Case C-376/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden lodged on 3 August 2007 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Kamino International Logistics BV
Date: 2007-11-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, information processing, interpretation of the law, screen

10.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/23

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 3 August 2007 —
Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Heuschen & Schrouff
Oriental Foods Trading BV

(Case C-375/07)

(2007/C 269/45)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Respondent: Heuschen & Schrouff Oriental Foods Trading BV

Questions referred

antees uniform application of Community law in the specific
case where there is a discrepancy between the views of the
Commission and those of the national court concerning the
criteria to be applied in the context of Article 220 of the
CCC (4) for the purpose of determining whether a mistake
on the part of
the customs authority could have been
detected by a tax debtor?

(1) Regulation concerning the classification of certain goods in the

Combined Nomenclature (OJ 1997 L 170, p. 13).

(2) OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1.
(3) OJ 1998 L 212, p. 18.
(4) OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden lodged on 3 August 2007 — Staatssecretaris
van Financiën v Kamino International Logistics BV

(Case C-376/07)

(2007/C 269/46)

Language of the case: Dutch

1. Do sheets as described in the annex to Commission Regu-
lation (EC) No 1196/97 of 27 June 1997 (1) come under
heading 1905 of the Combined Nomenclature if they are
prepared from rice flour, salt and water and then dried, but
do not undergo any heat treatment?

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

2. In the light of the answer to Question 1, is Regulation (EC)

No 1196/97 valid?

3. Must Article 871 of 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 [CCC] (2), as
amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1677/98 of
29 July 1998 (3), be construed as meaning that if, under
Article 871(1) thereof, there is an obligation on the customs
authority to transmit a case to the Commission before it can
decide to dispense with post-clearance recovery in that case,
a national court ruling on an appeal by a tax debtor against
the decision of the customs authority to proceed (in fact)
with post-clearance recovery does not have the power to set
its
aside that post-clearance recovery on the ground of
finding that the conditions laid down in Article 220(2)(b) for
(mandatorily) setting aside post-clearance recovery are satis-
fied, where that finding is not supported by the Commis-
sion?

4. If the answer to Question 3 should be that the fact that the
Commission has the power to take a decision in regard to
demands for post-clearance recovery of customs duties does
not involve any limitation on the jurisdiction of national
courts which are called on to rule in an appeal concerning a
demand for post-clearance recovery of customs duties, does
Community law contain any separate provision which guar-

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Defendant: Kamino International Logistics B.V.

Questions referred

1. Must Note 5 to Chapter 84 of the Combined Nomenclature
(CN) in the version of Annex I to Commission Regulation
(EC) No 1789/2003 of 11 September 2003 (1) be interpreted
as meaning that a colour monitor which can display both
from an automatic data-processing machine as
signals
the CN and from other
referred to in heading 8471 of
sources is excluded from classification under heading 8471
of the CN?

2. If classification in heading 8471 of the CN of the colour
monitor referred to in question one above is not excluded,
on the basis of which criteria must it then be determined
whether it is a unit of the sort that is solely or principally
used in an automatic data-processing system?

C 269/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

10.11.2007

3. Does the scope of application of Commission Regulation
(EC) No 754/2004 of 21 April 2004 on the classification of
certain goods in the CN (2) extend to the monitor at issue
and, if so, in light of the answers to the first and second
questions, is that regulation valid?

(1) Regulation amending Annex I

to Council Regulation (EEC)
No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the
Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2003 L 281, p. 1).

(2) OJ 2004 L 118, p. 32.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rethymnon
Court of First Instance (Single Judge) (Greece) lodged on
8 August 2007 — K. Angelidaki, A. Aïvali, A Bavouraki,
Kh. Kaparou, M. Lioni, E. Makriyiannaki, E. Nisanaki,
Khalkiadaki,
Kh.

Pitsidianaki, M.

Panayiotou, A.

Kh. Khalkiadaki v Nomarkhiaki Avtodiikisi Rethymnis

(Case C-378/07)

(2007/C 269/47)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Rethymnon Court of First Instance

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Kyriaki Angelidaki, Anastasia. Aïvali, Angeliki
Bavouraki,
Evangelia
Kaparou, Manina.
Makriyiannaki, Eleonora. Nisanaki, Khristiana. Panayiotou, A.
nna Pitsidianaki, Maria Khalkiadaki and Khrisi. Khalkiadaki

Khrisi.

Lioni,

Defendant: Nomarkhiaki Avtodiikisi Rethymnis

Questions referred

1. Do clause 5 and clause 8(1) and (3) of the Framework Agree-
ment on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and
CEEP, which forms an integral part of Council Directive
1999/70/EC (OJ 1999 L 175 p. 43), mean that Community
law (by reason of the application of the said Framework
Agreement) does not allow a Member State to adopt
measures (a) where an equivalent legal measure within the
meaning of clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement already
existed under national law before the directive entered into
force and (b) where the measures adopted in order to apply
the Framework Agreement reduce the general level of protec-
tion afforded to fixed-term workers under national law?

2. If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, is the reduction
in the protection afforded to fixed-term workers in the case

of a single fixed-term employment contract
(rather than
several, successive contracts), under which the worker is in
fact to provide services to meet ‘fixed and permanent’, rather
requirements,
than temporary,
connected to the application of the said Framework Agree-
ment and the above directive and is such a reduction there-
fore permitted or not permitted from the point of view of
Community law?

exceptional or urgent,

legal measure under national

3. If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, where there is an
equivalent
law, within the
meaning of clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement, which
existed before Directive 1999/70/EC entered into force, such
as Article 8(3) of Law 2112/1920 at issue in the main
proceedings, is the adoption of a legal measure by reason of
the application of
such as
Article 11 of Presidential Decree 164/2004 at issue in the
main proceedings, an unacceptable reduction in the general
level [of protection] afforded to fixed-term workers under
national law within the meaning of clause 8(1) and (3) of the
Framework Agreement:

the Framework Agreement,

(a) when the scope of the legal measure in question applying
the Framework Agreement extends only to successive
fixed-term employment contracts or relationships and
not to persons who have concluded a single fixed-term
contract of employment (rather than several, successive
in order for the worker to meet ‘fixed and
contracts)
permanent’
the employer, while the
earlier equivalent legal measure applied to all fixed-term
the worker
contracts of
concluded a single fixed-term employment contract,
under which, in fact, the worker was to provide services
to meet ‘fixed and permanent’ (rather than temporary,
exceptional or urgent) requirements, and

requirements of

employment,

even where

(b) when the legal measure in question for application of the
Framework Agreement provides, as a legal consequence,
for the purpose of protecting fixed-term workers and
preventing abuse within the meaning of the Framework
Agreement on fixed-term work, for fixed-term contracts
thereafter (ex nunc) to be qualified as contracts of indefi-
nite duration, while the earlier equivalent legal measure
made provision for fixed-term contracts of employment
to be qualified as contracts of indefinite duration from
the time when they were originally concluded (ex tunc)?

4. If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, where an equiva-
lent legal measure within the meaning of clause 5(1) of the
Framework Agreement on fixed-term work, which forms an
integral part of Directive 1999/70/EC, already existed in the
national legal order before that directive entered into force,
as in the case of Article 8(3) of Law 2112/1920 at issue in
the main proceedings, is the choice made by the Greek legis-
lature, in transposing the above directive into Greek law, on
the one hand, to exclude the said cases of abuse in which the
worker has concluded a single fixed-time contract, under