CELEX: C2000/233/47
Language: en
Date: 2000-08-12 00:00:00
Title: Case C-251/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Tributário de 1.a Instância de Lisboa, 2.° Juizo — 1.a Secção by order of that court of 13 March 2000 in the case of Ilumitrónica — Iluminação e Electrónica Lda against the Chefe da Divisão de Procedimentos Aduaneiros e Fiscais/Direcção das Alfândegas de Lisboa

C 233/24                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      12.8.2000
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                    Pleas in law and main arguments
the Court should:
                                                                          Article 12 prohibits all discrimination on the grounds of
(1) declare that, by failing to bring into force within the               nationality. Article 49 EC, for its part, lays down the principle
      prescribed time-limits the laws, regulations and admi-              of freedom to provide services, according to which, an
      nistrative measures necessary in order to comply with               economic operator established in one Member State must be
      Commission Directive 98/67/EC of 7 September 1998                   able to pursue his activities in another Member State, without
      amending       Directives       80/511/EEC,      82/475/EEC,        his nationality giving rise to discrimination by comparison
      91/357/EEC and Council Directive 96/25/EC and repe-                 with the nationals of the second Member State. However,
      aling Directive 92/87/EEC (1), the French Republic has              Article 6 of Portaria (order) No 17568 of 6 February 1960
      failed to comply with its obligations under Article 7 of            requires ‘foreign entities or individuals’ to obtain a licence for
      Directive 98/67/EC;                                                 the taking of aerial photographs or film. The Portuguese
                                                                          authorities confirm that they do apply the legislation at issue,
(2) order the French Republic to pay the costs.                           considering such restrictions to be necessary, not on grounds
                                                                          of the nationality of the entity which applies for authorisation
                                                                          or is to use such photographs, but on the basis of the need to
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           protect the strategic interests of national defence. However,
                                                                          mere interpretation by the Portuguese administration which
                                                                          makes more flexible the provisions of the aforementioned
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those                  order, with a view to making the conditions laid down for
put forward in Case C-236/00 (2); the period prescribed for               foreigners similar to those laid down for nationals, is not
transposition expired on 31 December 1998.                                sufficient to cure the incompatibility.
(1) OJ L 261 of 24.9.1998, p. 10.
(2) See page 21 of this Official Journal.
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Tribu-
                                                                          tário de 1.a Instância de Lisboa, 2.o Juizo — 1.a Secção by
                                                                          order of that court of 13 March 2000 in the case of
                                                                          Ilumitrónica — Iluminação e Electrónica Lda against
                                                                          the Chefe da Divisão de Procedimentos Aduaneiros e
                                                                                     Fiscais/Direcção das Alfândegas de Lisboa
Action brought on 22 June 2000 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Portuguese                                                 (Case C-251/00)
                              Republic
                                                                                                   (2000/C 233/47)
                         (Case C-250/00)
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                         (2000/C 233/46)                                  European Communities by order of the Tribunal Tributário de
                                                                          1.a Instância de Lisboa 2.o Juizo — 1.a Secção (Second Division
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before              — First Chamber of the Fiscal Court of First Instance of Lisbon)
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 June               of 13 March 2000, which was received at the Court Registry
2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,                       on 26 June 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
represented by Maria Patakia and Miguel França, of its Legal              Ilumitrónica — Iluminação e Electrónica Lda against the Chefe
Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in                 da Divisão de Procedimentos Aduaneiros e Fiscais/Direcção
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its              das Alfândegas de Lisboa. The Tribunal Tributário de 1.a Instân-
Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                  cia de Lisboa, 2.o Juı́zo — 1.a Secção, asks the Court of Justice
                                                                          to rule on: (a) the interpretation of Article 201(3) of the
                                                                          Community Customs Code (CCC), established by Council
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (1) of 12 October 1992; (b) the
                                                                          validity of the Commission’s decision, in order to be able to
—     Declare that, by maintaining in force legislation which             answer the following questions:
      only authorises Community nationals to take aerial
      photographs or film in exceptional and duly justified               1.    Is it permissible to require payment of the customs debt
      cases, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 12             by importers who, acting in good faith and with due care,
      and 49 EC;                                                                processed their declarations, over a number of years,
                                                                                unaware of any irregularities which were known to either
—     Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.                           the Turkish or Community authorities?
