Case C-135/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 3 April 2008 — Janko Rottmann v Freistaat Bayern
Date: 2008-04-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European citizenship, Germany, fraud, fundamental rights, interpretation of the law, naturalisation

5.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/13

Question referred

Is Article 4(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2193/2003 of
8 December 2003 establishing additional customs duties on
imports of certain products originating in the United States of
America (1)
to be interpreted, contrary to its wording, as
meaning that products for which it can be demonstrated that
they are on their way to the Community on the date of first
application of
the additional duties and whose destination
cannot be changed are not affected by the additional duty?

(1) OJ 2003 L 328, p. 3.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundes-
verwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 3 April 2008 —
Janko Rottmann v Freistaat Bayern

(Case C-135/08)

(2008/C 171/22)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Janko Rottmann

Defendant: Freistaat Bayern

Questions referred

1. Does Community law preclude the legal consequence of the
loss of Union citizenship (and of the associated rights and
fundamental freedoms) resulting from the fact that a revoca-
tion, lawful as such under national (German) law, of a natur-
alisation as a national of a Member State (Germany) acquired
by intentional deception has the effect, in combination with
the national
law on nationality of another Member State
(Austria) — as with the claimant in the present case because
of the non-revival of the original Austrian nationality — that
statelessness supervenes?

2. If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:

Must the Member State (Germany) which has naturalised the
citizen of the Union and now wishes to revoke the naturali-
sation obtained by deception, having due regard to Com-
munity law, refrain altogether or temporarily from revoking
the naturalisation if or as long as revocation would have the

legal consequence of loss of Union citizenship (and of the
associated rights and fundamental
freedoms) described in
Question 1, or is the other Member State (Austria) of former
nationality obliged, having due regard to Community law, to
interpret and apply, or even adjust, its national law so that
that legal consequence does not supervene?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tallinna
Halduskohus (Estonia) lodged on 7 April 2008 — Rakvere
Lihakombinaat AS v Põllumajandusminister and Maksu- ja
Tolliameti Ida maksu- ja tollikeskus

(Case C-140/08)

(2008/C 171/23)

Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Tallinna Halduskohus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Rakvere Lihakombinaat AS

Defendants: Põllumajandusminister and Maksu- ja Tolliameti Ida
maksu- ja tollikeskus

Questions referred

the first

1. Must frozen mechanically separated chicken meat (mechani-
cally separated meat was defined for
time in
point 1.14 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 (1)
of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April
2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal
origin) be classified as from 1 May 2004 under CN code
0207 14 10 or CN code 0207 14 99 in Annex I to Council
Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (2) of 23 July 1987 on the
tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common
Customs Tariff?

2. If the product described in Question 1.1 must be classified
under CN code 0207 14 10, to seek a preliminary ruling on
the following question:

2.1 Does Article 4(1) and (2) of Commission Regulation
(EC) No 1972/2003 (3) preclude the ascertainment of
the amount of an operator's surplus stock by automati-
cally deducting from the surplus stock (regarded as tran-
sitional stock) the operator's average stock as at 1 May
of the four years of activity preceding 1 May 2004,
multiplied by 1.2?