CELEX: C2005/082/16
Language: en
Date: 2005-04-02 00:00:00
Title: Case C-11/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam by judgment of that court of 28 December 2004 in Friesland Coberco Dairy Foods BV (trading under the name Friesland Supply Point Ede) v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane Noord/kantoor Groningen

2.4.2005   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 82/8
            
         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam by judgment of that court of 28 December 2004 in Friesland Coberco Dairy Foods BV (trading under the name Friesland Supply Point Ede) v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane Noord/kantoor Groningen
   (Case C-11/05)
   (2005/C 82/16)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by judgment of the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam (Netherlands) of 28 December 2004, received at the Court Registry on 14 January 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Friesland Coberco Dairy Foods BV (trading under the name Friesland Supply Point Ede) and Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst (Taxation Service)/Douane Noord (Customs North)/kantoor Groningen (Office) on the following questions:
   
               1.
            
            
               How should the words ‘without adversely affecting the essential interests of Community producers of similar goods’ in Article 133(e) [of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (1)] be interpreted? Can only the market for the finished product be considered or must the economic situation with regard to the raw materials for processing under customs control also be investigated?
            
         
               2.
            
            
               In relation to the assessment of the ‘processing activities to be created or maintained’ under Article 502(3) [of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation No 2913/92 (2)], is there a specific number of jobs which must, as a minimum, be made possible by the activities? What other criteria also apply to the interpretation of the cited text?
            
         
               3.
            
            
               In the light of the answers to questions 1 and 2, can the Court of Justice examine the validity of a conclusion of the Committee in preliminary ruling proceedings?
            
         
               4.
            
            
               If so, is the conclusion in this case valid with respect to both the reasons and the economic arguments adduced?
            
         
               5.
            
            
               If the Court of Justice cannot examine the validity of a conclusion, what interpretation should then be given to the words ‘[t]he Committee's conclusion shall be taken into account by the customs authorities’ in Article 504(4) [of Regulation No 2454/93 (3)] if – in the first instance – the customs authorities and/or – on appeal – the national courts consider that the Committee's conclusion cannot justify the rejection of the application for processing under customs control?
            
         
      (1)  OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.
   
      (2)  OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1.
   
      (3)  Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EC) No 993/2001 of 4 May 2001 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Custom Code (OJ 2001 L 141, p. 1).