CELEX: C2001/245/06
Language: en
Date: 2001-09-01 00:00:00
Title: Case C-222/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof by order of 24 April 2001 in the case of British American Tobacco Manufacturing B.V. v Hauptzollamt Krefeld

1.9.2001               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 245/3
The appellant claims that the Court should:                             1.   Is the application of a provision of a bilateral agreement
                                                                             concluded between a Member State and a non-member
1.    set aside the contested judgment in so far as the Court                country, under which a simpe/qualified geographical
      of First Instance dismissed the plea in law, that the                  indication which in the country of origin is the name
      Commission wrongly failed to take into account the                     neither of a region nor a place nor a country is accorded
      quantity judicially determined by the Finanzgericht Ham-               the absolute protection, regardless of any misleading, of
      burg in calculating the reference quantity for the years               a qualified geographical indication within the meaning of
      1997 to 1999 (paragraph 88); and                                       Regulation No 2081/92 (1), compatible with Article 28 EC
                                                                             and/or Regulation No 2081/92, if on application of that
2.    order the Commission to pay the costs                                  provision the import of a product which is lawfully
                                                                             put on the market in another Member State may be
                                                                             prevented?
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         2.   Does this apply also where the geographical indication
                                                                             which in the country of origin is the name neither of a
The Court of First Instance fails to take proper account of the              region nor a place nor a country is not understood in the
scope of Article 5(2) and (3) of Regulation No 2362/98 (1). In               country of origin as a geographical designation for a
accordance with that provision, any customs duty paid in                     specific product, and also not as a simple or indirect
respect of the quantity imported constitutes sufficient evidence             geographical indication?
of the reference quantity to which the operator is entitled. The
relevant duty is that which was due from the importer on the            3.   Do the answers to Questions 1 and 2 apply also where
day of importation. The duty applicable to the appellant on                  the bilateral agreement is an agreement which the
the day of importation was the quota duty, which the Court of                Member State concluded before its accession to the
First Instance fails to take into account. The Finanzgericht                 European Union and continued after its accession to the
Hamburg had made an interim order to the effect that the                     European Union with a successor State to the original
customs must accept the importation of the ‘quantity judicially              other State party to the agreement by means of a
determined’ without a certificate, provided the quota duty was               declaration of the Federal Government?
paid. The competent Hauptzollamt had decided that the duty
due from the appellant was the quota duty. The appellant                4.   Does the second paragraph of Article 307 EC oblige the
actually paid it. In relation to the question of actual payment              Member State to interpret such a bilateral agreement,
of the customs duty by the appellant in its capacity as importer,            concluded between that Member State and a non-member
the fact that the appeal court annulled the interim order of the             country before the Member State’s accession to the
Finanzgericht Hamburg, and that the Hauptzollamt sub-                        EU, in conformity with Community law as stated in
sequently amended the duty notice and determined the normal                  Article 28 EC and/or Regulation No 2081/92, so that
duty, is irrelevant. In relation to the quantity judicially                  the protection laid down therein for a simple/indirect
determined, it is obvious from the wording of Article 5(3)(b)                geographical indication which in the country of origin is
that the duty determined by the customs authorities on the                   the name neither of a region nor a place nor a country
day of importation and paid for the quantity imported                        comprises merely protection against misleading and
constitutes sufficient evidence of the reference quantity to                 not the absolute protection of a qualified geographical
which the appellant was entitled.                                            indication within the meaning of Regulation
                                                                             No 2081/92?
(1) OJ 1998 L 293, p. 32.
                                                                        (1) OJ L 208 of 24.7.1992, p. 1.
