Case C-5/05: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 November 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v B.F. Joustra (Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Directive 92/12/EEC — Excise duties — Wine — Articles 7 to 10 — Determination of the Member State in which duties are chargeable — Acquisition by a private individual for his own use and that of other private individuals — Transport to another Member State by a transport undertaking — Arrangements applicable in the Member State of destination)
Date: 2006-12-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, carriage of goods, excise duty, fund (EU), interpretation of the law, seizure of goods, tax harmonisation, wine

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/7

— by adopting Article 3(1) of the Decree of the President of the
Council of Ministers of 3 September 1999, entitled ‘Policy and
coordination measure amending and completing the earlier
policy and coordination measure for the implementation of
Article 40(1) of Law No 146 of 22 February 1994
concerning provisions relating to the assessment of environ-
mental impact’, amending Annex A(i) and (l) to the Decree of
the President of
the Republic of 12 April 1996, entitled
‘Policy and coordination measure for the implementation of
Article 40(1) of Law No 146 of 22 February 1994
concerning provisions relating to the assessment of environ-
mental impact’, allowing projects for the recovery of hazardous
and non-hazardous waste with a capacity exceeding 100
tonnes per day covered by Annex I
to Council Directive
85/337, as amended by Council Directive 97/11, to avoid the
environmental
in
Articles 2(1) and 4(1) of that directive, and

impact assessment procedure provided for

— by adopting Article 3(1) of the Decree of the President of the
Council of Ministers of 3 September 1999, laying down, for
the purposes of determining whether a project covered by
to Directive 85/337, as amended by Directive
Annex II
97/11, must be subject to an environmental
impact assess-
ment, a criterion which is inappropriate in that it may exclude
projects which have a significant effect on the environment from
that assessment,

the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles
2(1) and 4(1), (2) and (3) of that directive;

2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 31, 5.2.2005.

Re:

Preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpreta-
tion of Articles 7, 8 and 9 of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of
25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products
subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and moni-
toring of such products (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1) — Wine
purchased without the intention of making a profit in one
Member State by nationals of another Member State and trans-
ported by an undertaking from that second Member State —
Excise duty paid in the first Member State

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general
arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding,
movement and monitoring of such products, as amended by Council
Directive 92/108/EEC of 14 December 1992, must be construed as
meaning that where, as in the case in the main proceedings, a private
individual who is not operating commercially or with a view to making
a profit acquires in one Member State, for his own personal require-
ments and those of other private individuals, products subject to excise
duty which have been released for consumption in that Member State
and arranges for them to be transported to another Member State on
his behalf by a transport company established in that other State,
Article 7 of that Directive, and not Article 8 thereof, is applicable,
with the result that excise duty is also to be levied in that other State.
Under Article 7(6) of the Directive, the excise duty paid in the first
State is, in such a case, to be reimbursed in accordance with Article 22
(3) of the Directive.

(1) OJ C 69, 19.3.2005.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 November
2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge
Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)) — Staatssecretaris
van Financiën v B.F. Joustra

(Case C-5/05) (1)

(Tax provisions — Harmonisation of
laws — Directive
92/12/EEC — Excise duties — Wine — Articles 7 to 10 —
Determination of the Member State in which duties are
chargeable — Acquisition by a private individual for his own
use and that of other private individuals — Transport to
another Member State by a transport undertaking —
Arrangements applicable in the Member State of destination)

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 30 November
the European Communities v
2006 — Commission of

Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-32/05) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environ-
ment — Directive 2000/60/EC — Failure to notify imple-
menting measures — Obligation to adopt framework legisla-
tion in national law — None — Incomplete implementation of
or failure to implement Articles 2, 7(2) and 14)

(2006/C 331/10)

Language of the case: Dutch

(2006/C 331/11)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Respondent: B.F. Joustra

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and J. Hottiaux, Agents)

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: S.
Schreiner, Agent, and by P. Kinsch, avocat)