CELEX: C2003/171/11
Language: en
Date: 2003-07-19 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 May 2003 in Case C-335/02: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Incomplete transposition of Directive 89/391/EEC — Safety and health of workers)

C 171/8                  EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                              19.7.2003
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (First Chamber)
                                                                                                      (Fourth Chamber)
                           of 22 May 2003
                                                                                                        of 22 May 2003
in Case C-56/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Bundesfinanzhof): IHW Rebmann GmbH v
                     Hauptzollamt Weiden (1)                                 in Case C-335/02: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                         ties v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg ( 1)
(Free movement of goods — Trade with third countries —
Procedure for returned goods — Article 187 of Regulation                     (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Incomplete
(EEC) No 2913/92 — Reimportation of compensating                             transposition of Directive 89/391/EEC — Safety and health
products originally re-exported subsequent to an inward                                                    of workers)
processing procedure — Determination of the import duty
legally owed — Burden of proof in respect of the proportion
of the value of the reimported products corresponding to
                                                                                                        (2003/C 171/11)
                         inward processing)
                           (2003/C 171/10)                                                        (Language of the case: French)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                                 in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             In Case C-335/02, Commission of the European Communities
In Case C-56/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC                 (Agents: H. Kreppel and D. Martin) v Grand Duchy of
by the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in                 Luxembourg (Agent: S. Schreiner): Application for a declar-
the proceedings pending before that court between IHW                        ation that, by failing to define the necessary capabilities and
Rebmann GmbH and Hauptzollamt Weiden, on the interpret-                      aptitudes for persons designated to carry out activities related
ation of the second paragraph of Article 187 of Council                      to protection against and prevention of occupational risks, the
Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing                  Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations
the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1), the                        under Articles 10 EC and 249 EC and Article 7(8) of Council
Court (First Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of                Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of
the Chamber, P. Jann and A. Rosas (Rapporteur), Judges;                      measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health
D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Princi-                of workers at work (OJ 1989 L 183, p. 1), the Court (Fourth
pal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of
22 May 2002, in which it has ruled:                                          the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and S. von Bahr (Rapporteur),
                                                                             Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,
The second paragraph of Article 187 of Council Regulation (EEC)              has given a judgment on 22 May 2003, in which it:
No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community
Customs Code must be interpreted as meaning that, where an
importer has provided proof that the imported goods are compensating         1.    Declares that, by failing to define the necessary capabilities and
products qualifying for application of the procedure for returned                  aptitudes for persons designated to carry out activities related to
goods under Article 848 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/                    protection against and prevention of occupational risks, the
93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of                 Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations
Regulation No 2913/92, but is unable to provide all the information                under Article 7(8) of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of
necessary for calculating the duty legally owed, the administrative                12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage
cooperation procedure provided for in Articles 611(2)(b) and 613 of                improvements in the safety and health of workers at work.
Regulation No 2454/93 must be used by the customs authorities
responsible for accepting the declaration. Those authorities must
                                                                             2.    Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
therefore ask the supervising customs office, using the INF 1 sheet, to
communicate to them the amount of duty legally owed.
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 261, 26.10.2002.
( 1) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.