CELEX: C2003/055/10
Language: en
Date: 2003-03-08 00:00:00
Title: Case C-413/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hof van Cassatie by judgment of that Court of 5 November 2002 in the case of I. Francis Maria SIPS against Ministerie van Financiën and II. Florentius Martha Adrianus Petrus Vreĳsen and Vreĳsen Douane-Expediteur against Ministerie van Financiën

8.3.2003                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 55/5
that, by failing to take all necessary measures to ensure that              What is the precise scope of the eleven-month time limit laid
the quality of its bathing water conforms to the limit values               down in Article 11a(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC)
laid down by Council Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 December                     No 1062/87 ( 1) of 27 March 1987 on provisions for the
1975 concerning the quality of bathing water (OJ 1976 L 31,                 implementation of the Community transit procedure and for
p. 1) and by failing to adhere to the minimum sampling                      certain simplifications of that procedure, inserted by
frequencies required by that directive, the Kingdom of Den-                 Article 1(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1429/90 (2)
mark has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4(1)               of 29 May 1990 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1062/87 on
and 6(1) of the same directive, the Court (Sixth Chamber),                  provisions for the implementation of the Community transit
composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,                    procedure and for certain simplifications of that procedure (as
R. Schintgen, C. Gulmann, V. Skouris and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues               applicable prior to the repeal of Regulation No 1062/87 by
(Rapporteur), Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; H. von                   Article 127(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1214/
Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 January              92 (3) of 21 April 1992 on provisions for the implementation
2003, in which it:                                                          of the Community transit procedure and for certain simplifi-
                                                                            cations of that procedure, repealed in turn by Article 913 of
                                                                            Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 ( 4) of 2 July 1993
1.    Declares that, by failing, during the years 1995 to 1998, to          laying down provisions for the implementation of Council
      take all necessary measures to ensure that the quality of its         Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 ( 5) establishing the Community
      bathing water conformed to the limit values laid down in              Customs Code)?
      Council Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975 concern-
      ing the quality of bathing water and by failing, during the same
      years, to adhere to the minimum sampling frequencies required
                                                                            Must this provision be construed as meaning that the com-
      by that directive, the Kingdom of Denmark has failed to fulfil
      its obligations under Articles 4(1) and 6(1) of the same              petent Member State is not entitled to demand the duties owed
                                                                            from the principal where this eleven-month time limit has not
      directive;
                                                                            been observed?
2.    Orders the Kingdom of Denmark to pay the costs.
                                                                            (1 ) OJ L 107 [1987], p. 1.
                                                                            (2 ) OJ L 137 [1990], p. 21.
( 1) OJ C 212 of 28.7.2001.                                                 (3 ) OJ L 132 [1992], p. 1.
                                                                            (4 ) OJ L 253 [1993], p. 1.
                                                                            (5 ) OJ L 302 [1992], p. 1.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hof van Cassatie
by judgment of that Court of 5 November 2002 in the
case of 1. Belgian Refining Corporation, 2. Michael Gene                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hof van Cassatie
Sachs, 3. Alfred Alfons Marie Leysens, 4. André Leonard                     by judgment of that Court of 5 November 2002 in the
Elisabeth Schatteman, 5. Frank Catharina Martin Devoght,                    case of I. Francis Maria SIPS against Ministerie van
and 6. Gilbert Theo Marie Frans Dias against Ministerie                     Financiën and II. Florentius Martha Adrianus Petrus
                             van Financiën                                  Vreijsen and Vreijsen Douane-Expediteur against Minis-
                                                                                                   terie van Financiën
                           (Case C-412/02)
                                                                                                      (Case C-413/02)
                            (2003/C 55/09)
                                                                                                       (2003/C 55/10)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Hof van Cassatie                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
(Belgian Court of Cassation) of 5 November 2002, received at                European Communities by judgment of the Hof van Cassatie
the Court Registry on 19 November 2002, for a preliminary                   (Belgian Court of Cassation) of 5 November 2002, received at
ruling in the case of 1. Belgian Refining Corporation, 2. Michael           the Court Registry on 19 November 2002, for a preliminary
Gene Sachs, 3. Alfred Alfons Marie Leysens, 4. André Leonard                ruling in the case of I. Francis Maria SIPS against Ministerie
Elisabeth Schatteman, 5. Frank Catharina Martin Devoght, and                van Financiën and II. Florentius Martha Adrianus Petrus
6. Gilbert Theo Marie Frans Dias against Ministerie van                     Vreijsen and Vreijsen Douane-Expediteur against Ministerie
