Case C-166/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Büdingen (Germany) lodged on 18 April 2008 — Criminal proceedings against Guido Weber
Date: 2008-04-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: distributor, food inspection, interpretation of the law, labelling, liability, producer's liability, product quality

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

C 183/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

19.7.2008

Parties to the main proceedings

Prosecutor: Staatsanwaltschaft b.d. LG Gießen

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione
Tributaria Provinciale di Roma (Italy) lodged on 25 April
2008 — Pontina Ambiente Srl v Regione Lazio

Defendant: Guido Weber

Question referred

Is the second sentence of Article 7(1) of Council Directive
89/397/EEC of 14 June 1989 on the official control of food-
stuffs (1) to be interpreted, with regard to the expression ‘those
subject to inspection’, as applying not only to the manufacturer
of the foodstuff but also to the person marketing it, to the
extent that the latter is to be held responsible by the prosecuting
authorities for the condition and labelling of the foodstuff in
proceedings relating to the imposition of criminal penalties or
administrative fines?

(1) OJ 1989 L 186, p. 23.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van
Cassatie van België lodged on 21 April 2008 — Draka NK
Cables Ltd, AB Sandvik International, VO Sembodja BV and
Parc Healthcare International Limited v Omnipol Ltd

(Case C-167/08)

(2008/C 183/22)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie van België

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Draka NK Cables Ltd, AB Sandvik International, VO
Sembodja BV and Parc Healthcare International Limited

Defendant: Omnipol Ltd

Question referred

Is a creditor who pursues a claim in the name and for the
a party within the meaning of
account of his debtor
Article 43(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 (1), that is, a party who
can lodge an appeal against a decision on the request
for
declaration of enforceability, even if he has not
formally
appeared as a party in the proceedings in which another creditor
of that debtor applied for that declaration?

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on
jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in
civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).

(Case C-172/08)

(2008/C 183/23)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Roma

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pontina Ambiente Srl

Defendant: Regione Lazio

Question referred

in particular,

Is Article 3(26) and (31) of Law No 549/95 incompatible with
Articles 12, 14, 43 and 46 of the EEC Treaty and with Direc-
tives 35/2000/EC (1) and 31/1999/EC (2), with reference in par-
ticular to the principles laid down in the preamble to Directive
35/2000/EC and Article 10 of Directive 31/1999/EC, according
the Member States are required to
to which,
the Community
prevent situations of
inequality throughout
market by adopting provisions to combat
late payments in
order to prohibit abuse of freedom of contract to the disadvan-
tage of the creditor where the principal purpose of a contract is
to procure the debtor additional liquidity at the expense of the
creditor and by making provision for compensation for the loss
suffered by the creditor in the event of late payment by the
debtor?

(1) OJ 2000 L 200, p. 35.
(2) OJ 1999 L 182, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof
te Amsterdam (The Netherlands)
lodged on 25 April
2008 — Kloosterboer Services B.V. v Inspecteur van de
Belastingdienst/Douane Rotterdam, kantoor Laan op Zuid

(Case C-173/08)

(2008/C 183/24)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof te Amsterdam (The Netherlands)