do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-234/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 26 June 2009 — Skatteministeriet v DSV Road A/S
Date: 2009-06-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: customs debt, customs duties, customs regulations, free movement of goods, import policy, interpretation of the law, transit








C_2009205EN.01002701.xml










29.8.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 205/27





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 26 June 2009 — Skatteministeriet v DSV Road A/S
(Case C-234/09)
2009/C 205/45
Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Vestre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Skatteministeriet

Defendant: DSV Road A/S

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 204(1)(a) with reference to Articles 92 and 96 in conjunction with Article 1 and Article 4(9) and (10) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (1) be interpreted as meaning that






a)


a customs debt arises if a transit procedure for goods which do not physically exist is initiated by mistake in the NCTS system by an authorised consignor, and as a consequence the transit procedure cannot subsequently be discharged in accordance with the rules, or that










b)


a customs debt does not arise, since the transit procedure is presumed to apply solely to physically existing goods, so that the mistaken generation of a transit in the NCTS system for goods which do not physically exist does not lead to the imposition of customs duties?














2.


If Question 1(a) is answered in the affirmative, must the concept of the ‘importation of goods’ in Article 4(10) together with the concept of ‘goods’ in Article 204(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code be interpreted as meaning that the concept covers both physically existing goods and goods which do not physically exist?






(1)  OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.
Case F-63/09: Action brought on 26 June 2009 — Donati v ECB
Date: 2009-06-26
Institutions: Civil Service Tribunal
Subjects: European Central Bank, action for annulment (EU), damages, indemnification, psychological harassment








C_2009205EN.01005002.xml










29.8.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 205/50





Action brought on 26 June 2009 — Donati v ECB
(Case F-63/09)
2009/C 205/93
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Paola Donati (Frankfurt on Main, Germany) (represented by: L. Levi, M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the ECB’s decision not to take further action on the claims relating to alleged psychological harassment suffered by the applicant, and compensation for the non-material harm suffered.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:






—


annul the decision of the Board of Directors of 16 December 2008 in so far as it involves a threat and an attempt to intimidate the applicant;










—


annul the decision of the Board of Directors of 16 December 2008 in so far as it does not contain a decision on the result of the administrative investigation and on the final outcome of the applicant’s complaint; in the alternative, annul the Board of Director’s decision of 16 December 2008 in so far as it contains an ‘implied’ decision to take no further action on the applicant’s complaint and not to adopt subsequent measures, in particular not to open disciplinary proceedings;










—


annul, so far as is necessary, the decision of 16 April 2008 rejecting the applicant’s ‘special appeal’;










—


order the defendant to pay compensation for the non-material harm suffered, assessed on equitable principles at EUR 10 000;










—


order the European Central Bank to pay the costs.