CELEX: C2007/117/09
Language: en
Date: 2007-05-26 00:00:00
Title: Case C-119/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt (Germany), lodged on 27 February 2007 — Container Service Thorsten Sperzel GmbH v Land Hessen

26.5.2007   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 117/6
            
         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt (Germany), lodged on 27 February 2007 — Container Service Thorsten Sperzel GmbH v Land Hessen
   (Case C-119/07)
   (2007/C 117/09)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt
   Parties to the main proceedings
   
      Applicant: Container Service Thorsten Sperzel GmbH
   
      Defendant: Land Hessen
   Questions referred
   
               1.
            
            
               Is Article 33(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 (1) of 1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community to be interpreted as meaning that, when calculating the administrative costs of carrying out the notification and supervision procedure, in addition to the costs of the administrative expense actually incurred for an official act, the importance of the official act for the notifier as recipient of the official act may also be taken into account?
               Should the Court of Justice answer Question 1 in the affirmative:
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Is Article 33(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 to be interpreted as meaning that the administrative costs of carrying out the notification and supervision procedure may be regarded as ‘appropriate ’even if, in calculating the administrative costs, the item ‘Value of the importance of the official act for the notifier ’exceeds many times (in the present case, by a factor of twenty) the costs of the administrative expense actually incurred?
            
         
      (1)  OJ L 30, p. 1.