CELEX: C2001/317/04
Language: en
Date: 2001-11-10 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 September 2001 in Case C-253/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Bremen): Bacardi GmbH v Hauptzollamt Bremerhaven (Community Customs Code and implementing regulation — Repayment of import duties — Favourable tariff treatment — Post-clearance production of certificate of authenticity — Alteration of the tariff classification stated in the customs declaration — Concept of "special situation")

C 317/2                  EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        10.11.2001
court between Hans Schwarzkopf GmbH & Co. KG and                             a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbg eV — on                       court between Rudy Grzelczyk and Centre public d’aide sociale
the interpretation of the last sentence of Article 6(1)(d) of                d’Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve — on the interpretation of
Council Directive 76/768/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the                          Articles 6, 8 and 8a of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to                   Articles 12 EC, 17 EC and 18 EC) and Council Directive
cosmetic products (OJ 1976 L 262, p. 169), as amended by                     93/96/EEC of 29 October 1993 on the right of residence for
Council Directive 93/35/EEC of 14 June 1993 (OJ 1993 L 151,                  students (OJ 1993 L 317, p. 59) — the Court, composed of:
p. 32), in conjunction with Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty              G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, M. Wathelet
(now, after amendment, Articles 28 EC and 30 EC) — the                       and V. Skouris (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward.
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola, President                 (Rapporteur), P. Jann, L. Sevón, R. Schintgen and F. Macken,
of the Chamber, M. Wathelet, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur),                     Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,
P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General;                  Head of Division, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
H.A: Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given             20 September 2001, in which it has ruled:
a judgment on 13 September 2001, in which it has ruled:
                                                                             Articles 6 and 8 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 12
It is not ‘impossible for practical reasons’, within the meaning of the      EC and 17 EC) preclude entitlement to a non-contributory social
last sentence of Article 6(1)(d) of Council Directive 76/768/EEC of          benefit, such as the minimex, from being made conditional, in the
27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member                  case of nationals of Member States other than the host State where
States relating to cosmetic products, as amended by Council Directive        they are legally resident, on their falling within the scope of
93/35/EEC of 14 June 1993, to set out the compulsory warnings                Regulation No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on the
in full on the container and packaging of a cosmetic product in the          freedom of movement for workers within the Community when no
language or languages prescribed in the Member State in which it is          such condition applies to nationals of the host Member State.
to be marketed, where the producer or distributor wishes to label the
product in nine languages, including eight official languages of the
Community, for economic considerations and in order to facilitate the
movement of the product within the Community, and this entails               (1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.
abbreviating those warnings on the container and packaging.
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.
                                                                                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                       of 20 September 2001                                                       of 27 September 2001
in Case C-184/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                    in Case C-253/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal du travail de Nivelles): Rudy Grzelczyk                         the Finanzgericht Bremen): Bacardi GmbH v Hauptzoll-
v Centre public d’aide sociale d’Ottignies-Louvain-la-                                              amt Bremerhaven (1)
                               Neuve (1)
(Articles 6, 8 and 8a of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,                (Community Customs Code and implementing regulation —
Articles 12 EC, 17 EC and 18 EC) — Council Directive                         Repayment of import duties — Favourable tariff treatment
93/96/EEC — Right of residence for students — National                       — Post-clearance production of certificate of authenticity —
legislation which guarantees a minimum subsistence allow-                    Alteration of the tariff classification stated in the customs
ance only for nationals, persons covered by Regulation (EEC)                           declaration — Concept of ‘special situation’)
No 1612/68 and stateless persons and refugees — Foreign
student who has met his own living expenses during the first                                           (2001/C 317/04)
                         years of his studies)
                                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                           (2001/C 317/03)
                     (Language of the case: French)                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                           In Case C-253/99: reference to the Court under Article 234
                                                                             EC from the Finanzgericht Bremen (Germany) for a preliminary
In Case C-184/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunal du                      Bacardi GmbH and Hauptzollamt Bremerhaven — on the
travail de Nivelles (Industrial Tribunal, Nivelles), (Belgium) for           interpretation of Articles 236 and 239 of Council Regulation
 ---pagebreak--- 10.11.2001                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 317/3
(EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the                                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1), and of
Article 905(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93
of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation                                            (Fifth Chamber)
of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (OJ 1993 L 253,
p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1676/96                                             of 4 October 2001
of 30 July 1996 (OJ 1996 L 218, p. 1) — the Court
(Sixth Chamber) composed of: C. Gulmann, President of
the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur),                     in Case C-294/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
F. Macken and N. Colneric, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate                     the Diikitiko Protodikio Athinon): Athinaiki Zithopiia AE
General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,                             v Elliniko Dimosio (Greek State) (1)
gave a judgment on 27 September 2001, the operative part of
which is as follows:
                                                                              (Taxation of company profits — Parent companies and
                                                                              subsidiaries — Directive 90/435/EEC — Concept of with-
                                                                                                            holding tax)
1.    Article 236(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of
      12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code                                            (2001/C 317/05)
      does not permit the repayment of import duties where, after a
      complete customs declaration has been accepted by the customs                                (Language of the case: Greek)
      authorities and the goods covered by it have been released into
      free circulation, the declarant presents a certificate of authenticity
      by virtue of which the goods would, supposing the certificate to        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
      have been produced with the goods, have been eligible for                                   in the European Court Reports)
      favourable tariff treatment.
                                                                              In Case C-294/99: reference to the Court under Article 234
                                                                              EC from the the Diikitiko Protodikio Athinon (Administrative
2.    The fact that repayment or remission of duties pursuant to              Court of First Instance, Athens), Greece, for a preliminary
      Article 236(1) of Regulation No 2913/92 is excluded because             ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
      one of the legal conditions laid down for that repayment or             Athinaiki Zithopiia AE and Elliniko Dimosio (Greek State) —
      remission has not been satisfied does not, of itself, exclude           on the interpretation of Article 5(1) of Council Directive
      repayment or remission of those duties on the basis of                  90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of
      Articles 239(1) of Regulation No 2913/92 and                            taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and
      Article 905(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93                subsidiaries of different Member States (OJ 1990 L 225, p. 6)
      of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation            — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola,
      of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92, as amended by Commission                President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur),
      Regulation (EC) No 1676/96 of 30 July 1996, provided                    D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; S. Alber,
      however that the legal conditions for the application of those          Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar,
      provisions are satisfied.                                               has given a judgment on 4 October 2001, in which it has
                                                                              ruled:
      Factors ‘which might constitute a special situation resulting
      from circumstances in which no deception or obvious negligence          There is a withholding tax, within the meaning of Article 5(1) of
      may be attributed to the person concerned’ for the purposes of          Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common
      Article 905(1) of Regulation No 2454/93, as amended by                  system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and
      Regulation No 1676/96, exist where, having regard to the                subsidiaries of different Member States, where national legislation
      objective of fairness underlying Article 239 of Regulation              provides that, in the event of distribution of profits by a subsidiary (a
      No 2913/92, factors liable to place the applicant in an                 public limited company or equivalent company) to its parent company,
      exceptional situation as compared with other operators engaged          in order to determine the taxable profits of the subsidiary its total net
      in the same business are found to exist. It is for the national         profits, including income which has been subject to special taxation
      court to assess, on the basis of that criterion, whether factors        entailing extinction of tax liability and non-taxable income, must be
      which might constitute such a special situation do exist,               reincorporated into the basic taxable amount, when income falling
      necessitating examination of the file by the Commission.                within those two categories would not be taxable on the basis of the
                                                                              national legislation if they remained with the subsidiary and were not
                                                                              distributed to the parent company.
(1) OJ C 265 of 18.9.1999.
                                                                              (1) OJ C 314 of 30.10.1999.