CELEX: C2001/134/16
Language: en
Date: 2001-05-05 00:00:00
Title: Case C-112/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Vestre Landsret by order of 9 March 2001 in the case of ApS SPKR 4 No 3482 v (1) Skatteministeriet, (2) Public limited company of 11/9 1996, and (3) A.T.S. I/S Arden Transport & Spedition, represented by Søren Lauritsen and Lene Lauritsen

C 134/10                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        5.5.2001
8 February 2001, which was received at the Court Registry on              2.    In the examination of the question whether ‘the same
7 March 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of                           cause of action’ has been brought, are exclusively the
1) Consorzio del Prosciutto Di Parma 2) Salumificio S. Rita                     pleadings of the plaintiff in the proceedings initiated by a
S.P.A. against 1) Asda Stores Limited 2) Hygrade Foods                          later action decisive and the defences and submissions of
Limited, on the following question:                                             the defendant therefore irrelevant, in particular also the
                                                                                defence of the procedural objection of set-off concerning
                                                                                a claim that is the subject-matter of a legal dispute
As a matter of Community law, does Council Regulation                           between the same parties on the basis of an action that
(EEC) No 2081/92 (1) read with Commission Regulation (EC)                       has already been brought earlier in another Contracting
No 1107/96 (2) and the specification for the PDO (3)‘prosciutto                 State?
di Parma’ create a valid Community right, directly enforceable
in the court of a member state, to restrain the retail sale as            3.    Where, on the basis of an action to enforce a contract
‘Parma ham’ of sliced and packaged ham derived from hams                        seeking damages for unlawful termination of a long-term
duly exported from Parma in compliance with the conditions                      obligation, the question as to whether such a long-term
of the PDO but which have not been thereafter sliced, packaged                  obligation existed at all is decided, is that decision also
and labelled in accordance with the specification?                              binding in subsequent proceedings between the same
                                                                                parties?
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the
    protection of geographical indications and designations of origin
    for agricultural products and foodstuffs (JO L 208, 24.07.1992,
    p. 1).
(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 of 12 June 1996 on
    the registration of geographical indications and designations of
    origin under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of Council
    Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 (JO L 148, 21.06.1996, p. 1).
(3) (protected designation of origin).                                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Vestre Landsret
                                                                          by order of 9 March 2001 in the case of ApS SPKR 4
                                                                          No 3482 v (1) Skatteministeriet, (2) Public limited com-
                                                                          pany of 11/9 1996, and (3) A.T.S. I/S Arden Transport &
                                                                          Spedition, represented by Søren Lauritsen and Lene
                                                                                                      Lauritsen
                                                                                                   (Case C-112/01)
                                                                                                   (2001/C 134/16)
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster
Gerichtshof, Austria, by order of that court of 22 February
2001 in the case of Gantner Electronic GmbH v Basch                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                  Exploitatie Maatschappij B.V.                           European Communities by order of 9 March 2001 by the
                                                                          Vestre Landsret (Western Regional Court), which was received
                                                                          at the Court Registry on 12 March 2001, for a preliminary
                          (Case C-111/01)                                 ruling in the case of ApS SPKR 4 No 3482 v (1) Skatteministe-
                                                                          riet (Ministry of Fiscal Affairs), (2) Public limited company of
                                                                          11/9 1996, and (3) AT.S. I/S Arden Transport & Spedition,
                          (2001/C 134/15)                                 represented by Søren Lauritsen and Lene Lauritsen, on the
                                                                          following questions:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Oberster Gerichts-
hof (Supreme Court), Austria, of 22 February 2001, which was              Question 1
received at the Court Registry on 12 March 2001, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Gantner Electronic GmbH v
Basch Exploitatie Maatschappij B.V. on the following questions:           Must the provisions in Council Regulation No 2913/92 (1) (the
                                                                          Customs Code) and in Commission Regulation No 2454/93 (2)
                                                                          (the implementing regulation), in particular Article 379(1) of
1.    Does the concept of ‘the same cause of action’ in                   the implementing regulation, be construed as meaning that a
      Article 21 of the Brussels Convention extend also to the            customs debt arising by reason of an offence or irregularity
      defence of the defendant that he has extinguished a part            in connection with external Community transit cannot be
      of the claim sued for by extra-judicial set-off, where the          recovered by the office of departure from the principal in so
      part of this counterclaim that is allegedly not extinguished        far as the principal did not, before the end of the eleventh
      is the subject-matter of a legal dispute between the same           month following the date of registration of the Community
      parties on the basis of an action that has already been             transit declaration, receive the notification referred to in
      brought earlier in another Contracting State?                       Article 379 of the implementing regulation?
