CELEX: C2002/084/73
Language: en
Date: 2002-04-06 00:00:00
Title: Case C-460/01: Action brought on 28 November 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands

C 84/42               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       6.4.2002
implication an obligation on the Member States to observe the               and for certain simplifications of that procedure (1), the
period for compliance laid down in the directive. That period               third sentence of Article 49(2) of Commission Regulation
has expired without Ireland having enacted the provisions                   (EEC) No 1214/92 of 21 April 1992 on provisions for
necessary to comply with the directives referred to in the                  the implementation of the Community transit procedure
conclusions of the Commission.                                              and for certain simplifications of that procedure (2) and
                                                                            the third sentence of Article 379(2) of Commission
                                                                            Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying
(1) OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 31-50.                                         down provisions for the implementation of Council
(2) OJ L 024, 30.1.1998, p. 1.                                              Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Com-
                                                                            munity Customs Code (3) and under Articles 2 and 9 to
                                                                            11 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89
                                                                            of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC,
                                                                            Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own
                                                                            resources (4);
Action brought on 28 November 2001 by the Com-                        (2) order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
mission of the European Communities against the
                 Kingdom of the Netherlands
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments
                         (Case C-460/01)
                                                                      —     Infringement of the second sentence of the second
                          (2002/C 84/73)                                    subparagraph of Article 11(2) of Regulation No 1062/87,
                                                                            the third sentence of Article 49(2) of Regulation
                                                                            No 1214/92 and the third sentence of Article 379(2) of
                                                                            Regulation No 2454/93 (the regulation implementing the
An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought                Community        Customs      Code,     hereinafter     ‘the
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                  implementing regulation’): Article 96 of Regulation
28 November 2001 by the Commission of the European                          No 2913/92 (5) (the Community Customs Code, herein-
Communities, represented by H.M.H. Speyart and G. Wilms,                    after ‘the CCC’) and Articles 356 and 379 of the
acting as Agents.                                                           implementing regulation lay down mandatory time-limits
                                                                            for the acts to be performed by the declarant and the
                                                                            offices of departures and destination in the context of an
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 external Community transit procedure, in particular
                                                                            where a consignment covered by that transit procedure
(1) declare that, by having, between 1 January 1991 and                     is not presented in good time to the office of destination.
     31 December 1995:                                                      The Netherlands and the Commission are in disagreement
                                                                            concerning the correct application of the period of three
     —     failed, where the declarant in an external Com-                  months which starts to run on the day of notification
           munity transit procedure has not, within three                   of non-discharge (Article 379(2) of the implementing
           months from notification by the customs office                   regulation and analogous previous provisions). That time-
           of departure that the consignment has not been                   limit is primarily binding on the declarant, since he is
           presented at the customs office of destination,                  required within that period to furnish proof of the
           furnished proof of the regularity of the transit                 regularity of the transit operation concerned. However,
           operation concerned — at the latest on the third day             that time-limit is also binding on the Member State in
           following the expiry of that time-limit, to take steps           which the customs office of departure is located, inas-
           to enter in the accounts and recover the customs                 much as it follows from the penultimate sentence of
           debt and other charges involved, or by having done               Article 317(2) of the implementing regulation that where,
           so later than provided for by Regulation (EEC,                   following the expiry of that time-limit, proof has not
           Euratom) No 1182/71 of the Council of 3 June                     been furnished by the declarant, the Member State
           1971 determining the rules applicable to periods,                concerned is required to take prompt steps to recover the
           dates and time limits (OJ, English Special Edition               customs debt in question. On the first day of the fourth
           1971 (II), p. 354);                                              month after notification of non-discharge, the office of
                                                                            departure has available to it all the particulars necessary
     —     failed promptly to make available to the Com-                    in order to calculate the customs debt in question
           mission the own resources relating thereto; and                  (Article 217(1) and the opening wording and subpara-
                                                                            graph (a) of 218(3) of the CCC) and to identify the debtor
     —     refused to pay the default interest connected there-             concerned — in this case, the declarant (opening wording
           with,                                                            and subparagraph (b) of 218(3) of the CCC). Under
                                                                            Articles 218 and 219 of the CCC, the debt must then be
     the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its                entered in the accounts within two days or, in certain
     obligations under the second sentence of the second                    circumstances, within 14 days. Consequently, subject to
     subparagraph of Article 11(2) of Commission Regulation                 possible extension of the time-limit pursuant to
     (EEC) No 1062/87 of 27 March 1987 on provisions for                    Article 219 of the CCC, the Member State has no
     the implementation of the Community transit procedure                  discretion enabling it to decide at what point in time it
 ---pagebreak--- 6.4.2002               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 84/43
      should proceed to enter the customs debt in question in          (1) Does Article 28 of the Treaty of Rome permit a Member
      the accounts. By virtue of Article 221(1) of the CCC, the             State to prohibit cultivation or other processing of
      Member State is required to take immediate steps,                     ‘industrial hemp’ allowed under EC regulations?