 ---pagebreak--- 12.8.2000              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 233/25
2.    Since the Turkish authorities were aware of the inaccuracy       Must Article 5(1) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on
      of the content of the ATR certificates, which they               Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and
      authenticated, is there no possibility of making the             Commercial Matters (OJ 1972 L 299, p. 32), as amended by
      Turkish State liable for payment of the customs debt?            the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the
                                                                       Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of
                                                                       Great Britain and Northern Ireland (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 1;
3.    Since the Commission suspected or was aware of the
                                                                       amended version of the Convention at p. 77) and by the
      conduct of the Turkish authorities, referred to in point 2
                                                                       Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the
      above, was the Commission under a duty to warn the
                                                                       Hellenic Republic (OJ 1982 L 388, p. 1), be interpreted as
      Community operators?
                                                                       meaning that a defendant domiciled in a Contracting State
                                                                       may, in another Contracting State, be sued, in matters relating
4.    Is breach of that possible duty such as to exonerate the         to a contract, in the courts for any of the places of performance
      (customs) declarants from liability where during all those       of the obligation in question, in particular where, consisting in
      years they acted in good faith in respect of the contents        an obligation not to do something — such as, in the present
      of their declarations?                                           case, an undertaking to act exclusively with another party to a
                                                                       contract with a view to submitting a joint tender in connection
                                                                       with a public contract and not to enter into a commitment
5.    Is the decision of the Commission and of the Portuguese          with another partner — that obligation is to be performed in
      customs authorities, on the advice of the former, to             any place whatever in the world?
      proceed to post-clearance recovery of the import duties
      valid without previously putting in motion the procedure
      provided for by Articles 22 and 25 of the EEC/Turkey
      Association Agreement (signed in Brussels on 23 Novem-           If not, may that defendant be sued specifically in the courts for
      ber 1970)?                                                       one of the places of performance of the obligation and, if so,
                                                                       by reference to what criterion must that place be determined?
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992
    establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).
                                                                       Appeal brought on 10 July 2000 by Odette Simon against
                                                                       the judgment delivered on 10 May 2000 by the Court of
                                                                       First Instance of the European Communities (Single Judge)
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’Appel,              in Case T-177/97 Odette Simon v Commission of the
Brussels (Fourth Chamber), by judgment of that court of                                   European Communities (1)
19 June 2000 in the case of S.A. Besix NV, formerly called
S.A. Entreprises SBBM and Six Construct v WABAG
Wasserreinigungsbau Alfred Kretzschmar GmbH & Co                                               (Case C-274/00 P)
KG, a company incorporated under German law, and
Planungs- und Forschungsgesellschaft Dipl. Ing. W.
Kretzschmar GmbH & Co KG, a company incorporated                                                (2000/C 233/49)
                       under German law
                                                                       An appeal against the judgment delivered on 10 May 2000 by
                         (Case C-256/00)                               the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                       (Single Judge) in Case T- 177/97 Odette Simon v Commission
                         (2000/C 233/48)                               of the European Communities was brought before the Court
                                                                       of Justice of the European Communities on 10 July 2000 by
                                                                       Odette Simon, represented by J.-N. Louis and Véronique Peere,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
European Communities by a judgment of the Cour d’Appel                 at the offices of Société de Gestion Fiduciaire, 2-4 Rue Beck.
(Court of Appeal), Brussels (Fourth Chamber), of 19 June
2000, which was received at the Court Registry on 28 June
2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of S.A. Besix NV,           The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:
formerly called S.A. Entreprises SBBM and Six Construct v
WABAG Wasserreinigungsbau Alfred Kretzschmar GmbH &
Co KG, a company incorporated under German law, and                    —     Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
Planungs-        und     Forschungsgesellschaft     Dipl.    Ing.            the European Communities (Single Judge) of 10 May
W. Kretzschmar GmbH & Co KG, a company incorporated                          2000 in Case T-177/97 Odette Simon v Commission of
under German law, on the following question:                                 the European Communities;