relating to the recovery or the remission of
duties resulting from a customs debt

for

Operative part of the judgment

Article 871 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July
1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs
Code, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1677/98 of
29 July 1998, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of
remission of uncollected
a recovery procedure or a procedure for
customs duties, the national customs authorities are not required to
submit the case to the Commission for a decision where the doubts
which they had had as regards the precise scope of the criteria laid
down in Article 220(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92
of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code with
regard to a particular case have disappeared, even after those authori-
ties have expressed their intention to refer the matter to the Commis-
sion, or where the doubts relate to the subsequent entry in the

C 190/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

12.8.2006

accounts of customs duties which were not collected due to an omis-
sion on the part of an importer acting in good faith to declare royal-
ties which should have been incorporated in the customs value of the
imported goods.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 June 2006
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
Superior de Justicia de Cantabria, Santander (Spain)) —
Servicio Cántabro de Salud v Servicio Cántabro de Salud

(Case C-466/04) (1)

(1) OJ C 284, 20.11.2004.

security — Hospital

incurred in another
(Social
Member State — Travel, accommodation and subsistence
costs — Article 22 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71)

costs

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 June 2006
— Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom
of Sweden

(Case C-459/04) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Social
policy — Protection of the safety and health of workers —
Directive 89/391/EEC — Capabilities and aptitudes of
persons designated to carry out activities related to protection
against and prevention of occupational hazards in undertak-
ings)

(2006/C 190/07)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cantabria, Santander

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Manuel Acereda Herrera

Respondent: Servicio Cántabro de Salud

(2006/C 190/06)

Language of the case: Swedish

Re:

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: H. Kreppel, J. Enegren and V. Kreuschitz, Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Kruse and
K. Wistrand, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Incomplete
transposition of Article 7(8) of Council Directive 89/391/EEC
of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage
improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (OJ
1989 L 183, p. 1) — Definitions of capabilities and aptitudes
of workers designated by the employer to carry out activities
related to protection against and prevention of occupational
hazards in undertakings

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Commission of the European Communities and the

Kingdom of Sweden to pay their own costs.

(1) OJ C 45, 19.02.2005.

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Superior de
Justicia de Cantabria, Santander — Interpretation of Article
22(1)(c) and (2) and Article 36 of Council Regulation (EEC) No
1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to
employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members
of their families moving within the Community, as amended
and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2
December 1996 (OJ 1997 L 28, p.1) — Reimbursement of
expenses for travel, stay and subsistence by the institution
which granted authorisation for treatment abroad — Articles
10 EC and 249 EC — Compatibility with Community law of
national
to those
legislation recognising rights additional
conferred by Article 27 of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended
— Freedom to provide services — Discrimination based on
nationality — Compatibility of national legislation with Articles
81 EC, 82 EC and 87 EC

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Article 22(1)(c) and (2) and Article 36 of Council Regulation
(EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social
to self-employed persons
security schemes to employed persons,
and to members of their families moving within the Community,
as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97
of 2 December 1996, must be interpreted as meaning that
authorisation by the competent institution for an insured person to
go to another Member State in order there to receive hospital
treatment appropriate to his medical condition does not confer on
such a person the right to be reimbursed by the competent institu-
tion for the costs of travel, accommodation and subsistence which
that person and any person accompanying him incurred in the
territory of that latter Member State, with the exception of the
costs of accommodation and meals in hospital
for the insured
person himself.