      following the entry in the accounts, to recover the debt
      by communicating the amount thereof to the debtor. The
      Netherlands is incorrect in its view that it may take as         (2) If that is not the case, can an exception nevertheless be
      much time as it wishes to carry out a careful assessment,             made under Article 30 of the Treaty of Rome with the
      ‘having regard to the quantity and complexity of the                  result that such a prohibition does not conflict with EC
      evidence produced in a given case’. The argument                      law?
      advanced by the Netherlands can only be regarded as
      seeking the application of Article 219 of the CCC.
      However, Articles 218 and 219 of the CCC are provisions          (3) If that is not the case, can the Swedish prohibition be
      designed to safeguard the financial interests of the                  accepted on some other ground?
      Community, for which customs receipts constitute a
      form of own resources, and which thus has an interest in
      the rapid determination of those receipts. Consequently,
      it is not open to the Member States to invoke, at will,
      extensions under Article 219 of the CCC as against the
      Commission. On the contrary, the Member States must
      always show why the reasons invoked by them render it
      necessary to extend the time-limit for entry in the
      accounts.
—     Infringement of Articles 9 and 10 of Regulation
      No 1552/89.                                                      Action brought on 4 December 2001 by the Commission
                                                                       of the European Communities against the Republic of
—     Infringement of Article 11 of Regulation No 1552/89:                                         Austria
      the infringements complained of in the last two pleas are
      necessary consequences of the infringement described in
      the first plea. During the period in question, the Nether-
      lands failed to make the principal sum available. In                                    (Case C-465/01)
      addition, it has hitherto constantly refused to pay the
      corresponding default interest. Since the end of 1996
      the Commission has been requesting the Netherlands
                                                                                               (2002/C 84/75)
      authorities to pay to it the sum of NLG 5 323 395,06 by
      way of default interest.
( 1) OJ 1987 L 107, p. 1.
( 2) OJ 1992 L 132, p. 1.
( 3) OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1.                                              An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
( 4) OJ 1989 L 155, p. 1.                                              before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
( 5) OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.                                              4 December 2001 by the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities, represented by Jörn Sack, Legal Adviser in the
                                                                       Commission of the European Communities, with an address
                                                                       for service at the office of Luis Escobar Guerrero, of the
                                                                       Commission’s Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg, Lux-
                                                                       embourg.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Halmstads
Tingsrätt (Sweden) by order of that court of 8 November
      2001 in the case of Åklagaren v Ulf Hammarsten
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
                          (Case C-462/01)
                                                                       (1) declare that:
                           (2002/C 84/74)
                                                                            (a)  by excluding workers from other EC/EEA Member
                                                                                 States from the right to stand for election to
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                           chambers of workers, the Republic of Austria has
European Communities by order of the Halmstads Tingsrätt                         failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8 of
(District Court, Halmstad) of 8 November 2001, which was                         Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 (1) on freedom of
received at the Court Registry on 3 December 2001, for a                         movement for workers within the Community and
preliminary ruling in the case of Åklagaren v Ulf Hammarsten                     under Article 28 of the Agreement on the European
on the following questions:                                                      Economic Area;