Case C-505/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria regionale di Genova (Italy) lodged on 12 June 2006 — Agenzia Dogane Circoscrizione Doganale di Genova v Euricom SpA
Date: 2007-02-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Central and Eastern European countries, interpretation of the law, inward processing, originating product, preferential agreement, tariff exemption

C 42/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

24.2.2007

Pleas in law and main arguments

Under Italian law, constructions sites which correspond to less
than 200 man-days and which do not involve work coming
within the scope of Annex II to the Directive are covered solely
by the coordination provisions contained in Article 7 of Decree
No 626/1994. That article, however,
imposes only a general
obligation of cooperation and coordination on employers
which, within the company or producer unit, assign work to
contracting undertakings or to self-employed persons. Accord-
ingly, it is not possible to conclude that the precise and detailed
provisions of Directive 92/57/EEC relating to the coordination
required during the drafting and execution phases of a project
can be regarded as being implemented by the article of the
Decree in question.

(1) OJ 1992 L 245, p. 6.
(2) OJ 1989 L 183, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione
tributaria regionale di Genova (Italy) lodged on 12 June
2006 — Agenzia Dogane Circoscrizione Doganale di
Genova v Euricom SpA

(Case C-505/06)

(2007/C 42/20)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione tributaria regionale di Genova

Parties to the main proceedings

the related implementing rules laid down in Regulation (EEC)
No 2913/92 (1), govern in any case the question whether the
products imported to make up for the products previously
exported as originating in Italy are to be regarded for
customs purposes as Community goods, and the question
whether they benefit accordingly from an exemption from
import duties, or do those provisions not apply in cases
where that operation — in respect of the products at issue,
as described in the preamble — concerns prior exports to
countries with which the European Community has entered
into related Agreements?

3. In the present case, does the fact

that Article [115](3),
referred to above, provides that the imported replacement
goods are to acquire the customs status of the prior-exported
Community goods have any effect on the operation in prac-
tice, in particular, on the Community origins of the prior-
exported Italian rice? If so, what is the relationship between
the customs regime of inward processing arrangements and
the rules of origin laid down in the Community Customs
Code and the Agreements with the CEECs?

4. In so far as Article 15(2) of the Agreements between the
European Community and the CEECs establishes that the
prohibition on refunds of customs duties relating to non-
Community raw materials used in the manufacture of
products exported with a EUR 1 certificate of origin (issued
by a Community customs authority) does not apply if those
products are instead retained for home use, must that provi-
sion be interpreted in such a way as to render Article 216 of
the Community Customs Code redundant?

(1) OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.

Appeal brought on 18 December 2006 by PTV Planung
Transport Verkehr AG against the judgment delivered on
10 October 2006 in Case T-302/03 PTV Planung Transport
Verkehr AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Applicant: Agenzia Dogane Circoscrizione Doganale di Genova

(Case C-512/06 P)

Defendant: Euricom SpA

Questions referred

1. On a proper construction of Article 216 of the Community
Customs Code, does that provision apply exclusively to
products obtained under the inward processing procedure
which incorporate non-Community goods, or does it form
the basis for a customs debt quite separate from other such
debts, justified by the need to avoid granting double relief
from customs duty?

2. In the context of an operation under the inward processing
arrangements, carried out
in accordance with the prior
export equivalence procedure (EX-IM), do Articles 115(1)
and 115(3) of the Community Customs Code, together with

(2007/C 42/21)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: PTV Planung Transport Verkehr AG (represented by:
Dr. F. Nielsen, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market