CELEX: C1999/265/02
Language: en
Date: 1999-09-18 00:00:00
Title: Case C-253/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht Bremen by order of 1 June 1999 in the case of Bacardi GmbH v Hauptzollamt Bremerhaven

18.9.1999             EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 265/1
                                                                       I
                                                                 (Information)
                                                    COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                             COURT OF JUSTICE
Appeal brought on 2 July 1999 by the French Republic                       decision for the same reasons as those relied on by the Court
against the judgment delivered on 22 April 1999 by the                     of First Instance in Lilly. It also refuses the assertion made by
Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                       the Court of First Instance in paragraph 64 of the contested
European Communities in case T-112/97 (1) between Mon-                     judgment that in the absence of ‘anything in fact or law which
santo Company and the Commission of the European                           would permit a different conclusion, reference must be made
      Communities, supported by the French Republic                        to the grounds of its judgment in Lilly and the contested
                                                                           decision must, as a result, be annulled’.
                       (Case C-248/99 P)
                                                                           The French Government considers that the Court of First
                        (1999/C 265/01)                                    Instance had before it new elements of fact or law which were
                                                                           conducive to deciding the case differently from case T-120/96.
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 22 April 1999
by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                (1) OJ C 199, 28.06.1997, p. 27.
European Communities in case T-112/97 between Monsanto
Company and the Commission of the European Communities,
supported by the French Republic, was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 2 July 1999
by the French Republic, represented by Ronny Abraham,
Jean-François Dobelle, Kareen Rispal-Bellanger and Christina               Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht
Vasak, acting as agents, with an address for service in                    Bremen by order of 1 June 1999 in the case of Bacardi
Luxembourg at the French Embassy, 8, boulevard Joseph II.                              GmbH v Hauptzollamt Bremerhaven
The Appellant claims that the Court should:                                                         (Case C-253/99)
1. annul paragraph 1 of the operative part of the judgment                                         (1999/C 265/02)
     of the Court of First Instance dated 22 April in case
     T-112/97;                                                             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities by order of 1 June 1999 from the
2. grant the form of order sought by the defendant at first                Finanzgericht (Finance Court) Bremen, which was received at
     instance, namely dismissal on substantive grounds of                  the Court Registry on 7 July 1999, for a preliminary ruling in
     Monsanto’s application, and order the applicant to pay the            the case of Bacardi GmbH v Hauptzollamt Bremerhaven on
     costs.                                                                the following questions:
                                                                           1. Can import duties be repaid under Article 236 of the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                Customs Code (1) in the case where the importer of
                                                                               Bourbon whiskey imported from the USA entered the
The Court of First Instance based its assessment of the                        Code Number 2208 30 82 in the customs declaration of
Monsanto action on the solution adopted in case T-120/96,                      10 September 1996, and only on 2 October 1996, on
Lilly v. Commission.                                                           submission of a certificate of authenticity corresponding
                                                                               to Annex 5 to the regulation implementing the Customs
The French Government disputes the Court of First Instance’s                   Code (2), applied for classification under Subheading 2208
statement that, in any event as far as it is concerned, the parties            30 11 of the Combined Nomenclature, which would result
considered that it was necessary to annul the Commission’s                     in application of a longer rate of customs duty?
 ---pagebreak--- C 265/2                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      18.9.1999
2. If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative:                       II.   If the answer to one of the questions under I is in the
                                                                              negative:
     Can it be concluded that these circumstances constitute ‘a
                                                                              a) Are advances on maintenance payments under the
     special situation’ which — if the other legislative conditions
                                                                                   Unterhaltsvorschußgesetz referred to in Question I(a)
     are satisfied — may lead to repayment of the import duties
                                                                                   social advantages within the meaning of Article 7(2) of
     under Article 239 of the Customs Code in conjunction
                                                                                   Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 (4) of the Council of
     with Article 905(1) of the regulation implementing the
                                                                                   15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for work-
     Customs Code?
