CELEX: C2001/118/05
Language: en
Date: 2001-04-21 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 December 2000 in Case C-214/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tampereen Käräjäoikeus, Finland): Neste Markkinointi Oy v Yötuuli Ky and Others (Competition — Exclusive purchasing agreements — Service-station agreements — Duration — Significant contribution made by one supplier's contracts to the closing-off of the market — Distinction between the contracts of the same supplier)

21.4.2001                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 118/3
Aduaneiro do Porto, (Customs Court, Oporto) Portugal, for a                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between José Teodoro de Andrade and Director da
Alfândega de Leixões, intervener: Ministério Publico — on the                                        (Sixth Chamber)
interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of
12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code
(OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) and, in particular, Articles 6, 53 and                                        of 7 December 2000
243 thereof, and of the Community rules relating to value
added tax, — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, V. Skouris, J.-P. Puisso-             in Case C-214/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
chet (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen and F. Macken, Judges; N. Fen-              the Tampereen Käräjäoikeus, Finland): Neste Markkinointi
nelly, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a                                    Oy v Yötuuli Ky and Others (1)
judgment on 7 December 2000, in which it has ruled:
                                                                            (Competition — Exclusive purchasing agreements — Ser-
                                                                            vice-station agreements — Duration — Significant contri-
                                                                            bution made by one supplier’s contracts to the closing-off of
1.    Article 53 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of                  the market — Distinction between the contracts of the same
      12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code                                              supplier)
      does not preclude the automatic application, without prior
      notification, of a procedure such as that established by
      Portuguese legislation, which provides for goods to be put up                                    (2001/C 118/05)
      for sale where the statutory time-limits for making a declaration
      for release for free circulation or an application for another
      customs-approved treatment or use for the goods have expired.                             (Language of the case: Finnish)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
2.    Use of a procedure providing either for such goods to be put up                           in the European Court Reports)
      for sale or for an ad valorem surcharge to be levied in order to
      regularise the situation of the goods is not in itself contrary to
      the principle of proportionality. It is for the national court to     In Case C-214/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
      determine whether the surcharge applied in the present case           the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tampereen
      complies with that principle.                                         Käräjäoikeus (Tampere District Court), Finland, for a prelimi-
                                                                            nary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
                                                                            between Neste Markkinointi Oy and Yötuuli Ky and Others —
                                                                            on the interpretation of Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now
3.    Article 6(3) and Article 243 of Regulation No 2913/92 do              Article 81(1) EC) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
      not preclude use of a procedure, such as that at issue in the         C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, V. Skou-
      main proceedings, which does not provide for interested parties       ris, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and F. Macken, Judges;
      to receive prior notification.                                        N. Fennelly, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Adminis-
                                                                            trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 December
                                                                            2000, in which it has ruled:
4.    A surcharge intended to penalise a failure to comply with             The prohibition laid down by Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now
      customs formalities cannot be subject to value added tax.             Article 81(1) EC) does not apply to an exclusive purchasing
                                                                            agreement entered into by a motor-fuels supplier which the retailer
                                                                            may terminate upon one year’s notice at any time where all
                                                                            that supplier’s exclusive purchasing agreements, whether considered
                                                                            separately or as a whole, taken together with the network of similar
                                                                            agreements made by the totality of suppliers, have an appreciable
                                                                            effect on the closing-off of the market but where the agreements of
(1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.                                                   the same kind as the agreement at issue in the main proceedings by
                                                                            reason of their duration represent only a very small part of the totality
                                                                            of one supplier’s exclusive purchasing agreements, of which the
                                                                            majority are fixed term contracts entered into for more than one year.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.