Case C-140/08: 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
Date: 2008-04-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: boned meat, frozen product, interpretation of the law, poultrymeat, surplus stock, tariff nomenclature

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?

C 171/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

5.7.2008

If the answer is in the affirmative, would the answer be
different if in determining the amount of the transitional
stock and surplus stock it were possible also to take into
account the growth of the operator's production, proces-
sing or sales volume, the maturation period of the agri-
cultural product, the time when the stocks were built
up,
the
operator?

independent of

circumstances

and other

2.2 Is it compatible with the objective of Commission Regu-
lation (EC) No 1972/2003 to levy the surplus stock
charge where the operator is found to have a surplus
stock as at 1 May 2004 but the operator shows that he
has not obtained a real advantage in terms of a price
difference from marketing the surplus stock after 1 May
2004?

(1) OJ L 139, 30.4.2004, p. 55.
(2) OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1.
(3) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1972/2003 of 10 November 2003
on transitional measures to be adopted in respect of trade in agri-
cultural products on account of the accession of the Czech Republic,
Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia
and Slovakia (OJ L 293, 11.11.2003, p. 3).

Action brought on 8 April 2008 — Commission of the
European Communities v Republic of Finland

Pleas in law and main arguments

For the purpose of determining tax exemptions, Article 7(1) of
Directive 83/182/EEC governs normal residence, which deter-
mines the Member State under whose rules on temporary
imports the vehicle in question falls, and the Member State
which is entitled to charge tax on that vehicle. Article 7(1) of
Directive 83/182/EEC governs certain exceptions to the rule
according to which normal residence means the place where a
person usually lives for at least 185 days in each calendar year.
In particular, the second subparagraph of Article 7(1) states that
if the normal residence of a person whose occupational ties are
in a different place from his personal ties and who consequently
lives in turn in different places situated in two or more Member
States shall be regarded as being the place of his personal ties,
provided that such person returns there regularly. However, it is
expressly stated that the last condition need not be met where
the person is living in a Member State in order to carry out a
task of a definite duration.

However, Finnish legislation imposes a requirement
for the
person concerned to return to the place of normal residence
also in the case where he is living in Finland in order to carry
out a task of a definite duration. Therefore, Finland has failed to
correctly transpose Article 7(1) of Directive 83/182/EEC into
national law.

(1) OJ 1998 L 105, p. 59.

(Case C-144/08)

(2008/C 171/24)

Language of the case: Finnish

Appeal brought on 3 April 2008 by Efkon AG against the
order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of
22 January 2008 in Case T-298/04, Efkon AG v European
Parliament and Council of the European Union

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: I. Koskinen and D. Triantafyllou)

Defendant: Republic of Finland

Parties

(Case C-146/08 P)

(2008/C 171/25)

Language of the case: German

Form of order sought

— declare that, by using an incomplete definition of normal
residence in order to determine whether the temporary
import of certain forms of
to tax
exemptions, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its
obligations under Article 7(1) of Council Directive
No 83/182/EEC (1) of 28 March 1983 on tax exemptions
transport
within the Community for certain means of
temporarily imported into one Member State from another;

is subject

transport

— order Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

Appellant: Efkon AG (represented by: M. Novak, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Parliament, Council of
the European Union, Commission of the European Commu-
nities

Form of order sought

— Set aside the order of

Instance of
22 January 2008 under appeal (T-298/04) as unlawful, and
direct the Court to follow due process of law and to reach a
decision on the merits;

the Court of First