Case C-161/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerp (Belgium) lodged on 18 April 2008 — Internationaal Verhuis- en Transportbedrijf Jan de Lely v Belgische Staat
Date: 2008-04-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: carriage of goods, customs debt, customs document, customs regulations, interpretation of the law

C 183/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

19.7.2008

Parties to the main proceedings

Question referred

Applicants:

1. Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Karlsruhe

2. Staatsanwaltschaft Konstanz

Defendant: Rafet Kqiku

Questions referred

the European Parliament and of

the provisions of Articles 1 and 2 of Decision
Are
No 896/2006/EC of
the
Council of 14 June 2006 establishing a simplified regime for
the control of persons at the external borders based on the
unilateral recognition by the Member States of certain residence
permits issued by Switzerland and Liechtenstein for the purpose
of transit through their territory (1) to be interpreted as meaning
that the residence permits issued by the Swiss Confederation
and Liechtenstein listed in the Annex acquire, by virtue of the
unilateral recognition by the Member States fully implementing
the Schengen acquis of those residence permits as equivalent to
their uniform or national visas, directly the effect of a residence
document allowing transit through the common area;

Or

the provisions of Articles 1 and 2 of Decision
are
No 896/2006/EC to be interpreted as meaning that
third-
country nationals holding one of the residence permits issued
by the Swiss Confederation and Liechtenstein listed in the
Annex unilaterally recognised by the Member States fully imple-
menting the Schengen acquis are exempt, for the purpose of
transit through the common area, from the requirement to be
in possession of a visa under Article 1(1) of Regulation (EC)
No 539/2001?

(1) OJ 2006 L 167, p. 8.

Is the imposition of German real property transfer tax on future
building work as a result of its inclusion in the taxable amount
for real property transfer tax on the purchase of a plot of land
not yet built on (so-called single supply consisting of building
land) contrary to the prohibition on
work and purchase of
the Directive on the
multiple taxation in Article 401 of
common system of value added tax (1) (formerly Article 33(1)
of the Sixth Directive) (2) where the building work subject to
real property transfer tax is also subject to German turnover tax
as an independent supply?

(1) OJ L 347, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 145, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van
beroep te Antwerp (Belgium) lodged on 18 April 2008 —
Internationaal Verhuis- en Transportbedrijf Jan de Lely v
Belgische Staat

(Case C-161/08)

(2008/C 183/19)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nieder-
sächsischen Finanzgericht (Germany) lodged on 16 April
2008 — Monika Vollkommer v Finanzamt Hannover-Land I

Respondent: Belgische Staat

Appellant: Internationaal Verhuis- en Transportbedrijf Jan de Lely

(Case C-156/08)

(2008/C 183/18)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Niedersächsischen Finanzgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Monika Vollkommer

Defendant: Finanzamt Hannover-Land I

Questions referred

(1) Must Article 2(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC)
No 1593/91 (1) of 12 June 1991, read in conjunction with
Article 11(1) of the Convention of 14 November 1975 on
the International Transport of Goods under Cover of TIR
Carnets (TIR Convention), be interpreted as meaning that
the period laid down in Article 11(1) of the TIR Convention
applies only for the benefit of the guaranteeing organisation,
but not for that of the carnet holder, and that exceeding the
period of one year from the date of acceptance of the TIR
carnet in respect of the carnet holder affects entitlement to
recover the customs debt or the excise duties and special
excise duties and the liability for payment, and that
exceeding the period of one year prejudices the right of the
competent customs authorities to proceed to recovery of
that debt?

19.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 183/11

(2) Must Article 2(2) and (3) of Commission Regulation (EEC)
No 1593/91 of 12 June 1991, read in conjunction with
Article 11(1) and (2) of the Convention of 14 November
1975 on the International Transport of Goods under Cover
of TIR Carnets (TIR Convention), be interpreted as meaning
that
the period laid down therein applies only for the
furnishing of proof as to the regularity of the transport
operation, but not for the furnishing of proof as to the
place where the offence or irregularity was committed?

(3) Must Article 2(2) and (3) of Commission Regulation (EEC)
No 1593/91 of 12 June 1991, read in conjunction with
Article 11(1) and (2) of the Convention of 14 November
1975 on the International Transport of Goods under Cover
of TIR Carnets (TIR Convention), be interpreted as meaning
that, in so far as the period laid down therein also applies
for the furnishing of proof as to the place where the offence
or irregularity was committed, that period is not a strict
period and that the carnet holder may still furnish that
proof even after that period has expired?.

(1) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1593/91 of 12 June 1991
providing for
the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 719/91 on the use in the Community of TIR carnets and ATA
carnets as transit documents (OJ 1991 L 148, p. 11).

Action brought on 17 April 2008 — Commission of the
European Communities v Republic of Poland

(Case C-165/08)

(2008/C 183/20)

— order

the Republic of Poland to pay the costs of

the

proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The national provision stating that ‘seed derived from genetically
modified varieties may not be authorised for marketing within
the territory of the Republic of Poland’ is at variance with Direc-
tive 2001/18/EC, which lays down the principles governing the
bringing onto the market of genetically modified organisms.
Article 22 of that directive prohibits the Member States from
imposing additional conditions on the marketing of organisms
which have been authorised at Community level, while
Article 23 of the directive provides for restrictions and prohibi-
tions only in the case of particular genetically modified organ-
isms and only in special circumstances. In none of its provisions
does the directive authorise a Member State to prohibit, in a
general and unjustified manner, the marketing, within its terri-
tory, of an entire category (in this case, seed) of genetically
modified organisms. The aforementioned provision is also at
variance with Directive 2002/53/EC,
in particular Article 16
thereof,
inasmuch as it constitutes a marketing restriction in
relation to seed derived from varieties listed in the common
catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species.

The national provision stating that ‘genetically modified varieties
may not be registered in the national catalogue’ is at variance
with Directive 2002/53/EC. Article 4(4) of that directive does
not authorise Member States to prohibit generally the registra-
tion of genetically modified varieties in the national catalogue,
but rather imposes on them solely the obligation to ensure,
when such varieties are being entered in the national catalogue,
that each of those varieties had been approved in accordance
with the Community legislation applicable to genetically modi-
fied organisms.

Language of the case: Polish

(1) OJ L 106, 17.4.2001, p. 1-39.
(2) OJ L 193, 20.7.2002, p. 1-11.

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: B. Doherty and A. Szmytkowska, Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Poland

Form of order sought

— declare that, by introducing a ban on the free movement of
seed derived from genetically modified varieties and by
prohibiting the registration of genetically modified varieties
in the national catalogue of varieties,
the Republic of
Poland has failed to comply with its obligations under Direc-
tive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council (1) in its entirety, and in particular pursuant to Arti-
cles 22 and 23 thereof, as well as its obligations under
2002/53/EC (2),
Council Directive
particular
Articles 4(4) and 16 thereof;

and

in

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht
Büdingen (Germany) lodged on 18 April 2008 — Criminal
proceedings against Guido Weber

(Case C-166/08)

(2008/C 183/21)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Büdingen