CELEX: C2000/149/14
Language: en
Date: 2000-05-27 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 March 2000 in Case C-246/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arrondissementsrechtbank te Arnhem): criminal proceedings against Berendse-Koenen M.G. en Berendse H.D. Maatschap (Directive 83/189/EEC — Prohibition on growth promoters — Measures having equivalent effect)

27.5.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 149/9
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         (Third Chamber)                                                              (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                                    of 23 March 2000
                         of 23 March 2000
                                                                           in Joined Cases C-310/98 and C-406/98 (references for
in Case C-246/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                  preliminary rulings from the Bundesfinanzhof): Hauptzol-
the Arrondissementsrechtbank te Arnhem): criminal pro-                     lamt Neubrandenburg v Leszek Labis, trading as ‘Przedsie-
ceedings against Berendse-Koenen M.G. en Berendse H.D.                     biorstwo Transportowo-Handlowe “Met-Trans”’ C-310/
                            Maatschap (1)                                  98), and Sagpol SC Transport Miedzynarodowy i Spedycja
                                                                                                        (C-406/98) (1)
(Directive 83/189/EEC — Prohibition on growth promoters
                                                                           (Free movement of goods — External transit transaction —
             — Measures having equivalent effect)
                                                                           Movement under cover of a TIR carnet — Offences or
                                                                           irregularities — Evidence of the place where the offence or
                                                                           irregularity was committed — Time-limit for producing
                          (2000/C 149/14)                                  evidence — Types of evidence admissible — Compensation
                                                                                                         procedure)
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                                                     (2000/C 149/15)
                                                                                              (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
In Case C-246/98: Reference to the Court under Article 177 of                                  in the European Court Reports)
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Arrondissements-
rechtbank te Arnhem, Netherlands, for a preliminary ruling in
the criminal proceedings before that court against Berendse-               In Joined Cases C-310/98 and C-406/98: Hauptzollamt Neu-
Koenen M.G. en Berendse H.D. Maatschap, on the interpret-                  brandenburg and Leszek Labis, trading as ‘Przedsiebiorstwo
ation of Council Directive 83/189/EEC of 28 March 1983                     Transportowo-Handlowe “Met-Trans”’ (C-310/98), and Sagpol
laying down a procedure for the provision of information in                SC Transport Miedzynarodowy i Spedycja (C-406/98) —
the field of technical standards and regulations (OJ 1983                  Reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EC
L 109, p. 8), as amended by Council Directive 88/182/EEC of                Treaty (now Article 234 EC), by the Bundesfinanzhof, Ger-
22 March 1988 (OJ 1988 L 81, p. 75), and Articles 30 and                   many, in proceedings before that court on the interpretation
36 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 28 EC                  of Articles 454 and 455 of Commission Regulation (EEC)
and 30 EC) — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of:                       No 2454/93, of 2 July 1993, laying down provisions for the
J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, President of the Chamber, C. Gul-                implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92
mann (Rapporteur) and J.-P. Puissochet, Judges; P. Léger,                  establishing the Community customs code (OJ 1993 L 253,
Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the              p. 1) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: L. Sevón,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 March 2000, in which                 President of the Chamber acting as President of the Fifth
it has ruled:                                                              Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn, P. Jann (Rapporteur), H. Ragnemalm
                                                                           and M. Wathelet, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General;
                                                                           H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
                                                                           a judgment on 23 March 2000, the operative part of which
Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now Article 28 EC) does not preclude a        provides as follows:
national rule such as that laid down by Article 3(1) of the
Verordening Stoffen met sympathico mimetische werking (PVV)
1991, read in conjunction with Article 2 thereof.                          1. The first paragraph of Article 454(3) of Commission Regulation
                                                                               (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for
                                                                               the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92
                                                                               establishing the Community customs code must be interpreted as
(1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.                                                      meaning that the evidence as to where an offence or irregularity
                                                                               was committed required by the customs authorities of the Member
                                                                               State where that offence or irregularity was discovered need not
                                                                               consist only of written documents establishing that the competent
                                                                               authorities of another Member State have made a finding that
                                                                               the offence or irregularity was committed in their country.