CELEX: C2004/071/16
Language: en
Date: 2004-03-20 00:00:00
Title: Case C-24/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Dioikitiko Protodikeio Athinon by order of 30 September 2003 in the case of SPHAKIANAKIS AEBE v Greek State

20.3.2004              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 71/11
2.   Is Article 32 of Protocol 4 mentioned above to be                    Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Dioikitiko
     construed as meaning that the customs authorities of the             Protodikeio Athinon by order of 30 September 2003 in
     importing Member State are required to take into account                  the case of SPHAKIANAKIS AEBE v Greek State
     the decisions of the courts of the exporting State over-
     turning the outcome of investigations ordered and carried
     out by the Hungarian authorities after the export oper-                                       (Case C-24/04)
     ation, regard being had to the fact that
                                                                                                   (2004/C 71/16)
     (a)   the authorities of the importing State were duly
           informed both of the fact that proceedings were
           pending before the Hungarian courts and of the
           outcome of the relevant procedures and                         By order of 30 September 2003, which was received at the
                                                                          registry of the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                          on 26 January 2004, the Dioikitiko Protodikeio Athinon seeks
     (b) those authorities never asked for any investigation              from the Court, in the context of the dispute pending before
           to be carried out;                                             it between SPHAKIANAKIS AEBE and the Greek State, a
                                                                          preliminary ruling on the following questions:
3.   If the answer to the above questions is affirmative are the
     abovementioned provisions of Community law to be                     The questions in the present case are identical to the questions
     construed as not permitting the adoption of administrat-             in Case C-23/04.
     ive acts imposing additional duties charges and taxes
     issued by the national authorities of the importing State
     after notification by the Hungarian authorities of the
     outcome of the investigation conducted by them but
     before publication of the court decisions overturning the
     results of the investigation for the purpose of elucidating
     the due result of the prohibition of the imposition of
     duties by the association agreement between the EU and               Action brought on 27 January 2004 by the Commission
     Hungary, in light also of the fact finally that the EUR.1            of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
     certificates issued were correct;                                                                   Spain
4.   In that connection are the above questions affected by                                        (Case C-26/04)
     the fact that neither the Greek nor the Hungarian
     authorities sought convocation of the association com-
     mittee mentioned in Article 33 of Protocol 4 for the                                          (2004/C 71/17)
     purpose of reaching a determination in that connection,
     a situation which demonstrates that neither of the two
     authorities considered that adoption of the decisions of
     the Hungarian courts constituted a dispute between them              An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
     which ought to have been brought before that committee               the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 Janu-
     for a determination?                                                 ary 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                          represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana, of the Commission’s
                                                                          Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
5.   In the alternative, if the answer to the foregoing questions
     is in the negative, if therefore the Greek customs auth-
     orities did not infringe the abovementioned provisions of            The applicant claims that the Court should:
     Community law by the imposition of additional duty,
     VAT and a penalty is it then possible to take the view that          —     declare that, by failing to officially designate the beaches
     the ex post determination of duties as against the importer                ‘A Videira’, ‘Niño de Corvo’ and ‘Canabal’ in Moaña, Ría
     is not permitted under Article 220(2) of the Common                        de Vigo, Comunidad Autónoma de Galicia, the Kingdom
     customs code on the ground of error by the customs                         of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under
     authorities of either the importing or exporting State,                    Article 4(1) of Council Directive 76/160/EEC (1) of
     regard being had in particular to the fact that the customs                8 December 1975 concerning the quality of bathing
     authorities of the exporting State had available to then all               water;
     the factual elements in connection with the manufacture
     of the vehicles intended for export as the basis for issue
                                                                          —     declare that, by failing to adopt a pollution-reduction
     of the EUR.1 certificate, with the result that the authorities
                                                                                programme for the Ría de Vigo, the Kingdom of Spain
     of the importing State might be in a position to ascertain
                                                                                has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5 of
     ex officio the duty lawfully payable?
                                                                                Council Directive 79/923/EEC (2) of 30 October 1979 on
                                                                                the quality required of shellfish waters;
                                                                          —     order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.