Case C-44/06: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 March 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht des Landes Brandenburg — Germany) — Gerlach & Co. mbH v Hauptzollamt Frankfurt (Oder) (Customs union — Community transit — Proof of the regularity of a transit operation or of the place of the offence — Three-month period — Period granted subsequent to the decision to recover the import duties)
Date: 2007-04-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Union transit, customs formalities, interpretation of the law, simplification of formalities

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/11

scheme for the sugar sector and the presumed maximum supply
needs of sugar refineries under the preferential import arrange-
ments;

— Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of
19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in
the sugar sector;

— Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1745/2002 of
for the 2002/03 marketing
30 September 2002 reducing,
year,
the production quotas
scheme for the sugar sector and the presumed maximum supply
needs of sugar refineries under the preferential import arrange-
ments, and

the guaranteed quantity under

— Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1739/2003 of
30 September 2003 reducing,
for the 2003/04 marketing
year, the guaranteed quantity under the production quotas for
the sugar sector and the presumed maximum supply needs of
sugar refineries under preferential imports.

such a person may,

Therefore,
in proceedings brought under
national law, plead the illegality of those provisions even though it
has not brought an action for annulment of those provisions before
the Community Courts within the
laid down in
Article 230 EC.

time-limit

2. The examination of the second question has not revealed any factor
the validity of Article 24(2) of Regulation
such as to affect
No 1785/81, Article 27(3) of Regulation No 2038/1999,
Article 1 of Regulation No 2073/2000, Article 11(2) of Regu-
lation No 1260/2001, Article 1 of Regulation No 1745/2002
or Article 1 of Regulation No 1739/2003.

(1) OJ C 36, 11.2.2006.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 March 2007
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel
de Paris — France) — Thomson Multimedia Sales Europe
(C-447/05), Vestel France (C-448/05) v Administration des
douanes et droits indirects

(Joined Cases C-447/05 and C-448/05) (1)

(Community Customs Code — Implementing measures —
Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 — Annex 11 — Non-preferen-
tial origin of goods — Television receivers — Concept of
substantial processing or working — Criterion of added value
— Validity)

(2007/C 95/17)

Language of the cases: French

Referring court

Cour d'appel de Paris

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Thomson Multimedia Sales Europe (C-447/05), Vestel
France (C-448/05)

Defendant: Administration des douanes et droits indirects

Re:

Preliminary ruling — Cour d'appel de Paris — Validity of
Annex 11 to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of
2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Com-
munity Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1) — Criteria for
determining the non-preferential origin of goods — Television
manufactured in Poland but the cathode ray tube of which,
representing 42.43 % of the value of the apparatus, originates
in Korea

Operative part of the judgment

validity of

Consideration of the questions raised has disclosed nothing capable of
affecting the
in column three, under
the provisions
heading 8528 of the Combined Nomenclature, set out in Annex 11
to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying
down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code.

(1) OJ C 48, 25.2.2006.

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 March 2007
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
des Landes Brandenburg — Germany) — Gerlach & Co.
mbH v Hauptzollamt Frankfurt (Oder)

(Case C-44/06) (1)

(Customs union — Community transit — Proof of the regu-
larity of a transit operation or of the place of the offence —
Three-month period — Period granted subsequent to the deci-
sion to recover the import duties)

(2007/C 95/18)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht des Landes Brandenburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gerlach & Co. mbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Frankfurt (Oder)

C 95/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.4.2007

Re:

Parties to the main proceedings

Preliminary ruling –Interpretation of Article 11a(2) of Commis-
sion Regulation (EEC) No 1062/87 of 27 March 1987 on provi-
sions for the implementation of the Community transit proce-
dure and for certain simplifications of that procedure (OJ 1987
L 107, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC)
No 1429/90 of 29 May 1990 (OJ 1990 L 137, p. 21) —
Offence or irregularity committed in the course of an external
Community transit operation (T1) — Period for provision of
proof as to the place in which the offence or irregularity was
committed indicated only after the decision to recover duty had
been taken and in the course of complaint proceedings

Operative part of the judgment

Article 11a(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1062/87 of
27 March 1987 on provisions for the implementation of the Com-
munity transit procedure and for certain simplifications of that proce-
dure, as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1429/90 of
29 May 1990, must be interpreted as meaning that the Member
State to which the office of departure belongs cannot grant to the prin-
cipal the three-month period to enable it to provide proof of the regu-
larity of the transit operation or proof of the place where the offence or
irregularity was actually committed after the decision has been taken to
proceed to recovery of the import duties, during the proceedings relating
to a complaint lodged against that decision.

(1) OJ C 86, 8.4.2006.

Applicant: Campina GmbH & Co.,
emzett GmbH

formerly TUFFI Campina

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Frankfurt (Oder)

Re:

the

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht des Landes
second subparagraph of
Brandenburg — Validity of
Article 3(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 536/93 of
9 March 1993 laying down detailed rules on the application of
the additional levy on milk and milk products (OJ 1993 L 57,
p. 12), as amended by Regulation 1001/98 (OJ 1998 L 142, p.
22) — Penalty for failure to comply with the time-limit for the
annual submission of the statements of the individual producers
— Slight delay in observing the time-limit — Principle of
proportionality

Operative part of the judgment

The principle of retroactive application of the more lenient penalty
must be respected by national courts when they have to penalise prac-
tices which do not comply with rules laid down by Community legisla-
tion.

In the case of a slight delay in observing the deadline such as that at
issue in the main proceedings, the system of financial penalties provided
for by Article 5(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1392/2001
of 9 July 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regu-
lation (EEC) No 3950/92 establishing an additional levy on milk and
milk products is less severe than that provided for by the first indent of
the second subparagraph of Article 3(2) of Commission Regulation
(EEC) No 536/93 of 9 March 1993 laying down detailed rules on
the application of the additional levy on milk and milk products, as
amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1001/98 of 13 May
1998.

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 March 2007
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
des Landes Brandenburg (Germany)) — Campina GmbH &
Co., formerly TUFFI Campina emzett GmbH v Hauptzol-
lamt Frankfurt (Oder)

(1) OJ C 154, 1.7.2006.

(Case C-45/06) (1)

(Milk and milk products — Additional levy — Slight delay in
observing the time-limit for communication of the summary
of statements — Financial penalty — Regulation (EEC)
No 536/93 as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1001/98 —
second subparagraph — Regulation (EC)
Article 3(2),
No 1392/2001 — Article 5(3) — Regulation (EC, Euratom)
No 2988/95 — Article 2(2), second sentence — Principle of
retroactive application of the less severe penalty)

(2007/C 95/19)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht des Landes Brandenburg

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 March 2007
— Commission of the European Communities v United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-139/06) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directives
2002/96/EC and 2003/108/EC — Waste — Electrical and
electronic equipment)

(2007/C 95/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: M. Konstantinidis and D. Lawunmi, Agents)

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland (represented by: V. Jackson, Agent)