EN
7.3.2022
Official Journal of the European Union
C 109/17
the languages to be used by the European Economic Community, (1) which confirms French as an official language and working language of the institutions of the European Union, thus of the Parliament.
In respect of French MEPs, Article 10 of the Rules of Procedure should be read in accordance with the scope given to it by the French language.
The General Court also failed to analyse the expression: ‘They shall not display banners’ and to carry out an analysis of paragraph 3 in the context of Article 10, in particular paragraph 2 thereof.
Proof that the presence of a flag caused no disruption was provided in the response to the plea of inadmissibility, since MEPs could display small European flags and Belgian MEP Guy Verhofstadt could speak with such a flag before him.
By setting out, in paragraphs 43 to 49 of its judgment, a line of reasoning derived from that of the Parliament on an entirely different legal basis from Article 10, and by relying on Article 171 of the Rules of Procedure, which is entitled Allocation of speaking time and list of speakers, in order to invoke equality between MEPs as regards speaking time, the General Court added to Article 10 a subject matter which it does not have.
That constitutes a distortion of the text which led the General Court to give that article legal effects which it does not have.
According to the appellants, the decision of 13 January 2020 did produce legal effects liable to affect the conditions for exercising the appellants’ mandate by bringing about a distinct change in their legal position.
The measure is therefore an act open to challenge and the judgment should be set aside.
(1)
OJ 17, 6.10.1958, p. 385.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Retten i Esbjerg (Denmark) lodged on 17 December 2021 — Skatteministeriet Departementet v Global Gravity ApS (Case C-788/21) (2022/C 109/24) Language of the case: Danish Referring court Retten i Esbjerg
Parties to the main proceedings Applicant: Skatteministeriet Departementet Defendant: Global Gravity ApS
Questions referred 1.
What criteria must be applied in order to determine whether an article constitutes a container under subheading 8609 00 9000 of the Combined Nomenclature of the Common Customs Tariff, as set out in Annex I to Commission Regulation (EU) No 1001/2013 (1) of 4 October 2013 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (2) on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, including: a) whether these criteria, each viewed in isolation, can lead to the classification of an article as a container; b) whether an overall assessment of criteria should be made in order to determine whether an article should be classified as a container, so that the fulfilment of several criteria — but not all criteria — results in the article being classified as a container; or c) whether all the criteria must be met cumulatively before an article can be classified as a container? 2.
Should the term ‘container’ under subheading 8609 00 9000 of the Combined Nomenclature of the Common Customs Tariff, in the version set out in Annex I to Commission Regulation (EU) No 1001/2013 of 4 October 2013 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, be interpreted as covering an article which is a system for transporting pipes, consisting of a number of aluminium lifting profiles, two steel lifting poles per lifting profile and two M20 bolts per lifting profile used to secure