Case C-173/08: 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
Date: 2008-04-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: CCT duties, Combined Nomenclature, common customs tariff, consumer goods, interpretation of the law

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)

19.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 183/13

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Kloosterboer Services B.V.

Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane Rotterdam,
kantoor Laan op Zuid

Questions referred

1. Is Commission Regulation (EC) No 384/2004 (1) of 1 March
2004 concerning the classification of certain goods in the
Combined Nomenclature valid in so far as, according to that
Regulation,
the Common
Nomenclature covers the goods described in paragraph 2.7 (2)
above?

subheading 8414 59 30 of

2. If the Regulation is invalid, can the Common Customs Tariff
then be interpreted to mean that those goods should be clas-
sified as
the machines of
and accessories of
heading 8471’ as referred to in subheading 8473 30 90 of
the CN?

‘parts

(1) OJ L 64, p. 21.
(2) The products consist of two elements: a ‘heat sink’ (heat exchanger)
and a fan, which are durably attached to each other to form a whole.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden, lodged on 8 May 2008 — Zuid-Chemie B.V. v
at present PMF
Philippo's Mineralenfabriek N.V./S.A.,

Productions

(Case C-189/08)

(2008/C 183/25)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Zuid-Chemie B.V.

Respondent: Philippo's Mineralenfabriek N.V./S.A.

Questions referred

(a) Which harm is, in the case of unlawful conduct such as that
which forms the basis for Zuid-Chemie's claim, to be treated
as the initial harm resulting from that conduct: the harm
which arises by virtue of
the defective
product or the harm which arises when normal use is made
of the product for the purpose for which it was intended?

the delivery of

(b) If the latter is the case, can then the place where that harm
arose be treated as ‘the place where the harmful event
occurred’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Council
Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1) of 22 December 2000 on
jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judg-
ments in civil and commercial matters only if that harm
consists of physical harm to persons or goods, or is this
also possible if
(initially) only financial harm has been
incurred?

(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).

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundes-
gerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 14 May 2008 — Land-
wirtschaftsamt (German Agricultural Office) v Hermann
and the Regierungspräsidium
Fischer, Rolf Schlatter

Freiburg

(Case C-193/08)

(2008/C 183/26)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Hermann Fischer, Rolf Schlatter and the Regierungspräsidium
Freiburg

Question referred

Must Article 15(1) of Annex I to the Agreement between the
European Community and its Member States, of the one part,
and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free move-
ment of persons be interpreted as meaning that, as regards
access to a self-employed activity and the pursuit thereof, only
self-employed persons within the meaning of Article 12(1) of
Annex I to the agreement are to be afforded no less favourable
treatment in the host country than that accorded to its own
nationals, or does this also apply to self-employed frontier
workers within the meaning of Article 13(1) of Annex I to the
agreement (1)?

(1) OJ 2002 L 114, p. 6.