CELEX: C2002/202/18
Language: en
Date: 2002-08-24 00:00:00
Title: Case C-239/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Rechtbank van Koophandel, Hasselt, by order of that Court of 28 June 2002 in the case of Douwe Egberts NV against 1. Westrom Pharma NV and 2. Souranis Christophe and in the case of NV Douwe Egberts against BVBA Fics-World

C 202/12               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       24.8.2002
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-
Beroep by order of 12 June 2002 in the case of J. Slob                 hof by order of that Court of 7 May 2002 in the case of
                     v Productschap Zuivel                             Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen against Kazimieras Viluck-
                                                                                                        as
                         (Case C-236/02)
                                                                                                (Case C-238/02)
                         (2002/C 202/15)
                                                                                                (2002/C 202/17)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 12 June 2002 by the
College van Beroep, which was received at the Court Registry           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
on 27 June 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of J. Slob       European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof
v Productschap Zuivel on the following question:                       (Federal Finance Court) of 7 May 2002, received at the Court
                                                                       Registry on 28 June 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case
Can it be inferred from Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation (EEC)            of Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen against Kazimieras Viluckas
No 536/93 (1) that the producer is obliged to maintain                 on the following questions:
accounts recording among other things, the availability, pro-
duction, storage, use, processing and destruction of milk and/         1.   Is Article 4(19) of the Customs Code to be interpreted as
or milk products on his holding, such ‘stock accounts’ also                 meaning that the notification to the customs authorities
being required to contain declarations of the quantity per                  of the arrival at a particular place of goods introduced into
month and per product of the milk and/or milk products sold,                the Community customs territory must refer expressly
or does that provision only lay down an obligation to record                to goods which are hidden or concealed in secret
those data as to sales?                                                     compartments?
(1) OJ 1993 L 57, p. 12.
                                                                       2.   If Question 1 is answered affirmatively:
                                                                            Is Article 40 of the Customs Code to be interpreted as
                                                                            meaning that such notification must also be made by the
                                                                            driver of a lorry, or a co-driver also entitled to drive it,
                                                                            who was not aware and should not have been aware of
                                                                            the goods hidden or concealed in the lorry?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesge-
richtshof by order of that Court of 2 May 2002 in the case             3.   If Question 2 is answered affirmatively:
of Freiburger Kommunalbauten GmbH Baugesellschaft &
  Co. KG against Ulrike Hofstetter and Ludger Hofstetter                    Is the identity of the person who actually gave the
                                                                            (incomplete) notification a material factor in determining
                         (Case C-237/02)                                    the customs debtor under the first indent of Article 202(3)
                                                                            of the Customs Code?
                         (2002/C 202/16)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundesgerichtshof
(Federal Court of Justice) of 2 May 2002, received at the Court
Registry on 27 June 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Rechtbank van
of Freiburger Kommunalbauten GmbH Baugesellschaft & Co.                Koophandel, Hasselt, by order of that Court of 28 June
KG against Ulrike Hofstetter and Ludger Hofstetter on the              2002 in the case of Douwe Egberts NV against 1. Westrom
following question:                                                    Pharma NV and 2. Souranis Christophe and in the case of
                                                                              NV Douwe Egberts against BVBA Fics-World
Is a term, contained in a seller’s standard business conditions,
which provides that the purchaser of a building which is to be
                                                                                                (Case C-239/02)
constructed is to pay the total price for that building,
irrespective of whether there has been any progress in the
construction, provided that the seller has previously provided                                  (2002/C 202/18)
him with a guarantee from a credit institution securing any
monetary claims the purchaser may have in respect of defective
performance or non-performance of the contract, to be                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
regarded as unfair within the meaning of Article 3(1) of               European Communities by order of the Rechtbank van
Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair              Koophandel (Commercial Court), Hasselt, of 28 June 2002,
terms in consumer contracts?                                           received at the Court Registry on 1st July 2002, for a
                                                                       preliminary ruling in the case of Douwe Egberts NV against
(1) OJ L 95 of 21.4.1993, p. 29.                                       1. Westrom Pharma NV and 2. Souranis Christophe and in the
                                                                       case of NV Douwe Egberts against BVBA Fics-World on the
                                                                       following questions:
 ---pagebreak--- 24.8.2002             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 202/13
A.1. Must Article 2 of Directive 1999/4/EC (1) relating to               B.2. Must Article 18(2) of Directive 2000/13/EC be interpreted
     coffee extracts and chicory extracts be interpreted as                    as meaning that ‘protection of public health’ must be
     meaning that exclusively the product names listed in the                  understood to include non-harmonised national pro-
     Annex to that directive may be used for the products                      visions on the labelling and presentation of foodstuffs
     referred to in that Annex and that other names may not                    and on advertising for them which prohibit certain
     be used alongside those products names (e.g. an invented                  statements such as ‘references to slimming’ and ‘references
     or trade name) or must Article 2 be interpreted as                        to medical recommendations, attestations, quotations or
     meaning that the product names listed in the Annex may                    statements of approval’?
