Case C-189/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, lodged on 8 May 2008 — Zuid-Chemie B.V. v Philippo's Mineralenfabriek N.V./S.A., at present PMF Productions
Date: 2008-05-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civil law, commercial law, consumer protection, damage, defective product, interpretation of the law

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.