CELEX: C1999/352/28
Language: en
Date: 1999-12-04 00:00:00
Title: Case C-321/99 P: Appeal brought on 27 August 1999 by Associação dos Refinadores de Açúcar Portugueses (ARAP), Alcântara Refinarias - Açúcares SA and RAR Refinarias de Açúcar Reunidas SA, against the judgment delivered on 17 June 1999 by the Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities, in case T-82/96 between Associação dos Refinadores de Açúcar Portugueses (ARAP), Alcântara Refinarias - Açúcares SA and RAR Refinarias de Açúcar Reunidas SA and the Commission of the European Communities, supported by the Portuguese Republic and DAI - Sociedade de Desenvolvimento Agro-Industrial SA

4.12.1999                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 352/19
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van                     such a request, designed to prevent application of Article 3(3)
Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven by decision of 21 July 1999                 of Regulation (EEC) No 1484/95, is still accepted after the
in the case of Kloosterboer Rotterdam BV, previously                      goods have been released?
Vriesveem vof, and Minister van Landbouw, Natuurbe-
                            heer en Visserij                              5.     If the fourth question is answered in the affirmative:
                           (Case C-317/99)
                                                                          Is it in accordance with Community law, in particular
                           (1999/C 352/27)                                Article 220(2), introductory phrase and (b), of Regulation
                                                                          (EEC) No 2913/92 and the principle of the protection of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    legitimate expectations, if subsequent entry in the accounts is
European Communities by decision of 21 July 1999 from the                 made under Article 220(1) of that regulation, where the
College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven (Administrative                 circumstances are as described in the second question?
Court for Trade and Industry), which was received at the Court
Registry on 26 August 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the               6.     If the fifth question is answered in the negative:
case of Kloosterboer Rotterdam BV, previously Vriesveem vof,
and Minister van Landbonw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij (Minister             Must the fifth question also be answered in the negative if the
for Agriculture, Natural Resources and Fisheries) on the                  circumstances outlined in the third question obtain?
following questions:
                                                                          (1) OJ 1995 L 145, p. 47.
1.      Is Regulation (EEC) No 1484/95 (1) valid, in so far as it         (2) OJ 1975 L 282, p. 77.
sets out the provisions of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EEC)               (3) OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.
No 2777/75 (2) which provides that the additional import duty
referred to in Article 5 of the Agreement [on Agriculture, OJ
1994 L 336, p. 22] is determined on the basis of the cif import
price of the consignment in question — in such a way that
such determination can be made only if the importer so
requests and in all other cases the import price of the
consignment in question to be taken into consideration for the            Appeal brought on 27 August 1999 by Associação dos
additional import duty is the representative price referred to in         Refinadores de Açúcar Portugueses (ARAP), Alcântara
Article 2(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1484/95?                              Refinarias - Açúcares SA and RAR Refinarias de Açúcar
                                                                          Reunidas SA, against the judgment delivered on 17 June
2.      If the first question is answered in the affirmative:             1999 by the Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition, of
                                                                          the Court of First Instance of the European Communities,
Is it in accordance with Community law, and in particular with            in case T-82/96 (1) between Associação dos Refinadores
the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, if, in        de Açúcar Portugueses (ARAP), Alcântara Refinarias —
the case where no request has been made under Article 3(1) of             Açúcares SA and RAR Refinarias de Açúcar Reunidas SA
Regulation (EEC) No 1484/95, the customs debt is calculated               and the Commission of the European Communities,
pursuant to Article 3(3) thereof, where:                                  supported by the Portuguese Republic and DAI — Socied-
                                                                                   ade de Desenvolvimento Agro-Industrial SA
— the cif price of the consignment in question indicated on
      the declaration is higher than the trigger price;                                            (Case C-321/99 P)
— the declarant was informed by the customs authorities that
      such a request did not have to be made in that case;                                          (1999/C 352/28)
— the declarant acted in good faith in relying on that customs            An appeal against the judgment delivered on 17 June 1999 by
      information; and                                                    the Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of
                                                                          First Instance of the European Communities in case T-82/96
— the declarant otherwise complied with all conditions of the             between Associação dos Refinadores de Açúcar Portugueses
      applicable provisions relating to customs declarations?             (ARAP), Alcântara Refinarias — Açúcares SA and RAR Refinar-
                                                                          ias de Açúcar Reunidas SA and the Commission of the
3.      If the second question is answered in the affirmative:            European Communities, supported by the Portuguese Republic
                                                                          and DAI — Sociedade de Desenvolvimento Agro-Industrial
Does that affirmative answer still apply if, in addition to the           SA, was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
circumstances mentioned in the second question, the declarant             Communities on 27 August 1999 by Associação dos Refina-
in question has taken cognisance of the ‘Verification Notices’            dores de Açúcar Portugueses (ARAP), Alcântara Refinarias —
issued in connection with earlier declarations which he made,             Açúcares SA and RAR Refinarias de Açúcar Reunidas SA,
as reproduced in paragraph 2.2, second indent, of this                    represented by Gerard van der Wal, Advocaat, with an address
decision?                                                                 for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31
                                                                          Grand Rue.
