Case C-140/08: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 29 October 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tallinna Halduskohus (Republic of Estonia)) — Rakvere Lihakombinaat AS v Põllumajandusministeerium, Maksu- ja Tolliameti Ida maksu- ja tollikeskus (Common Customs Tariff — Combined Nomenclature — Tariff classification — Frozen cuts or offal of cocks and hens — Accession of Estonia — Transitional measures — Agricultural products — Surplus stocks — Regulation (EC) No 1972/2003)
Date: 2009-10-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: boned meat, frozen product, interpretation of the law, poultrymeat, surplus stock, tariff nomenclature








C_2009312EN.01000502.xml










19.12.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 312/5





Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 29 October 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tallinna Halduskohus (Republic of Estonia)) — Rakvere Lihakombinaat AS v Põllumajandusministeerium, Maksu- ja Tolliameti Ida maksu- ja tollikeskus
(Case C-140/08) (1)

(Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Tariff classification - Frozen cuts or offal of cocks and hens - Accession of Estonia - Transitional measures - Agricultural products - Surplus stocks - Regulation (EC) No 1972/2003)
2009/C 312/07
Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Tallinna Halduskohus

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Rakvere Lihakombinaat AS

Defendants: Põllumajandusministeerium, Maksu- ja Tolliameti Ida maksu- ja tollikeskus

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tallinna Halduskohus — Interpretation of Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1) and Article 4(1) and (2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1972/2003 of 10 November 2003 on transitional measures to be adopted in respect of trade in agricultural products on account of the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (OJ 2003 L 293, p. 3) — Mechanically separated meat, frozen, obtained by mechanical deboning of fowls — Classification under heading 0207 14 10 (frozen cuts of fowls, boneless) or heading 0207 14 99 (frozen offal of fowls, other) of the Combined Nomenclature — Charge on surplus stocks of agricultural products held by operators — Determination of the amount of the transitional stock and the surplus stock for the purpose of that charge

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1789/2003 of 11 September 2003, must be interpreted as meaning that products such as those at issue in the main proceedings constituted of frozen mechanically separated meat obtained after the mechanical deboning of fowls and destined for human consumption must be classified in subheading 0207 14 10 of the Combined Nomenclature.










2.


Article 4(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1972/2003 of 10 November 2003 on transitional measures to be adopted in respect of trade in agricultural products on account of the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 230/2004 of 10 February 2004, does not preclude national legislation such as Article 6(1) of the Law on the surplus stock charge (Üleliigse laovaru tasu seadus), as amended by the Law of 25 January 2007, under which an operator’s surplus stock is determined by deducting from the stock actually held on 1 May 2004 the transitional stock defined as the average stock on 1 May of the previous four years of activity multiplied by a coefficient of 1.2 corresponding to the growth of agricultural production observed in the Member State in question during that four-year period.










3.


Regulation No 1972/2003 does not preclude the levying of a charge on an operator’s surplus stock even if he is able to prove that he obtained no advantage when marketing that stock after 1 May 2004.






(1)  OJ C 171, 5.7.2008.