CELEX: C1996/354/39
Language: en
Date: 1996-11-23 00:00:00
Title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Pleno da Secção do Contencioso Tributário) by judgment of that court of 10 July 1996 in the case of Fábrica de Queijo ERU Portuguesa Limitada against Subdirector-Geral das Alfândegas (Case C-325/96)

No C 354/20            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                        23 . 11 . 96
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Irinodikio,                      liable in the final analysis to repay the reduction and
Exinos ( Greece ) by order of that court of 24 July 1995 in the              premium ?
case of Odetti Nikou Petridi Anonymos Kapnemboriki AE
             against Athanasias Simou and others                     (')   OJ No L 110 , 29 . 4 . 1988 , p . 35 .
                        ( Case C-324/96 )                            (2)   OJ, English Special Edition , 1970 ( I ), p. 206 .
                                                                     ( 5)  OJ No L 129 , 11 . 5 . 1989 , p . 16 .
                          ( 96/C 354/38 )                            (4 )  OJ No L 129 , 11 . 5 . 1989 , p . 17 .
                                                                     (5)   OJ No L 187, 19 . 7 . 1990 , p . 23 .
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the               (6)   OJ No L 376 , 31 . 12 . 1988 , p . 34 .
European Communities by order of the Irinodikio [Small
Claims Court], Exinos of 24 July 1995 , received at the Court
Registry on 3 October 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Odetti Nikou Petridi Anonymos Kapnemboriki AE
v. Athanasias Simou and others on the following                      Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supremo Tribunal
questions :                                                          Administrativo ( Pleno da Secção do Contencioso
                                                                     Tributário ) by judgment of that court of 10 July 1996 in the
1 . Is Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1 1 14/88 ( 1 ) amending        case of Fabrica de Queijo ERU Portuguesa Limitada against
    Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 727/70 ( 2 ) valid,                                 Subdirector-Geral das Alfandegas
    inasmuch as it provides that, in the event of the                                           ( Case C-325 /96 )
    maximum guaranteed quantity for the production of
                                                                                                  ( 96/C 354/39 )
    leaf tobacco in the whole of the Community being
    exceeded , the intervention prices and premiums are to
    be reduced, generally and without distinction, and               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    without there being any relation between the price               European Communities by judgment of the Supremo
    reduction and whether the producer was guilty of an              Tribunal Administrativo ( Pleno da Secção do Contencioso
    overrun in production or not ?                                   Tributário ) [ Supreme Administrative Court ( Division for
                                                                     Fiscal Matters sitting in plenary session )] of 10 July 1996 ,
                                                                     which was received at the Court Registry on 4 October
2 . Are Regulations ( EEC ) No 1251 /89 (■') and 1252/89 ( 4 )       1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Fabrica de
    valid as regards the laying down of maximum                      Queijo ERU Portuguesa Limitada against Subdirector-Geral
    guaranteed quantities for the Tsebelia tobacco variety of        das Alfandegas ( Deputy Director General of Customs ) on
    the 1989 harvest and does the application thereof                the following questions :
    infringe the general principles of the prohibition of the
    retroactive application of Community legislation , of the
    protection of the legitimate expectations of producers           1 . Should Article 28 of Council Regulation ( EEC )
    and purchasers and processors of tobacco, and the                       No 3677/86 ( 1 ) of 24 November 1986 be interpreted as
    principle of legal certainty ?                                          meaning that the six-month time-limit prescribed
                                                                            therein cannot be extended ?
3 . If the reply to the preceding question is affirmative, then
                                                                     2 . Or should that provision instead by interpreted as
    in view of the finding by the Commission of actual
                                                                            meaning that the general rule for granting extensions
    overproduction and an infringement by 44,1 % of the
                                                                            provided for in Article 27 of that Regulation and in the
    maximum guaranteed quantities of the Tsebelia and
                                                                             second subparagraph of Article 14 ( 2 ) of Council
    Mavra varieties of the 1989 harvest, and the imposition                  Regulation ( EEC ) No 1999/85 ( 2 ) of 16 July 1985 is to
    for that reason of a reduction in premium and                            be applied to the said time-limit ?
    intervention price in the abovementioned amount of
    15 % , is Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 2046/90 ( 5 )
                                                                     (') Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3677/86 of 24 November 1986
    valid and may we apply, as is contended for by the
                                                                           laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation
    applicant, clause 8 of the cultivation contracts entered               ( EEC ) No 1999/85 on inward processing relief arrangements
    into      under      Commission       Regulation     ( EEC )           ( OJ No L 351 , 12 . 12 . 1986 , p. 1 ).
    No 4263/8 8 ( 6 ) ? If the prices or the premium are             ( 2 ) OJ No L 188 , 20 . 7 . 1985 , p . 1 .
    adjusted pursuant to Article 4 ( 5 ) of Regulation ( EEC )
    No 727/70, is the contract price to be adjusted in line
    with the change in the price and premiums ?
4 . Are the factors which in 1991 led the Court of Justice in
    Case C-368/89 to annul the regulation laying down                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Employment
    maximum guaranteed quantities for the 1988 harvest of            Appeal Tribunal, London, by order of that court of
    the Bright variety likewise present in this case in view of      14 August 1996 , in the case of Mrs B. S. Levez against T. H.
    the fact that the Commission made the same mistake in                                Jennings ( Harlow Pools ) Ltd
    delaying the determination of maximum guaranteed                                            ( Case C-326/96 )
    quantities for the 1989 harvest ?                                                             ( 96/C 354/40 )
5 . Finally, in the event that the Court of Justice should rule      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    that the regulations in question are valid, then who is          European Communities by an order of the Employment