CELEX: C2000/034/04
Language: en
Date: 2000-02-05 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 October 1999 in Case C-233/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof): Hauptzollamt Neubrandenburg v Lensing & Brockhausen GmbH (Community transit — Offence —Recovery of duties — Competent State)

C 34/2                    EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                              5.2.2000
(Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending                   1. Fishing rights or fishing permits do not constitute ‘goods’ within
before that court between Questore di Verona and Diego                             the meaning of the provisions of the EC Treaty relating to the
Zenatti — on the interpretation of the provisions of the EC                        free movement of goods but form a ‘provision of a service’ within
Treaty concerning the freedom to provide services — the                            the meaning of the Treaty provisions relating to the freedom to
Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President,                           provide services.
J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, D.A.O. Edward, R. Schintgen (Presi-
dents of Chambers), P.J.G. Kapteyn, J.-P. Puissochet (Rappor-                 2. The provisions of the Treaty relating to the freedom to provide
teur), G. Hirsch, P. Jann and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; N. Fennel-                     services are not applicable to a situation, such as that in the main
ly, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Regis-                    proceedings, which is confined in all respects within a single
trar, has given a judgment on 21 October 1999, in which it                         Member State.
held that:
                                                                              (1) OJ C 166 of 30.5.1998.
The EC Treaty provisions on the freedom to provide services do not
preclude national legislation, such as the Italian legislation, which
reserves to certain bodies the right to take bets on sporting events if
that legislation is in fact justified by social-policy objectives intended
to limit the harmful effects of such activities and if the restrictions
which it imposes are not disproportionate in relation to those
objectives.
                                                                                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(1) OJ C 151 of 16.5.1998.
                                                                                                          (First Chamber)
                                                                                                       of 21 October 1999
                                                                              in Case C-233/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                              the Bundesfinanzhof): Hauptzollamt Neubrandenburg v
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       Lensing & Brockhausen GmbH (1)
                           (Sixth Chamber)                                    (Community transit — Offence —Recovery of duties —
                                                                                                         Competent State)
                         of 21 October 1999
                                                                                                           (2000/C 34/04)
in Case C-97/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Pargas Tingsrätt): Peter Jägerskiöld v Torolf Gustafs-
                                   son (1)                                                        (Language of the case: German)
(Free movement of goods — Definition of ‘goods’ — Angling
              rights — Freedom to provide services)                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                                   in the European Court Reports)
                            (2000/C 34/03)
                                                                              In Case C-233/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                                                                              the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Bundesfinanzhof
                    (Language of the case: Swedish)                           (Federal Finance Court), Germany, for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                              the proceedings pending before that court between Hauptzol-
                                                                              lamt Neubrandenburg and Lensing & Brockhausen GmbH —
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published        on the interpretation of Article 36 of Council Regulation (EEC)
                     in the European Court Reports)                           No 222/77 of 13 December 1976 on Community transit (OJ
                                                                              1977 L 38, p. 1) as amended by Council Regulation (EEC)
In Case C-97/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                  No 474/90 of 22 February 1990 with a view to abolishing
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Pargas Tingsrätt                  lodgement of the transit advice note on crossing an internal
(District Court, Pargas), Finland, for a preliminary ruling in                frontier of the Community (OJ 1990 L 51, p. 1), and of
the proceedings pending before that court between Peter                       Article 11a of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1062/87 of
Jägerskiöld and Torolf Gustafsson — on the interpretation of                  27 March 1987 on provisions for the implementation of the
the rules of the EC Treaty on the free movement of goods and                  Community transit procedure and for certain simplifications
the freedom to provide services — the Court (Sixth Chamber),                  of that procedure (OJ 1987 L 107, P. 1) as amended by
composed of: G. Hirsch, President of the Second Chamber,                      Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1429/90 of 29 May 1990
acting as President of the Sixth Chamber, H. Ragnemalm                        (OJ 1990 L 137, p. 21) — the Court (First Chamber), composed
and R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate                  of: L. Sevón, President of the Chamber, P. Jann and M. Wathelet
General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,               (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,
has given a judgment on 21 October 1999, in which it has                      Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
ruled:                                                                        on 21 October 1999, in which it has ruled:
 ---pagebreak--- 5.2.2000                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 34/3
1. Article 36(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 222/77 of                  Nana Dafniou and I. Chalkias) — application for a declaration
    13 December 1976 on Community transit, as amended by                   that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws,
    Council Regulation (EEC) No 474/90 of 22 February 1990                 regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply
    with a view to abolishing lodgement of the transit advice note on      with Council Directive 93/43/EEC of 14 June 1993 on the
    crossing an internal frontier of the Community, in conjunction         hygiene of foodstuffs (OJ 1993 L 175, p. 1), the Hellenic
    with Article 11a(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC)                     Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive
    No 1062/87 of 27 March 1987 on provisions for the                      — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn,
    implementation of the Community transit procedure and for              acting as President of the Sixth Chamber, G. Hirsch and
    certain simplifications of that procedure, as amended by Com-          H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate Gen-
    mission Regulation (EEC) No 1429/90 of 29 May 1990, is to              eral; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 October
    be interpreted as meaning that the Member State to which the           1999, in which it:
    office of departure belongs may recover duty on import only if it
    has indicated to the principal that he has three months in which       1. Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the
    to prove where the offence or irregularity was actually committed          laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
    and such proof has not been provided within that period.                   comply with Council Directive 93/43/EEC of 14 June 1993 on
                                                                               the hygiene of foodstuffs, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil
2. The third subparagraph of Article 36(3) of Regulation                       its obligations under that directive;
    No 222/77 as amended by Regulation No 474/90 is to be
    interpreted as not applying to a case in which the Member State        2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
    to which the office of departure belongs has recovered duty in
    respect of goods cleared for the Community transit procedure even
    though the principal has not been set a time-limit for furnishing      (1) OJ C 397 of 19.12.1998.
    proof of the place where the offence or irregularity was actually
    committed, in accordance with Article 11a(2) of Regulation
    No 1062/87 as amended by Regulation No 1429/90, and in
    such a case the refund of the duty irregularly recovered is not
    subject to the condition that the duty due from the principal has
    been paid in the Member State where the offence was committed.
(1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.                                                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                                    (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                                  of 21 October 1999
                                                                           in Case C-430/98: Commission of the European Communi-
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                       ties v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)
                          (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                           (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                           Directive 94/45/EC — Failure to transpose within the
                        of 21 October 1999                                                          prescribed period)
in Case C-391/98: Commission of the European Communi-                                                (2000/C 34/06)
                    ties v Hellenic Republic (1)
(Failure by a member State to fulfil its obligations —                                         (Language of the case: French)
Directive 93/43/EEC — Failure to transpose within the
                         prescribed period)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                           (2000/C 34/05)                                                     in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           In Case C-430/98: Commission of the European Communities
                     (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                           (Agents: P.J. Kuijper and N. Yerrell) v Grand Duchy of Luxem-
                                                                           bourg (Agent: P. Steinmetz) — application for a declaration
                                                                           that, by failing to adopt and/or to communicate to the
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     Commission the laws, regulations and administrative pro-
                   in the European Court Reports)                          visions necessary to comply with Council Directive 94/45/EC
                                                                           of 22 September 1994 on the establishment of a European
In Case C-391/98: Commission of the European Communities                   Works Council or a procedure in Community-scale undertak-
(Agent: Maria Condou-Durande) v Hellenic Republic (Agents:                 ings and Community-scale groups of undertakings for the