Case C-391/05: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 1 March 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany)) — Jan de Nul NV v Hauptzollamt Oldenburg (Excise duties — Exemption from excise duty on mineral oils — Directive 92/81/EEC — Navigation within Community waters )
Date: 2007-04-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU waters, dredging, excise duty, inland waterway, inland waterway shipping, interpretation of the law, maritime shipping, mineral oil, tax harmonisation

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/9

Operative part of the judgment

Point 1.8 of Rule No 1 in the Annex to Commission Regulation (EC)
No 1685/2000 of 28 July 2000 laying down detailed rules for the
implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 as
regards eligibility of expenditure of operations co-financed by the Struc-
tural Funds, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 448/
2004 of 10 March 2004, does not preclude a method of calculating
overheads as eligible expenditure for the purposes of a project co-
financed by the Structural Funds, on the sole ground that the method
is based on a percentage or proportion, in particular, of wage costs or
time worked.

of 22 December 1994, relates to all waters which can be used by
all sea-going vessels, including those which have the greatest capa-
city,
commercial
travelling maritime waterways
purposes.

capable of

for

2) Manoeuvres carried out by a hopper dredger during its operations
of pumping and discharge of materials, that is to say,
journeys
inherent in the carrying out of dredging activities, come within the
scope of the term ‘navigation’ as used in the first subparagraph of
Article 8(1)(c) of Directive 92/81, as amended by Directive 94/
74.

(1) OJ C 271, 29.10.2005.

(1) OJ C 10, 14.1.2006.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 1 March 2007
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
Hamburg (Germany)) — Jan de Nul NV v Hauptzollamt
Oldenburg

(Case C-391/05) (1)

(Excise duties — Exemption from excise duty on mineral oils
— Directive 92/81/EEC — ‘Navigation within Community
waters’)

(2007/C 95/14)

Language of the case: German

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 March 2007
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta
domstolen — Sweden) — Unibet (London) Ltd, Unibet
(International) Ltd v Justitiekanslern

(Case C-432/05) (1)

legislation not
(Principle of judicial protection — National
providing for a self-standing action to challenge the compat-
ibility of a national provision with Community law — Proce-
dural autonomy — Principles of equivalence and effectiveness
— Interim protection)

(2007/C 95/15)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Jan de Nul NV

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Oldenburg

Re:

Referring court

Högsta domstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Unibet (London) Ltd, Unibet (International) Ltd

Defendant: Justitiekanslern

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Hamburg —
Interpretation of the first subparagraph of Article 8(1)(c) of
Council Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the
harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils
(OJ 1992 L 316, p. 12) — Definition of ‘Community waters’
and ‘navigation’ — Taxation of mineral oils used as fuel for a
floating dredger carrying out cleaning work on the Elbe.

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Högsta domstolen —
Interpretation of Article 49 EC — National
legislation not
providing for an action for a declaration that a legislative provi-
sion conflicts with higher-ranking legal rules — Right of indivi-
duals to effective judicial protection of rights which they derive
from the Community legal order

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

1) The term ‘Community waters’ within the meaning of the first sub-
paragraph of Article 8(1)(c) of Council Directive 92/81/EEC of
19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise
duties on mineral oils, as amended by Council Directive 94/74/EC

1. The principle of effective judicial protection of an individual's rights
under Community law must be interpreted as meaning that it does
not require the national legal order of a Member State to provide
for a free-standing action for an examination of whether national