 ---pagebreak--- 5.5.2001                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 134/11
Question 2                                                               Pleas in law and main arguments
Does the fact that the office of departure did not follow an             The mandatory nature of the provisions of Articles 10 and
administrative instruction for the transmission of information           249 EC is such as to oblige Member States to adopt the
laid down in the Customs Code Committee (early warning                   measures necessary in order to transpose directives which are
system) or that the authorities in the office of departure can be        addressed to them into their national legal order prior to the
criticised for failure to notify in good time have any bearing           expiry of the time-limits prescribed for so doing. Those time-
on the answer to Question 1?                                             limits, laid down in Article 5 of Directive 1999/20/EC and in
                                                                         Article 2 of Directive 96/51/EC, expired on 30 September and
                                                                         1 October 1999 respectively.
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992
    establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302,
    p. 1).                                                               (1) OJ L 80 of 25.3.1999, p. 20.
(2) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying         (2) OJ L 235 of 17.9.1996, p. 39.
    down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation
    (EEC) No 2913/92 (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1).
                                                                         Action brought on 19 March 2001 by Commission of the
Action brought on 16 March 2001 by the Commission of                                European Communities against Finland
 the European Communities against the French Republic
                                                                                                  (Case C-119/01)
                          (Case C-118/01)
                                                                                                  (2001/C 134/18)
                          (2001/C 134/17)
                                                                         An action against Finland was brought before the Court of
An action against the French Republic was brought before the             Justice of the European Communities on 19 March 2001 by
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 16 March                 the Commission of the European Communities, represented
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,                      by Lena Ström, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
represented by A. Bordes, acting as Agent, with an address for           Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner
service in Luxembourg.                                                   Center, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.
The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                         The Commission claims that the Court should:
the Court should:
1.    declare that, by failing to bring into force within the            —     declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations,
      prescribed time-limits the laws, regulations and adminis-                and administrative provisions necessary to implement
      trative measures necessary in order to comply with:                      Directive 96/61/EC (1) concerning integrated pollution
                                                                               prevention and control with regard to the province of
      —     Council Directive 1999/20/EC of 22 March 1999                      Åland, or in any case by failing to communicate them to
            amending Directives 70/524/EEC concerning addi-                    the Commission, Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations
            tives in feedingstuffs, 82/471/EEC concerning cer-                 under the directive;
            tain products used in animal nutrition, 95/53/EC
            fixing the principles governing the organisation of          —     order Finland to pay the costs.
            official inspections in the field of animal nutrition
            and 95/69/EC laying down the conditions and
            arrangements for approving and registering certain           Pleas in law and main arguments
            establishments and intermediaries operating in the
            animal feed sector (1);                                      The period for implementing the directive expired on 30 Octo-
                                                                         ber 1999. As regards the province of Åland the Commission
      —     Council Directive 96/51/EC of 23 July 1996                   was informed that a provincial law on the protection of the
            amending Directive 70/524/EEC concerning addi-               environment and environmental planets was adopted by the
            tives in feedingstuffs (2),                                  Lagtinget, but that it does not depend upon the Finnish
                                                                         president’s ratification.
      the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
      under the abovementioned directives and under the third
      paragraph of Article 249 and the first paragraph of                (1) Text of 24.9.1996 (OJ L 257 of 10.10.1996, p. 26).
      Article 10 of the EC Treaty;
2.    order the French Republic to pay the costs.