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Handels-                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-
gericht Wien by order of that court of 26 February                      hof by order of 24 April 2001 in the case of British
2001 in the case of Budejovicky Budvar, n.p. v Rudolf                   American Tobacco Manufacturing B.V. v Hauptzollamt
                       Ammersin GmbH                                                                 Krefeld
                         (Case C-216/01)                                                        (Case C-222/01)
                         (2001/C 245/05)                                                        (2001/C 245/06)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Handelsgericht                  European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof
Wien (Commercial Court, Vienna) of 26 February 2001, which              (Federal Finance Court) of 24 April 2001, received at the Court
was received at the Court Registry on 25 May 2001, for a                Registry on 5 June 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the
preliminary ruling in the case of Budejovicky Budvar, n.p. v            case of British American Tobacco Manufacturing B.V. v
Rudolf Ammersin GmbH on the following questions:                        Hauptzollamt Krefeld on the following questions:
 ---pagebreak--- C 245/4                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        1.9.2001
1.    Are goods which have been cleared for Community                          2000 (2) on the approximation of the laws of the Member
      transit removed from customs supervision if the transit                  States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertis-
      document T1 is temporarily removed from the consign-                     ing of foodstuffs (hereinafter ‘Directive 79/112’), and in
      ment?                                                                    particular Article 15 thereof; or
2.    If the Court answers Question 1 in the negative:                   —     Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of
      Have goods cleared for Community transit been removed                    the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of
      from customs supervision if the customs seal affixed to                  the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling,
      ensure their identification was opened and the goods                     presentation and advertising of foodstuffs (hereinafter
      were partially unloaded, without the consignment first                   ‘Directive 00/13’), and in particular Article 18 thereof
      being duly produced for customs, even though the
      operation was arranged with the persons in question by             preclude a national rule which provides that, where foodstuffs
      customs investigation officers operating incognito and             are offered for sale after the period of their minimum durability
      observed in every detail by those officers?                        has expired, that fact must, even though their expiry date is
                                                                         displayed, be communicated clearly and in a generally intelli-
3.    If the Court answers one of Questions 1 and 2 in the               gible manner?
      affirmative:
      Do special circumstances exist within the meaning of
      Article 13 of Regulation No 1430/79 (1) if a customs               (1) OJ 1979 L 33, p. 1.
                                                                         (2) OJ 2000 L 109, p. 29.
      investigation officer acting undercover has provoked
      infringements of the Community transit procedure? Does
      the deception or obviously negligent conduct of persons
      used by the principal in fulfilling the obligations assumed
      by him under the Community transit procedure preclude
      repayment to him of the duties incurred by the removal
      from customs supervision of goods cleared for Com-
      munity transit?                                                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Giudice di Pace
                                                                         di Palermo by order of that court of 4 May 2001 in the
                                                                         case of Riunione Adriatica di Sicurtà (RAS) Spa against
(1) OJ L 175 of 12.7.1979, p. 1.                                                                    Dario Lo Bue
                                                                                                  (Case C-233/01)
                                                                                                  (2001/C 245/08)
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger                   European Communities by order of the Giudice di Pace
Verwaltungssenat im Land Niederösterreich by order of                    (District Court), Palermo of 18 June 2001, received at the
that court of 1 June 2001 in the case of an appeal by                    Court Registry on 18 June 2001, for a preliminary ruling in
                         Susanne Müller                                  the case of Riunione Adriatica di Sicurta (RAS) Spa against
                                                                         Dario Lo Bue on the following questions:
                         (Case C-229/01)                                 (1) Must the third subparagraph of Article 8(3) of Council
                                                                               Directive 73/239/EEC (1) as amended by Article 6 of
                         (2001/C 245/07)                                       Council Directive 92/49/EEC (2), be interpreted as pre-
                                                                               cluding national legislation which, for the purposes of
                                                                               curbing inflation, applies only to insurance against third-
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         party liability in connection with the use of motor
European Communities by order of the Unabhängiger Verwal-                      vehicles, mopeds and motor cycles and makes no pro-
tungssenat im Land Niederösterreich (Independent Adminis-                      vision for intervention in matters concerning prices of
trative Chamber in the Land of Niederösterreich), of 1 June                    goods and services in general (as distinct from vehicle
2001, received at the Court Registry on 11 June 2001, for a                    insurance), which are also factors in the calculation of the
preliminary ruling in the case of an appeal by Susanne Muller                  consumer price index?
on the following questions:
                                                                         (2) Must the third subparagraph of Article 8(3) of Council
Does                                                                           Directive 73/239/EEC, as amended by Article 6 of
                                                                               Council Directive 92/49/EEC, be interpreted as precluding
—     Council Directive 79/112/EEC of 18 December 1978(1)                      national legislation which, for the purposes of curbing
      on the approximation of the laws of the Member States                    inflation, prohibits the alteration, not only of premium
      relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of               rates but also of the number of risk categories, the
      foodstuffs for sale to the ultimate consumer in the version              coefficients for determining the premium and differential
      prior to the entry into force of Directive 2000/13/EC of                 premium rate systems under which the premium payable
      the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March                   depends on the claims record?