Financiën on the following questions:                                       van Financiën on the following questions:
 ---pagebreak--- C 55/6                  EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          8.3.2003
1.     Must Regulation No 2913/92 (1) (the Community Cus-                   Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-
       toms Code) and Regulation No 2454/93 ( 2) (the regu-                 hof by order of that Court of 29 October 2002 in the case
       lation implementing the Community Customs Code), in                  of Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas against Gouralnik &
       particular Article 379(1) of the regulation implementing                                      Partner GmbH
       the Community Customs Code, be construed as meaning
       that the customs debt arising by reason of an offence or
       irregularity in connection with external Community                                           (Case C-446/02)
       transit cannot be recovered by the office of departure
       from the principal if the principal did not, before the end
       of the eleventh month following the date of registration                                      (2003/C 55/12)
       of the Community transit declaration, receive the notifi-
       cation referred to in Article 379 of the regulation
       implementing the Community Customs Code?
                                                                            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
2.     Does the fact that the office of departure did not follow
                                                                            European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof
       an administrative instruction for the transmission of
                                                                            (Federal Finance Court) of 29 October 2002, received at the
       information laid down in the Customs Code Committee
                                                                            Court Registry on 10 December 2002, for a preliminary ruling
       (early warning system) or that the authorities in the office
                                                                            in the case of Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas against Gouralnik
       of departure can be criticised for failure to notify in good
                                                                            & Partner GmbH on the following questions:
       time have any bearing on the answer to this question?
                                                                            1.   Does an entitlement to an export refund exist at least at
( 1) OJ L 302 [1992], p. 1.                                                      the rate of refund applicable to the product actually
( 2) OJ L 253 [1993], p. 1.                                                      exported where it is established during a control by
                                                                                 the customs authorities that the declared and exported
                                                                                 consignment did not consist entirely of the declared
                                                                                 product but contained a proportion of another product
                                                                                 to which a lower rate of refund applied?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Vestre Landsret                   2.   Does the fact that the product which was incorrectly
by order of that Court of 15 November 2002 in the case                           declared is similar to that actually declared have any
of Fonden Marselisborg Lystbådehavn against Skattemini-                          bearing on the decision?
                                steriet
                                                                            3.   If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative, in accordance
                          (Case C-428/02)                                        with which criteria must it be determined whether the
                                                                                 declaration also covers the incorrectly declared goods?
                           (2003/C 55/11)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Vestre Landsret
(Western Regional Court) of 15 November 2002, received at
the Court Registry on 26 November 2002, for a preliminary
ruling in the case of Fonden Marselisborg Lystbådehavn against
Skatteministeriet (Ministry of Fiscal Affairs) on the following             Appeal brought on 11 December 2002 by KWS Saat AG
questions:                                                                  against the judgment delivered on 9 October 2002 by the
                                                                            Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
1)     Must Article 13.B(b) of the Sixth VAT Directive (Council             European Communities in Case T-173/00 between KWS
       Directive 77/388) (1) be construed as meaning that the               Saat AG and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
       term ‘letting of immovable property’ includes the letting                         Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
       of a boat site consisting of a section of a land-based port
       area and of a defined and identifiable water-based area?
                                                                                                   (Case C-447/02 P)
2)     Must Article 13.B(b)(2) of the Sixth VAT Directive be
       construed as meaning that the term ‘vehicles’ includes
       boats?                                                                                        (2003/C 55/13)
( 1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
     harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
     turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform             An appeal against the judgment delivered on 9 October 2002
     basis of assessment (OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1).                     by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                            European Communities in Case T-173/00 between KWS Saat
                                                                            AG and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market