do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-608/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 24 December 2010 — Südzucker AG v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
Date: 2010-12-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU customs procedure, import, interpretation of the law, third country








C_2011113EN.01000201.xml










9.4.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 113/2





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 24 December 2010 — Südzucker AG v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
(Case C-608/10)
2011/C 113/02
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Südzucker AG

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

Questions referred







1.


Is the holder of an export licence entitled to an export refund (Article 5(7) of Regulation No 800/1999) (1) only if he is registered as exporter in box 2 of the export declaration lodged with the competent customs office?










2.


If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative: Does Article 78(1) and (3) of the Customs Code (2) allow post-clearance revision of the export declaration in order to change the exporter in box 2 of the export declaration, and are the customs authorities obliged in a case such as that in the main proceedings to regularise the situation and to grant the export refund?










3.


If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative: Can the customs authorities directly regularise the situation described in Article 78(3) of the Customs Code in such a way that the exporter can be granted the export refund, without the need for prior correction of the export declaration?






(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 of 15 April 1999 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, OJ 1999 L 102, p. 11.

(2)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.
Case C-629/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) made on 24 December 2010 — TUI Travel plc, British Airways plc, easyJet Airline Co. Ltd, International Air Transport Association, The Queen v Civil Aviation Authority
Date: 2010-12-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: United Kingdom, air transport, customers, equal treatment, interpretation of the law








C_2011089EN.01001001.xml










19.3.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 89/10





Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) made on 24 December 2010 — TUI Travel plc, British Airways plc, easyJet Airline Co. Ltd, International Air Transport Association, The Queen v Civil Aviation Authority
(Case C-629/10)
2011/C 89/18
Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: TUI Travel plc, British Airways plc, easyJet Airline Co. Ltd, International Air Transport Association

Defendant: Civil Aviation Authority

Questions referred







1.


Are Articles 5-7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) to be interpreted as requiring the compensation provided for in Article 7 to be paid to passengers whose flights are subject to delay within the meaning of Article 6, and if so in what circumstances?










2.


If question 1 is answered in the negative, are Articles 5-7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 invalid, in whole or in part, for breach of the principle of equal treatment?










3.


If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, are Articles 5-7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 invalid, in whole or in part, for (a) inconsistency with the Montreal Convention; (b) breach of the principle of proportionality; and/or (c) breach of the principle of legal certainty?










4.


If question 1 is answered in the affirmative and question 3 in the negative, what if any limits are to be placed upon the temporal effects of the Court's ruling in this case?










5.


If question 1 is answered in the negative, what if any effect is to be given to the decision of Sturgeon between 19 November 2009 and the date of the Court's ruling In this case?






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (Text with EEA relevance) — Commission Statement
OJ L 46, p. 1