Case C-168/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 21 April 2008 — Iaszlo Hadadi (Hadady) v Csilla Marta Mesko, married name Hadadi (Hadady)
Date: 2008-04-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: interpretation of the law, matrimonial law, nationality, ordinary court of law

21.6.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 158/13

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione
Tributaria Regionale di Trieste (Italy) lodged on 16 April
2008 — Agenzia Dogane Ufficio delle Dogane Trieste v
Pometon S.p.A.

(Case C-158/08)

(2008/C 158/19)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione Tributaria Regionale di Trieste

Parties to the main proceedings

3. Whether, in the absence of Community provisions on sanc-
tions, which this court has failed to find, the court of the
Member State may apply rules of its own legal order which
enable it to declare, their requirements being met, the annul-
ment of the contracts of assignment for inward processing
the compensating product, such as Arti-
and of sale of
cles 1343 (illegality), 1344 (contract
to evade the law)
and 1345 (illegal motive) of
the Italian Civil Code, and
Article 1414 et seq. of the Italian Civil Code in respect of
pretence, where infringement of the Community principles
referred to above is established?

4. Whether, for any other reasons or criteria of interpretation
which it may please the Court
the operation
described above, where it is prearranged in order to circum-
vent anti-dumping duty, complies with the inward processing
procedure or whether it actually infringes customs principles
for the application of anti-dumping duty which the Court
may wish to indicate?

to state,

5. Whether, for any other reasons or criteria of interpretation
which it may please the Court to state, the operation in ques-
tion constitutes a definitive import of product subject to
anti-dumping duty?

Appellant: Agenzia Dogane Ufficio delle Dogane Trieste (Trieste
Customs Authority)

(1) OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.
(2) OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1.

Respondent: Pometon S.p.A.

Questions referred

1. Can it be correctly held that the inward processing proce-
dure, as implemented by Pometon S.p.A., can infringe the
principles of the customs policy of the Community, and, in
particular, those of the general and specific anti-dumping
legislation, as well as those of the Community Customs Code
(Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92)? (1) In particular, is Article 13
of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (2) to be interpreted as a prin-
ciple of general application, applicable as a general stipula-
tion of the Community legal order, also directly binding in
relations between national authorities and taxpayers, as well
as in the procedure for imposing anti-dumping duty; for
example, can that principle be invoked in carrying out
customs controls, as defined in Article 4(14) of the Com-
munity Customs Code (Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92?

2. Can the combined provisions of Article 13 of Regulation
(EC) No 384/96, in respect of evasion of anti-dumping rules,
of Article 114 et seq. of
the Community Customs Code
(Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92), in respect of inward proces-
in
sing, and of Articles 202, 204, 212 and 240 thereof,
respect of the incurrence of the customs debt, be interpreted
as meaning that the subjection of goods to anti-dumping
duty is not precluded by the prearranged acquisition of the
from an entity with the nationality of a
same product
country not subject to anti-dumping duty, which has, in its
turn, acquired that product in a country subject to such duty
and has, without altering it in any way, imported it tempora-
rily into the Community under the inward processing proce-
dure, in order to re-import it processed, but temporarily and
for only a few hours, and re-sell it immediately to the same
Community company which had undertaken the inward
processing?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassa-
tion (France) lodged on 21 April 2008 — Iaszlo Hadadi
(Hadady) v Csilla Marta Mesko, married name Hadadi
(Hadady)

(Case C-168/08)

(2008/C 158/20)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Laszlo Hadadi (Hadady)

Defendant: Csilla Marta Mesko, married name Hadadi (Hadady)

C 158/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.6.2008

Questions referred

1. Is Article 3(1)(b) [of Regulation No 2201/2003] (1) to be
interpreted as meaning that, in a situation where the spouses
hold both the nationality of the State of the court seised and
the nationality of another Member State of the European
Union, the nationality of the State of the court seised must
prevail?

2. If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative, is that provi-
sion to be interpreted as referring, in a situation where the
spouses each hold dual nationality of the same two Member
States, to the more dominant of the two nationalities?

3. If the answer to Question 2 is in the negative, should it
therefore be considered that that provision offers the spouses
an additional option, allowing those spouses the choice of
seising the courts of either of the two States of which they
both hold the nationality?

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003
concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judg-
ments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsi-
bility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (OJ 2003 L 338,
p. 1).

transpose Directive 2003/18/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 27 March 2003 amending Council
Directive 83/477/EEC on the protection of workers from the
risks related to exposure to asbestos at work (1) or by not
communicating those provisions to the Commission, has
failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) of that direc-
tive.

— order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time limit for transposition of the directive expired on
15 April 2006.

(1) OJ 2003 L 97, p. 48.

Action brought on 29 April 2008 — Commission of the
European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Action brought on 29 April 2008 — Commission of the
European Communities v Republic of Austria

(Case C-181/08)

(2008/C 158/21)

Language of the case: German

Parties

(Case C-184/08)

(2008/C 158/22)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: V. Kreuschitz, Agent)

Defendant: Republic of Austria

Form of order sought

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: P. Oliver and J.-B. Laignelot, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Form of order sought

— Declare that by failing to adopt sanctions under Article 18
of Regulation (EC) No 648/2004 of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on detergents (1) or
by not informing the Commission thereof, the Grand Duchy
its obligations under
of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil
Article 18(1) and (2) of that regulation;

— declare that the Republic of Austria, by not adopting the
laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to

— Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.