Joined Cases C-287/06 to C-292/06: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 March 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Köln, Germany) — Deutsche Post AG (C-287/06, C-288/06 and C-291/06), Magdeburger Dienstleistungs- und Verwaltungs GmbH (MDG) (C-289/06), Marketing Service Magdeburg GmbH (C-290/06), Vedat Deniz (C-292/06) v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Postal services — Directive 97/67/EC — Field reserved to universal postal service provider — Special tariffs for the deposit by business customers, at fixed points of the postal network, of minimum quantities of pre-sorted items — Refusal of such tariffs to intermediaries who consolidate, on a commercial basis and in their own name, postal items from various senders)
Date: 2008-03-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: fixing of prices, interpretation of the law, postal service, provision of services, reduced price, universal service

26.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/3

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Carboni e derivati Srl

Respondents: Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze, Riunione
Adriatica di Sicurtà SpA

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Corte suprema di cassa-
zione — Interpretation of Article 147 of Commission Regu-
lation (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 (OJ 1993 L 253,
p. 1), as amended by Regulation No 1762/95 — Basis of calcu-
lation to determine application of the anti-dumping duty —
Possibility for the customs authority to take into consideration
the price indicated in a sale of goods which took place prior to
that on the basis of which the customs declaration took place
— Hematite pig-iron originating in Russia

Operative part of the judgment

accordance with Article 1(2)

of Commission Decision
In
No 67/94/ECSC of 12 January 1994 imposing a provisional anti-
dumping duty on imports into the Community of hematite pig iron,
originating in Brazil, Poland, Russia and Ukraine, the customs autho-
rities may not determine the customs value for the purpose of applying
the anti-dumping duty established by that decision on the basis of the
price indicated for the goods concerned in a sale prior to that on the
basis of which the customs declaration was made when the declared
price corresponds to the price actually paid or payable by the importer.

If the customs authorities have reasonable doubts as to the accuracy of
the declared value and their doubts are confirmed after they have asked
for additional information or documents and have provided the person
concerned with a reasonable opportunity to respond to the grounds for
those doubts, without it being possible to determine the price actually
paid or payable, they may, in accordance with Article 31 of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the
Community Customs Code, calculate the customs value for the purpose
of applying the anti-dumping duty established by Decision No 67/94
by reference to the price agreed for the goods in question in the most
recent sale prior to that on the basis of which the customs declaration
was made and in regard to which the customs authorities have no
objective reason to doubt its accuracy.

(1) OJ C 224, 16.9.2006.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 March 2008
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungs-
gericht Köln, Germany) — Deutsche Post AG (C-287/06,
C-288/06 and C-291/06), Magdeburger Dienstleistungs- und
Verwaltungs GmbH (MDG) (C-289/06), Marketing Service
Magdeburg GmbH (C-290/06), Vedat Deniz (C-292/06) v
Bundesrepublik Deutschland

(Joined Cases C-287/06 to C-292/06) (1)

(Postal services — Directive 97/67/EC — Field reserved to
universal postal service provider — Special tariffs for the
deposit by business customers, at fixed points of the postal
network, of minimum quantities of pre-sorted items —
Refusal of such tariffs to intermediaries who consolidate, on a
commercial basis and in their own name, postal items from
various senders)

(2008/C 107/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Deutsche Post AG (C-287/06, C-288/06 and
C-291/06), Magdeburger Dienstleistungs- und Verwaltungs
GmbH (MDG) (C-289/06), Marketing Service Magdeburg GmbH
(C-290/06), Vedat Deniz (C-292/06)

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

parties: Marketing

Service Magdeburg GmbH
Intervening
(C-287/06), Citipost Gesellschaft für Kurier- und Postdienstleis-
tungen mbH (C-288/06), Deutsche Post AG (C-289/06,
C-290/06 and C-292/06), Magdeburger Dienstleistungs- und
Verwaltungs GmbH (MDG) (C-291/06),

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht Köln
— Interpretation of Articles 47(2) EC and 95 EC and of the
fifth indent of Article 12, and Article 7(1) of Directive
97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of
the internal market of Community postal services and the
improvement of quality of service (OJ 1998 L 15, p. 14), as
amended by Directive 2002/39/EC of the European Parliament
the Council of 10 June 2002 amending Directive
and of
97/67/EC with regard to the further opening to competition of
Community postal services (OJ 2002 L 176, p. 21) — Obliga-
tion on a universal postal service supplier also to offer special

C 107/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.4.2008

tariffs, applied to business customers who themselves transport
pre-sorted postal
items to the sorting offices of dispatch, to
professional suppliers of postal services who collect the postal
items from the senders and then, like the business customers,
pre-sort and deliver them to a sorting office of dispatch

to a permanent establishment set up in another Member State
— Not possible to take that loss into account for purposes of
taxation in the Member State in which the company is estab-
lished

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The fifth indent of Article 12 of Directive 97/67/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common
rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal
services and the improvement of quality of service, as amended by
Directive 2002/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 10 June 2002, must be interpreted as precluding refusal to apply to
businesses which consolidate, on a commercial basis and in their own
name, postal items from various senders the special tariffs which the
national universal postal service provider grants, within the scope of its
exclusive licence, to business customers for the deposit of minimum
quantities of pre-sorted mail at its sorting offices.

(1) OJ C 261, 28.10.2006.

1) It is contrary to Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment
Article 43 EC) in conjunction with Article 58 of the EC Treaty
(now Article 48 EC) for a Member State, when determining the
national basis of assessment, to exclude a currency loss suffered by
a company with a registered office in that State upon the repatria-
tion of start-up capital granted to its permanent establishment in
another Member State.

2) It is also contrary to Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after
amendment, Article 43 EC) in conjunction with Article 58 of the
EC Treaty (now Article 48 EC) for a Member State to allow a
currency loss to be deducted as operating expenditure in respect of
an undertaking with a registered office in a Member State only in
so far as its permanent establishment in another Member State
does not make any tax-free profits.

(1) OJ C 237, 30.9.2006.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 February
a preliminary ruling from the
2008 (reference
Finanzgericht Hamburg, Germany) — Deutsche Shell
GmbH v Finanzamt für Großunternehmen in Hamburg

for

(Case C-293/06) (1)

(Freedom of establishment — Taxation of companies —
Monetary effects upon the repatriation of start-up capital
granted by a company established in one Member State to its
permanent establishment in another Member State)

(2008/C 107/05)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Deutsche Shell GmbH

Defendant: Finanzamt für Großunternehmen in Hamburg

Re:

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 11 March 2008
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungs-
gericht Schwerin (Germany)) — Rüdiger Jager v Amt für
Landwirtschaft Bützow

(Case C-420/06) (1)

agricultural

policy — Regulations

(Common
(EC)
No 1254/1999 and (EC) No 1782/2003 — Beef and veal —
Integrated administration and control system for certain Com-
munity aid schemes — Regulations (EEC) No 3887/92, (EC)
No 2419/2001 and (EC) No 796/2004 — Applications for
‘livestock’ aid — Suckler cow premium — Irregularities —
Non-compliance with the provisions concerning the identifica-
tion and registration of unclaimed bovine animals — Regu-
lation (EC) No 1760/2000 — Exclusion from the benefit of
aid — Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95
— Principle of retroactive application of the more lenient
penalty)

(2008/C 107/06)

Language of the case: German

Preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Hamburg — Interpretation
of Articles 43 EC and 48 EC — Currency exchange loss
incurred by a company established in one Member State at the
time of repatriation of the start-up capital which it had granted

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Schwerin