Case C-400/05: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 January 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, Netherlands) — B.A.S. Trucks BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Common Customs Tariff — Combined Nomenclature — Tariff classification — Subheading 8704 10 — Vehicle designed for use on construction sites for the transport and unloading of materials and also for use on the highway)
Date: 2007-02-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, commercial vehicle, interpretation of the law

C 42/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

24.2.2007

Operative part of the judgment

The second subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for the appli-
cation of the levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No
804/68 in the milk and milk products sector must be interpreted as
not precluding a national rule such as that at issue in the main
proceedings which restricts the category of milk producers who may
obtain a special reference quantity to those who incurred investment
obligations after 1 September 1981 but before 1 March 1984.

(1) OJ C 330, 24.12.2005.

by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2261/98 of
amended
26 October 1998, must be interpreted as meaning that it covers
dumpers within the meaning of that subheading which are designed
specifically and primarily for use off paved, public roads. The fact that
dumper trucks have distinctive characteristics which enable them to be
driven, incidentally, on paved, public roads does not preclude their clas-
sification as dumpers within the meaning of that subheading.

(1) OJ C 36, 11.2.2006.

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 January 2007
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden, Netherlands) — B.A.S. Trucks BV v Staatsse-
cretaris van Financiën

(Case C-400/05) (1)

(Common Customs Tariff — Combined Nomenclature —
Tariff classification — Subheading 8704 10 — Vehicle
designed for use on construction sites for the transport and
unloading of materials and also for use on the highway)

Appeal brought on 27 November 2006 by British Aggre-
gates Association against the judgment of the Court of
First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition)
delivered on 13 September 2006 in Case T-210/02: British
Aggregates Association v Commission of the European
Communities

(Case C-487/06 P)

(2007/C 42/14)

Language of the case: English

(2007/C 42/13)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: B.A.S. Trucks BV

Appellant: British Aggregates Association (represented by: C.
Pouncey, Solicitor, L. Van den Hende, advocaat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European
Communities, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

— set aside the judgment of the CFI of 13 September 2006 in

Re:

Preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Tariff clas-
sification of a vehicle designed for use on construction sites for
the transport and unloading of materials and also for use on the
highway — Whether or not it should be classified under CN
subheading 8704 10 as a ‘dumper designed for off-highway use’

Case T-210/02;

— annul Commission decision C(2002) 1478fin of 24 April
2002 ‘State aid N863/01-United Kingdom/Aggregates Levy’,
save as regards the exemption for Northern Ireland; and

— to order the Commission to pay the Appellant's costs in this
appeal and the procedure in Case T-210/01 in the CFI.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Operative part of the judgment

Subheading 8704 10 of the combined nomenclature, in Annex I to
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff
and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as

The applicant submits that the contested judgment of the Court
of First Instance should be set aside on the following grounds:

— The Court of First Instance erred in law by assessing the

existence of state aid in a non-objective way.