CELEX: C2004/059/04
Language: en
Date: 2004-03-06 00:00:00
Title: Case C-511/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by order of that Court of 5 December 2003 in the case of the State of the Netherlands (Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries) against 1. Ten Kate Holding Musselkanaal BV, 2. Ten Kate Europrodukten BV, and 3. Ten Kate Produktie Maatschappĳ BV

6.3.2004               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                                 C 59/3
1.   The appeal is dismissed.                                            3.     Must Article 1(2) of Decision 94/381/EC, read as far as
                                                                                necessary in conjunction with the provisions of Article 17
2.   Mr Martinez is ordered to pay the costs of the present                     of Directive 90/425/EEC and Article 17 of Directive 89/
     proceedings.                                                               662/EEC, be interpreted as giving rise to an obligation for
                                                                                the Commission or the Council to grant an authorisation
3.   Mr Martinez is also ordered to pay the Parliament’s costs in               as referred to therein if the system which the requesting
     connection with the application for interim measures in Case               Member State applies or intends to apply is in fact suitable
     C-488/01 P-R.                                                              for distinguishing between protein from ruminant and
                                                                                non-ruminant species?
(1) OJ C 84 of 6.4.2002.                                                 4.     To what extent does the answer to Question 3 entail a
                                                                                restriction of the right, or of the State’s obligation referred
                                                                                to in Question 1, to challenge a failure to grant an
                                                                                authorisation such as that at issue in this case under
                                                                                Article 175 of the EC Treaty (Article 232 EC), or to
                                                                                challenge a refusal to grant such an authorisation under
                                                                                Article 173 of the EC Treaty (Article 230 EC)?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der                         (Question 3 is relevant whether the question referred to
Nederlanden by order of that Court of 5 December 2003                           in Question 1 must be answered according to Netherlands
in the case of the State of the Netherlands (Ministry of                        national law or whether that answer must be determined
Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries) against                           according to Community law, in the latter case unless the
1. Ten Kate Holding Musselkanaal BV, 2. Ten Kate                                answer to Question 2(a) is in the negative. Question 4 is
Europrodukten BV, and 3. Ten Kate Produktie Maatschap-                          relevant only in the light of an answer to Question 2(b).)
                              pij BV
                         (Case C-511/03)
                          (2004/C 59/04)
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht
                                                                         Hamburg by order of that Court of 12 November 2003 in
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   the case of Eichsfelder Schlachtbetrieb GmbH against
European Communities by order of the Hoge Raad der                                          Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
Nederlanden of 5 December 2003, received at the Court
Registry on 8 December 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the                                         (Case C-515/03)
case of the State of the Netherlands (Ministry of Agriculture,
Nature Management and Fisheries) against 1. Ten Kate Holding
Musselkanaal BV, 2. Ten Kate Europrodukten BV, and 3. Ten                                             (2004/C 59/05)
Kate Produktie Maatschappij BV on the following questions:
1.   Must the question whether, in a case such as this, the              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     State has an obligation towards a citizen who has an                European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht Ham-
     interest in it, such as Ten Kate, to make use of the legal          burg (Hamburg Finance Court) of 12 November 2003, received
     remedies available to it under Article 175 of the EC                at the Court Registry on 9 December 2003, for a preliminary
     Treaty (Article 232 EC) or Article 173 of the EC Treaty             ruling in the case of Eichsfelder Schlachtbetrieb GmbH against
     (Article 230 EC) and, in the event of failure to comply             Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas on the following question:
     with such an obligation, to pay compensation for the
     damage sustained as a consequence by the citizen con-
     cerned, be answered by reference to rules of Netherlands            Is Article 17(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 (1) as amended
     national law or by reference to rules of Community law?             by Regulation (EC) No 1384/95 (2) to be interpreted as
                                                                         meaning that a product is considered to have been imported
2.   If the question referred to in Question 1 must be answered          if, after its release for free circulation in a non-member country,
     wholly or partly by reference to rules of Community law:            it undergoes substantial processing or working within the
                                                                         meaning of Article 24 of Regulation (EC) No 2913/92 (3) and
     (a)   Are there circumstances in which Community law                then is brought back into the Community upon drawback and
           can entail an obligation and liability as referred to in      payment of the normal import duties?
           that question?
     (b) If the answer to Question 2(a) is in the affirmative,           (1) OJ L 351, p. 1.
                                                                         (2) OJ L 134, p. 14.
           which rules of Community law must be used as the
                                                                         (3) OJ L 302, p. 1.
           criterion when answering the question referred to
           in Question 1 in a specific case such as this?