CELEX: C1999/020/26
Language: en
Date: 1999-01-23 00:00:00
Title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Cagliari, by order of that court of 23 March 1998 in the case of Azienda Agricola Monte Arcosu Srl against Regione Autonoma della Sardegna, Organismo Comprensoriale No 24 della Sardegna and ERSAT - Ente Regionale per l'Assistenza Tecnica in Agricoltura (Case C-403/98)

C 20/16              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      23.1.1999
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal                 Ð the Commission Decision of 21 December 1994
(England and Wales) by order of that court of 31 July                         authorising the acquisition of Central and
1998, in the case of H. J. Banks & Company Ltd against                        Northern Mining Limited by RJB Mining plc.,
1. The Coal Authority and 2. Secretary of State for Trade
                         and Industry
                                                                          Ð the communications sent by DGXVII of the
                      (Case C-390/98)                                         Commission to NALOO dated 4 May and 13 July
                                                                              1995?
                       (1999/C 20/25)
                                                                     4. As a matter of Community law, does the fact that
                                                                          Banks or NALOO did not:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Court of
Appeal (England and Wales) of 31 July 1998, which was                     a) challenge, under Article 33 of the ECSC Treaty,
received at the Court Registry on 3 November 1998, for a                      Commission Decision 94/995/ECSC or the
preliminary ruling in the case of H. J. Banks & Company                       Commission Decision of 21 December 1994
Ltd against 1. The Coal Authority and 2. Secretary of                         authorising the acquisition of Central and
State for Trade and Industry, on the following questions:                     Northern Mining Limited by RJB Mining plc or
                                                                              the letters sent to DGXVII of the Commission to
                                                                              NALOO dated 4 May and 14 July 1995; and/or
1. Is the difference of treatment referred to in the
    judgments of the Court of Appeal capable of                           b) invoke the procedure provided for in Article 35 of
    constituting:                                                             the ECSC Treaty in order to require the
                                                                              Commission to deal with the issues now raised in
                                                                              the proceedings before the national court
    Ð discrimination       between      producers'     within
        Article 4(b) of the ECSC Treaty;
                                                                          preclude Banks from raising alleged breaches of
                                                                          Article 4(b) or 4(c) of the ECSC Treaty, or of
                                                                          Commission        Decision      No     3632/93/ECSC        in
    Ð a special charge' within Article 4(c) of the same                  proceedings in the national courts?
        Treaty; and/or
                                                                     (1) Commission Decision No 3632/93/ECSC of 28 December
                                                                         1993 establishing Community rules for State aid to the coal
    Ð aid' within Article 4(c) of the same Treaty or                    industry (OJ L 329, 30.12.1993, p. 12).
        within Article 1 of Commission Decision                      (2) Commission Decision 94/995/ECSC of 3 November 1994
        No 3632/93/ECSC (1)                                              ruling on financial measures by the United Kingdom in respect
                                                                         of the coal industry in the 1994/95 and 1995/96 financial year
                                                                         (OJ L 379, 31.12.1994, p. 6).
2. Do paragraphs (b) or (c) of Article 4 of the ECSC
    Treaty or paragraphs (1) or (4) of Article 9 of
    Commission Decision No 3632/93/ECSC produce
    direct effects and confer on private undertakings the
    right, enforceable in national courts, to defend a claim
    for mining royalties made by a public body and to
                                                                     Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
    claim restitution of royalties paid to it, in particular in
                                                                     Cagliari, by order of that court of 23 March 1998 in the
    the absence of a Commission Decision made pursuant
                                                                     case of Azienda Agricola Monte Arcosu Srl against
    to Article 67 or Article 88 of the ECSC Treaty or
                                                                     Regione       Autonoma         della   Sardegna,     Organismo
    Commission Decision No 3632/93/ECSC or otherwise
                                                                     Comprensoriale No 24 della Sardegna and ERSAT Ð Ente
    to the effect that the matters alleged constitute
                                                                           Regionale per l'Assistenza Tecnica in Agricoltura
    discrimination', a special charge' or aid'?
