CELEX: C1999/086/14
Language: en
Date: 1999-03-27 00:00:00
Title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht Bremen by order of that court of 4 August 1998 in the case of Hans Sommer GmbH & Co against Hauptzollamt Bremen (Case C-15/99)

27.3.1999             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 86/7
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht              The applicant claims that the Court should:
Regensburg by order of that court of 16 December 1998
in the Business registry case relating to Firma Wiesenhof
   Geflügelspezialitäten, a branch of Lohmann & Co. AG             Ð declare that, by failing to adopt the necessary laws,
                                                                        regulations and administrative provisions to transpose
                        (Case C-5/99)
                                                                        Article 11 of European Parliament and Council
                       (1999/C 86/12)                                   Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on
                                                                        packaging and packaging waste (1), the Kingdom of
                                                                        Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
                                                                        directive;
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Landgericht
Regensburg (Regional Court, Regensburg) of 16 December             Ð order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
1998, received at the Court Registry on 7 January 1999,
for a preliminary ruling in the commercial register case
relating to Firma Wiesenhof Geflügelspezialitäten, a               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
branch establishment of Lohmann & Co. AG, on the
following questions:
                                                                   Subject to certain exceptions in Article 11(2) and
                                                                   Article (3), Article 11 of Directive 94/62/EC provides that
(a) Are Articles 10 and 12 of Directive 69/335/EEC (1) to          Member States are to ensure that the sum of concentration
    be interpreted as meaning that the terms duties' and          levels of lead, cadmium, mercury and hexavelant
    duties paid by way of fees or dues' extend to fees            chromium present in packaging or packaging components
    payable by citizens for registration of a company in           does not exceed:
    the commercial register by a Court of a Member
    State?
                                                                   Ð 600 ppm by weight 2 years after the date referred to
                                                                        in Article 22(1);
(b) If Articles 10 and 12 of Directive 69/335/EEC are held
    to apply to fees demanded by courts:
                                                                   Ð 250 ppm weight 3 years after the date referred to in
                                                                        Article 22(1);
    Are Articles 10 and 12 of Directive 69/335/EEC to be
    interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as
    Sections 32 and 79 ff of the German Court Fee Rules,           Ð 100 ppm weight 5 years after the date referred to in
    requiring payment of a fee for registration of a                    Article 22(1).
    company in the commercial register, which increases
    proportionally to the company's share capital, with no
    upper limit, and in this case amounts to                       The date referred to in Article 22(1) is 30 June 1996.
    DEM 34 910,00 to register a branch establishment of
    a company?
                                                                   It is not disputed, nor can it be disputed, that the
                                                                   Kingdom of Belgium has not adopted any measure to
(1) OJ L 249, 3.10.1969, p. 25.                                    transpose the provisions of Article 11 of the directive into
                                                                   its domestic law.
                                                                   (1) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994, p. 10.
Action brought on 19 January 1999 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                            Belgium
                       (Case C-14/99)                              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht
                                                                   Bremen by order of that court of 4 August 1998 in the
                       (1999/C 86/13)                              case of Hans Sommer GmbH & Co against Hauptzollamt
                                                                                               Bremen
                                                                                          (Case C-15/99)
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                                   (1999/C 86/14)
on 19 January 1999 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Götz zur Hausen, Legal
Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,               European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht Bre-
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                          men (Finance Court, Bremen) of 4 August 1998, received
 ---pagebreak--- C 86/8                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   27.3.1999
at the Court Registry on 20 January 1999, for a                      with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Office of
preliminary ruling in the case of Hans Sommer GmbH &                 Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner
Co v. Hauptzollamt Bremen on the following questions:                Centre, Kirchberg.
1. Are expenses' or handling costs' relating to honey
     imported from the USSR from 1989 to 1991 charged                The Commission claims that the Court sholud:
     by the German import company to the purchaser
     pursuant to separate contractual arrangements part of
     the transaction value under Article 3(1) of Council             Ð order the defendant to refund to the Commission all
     Regulation (EEC) No 1224/80 of 28 May 1988 on the                   the financing which it has received from the
     valuation of goods for customs purposes (OJ L 134,                  Community, namely to pay the entire amount of the
     31.8.1980, p. 1), as ameded by Regulation (EEC)                     debt of ECU (now EUR) 350 641,99 together with
     No 3193/80 (OJ L 333, 11.12.1980, p. 1), if after                   interest calculated in accordance with the provisions of
     importation the import company must take samples                    the agreement amounting, up until 31 December 1998,
     for establishing the quality of the honey in accordance             to ECU (now EUR) 49 129,18, that is to say a total
     with the German Honey Regulation and provide the                    amount of ECU (now EUR) 399 771,17, and
     results of the chemical analyses?                                   additionally interest at 2 % above the rate of the
                                                                         European Monetary Cooperation Fund in respect of
                                                                         the period from 1 January 1999 until the defendant
2. If question 1 is answered in the affirmative:                         has fully discharged its debt;
     Is Commission Decision K(95) 2325 of 28 September
     1995 null and void?                                             Ð order the defendant to pay the Commission's general
                                                                         legal costs including the fees of its authorised lawyers.
3. If question 2 is answered in the affirmative:
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     Must the authorities refrain from post-clearance
     recovery of duties pursuant to Article 5(2) of Council
     Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 if, upon an external                The objects of the defendant company are the design,
     check concerning imports in an earlier period and               construction, installation, operation and supervision of
     following a check review, they raised no objection to           apparatus for the exploitation of wind energy in order to
     the fact that a global sum for expenses was not                 produce and sell electric current.
     included in the customs value in the case of similar
     purchase transactions and it is not clear that the trader
     could have been in doubt as to whether the result of            The action, which has been brought pursuant to an
     the check was right?                                            arbitration clause, seeks the refund of financial assistance
                                                                     granted by the Commission to the defendant for the
4. If question 3 is answered in the negative:                        realisation and demonstration of a pilot wind-energy
                                                                     programme under which a wind farm was to be installed
                                                                     on the south-east cost of Crete in the area of Sitia. The
     Do the circumstances set out in question 3 amount               Commission decided to terminate the contract entered into
     to special circumstances' within the meaning of                by the parties under English law, on the ground that the
     Article 13 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79               defendant had infringed its obligations.
     justifying the remission of import duties?
Action brought on 26 January 1999 by the Commission of               Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supremo Tribu-
the European Communities against Aiolika Parka Sitias                nal Administrativo, Second Chamber, by judgment of that
                             A.E.                                    Court of 9 December 1998, in the case of Modelo Conti-
                        (Case C-18/99)                                          nente, SGPS, SA and Fazenda PuÂblica
                        (1999/C 86/15)                                                      (Case C-19/99)
                                                                                            (1999/C 86/16)
An action against Aiolika Parka Sitias A.E. was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
on 26 January 1999 by the Commission of the European                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Communities, represented by Richard Wainwright,                      European Communities by an judgment of the Second
Principal Legal Adviser, and Olivier Couvert-CasteÂra, a             Chamber of the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo
civil servant on secondment to its Legal Service under the           (Supreme Administrative Court) of 9 December 1998,
scheme for national experts, assisted by Maria Bra, of the           which was received at the Court Registry on 28 January
Brussels Bar, and Kiriaki Kapoutzidou, of the Athens Bar,            1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Modelo Con-