CELEX: C1995/189/25
Language: en
Date: 1995-07-22 00:00:00
Title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Administratif, Amiens (Third Chamber), by judgment of that court of 22 May 1995 in the case of Société Sucrière Agricole de Maizy and Société Sucrière de Berneuil-sur-Aisne v. Directeur Régional des Impôts (Case C-172/95)

No C 189/ 12            I EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     22 . 7 . 95
Reference for a preliminary ruling by judgment of the                     Justice, Queen's Bench Division, of 26 April 1995 , which
Supremo Tribunal Administrative of 25 January 1995 in                     was received at the Court Registry on 30 May 1995 , for a
the case of Fâbrica de Queijo ERU Portuguesa, Lda against                 preliminary ruling in the case of The Queen against the
                        the Alfândega de Lisboa                           Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food, ex parte: B. L.
                            ( Case C-164/95 )                             Lay and The Queen against the Ministry of Agriculture
                                                                          Fisheries and Food, ex parte: D. G. Gage and D. J. Gage, on
                               ( 95/C 189/23 )                            the following questions :
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Supremo Tribunal                     1 . In determining a part transferee's entitlement to a
Administrative ( Supreme Administrative Court) of                              reference quantity under Articles 1 (2 ) and 2 of Council
25 January 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry                     Regulation ( EEC ) No 2055/93 of 19 July 1993
on 29 May 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of                       allocating a special reference quantity to certain
Fâbrica de Queijo ERU Portuguesa, Lda against Alfândega                        producers of milk and milk products i 1 ) must a Member
de Lisboa ( Lisbon Customs Administration ) on the                             State having regard to Regulation ( EEC ) No 2055/93
following questions :                                                          and the general principles of Community law on
                                                                               legitimate expectation, proportionality and the respect
 1 . Having regard to Commission Regulation ( EEC )                            for property apportion the reference quantity between
       No 316/91 of 7 February 1991 (*) should the said                        transferor and - part transferee by ascertaining what
       cheese ( 2 ) be classified under tariff heading 0406 20 90 ,            proportion of the holding was used for milk production
       as 'grated or powdered cheese, of all kinds', or under                  at the time the transferor entered into the non-marketing
       tariff heading 0406 90 11 as 'other cheese , for                        undertaking and then apportioning the reference
       processing'?                                                            quantity between the transferor and transferee in
                                                                               proportion to the percentage of land used for milk
2 . Is the said Regulation interpretative and therefore                        production transferred to the part transferee ?
       applicable retroactively to the import of the said
       cheese ?
                                                                          2 . If the answer to question 1 is in the negàtive, are
                                                                               Articles 1 (2 ) and 2 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2055/93
3 . In the event of either of the foregoing questions being                    invalid as contravening the general principles of
       answered in the negative, is account to be taken in this                Community law in particular those as to legitimate
       case of the Explanatory Notes to the combined                           expectation, proportionality and the respect for
       nomenclature of the European Communities in the                         property ?
       version referred to in Official Journal of the European
       Communities No C 263 of 18 October 1990, page 110,
       or of the previous Explanatory Notes ?                             3 . If the answer to questions 1 and 2 are in the negative, in
                                                                               determining a part transferee's entitlement to a reference
4 . In either case, under which of the two tariff headings                     quantity under Articles 1 ( 2 ) and 2 of Regulation ( EEC )
       mentioned above is the said cheese to be classified ?                   No 2055/93 is a Member State entitled to apportion the
                                                                               reference quantity between transferor and part
0 ) OJ No L 37, 9 . 2 . 1991 , p . 25 .
                                                                               transferee in proportion to that part of the transferor's
( 2 ) Cheese coming from a Community country, described by the                 holding transferred to the transferee ?
      exporter as grated cheese, which had been ground and subjected
      to an industrial process in which oxygen was replaced by an
                                                                          (!) OJ No L 187, 29 . 7. 1993 , p . 8 .
      injected nitrogen/002 solution, in order to enhance its
      preservation, and then packaged and compacted in plastic bags,
      each containing about 15 kgs , with a high moisture content,
      having the appearance of a compact mass or paste, which, after
      unpacking and exposure to the atmosphere breaks down into
      irregular granules.
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal
                                                                         Administratif, Amiens (Third Chamber), by judgment
                                                                         of that court of 22 May 1995 in the case of Société
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of                  Sucrière Agricole de Maizy and Société Sucrière de
Justice, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of                    Berneuil-sur-Aisne v. Directeur Régional des Impôts
26 April 1995 , in the case of The Queen against the Ministry
of Agriculture Fisheries and Food, ex parte: B. L. Lay and                                        (Case C-172/95 )
The Queen against the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and                                        ( 95/C 189/25 )
           Food, ex parte: D. G. Gage and D. J. Gage
                             Case C-165/95 )
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                              ( 95/C 189/24 )                            European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal
                                                                         Administratif (Administrative Court), Amiens (Third
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   Chamber), of 22 May 1995 , which was received at the
European Communities by an order of the High Court of                    Court Registry on 6 June 1 995 .