                                                                                              (Case C-403/98)
                                                                                               (1999/C 20/26)
3. If so, may a national court determine that there is
    discrimination' within the meaning of paragraph (b)
    of Article 4 of the ECSC Treaty or a special charge'            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    within the meaning of paragraph (c) thereof or aid'             European Communities by order of the Tribunale di
    within the meaning of paragraph (c) thereof or of                Cagliari of 23 March 1998, received at the Court Registry
    Article 1 of Commission Decision No 3632/93/ECSC                 on 13 November 1998, for a preliminary ruling on the
    notwithstanding:                                                 interpretation of Article 2(5) of Council Regulation (EEC)
                                                                     No 797/85 (1) of 12 March 1985 and Article 5(5) of
                                                                     subsequent Council Regulation (EEC) No 2328/91 (2) of
    Ð Commission Decision 94/995/ECSC (2);                           15 July 1991 in the case of Azienda Agricola Monte
 ---pagebreak--- 23.1.1999             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 20/17
Arcosu Srl    against Regione Autonoma della Sardegna,              2. If the answer to the questions at (1) above leads to the
Organismo     Comprensoriale No 24 della Sardegna and                   conclusion that the carnet holder has not failed to
ERSAT Ð       Ente Regionale per l'Assistenza Tecnica in                comply with the time-limit for proving the actual place
Agricoltura  on the following questions:                                where the offence or irregularity was committed:
(1) Despite the silence of the Italian legislature, is it in
     any event possible to apply the Community                          What are the requirements for furnishing satisfactory
     provisions in question to persons other than natural               proof of the place where the offence or irregularity
     persons, and in particular to companies having legal               was actually committed in the course of a transport
     personality?                                                       operation carried out under cover of a TIR carnet
                                                                        (first subparagraph of Article 454(3) of Commission
(2) If an affirmative answer is given to the first question,            Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93)? May a statement by
     what are the necessary and sufficient conditions for               the carnet holder and the testimony of the lorry driver
     conferring the status of farmers practising farming as             who has effected the transport for the carnet holder be
     their main occupation on persons other than natural                sufficient proof, or can proof only be provided by
     persons and, in particular, on companies with legal                documents which unambiguously show that the
     personality?                                                       competent authorities of the other Member State have
                                                                        found that the offence or irregularity was committed
                                                                        on their territory?
(1) OJ L 93, 30.3.1985, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 218, 6.8.1991, p. 1.
                                                                    3. If the Court of Justice considers that proof of the
                                                                        actual place where the offence or irregularity was
                                                                        committed was provided in due time, and considers it
                                                                        permissible to adduce such proof in the manner
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundes-                     described:
finanzhof by order of that court of 6 October 1998 in the
case of Hauptzollamt Neubrandenburg v. SAGPOL s.c.
        Transport MicËdzynarodowy i Spedycja (PL)                       Are the third and fourth subparagraphs of
                       (Case C-406/98)                                  Article 454(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 to be
                                                                        interpreted as meaning that they also apply in cases
                        (1999/C 20/27)
                                                                        where the duties were recovered in the Member State
                                                                        where the offence or irregularity was detected, even
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of                      though it has been proved within the period prescribed
the European Communities by an order of the                             by the first subparagraph of Article 454(3) and by
Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court) of 6 October                    Article 455(1) of Regulation No 2454/93 that the
1998, which was received at the Court Registry on                       offence or irregularity was actually committed in
16 November 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of               another Member State?
Hauptzollamt Neubrandenburg v. SAGPOL s.c. Transport
MicËdzynarodowy i Spedycja (PL) on the following
questions:
1. Is it compatible with the first subparagraph of
    Article 454(3) and with Article 455(1) of Commission
    Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 laying down provisions              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
    for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC)              Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division,
    No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs                   Divisional Court, by order of that court of 15 October
    Code (OJ L 253, 11.10.1993, p. 1) if, where a                   1998, in the case of Commissioners of Customs and
    consignment which has been cleared for the external                           Excise against Mirror Group plc.
    transit procedure under a TIR carnet is not produced
    at the destination, the customs authorities of the                                    (Case C-409/98)
    Member State of dispatch set the carnet holder a
                                                                                            (1999/C 20/28)
    preclusive period of three months in which to provide
    satisfactory proof of the actual place where the offence
    or irregularity was committed, with the consequence
    that proof which is produced later leaves unaffected            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    the competence of the Member State of dispatch to               European Communities by an order of the High Court of
    recover the duties?                                             Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division,
                                                                    Divisional Court, of 15 October 1998, which was received
    If the above question is answered in the negative:              at the Court Registry on 17 November 1998, for a
    Within what period may the carnet holder prove the              preliminary ruling in the case of Commissioners of
    actual place where the offence or irregularity has been         Customs and Excise against Mirror Group plc, on the
    committed?                                                      following questions: