Case C-458/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsrätten lodged on 16 November 2006 — Skatteverket v Gourmet Classic Ltd
Date: 2006-12-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, alcohol, alcoholic beverage, excise duty, interpretation of the law, tax harmonisation

C 326/44

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.12.2006

Pleas in law and main arguments

Question referred

Finland submits that in its order the Court of First Instance
infringed Community law within the meaning of Article 58 of
the Statute of the Court of Justice.

Finland submits that the Court of First Instance erred in law by
considering that the contested decision of the Commission did
not constitute a decision against which an action may be
brought within the meaning of Article 230 EC.

In Finland's view, the contested decision of the Commission
constitutes a decision against which an action may be brought
within the meaning of Article 230. By its decision the Commis-
sion in fact denied Finland the opportunity to make a condi-
tional payment within the meaning of the case-law of the Court
of Justice.

The contested decision thus has binding legal effects on Finland,
as required in the case-law on the application of Article 230 EC,
which affect Finland's interests and clearly change Finland's legal
position. The contested decision also caused Finland a loss of
rights and is thus clearly adverse to Finland.

Finland submits that the Court of First Instance made several
errors of law in assessing the case and as a result reached a deci-
sion contrary to Community law.

Is the alcohol contained in cooking wine to be classified as ethyl
alcohol as referred to in the first indent of Article 20 of Council
Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation
of
the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic
beverages? (1)

(1) OJ L 316, 31.10.1992, p. 21.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du
travail de Bruxelles (Belgium)
lodged on 17 November
2006 — Nadine Paquay v Société d'architectes Hoet +
Minne SPRL

(Case C-460/06)

(2006/C 326/90)

Language of the case: French

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regerings-
rätten lodged on 16 November 2006 — Skatteverket v
Gourmet Classic Ltd

Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles (Belgium)

Referring court

(Case C-458/06)

(2006/C 326/89)

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Nadine Paquay

Defendant: Société d'architectes Hoet + Minne SPRL

Referring court

Regeringsrätten

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Skatteverket

Defendant: Gourmet Classic Ltd

Questions referred

1. Must Article 10 of Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19
October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage
improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant
workers (tenth individual Directive within the meaning of
Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (1) be interpreted as
only prohibiting the notification of a decision of dismissal
during the period of protection referred to in paragraph 1 of
that article or does it also prohibit taking a decision of
dismissal and attempting to find a permanent replacement
for the employee before the end of the period of protection?