 ---pagebreak--- 22 . 7. 95                  EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 189/13
The Tribunal Administratif, Amiens, seeks a preliminary                   2 . Regard being had to the principle of proportionality,
ruling concerning:                                                            does not the criterion of 'technical suitability for
                                                                              carriage of goods by inland waterway' applied by the
                                                                              Commission of the European Communities in its
— the chargeable event for the storage levy provided for by                   decision of 6 May 1993, which makes even vessels
     Article 8 of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1785/81 of                    which are not actually used for transport on the linked
     30 June 1981 on the common organization of the                           inland waterway networks of the Member States subject
     markets in the sugar sector ( 1 ), Article 12 of Commission              to the obligation to make a contribution in the
     Regulation ( EEC) No 1998/78 of 18 August 1978 laying                    framework of the 'old-for-new' rule, conflict with
     down detailed rules for the offsetting of storage costs for              the objective and purport of Regulation ( EEC )
     sugar ( 2 ) and Article 6 of Council Regulation ( EEC )                  No 1101 /89 ?
     No 1358/77 of 20 June 1977 laying down general rules
     for offsetting storage costs for sugar ( 3 ),
                                                                          3 . Regard being had to the aim, the general objective and
— the period in respect of which are payable the                              the specific purport of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1101 /89 , is
     elimination levies provided for in Article 32a of Council                a purely theoretical suitability of a vessel for inland
     Regulation (EEC ) No 934/86 of 24 March 1986 on the                      transport, in the sense that it could be made suitable for
     common organization of the market in sugar (4 ) and                      inland transport only after laborious and expensive and
     Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1914/87 of 2 July 1987,                    therefore economically unrealistic conversion or that
     which introduced a special elimination levy in the sugar                 use of the vessel for inland waterway transport would be
     sector for the 1986/87 marketing year.                                   wholly unprofitable because the vessel is not designed or
                                                                              equipped for inland transport, sufficient for it to be
                                                                              subject to the obligation to make a contribution in the
(M   OJ  No  L  177, 1 . 7 . 1981 , p . 4 .                                   framework of the ' old-for-new' rule ?
(2)  OJ  No  L  213 , 23 . 8 . 1978 , p . 5 .
(3)  OJ  No  L  156 , 25 . 6 . 1977, p. 4 .
(4 ) OJ  No  L  87 , 2 . 4 . 1986 , p . 1 .
                                                                          4 . Regard being had to the aim, the general objective and
                                                                              the specific purport of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1101 /89
                                                                              can the decision of the Commission of the European
                                                                              Communities of 6 May 1993 be regarded as applicable
                                                                              to the mts . 'Smaragd ' since it subjects to the obligation
                                                                              to pay the single contribution in the framework of the
                                                                              'old-for-new' rule a vessel which is especially designed,
                                                                              constructed and equipped as a bunkering vessel with the
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van                     exclusive purpose of supplying sea-going ships with fuel
Koophandel te Antwerpen by judgment of that court of                          and is not particularly suitable or intended for carriage
  6 June 1995 in the case of N. V. Wiljo v. Belgian State                     for a third party, or even on own account, of fuel
                             (Case C-1 78/95 )                                products on inland waterways and hence does not
                               ( 95/C 189/26 )                                increase the cargo capacity of shipping or tonnage of
                                                                              inland transport ?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a judgment of the Rechtbank
van Koophandel te Antwerpen ( Commercial Court,                           5 . Does not the application by the Commission of the
Antwerp ) of 6 June 1995 , which was received at the Court                    criterion of technical suitability instead of the actual use
Registry on 8 June 1995, for a preliminary ruling in the                      of the vessel constitute an infringement of the
case of N. V. Wiljo v. Belgian State on the following                         prohibition of discrimination since, in accordance with
questions:                                                                    the criterion used by the Commission for vessels
                                                                              operating in Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg,
                                                                               Germany and France, the single contribution is due in
                                                                              certain cases although the vessel is not actually used for
 1 . Regard being had to the aim, the general objective and
     the specific purport of Council Regulation ( EEC )                       inland waterway transport and does not therefore
                                                                              contribute to increasing the tonnage of inland waterway
     No 1101 /89 of 27 April 1989 on structural
      improvements in inland waterway transport, does the                     transport, whereas the single contribution on the
     concept 'specialized vessels' in Article 8 ( 3 ) (c ) of the             putting into service of a vessel in the other Member
     Regulation in question refer to vessels which, as a result               States is due only if that is justified by its actual use ( on
                                                                              the network of linked Community waterways ).
      of their specific construction and equipment or of their
      specific use, do not increase the cargo capacity or the
     tonnage of inland waterway transport and are therefore
      not of such a nature as to affect the structural
      over-capacity of carriage of goods on the linked inland
     waterway networks of the Member States ?