Case C-459/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Graz (Österreich) lodged on 9 October 2007 — Veli Elshani v Hauptzollamt Linz
Date: 2007-12-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law, customs debt, customs regulations, interpretation of the law, legal code

C 297/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.12.2007

The Portuguese Republic still has not adopted the measures that
it ought to have adopted in relation to the economic traders to
whom the law contrary to Articles 28 and 30 of the EC Treaty
was applied.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger
lodged on
Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Graz (Österreich)

9 October 2007 — Veli Elshani v Hauptzollamt Linz

(Case C-459/07)

(2007/C 297/49)

Language of the case: German

Action brought on 10 October 2007 — Commission of the
European Communities v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-458/07)

(2007/C 297/48)

Referring court

Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Graz

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties

Applicant: Veli Elshani

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Linz

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: P. Andrade and G. Braun, Agents)

Questions referred

Defendant: Portuguese Republic

Form of order sought

— a declaration that the Portuguese Republic, by failing to
ensure in practice that at least one comprehensive telephone
directory and at least one comprehensive telephone directory
enquiry service are available to all end-users, as laid down in
Articles 5(1) and (2) and 25(1) and (3) of Directive
2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users' rights
relating
and
to electronic
services (1), has failed to fulfil
its obligations under that
directive;

communications networks

— an order that the Portuguese Republic should pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In Portugal, subscribers to Vodafone who expressed their wish
to have their names included in the universal service directory
are still not included in it.

The regulator, ANACOM, has not yet decided on the form and
procedure for
supplying the information in question. The
present legal situation is the responsibility of the Portuguese
Republic.

(1) OJ L 108, p. 51.

1. The criterion for extinction laid down in point (d) of the first
paragraph of Article 233 of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 2913/92 (1) establishing the Community Customs Code
(‘the Customs Code’) does not refer to the time at which the
customs debt is incurred but to a time after the customs
is incurred, because it presupposes a customs debt
debt
‘incurred’
in accordance with Article 202 of the Customs
Code.

Is the expression ‘upon their unlawful introduction’ within
the meaning of point (d) of the first paragraph of Article 233
of the Customs Code to be interpreted as meaning that:

— the introduction into the customs territory of the Com-
munity of goods in respect of which a customs debt is
incurred in accordance with Article 202 of the Customs
Code ends when they are introduced at
the border
customs office or at any other place designated by the
customs authorities, but at the latest when they leave the
premises of the border customs office or of the otherwise
designated place, because the goods have thus entered
the customs territory, with the result that seizure and
confiscation of
time no longer
the goods after that
results in the extinction of the customs debt,

or as meaning that:

— the introduction into the customs territory of the Com-
munity of goods in respect of which a customs debt is
incurred in accordance with Article 202 of the Customs
Code continues, adopting an economic approach, for as
long as their transport continues as a single process
following the introduction of the goods into the customs
territory, and the goods in the customs territory have not
yet therefore reached their first destination and come to
rest there, with the result that seizure and confiscation of
the goods up to that time results in the extinction of the
customs debt?

8.12.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/31

for

2. In the event of unlawful conduct

the purposes of
Article 202 of the Customs Code which is discovered upon
introduction, the customs debt must be extinguished. By
contrast, seizure of goods directly upon their being removed
from customs supervision, as unlawful conduct
the
purposes of Article 203 of the Customs Code, results in no
immediate extinction of the customs debt.

for

Is point (d) of the first paragraph of Article 233 of the
Customs Code to be interpreted as meaning that this extinc-
tion of the customs debt, which is restricted expressly to
cases where the customs debt is incurred in accordance with
Article 202 of the Customs Code, is nevertheless consistent
with the principle of equal treatment of unlawful conduct?

member of a tripartite agreement — the Court of First Instance
failed to apply the principal of equal treatment by adjusting the
basic amount of Coats' fine downwards by 20 percent only.

In the alternative the appellant submits that the Court of First
Instance failed to take account of all the elements of the deci-
sion which it annulled in making a reduction of the fine on the
grounds of attenuating circumstances.

(1) OJ L 302, p. 1.

Action brought on 25 October 2007 — European
Parliament v Commission of the European Communities

Appeal brought on 22 October 2007 by Coats Holdings
Ltd, J&P Coats Ltd against the judgment of the Court of
First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 12 September
2007 in Case T-36/05: Coats Holdings Ltd and J&P Coats
Ltd v Commission of the European Communities

Parties

(Case C-474/07)

(2007/C 297/51)

Language of the case: English

(Case C-468/07 P)

(2007/C 297/50)

Language of the case: English

Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: K. Bradley and
U. Rosslein, Agents)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Parties

Appellants: Coats Holdings Ltd, J&P Coats Ltd (represented by:
W. Sibree and C. Jeffs, Solicitors)

— annul Commission Regulations (EC) No 915/2007 (1) of
31 July 2007 amending Regulation (EC) No 622/2003
laying down measures
the
common basic standards on aviation security, and

the implementation of

for

Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European
Communities

costs.

— order Commission of the European Communities to pay the

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:

— reduce the fine in relation to Coats such that (i) it recognises
the principle of equal treatment; and (ii) takes account of the
substantial parts of the Commission's findings which were
annulled by the Court of First Instance, which go to redu-
cing the gravity of the infringement and strengthening the
attenuating circumstances.

Pleas in law and main arguments

As co-legislator with the Council
the European Parliament
decided in 2002 that certain implementing measures on air
security should not be published. The applicant maintains that
the Commission has applied this rule incorrectly, by systemati-
cally failing to publish implementing measures which do not
require to be kept secret. In adopting Regulation 915/207, the
Commission has misinterpreted its powers under Regulation
2320/2002, contravened Article 254 EC and the principles of
democracy, openness and the publicity of
legislative acts,
created legal uncertainty, and failed to provide a proper state-
ment of reasons.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that having quashed all the Commission's
factual findings relating to infringements of Article 81 except
one narrow finding — and in particular having annulled the
Commission's central finding that Coats was an equally active

(1) OJ L 200, p. 3.