                                                                                   ers within the Community?
                                                                              b) Does the fact that the child has to be resident in Austria
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92, OJ L 302 of 19.10.1992,                   in order to be awarded advances on maintenance
    p. 1.                                                                          payments constitute a prohibited limiting provision
(2) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93, OJ L 253 of                            under the second indent of Article 3(1) of Regulation
    11.10.1993, p. 1.
                                                                                   (EEC, No 1612/68 in the light of the right to freedom
                                                                                   of movement for workers enshrined in Article 48 of
                                                                                   the EC Treaty?
                                                                              c) Do the provisions of Regulation No 1612/68 give rise
                                                                                   to an entitlement, in the person of the child of a
                                                                                   worker, to the award of advances on maintenance
                                                                                   payments?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster                       ( 1) OJ L 149 of 5.7.1971, p. 2.
Gerichtshof by Order of that court of 23 June 1999 in the                ( 2) OJ L 230 of 22.8.1984, p. 6.
case relating to the minor Anna Humer represented by                     ( 3) OJ L 331 of 16.11.1989, p. 1.
           her mother Andrea Sturmbauer-Machand                          ( 4) OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475.
                          (Case C-255/99)
                         (1999/C 265/03)
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court
                                                                         of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   Divisional Court, by order of that court of 29 March
European Communities by order of the Oberster Gerichtshof,               1999, in the case of The Queen against Secretary of State
Vienna, of 23 June 1999, received at the Court Registry on               for the Home Department, ex parte: Julius Barkoci and
8 July 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case relating to the                                     Marcel Malik
minor Anna Humer, represented by her mother Andrea
Sturmbauer-Machand, on the following question:                                                      (Case C-257/99)
                                                                                                    (1999/C 265/04)
I. a) Do advances on maintenance payments to the minor
          children of working persons, or unemployed persons             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
          drawing unemployment benefit under Austrian legis-             European Communities by an order of the High Court of
          lation, which are payable in respect of children under         Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division, Divisional
          the Austrian federal law on the grant of advances on           Court of 29 March 1999, which was received at the Court
          maintenance (Unterhaltsvorschußgesetz 1985 [Law on             Registry on 9 July 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
          Advances on Maintenance Payments 1985], hereinafter            The Queen against Secretary of State for the Home Depart-
          UVG — current version in BGBl p. 451) constitute               ment, ex parte: Julius Barkoci and Marcel Malik, on the
          family benefits for the purposes of Article 4(1)(h) of         following questions:
          Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) of 14 June
          1971 on the application of social security schemes to
          employed persons, to self-employed persons and to              Direct effect and interpretation of the Agreement (1)
          members of their families moving within the Com-
          munity, as amended and updated by Regulation (EEC)
          No 2001/83 (2) of 2 June 1983 and amended by                   1. Does Article 45 of the Agreement have direct effect
          Council Regulation (EEC) No 3427/89 (3) of 30 Octo-                 within the national legal systems of Member States,
          ber 1989, and is Article 3 of the regulation, on equality           notwithstanding the provisions of Article 59 of the Agree-
          of treatment, therefore also applicable in such a case?             ment?
                                                                         2. If the answer to question 1 is ‘yes’, how is the proviso in
     b) Do Articles 73 and 74 of Regulation 1408/71 entitle a                 the penultimate sentence of Article 59(1) of the Agreement
          child of a marriage who is resident with his mother in              (and in particular the words ‘benefits accruing to any Party
          a Member State other than Austria and whose father is               under the terms of a specific provision of this Agreement’)
          resident in Austria and is working there, or unem-                  to be interpreted; and, more generally, to what extent may
          ployed and drawing unemployment benefit under                       a Member State apply its laws and regulations regarding
          Austrian legislation, to the award of an advance on                 entry, stay and establishment of natural persons to persons
          maintenance payments under the Unterhaltsvorschuß-                  invoking Article 45 of the Agreement, without violating
          gesetz referred to in paragraph (a) above?                          this proviso?