CELEX: 62011CN0471
Language: en
Date: 2011-09-14 00:00:00
Title: Case C-471/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts (Republic of Latvia) lodged on 14 September 2011 — SIA Cido Grupa v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

12.11.2011   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 331/13
            
         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts (Republic of Latvia) lodged on 14 September 2011 — SIA ‘Cido Grupa’ v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests
   (Case C-471/11)
   2011/C 331/24
   Language of the case: Latvian
   
      Referring court
   
   Augstākās tiesas Senāts
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: SIA ‘Cido Grupa’
   
      Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests
   
      Questions referred
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Is the third subparagraph of Article 6(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 60/2004 (1) laying down transitional measures in the sugar sector by reason of the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia to be interpreted as meaning that, where an operator has been found to be in possession of an individual surplus of a product which may be classed as sugar within the meaning of Article 4, No 1, of the regulation, that operator is required to pay the State Treasury a sum which is calculated on the basis of the quantity of white sugar (Combined Nomenclature code 1701 99 10) corresponding to the sugar content of the product found in the operator’s possession, and not on the basis of the quantity of the actual product found in its possession (for example, sugar syrup)?
            
         
               2.
            
            
               In the calculation of that payment, are the highest import duty rates applicable to white sugar to be applied instead of those applicable to the actual product found in the operator’s possession?
            
         
      (1)  OJ 2004 L 9, p. 8.