CELEX: C1995/229/22
Language: en
Date: 1995-09-02 00:00:00
Title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg by order of 7 June 1995 in the case of A. Moksel AG v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Case C-223/95)

No C 229/ 12             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      2 . 9 . 95
Question 4 :                                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
                                                                       Hamburg by order of 7 June 1995 in the case of A. Moksel
Is Article 12 ( 1 ) ( e ) in conjunction with Article 10 ( 1 ) of                  AG v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
Directive 69/335/EEC to be interpreted as meaning that the                                      Case C-223 /95
amount charged as consideration for a specific service —                                           95 /C 229/22 )
such as for example registration of the formation or increase
in capital of a public limited company or a private limited
company — is to be calculated on the basis of the actual cost          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
of the specific service — registration — or can the duty for           European Communities by an order of the Finanzgericht
the individual registration be fixed at for example a basic            ( Finance Court) Hamburg of 7 June 1995 , which was
charge together with 4 per mille of the nominal capital                received at the Court Registry on 27 June 1995 , for a
subscribed, so that the amount of the duty is independent of           preliminary ruling in the case of A. Moksel AG v.
the registration authority's time used and other costs                 Hauptzollamt ( Principal Customs Office ) Hamburg Jonas
necessary for effecting the registration ?                             on the following question :
                                                                       Is Article 8 ( 1 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 3665/87 ( ] ) in the
Question 5:
                                                                       version of 27 November 1987, as rectified on 8 December
                                                                       1988 , in conjunction with Article 9 ( 2 ) of the EC Treaty to
Is Article 12 ( 1 ) ( e ) in conjunction with Article 10 ( 1 ) of      be interpreted as meaning that those provisions also cover
Directive 69/335/EEC to be interpreted as meaning that the             products which were imported into the Federal Republic of
Member State in calculating any amount to be recovered                 Germany from the former German Democratic Republic in
must work on the basis that the duty must reflect the cost of          the period from 24 May to 22 June 1990 pursuant to an
the specific service at the time at which the service is               exceptional authorization for the processing of transit-trade
performed, or is the Member State entitled to make a                   goods and exported to a third country on 10 January
comprehensive assessment over a longer period, for example             1991 ?
an accounting year or within the period in which it will
be possible under national law to assert a claim for
                                                                       (') OJ No L 351 , 14 . 12 . 1987, p. 1 .
recovery ?
Question 6:
If national law contains a general principle that, in
determining claims for recovery of charges made without                Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura
the requisite authority, importance should be attached to              Circondariale di Pescara — Sezione Distaccata di San
the fact that the charge was made in pursuance of rules                Valentino in A.C. — by order of 15 December 1994 in the
which have been in force over a long period without either                     criminal proceedings against Anselmo Savini
the authorities or other parties having been aware that the                                    ( Case C-224/95
charge was unauthorized, will Community law preclude
dismissal on those grounds of an action for recovery of                                           ( 95/C 229/23 )
charges levied contrary to Directive 69/335/EEC ?
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
 Question 7:                                                           European Communities by an order of the Pretura
                                                                        Circondariale di Pescara — Sezione Distaccata di San
                                                                       Valentino in A.C. ( Magistrate's Court, Pescara; Separate
Does Community law make it impossible under national                    Division of San Valentino in AC ) of 15 December 1994,
law for the authorities of a Member State, in cases of claims          which was received at the Court Registry on 27 June 1995 ,
for recovery concerning charges made contrary to Directive              for a preliminary ruling in criminal proceedings against
 69/335/EEC , to contend and establish that national                    Anselmo Savini on the following questions :
 limitation periods start to run from a time at which
 an unlawful implementation of Directive 69/335/EEC
 occurred ?                                                             1 . Does EEC legislation provide for the exclusion from the
                                                                            definition of waste and the relevant rules relating to the
                                                                            protection of health ( and ) of the environment of
 Question 8:                                                                substances and objects which are capable of economic
                                                                            reutilization ?
 Does Article 10 ( 1 ) in conjunction with Article 12 ( 1 ) ( e ) of
 Directive 69/335/EEC as interpreted in the foregoing                   2 . Does the concept of waste arising out of Council
 questions result in rights on which citizens in the individual             Directive 156/91 /EEC of 18 March 1991 amending
 Member States may rely before the national courts ?                        Directive 75/442/EEC on waste (') and Council
                                                                            Directive     689/91 /EEC     of  12  December   1991     on
 (') OJ No L 249 , 3 . 10 . 1969 , p . 25 .                                 dangerous waste ( 2 ) and Council Regulation ( EEC )
                                                                            No 259/93 ( 3 ) cover any substance which the addressee
                                                                            disposes of, has decided to dispose of or is under a duty
                                                                            to dispose of, regardless of the fact that the substance to