Case C-314/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation (France) lodged on 20 July 2006 — Société Pipeline Méditerranée et Rhône v Administration des Douanes et Droits indirects, Direction nationale du renseignement et des enquêtes douanières (DNRED)
Date: 2006-09-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: accidental pollution, excise duty, interpretation of the law, oil industry, oil pipeline, petroleum product

16.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 224/25

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof
te Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 14 July 2006 —
International BV v Inspecteur van de Belasting-
F.T.S.

dienst/Douane West

(Case C-310/06)

(2006/C 224/46)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof te Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: F.T.S. International BV,

Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane West

Question referred

Is Commission Regulation (EC) No 1223/2002 (1) of 8 July
2002 concerning the classification of certain goods in the
Combined Nomenclature valid?

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1223/2002 of 8 July 2002
concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined
Nomenclature (OJ 2002 L 179, p.8).

meaning of Article 14(1) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of
25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products
subject to excise and on the holding, movement and moni-
toring of such products (1), be interpreted as meaning unfor-
eseeable and unavoidable circumstances beyond the control
of the approved warehousekeeper who seeks to rely on
those circumstances in support of its application for exemp-
tion from duty, or is it sufficient that the approved ware-
housekeeper could not have avoided those circumstances?

2. Can losses of part of products which have leaked from a
pipeline due to their liquid nature and to the characteristics
of the ground on which they spilled, which hindered their
recovery and led to the levying of duty on them, be
regarded as inherent in the nature of the products within
the meaning of Article 14(1) of Directive 92/12?

(1) OJ L 76, p.l

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Monomeles
Protodikio Verias (Greece) by decision of that court of 7
June 2006 — Georgios Diamantis and Others v Fanco AE

(Case C-315/06)

(2006/C 224/48)

Language of the case: Greek

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de
Cassation (France) lodged on 20 July 2006 — Société Pipe-
line Méditerranée et Rhône v Administration des Douanes
et Droits indirects, Direction nationale du renseignement
et des enquêtes douanières (DNRED)

Referring court

Monomeles Protodikio Verias

(Case C-314/06)

(2006/C 224/47)

Parties to the main proceedings

Claimants: Georgios Diamantis and Others

Language of the case: French

Defendant: Fanco AE

Referring court

Cour de Cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Société Pipeline Méditerranée and Rhône

Defendant: Administration des douanes et droits indirects, Direc-
tion nationale du renseignement et des enquêtes douanières
(DNRED)

Question referred

Given that Greek (national) law does not provide for a prior
is
judicial decision where an undertaking or establishment
closed down definitively on the sole initiative of the employer,
under Article 1(2)(d) of Council Directive 75/129/EEC (1) does
that directive apply to collective redundancies caused by the
definitive termination of the operation of an undertaking or
establishment which has been decided on voluntarily by the
employer without a prior judicial decision on the matter?

Questions referred

(1) OJ No L 48, 22.2.1975, p. 29.

1. Must the concept of force majeure giving rise to losses of
products under duty suspension arrangements, within the