4.      If the second and third questions are answered in the
affirmative:                                                              The appellants claim that the Court should:
Do the provisions of Regulation No 1484/95, in conjunction                — declare their application for appeal to be admissible;
with Article 65 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (3), preclude
the situation in which, where no request was initially made               — set aside in part the judgment of 17 June 1999 of the
under Article 3(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1484/95 because of                  Court of First Instance to the extent described in this
reliance on the information given by the customs authorities,                 application;
 ---pagebreak--- C 352/20                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      4.12.1999
— annul the Decision of the Commission of 11 January 1996                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwal-
     addressed to the Portuguese Government;                             tungsgericht by order of that court of 24 June 1999 in the
                                                                         case of DaimlerChrysler AG against Land Baden-
     or, in the alternative, refer the case back to the Court of                                    Württemberg
     First Instance in accordance with Article 54 of the Statute
     of the Court of Justice;
                                                                                                   (Case C-324/99)
— order the Commission to pay the costs of both instances.
                                                                                                  (1999/C 352/29)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by order of the Bundesverwaltungsge-
The Court of First Instance has erred in law in that it has              richt (Federal Administrative Court) of 24 June 1999, received
decided that the Commission decision of 3 July 1991 addressed            at the Court Registry on 30 August 1999, for a preliminary
to the Portuguese government ensures compliance with the                 ruling in the case of DaimlerChrysler AG v Land Baden-
rules applicable to the sugar sector.                                    Württemberg, represented by the Baden-Württemberg Ministry
                                                                         of Traffic and the Environment, on the following questions:
The Court of First Instance has erred in law when it decided that
the Commission was not entitled to examine the application of            1. Is the expression ‘in accordance with the Treaty’ in
Decree-law no. 95/90 to DAI — Sociedade de Desenvolvimen-                    Article 4(3)(a)(i) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 (1)
to Agro-Industrial, SA directly in relation to Article 87 (ex 92)            to be construed as meaning that, in the case of a general
EC.                                                                          prohibition on the export of hazardous waste for disposal,
                                                                             which is warranted by the principles of proximity, priority
                                                                             for recovery and self-sufficiency, a further issue to be
The Court of First Instance has erred in law where it found                  examined is whether the export ban is compatible with
that the individual application of Decree-law no. 95/90 to the               primary EC law, in particular with the ban on quantitative
sugar industry (the state aid to DAI) is not incompatible with               restrictions on trace between the Member States under
aims of the common agricultural policy, as implemented by                    Article 28 of the EC Treaty, in its new version?
the relevant rules.
                                                                         2. If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, in the case of
As far as it is correct that the different types of aid examined             an export ban imposed by legislation and restricted as to
in the contested decision and by the Court of First Instance are             quantity, is review of the legislative provision as such
covered by different sets of legal provisions and therefore must             sufficient or must there be a review of each individual case
be examined individually in the light of those rules and the                 in which an intended export is prohibited under the
aims which they pursue, the Court of First Instance has erred                legislative provision? In that connection is it permissible to
in law by not taking into account in the framework of its                    impose for a fifteen-year period an export ban operated by
review of the legality of the contested decision and the way the             means of a requirement to ship waste to a domestic facility,
Commission has made use of its discretionary power, the                      when at the time that such requirement was imposed, the
effect of the different aid measures taken together (the                     requisite security in the treatment of waste could be
combined effect).                                                            obtained only by a tie of that duration to the operator of
                                                                             that facility?
Articles 87 (ex 92) and 88 (ex 93) EC apply to aid to which
Regulation 866/90 (2) is applicable. The Court of First Instance         3. May the Member States, under Article 4(3) of Regulation
has erred in law when it decided that aid eligible for Com-                  (EEC) No 259/93, apply a rule in the context of delivery
munity co-financing under Regulation 866/90 is not subject                   requirements making the shipment to other Member States
to the application of Articles 87 (ex 92) and 88 (ex 93).                    of hazardous waste for disposal subject to the condition
                                                                             that the intended disposal meet the environmental-law
                                                                             requirements of the state of dispatch?
The Court of First Instance has erred in law in deciding that
the aid is not incompatible with Regulation 866/90. The
judgment of the Court of First Instance is not properly                  4. Is it reconcilable with Articles 3 et seq. of Regulation (EEC)
motivated in this respect, as the Court of First Instance has not            No 259/93 for a Member State to make provision, in the
taken into account the different pleas submitted by the                      case of an intended transborder shipment of waste for
applicants as to the inapplicability of Regulation 866/90.                   disposal, for the notification procedure to be preceded by
                                                                             a procedure of its own at national level concerning the
                                                                             delivery and allocation of such waste?
(1) OJ C 233 of 10.08.1996, p. 15.
(2) Council Regulation (EEC) no. 866/90 of 29 March 1990 on
    improving the processing and marketing conditions for agricul-       (1) OJ 1993 L 30, p. 1.
    tural products (OJ L 91, 6.4.1990, p. 1).