     be used only for the products referred to in that annex
     but that, alongside those product names, other names
     may also be used for those products (e.g. an invented or
     trade name)?                                                        C.    Must Article 28 of the EC Treaty be interpreted as
                                                                               meaning that national provisions on the labelling and
                                                                               presentation of foodstuffs and on advertising for them
                                                                               which are not harmonised at European level and which
A.2. If the Court of Justice of the European Communities                       deviate from Directive 2000/13/EC inasmuch as they
     considers that Article 2 of Directive 1999/4/EC of the                    prohibit certain statements in the labelling and/or presen-
     European Parliament and of the Council of 22 February                     tation of foodstuffs and/or advertising for them, such
     1999 relating to coffee extracts and chicory extracts must                as ‘references to slimming’ and ‘references to medical
     be interpreted as meaning that exclusively the product                    recommendations, attestations, quotations or statements
     names listed in the Annex to that directive may be used                   of approval’, must be regarded as measures having
     for the products referred to in that Annex and that other                 equivalent effect and/or quantitative restrictions on
     names may not be used alongside those product names                       imports between Member States of the European Com-
     (e.g. an invented or trade name), does it not then follow                 munity, inasmuch as those national provisions:
     that this directive conflicts with Article 28 of the EC
     Treaty, which prohibits quantitative restrictions on
     imports and all measures having equivalent effect between
     Member States of the European Community, because the                      —     impose an additional burden upon the import of
     directive, so interpreted, excludes, as regards products                        foodstuffs in the bringing of those products into line
     falling within its definition of extracts of coffee:                            with the national legislation and in so doing hinder
                                                                                     trade between Member States
     —     the use of names other than ‘coffee extract’, or                          and
           ‘instant coffee’, such as the name ‘coffee’;
                                                                               —     do not apply to all participants concerned in the
     —     in so doing, reserves use of the name ‘coffee’ for one                    market who pursue their activities in the national
           single form of ‘coffee’, namely the coffee bean;                          territory inasmuch as there are products of a wholly
                                                                                     similar nature (e.g. cosmetic products) to which
                                                                                     those provisions do not apply and to which no other
                                                                                     equivalent provision applies, and that consequently
     —     and thereby artificially protects the coffee market                       those provisions may not be applied by the national
           from competing products consisting of forms of                            court?
           coffee other than coffee beans, such as inter alia
           coffee extracts and instant coffee?
                                                                         (1) Directive 1999/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the
B.1. Must Article 18(1) and Article 18(2) of Directive 2000/                 Council of 22 February 1999 relating to coffee extracts and
     13/EC (2) be interpreted as meaning that non-harmonised                 chicory extracts (OJ L 66 of 13.3.1999, p. 26).
     national provisions on the labelling and presentation of            (2) Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the
     foodstuffs and on advertising for them which prohibit                   Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of
     certain statements such as ‘references to slimming’ and                 the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and
     ‘references to medical recommendations, attestations,                   advertising of foodstuffs (OJ L 109 of 6.5.2000, p. 29).
     quotations or statements of approval’ in the labelling and/
     or presentation of foodstuffs and/or advertising for them,
     even though such statements are not prohibited by the
     Directive, constitute infringements of the Directive in
     view of the fact that the eighth recital of the Directive
     states that the most appropriate labelling is the one which
     creates fewest obstacles to free trade and that therefore
     these national provisions cannot be applied?