CELEX: C2003/031/06
Language: en
Date: 2003-02-08 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court of 10 December 2002 in Case C-491/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court): The Queen v Secretary of State for Health, ex parte: British American Tobacco (Investments) Ltd and Imperial Tobacco Ltd, supported by Japan Tobacco Inc. and JT International SA (Directive 2001/37/EC — Manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products — Validity — Legal basis — Articles 95 EC and 133 EC — Interpretation — Applicability to tobacco products manufactured in the Community and intended for export to non-member countries)

8.2.2003                 EN                            Official Journal of the European Union                                                 C 31/3
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                      cation for annulment of Council Decision 2001/469/EC of
court between F. W. L. de Groot and Staatssecretaris van                       14 May 2001 concerning the conclusion on behalf of the
Financiën, on the interpretation of Article 48 of the EC Treaty                European Community of the Agreement between the Govern-
(now, after amendment, Article 39 EC) and Article 7 of                         ment of the United States of America and the European
Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October                       Community on the coordination of energy-efficient labelling
1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the                             programs for office equipment (OJ 2001 L 172, p. 1), the Court
Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475), the                 (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet (Rapporteur),
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet (Rappor-                       President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola,
teur), President of the Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans,                            P. Jann and S. von Bahr, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General;
D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann and A. Rosas, Judges; P. Léger,                         H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Administrator, for the Regis-                  a judgment on 12 December 2002, in which it:
trar, has given a judgment on 12 December 2002, in which it
has ruled:
                                                                               1.    Annuls Council Decision 2001/469/EC of 14 May 2001
1.    Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39                  concerning the conclusion on behalf of the European Community
      EC) precludes rules such as those at issue in the main                         of the Agreement between the Government of the United States
      proceedings — irrespective of whether or not they are laid down                of America and the European Community on the coordination
      in a convention for the avoidance of double taxation — whereby                 of energy-efficient labelling programs for office equipment;
      a taxpayer forfeits, in the calculation of the income tax payable
      by him in his State of residence, part of the tax-free amount of         2.    Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.
      that income and of his personal tax advantages because, during
      the year in question, he also received income in another Member
      State which was taxed in that State without his personal and             (1 ) OJ C 275 of 29.9.2001.
      family circumstances being taken into account.
2.    Community law contains no specific requirement with regard to
      the way in which the State of residence must take into account
      the personal and family circumstances of a worker who, during
      a particular tax year, received income in that State and in
      another Member State, except that the conditions governing the
      way in which the State of residence takes those circumstances
      into account must not constitute discrimination, either direct or
      indirect, on grounds of nationality, or an obstacle to the exercise                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      of a fundamental freedom guaranteed by the EC Treaty.
                                                                                                      of 10 December 2002
( 1) OJ C 372 of 23.12.2000.
                                                                               in Case C-491/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                               the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s
                                                                               Bench Division (Administrative Court): The Queen v
                                                                               Secretary of State for Health, ex parte: British American
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                        Tobacco (Investments) Ltd and Imperial Tobacco Ltd,
                                                                               supported by Japan Tobacco Inc. and JT International
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                                                       SA (1)
                       of 12 December 2002                                     (Directive 2001/37/EC — Manufacture, presentation and
                                                                               sale of tobacco products — Validity — Legal basis —
in Case C-281/01: Commission of the European Communi-                          Articles 95 EC and 133 EC — Interpretation — Applicability
            ties v Council of the European Union ( 1)                          to tobacco products manufactured in the Community and
                                                                                        intended for export to non-member countries)
(International agreements — Community competence —
Legal basis — Articles 133 EC and 175(1) EC — Energy
Star Agreement — Energy-efficient labelling programmes                                                     (2003/C 31/06)
                        for office equipment)
                            (2003/C 31/05)                                                         (Language of the case: English)
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                               In Case C-491/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
In Case C-281/01, Commission of the European Communities                       EC by the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Queen’s
(Agents: H. van Lier and B. Martenczuk) v Council of the                       Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) for a
European Union (Agents: J.-P. Jacqué and E. Karlsson): Appli-                  preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
 ---pagebreak--- C 31/4                  EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                          8.2.2003
court between The Queen and Secretary of State for Health, ex                      has failed to fulfil its obligations under Community law
parte: British American Tobacco (Investments) Ltd and                              and in particular infringed Article 10 EC and Articles 2
Imperial Tobacco Ltd, supported by Japan Tobacco Inc. and JT                       and 8 of Council Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom of
International SA, on the validity and interpretation of Directive                  31 October 1994 on the system of the European
2001/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of                        Communities own resources ( 1);
5 June 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning
the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products
                                                                             —     order the Kingdom of Denmark to pay the costs of the
(OJ 2001 L 194, p. 26), the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrí-
                                                                                   present proceedings.
guez Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet,
R. Schintgen and C.W.A. Timmermans (Presidents of Cham-
bers), D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur), P. Jann,
V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and J.N. Cunha
Rodrigues, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; L. Hew-
lett, Principal Administrator, and M.-F. Contet, Administrator,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 December 2002,
in which it has ruled:                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
1.     Consideration of the first question has not disclosed any factor
       of such a kind as to affect the validity of Directive 2001/37/
       EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June
       2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and                The Community Customs Code regulates the relationship
       administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the         between undertakings and the national authorities, which
       manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products.               governs the collection of the traditional own resources on
                                                                             behalf of the Community, whereas the relationship between
                                                                             the Community and the Member States is regulated by the
2.     Article 7 of Directive 2001/37 is to be construed as applying
                                                                             provisions of the Community financing scheme, that is,
       only to tobacco products marketed within the European
                                                                             in particular, Council Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom, the
       Community.
                                                                             implementing provisions of Council Regulation No 1552/
                                                                             89 (2) and also the general obligations under Article 10 EC.
                                                                             The fact that a purely technical link is created between the two
( 1) OJ C 56 of 02.03.2002.
                                                                             aforementioned sets of rules, in that Regulation No 1552/89
                                                                             covers to a certain extent various stages which under the
                                                                             Community Customs Code are carried out as part of the
                                                                             determination of the amount of duty owing and the rules for
                                                                             collection thereof, has no bearing on the issue of national
                                                                             authorities’ financial liability to the Community for any errors
                                                                             committed in the course of collecting the traditional own
                                                                             resources. The protection given to the person liable for
Action brought on 8 November 2002 by the Commission                          payment by the Customs Code, in particular Article 220(2)(b)
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                           thereof, cannot be relied on by the Member State as against
                               Denmark                                       the Commission when that Member State has not collected the
                                                                             resources in question. If a Member State fails to collect the
                                                                             traditional own resources, it can, subject to certain conditions,
                           (Case C-392/02)                                   be freed from the obligation to place those resources at the
                                                                             disposal of the Commission only under Article 17 of Regu-
                                                                             lation No 1552/89.
                            (2003/C 31/07)
An action against the Kingdom of Denmark was brought                         In a number of cases in the period 1996-1997 the Danish
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                   authorities allowed the zero-rated import of frozen sugar peas
8 November 2002 by the Commission of the European                            from the People’s Republic of China, despite the fact that the
Communities, represented by H.P. Hartvig and G Wilms, acting                 undertaking in question did not have a permit to import the
as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                        goods at such a rate because of their particular end-use. There
                                                                             were even divergent opinions amongst the regional Danish
                                                                             authorities, which led to a finding on the part of the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  Commission, at the request of the Danish authorities and
                                                                             pursuant to Article 220(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC)
—      rule that since the Danish authorities have not transferred           No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community
       to the Commission an amount of DKK 140 409,60 from                    Customs Code ( 3) that, due to an error on the part of the
       its own resources together with default interest thereon              Danish authorities, it could not require the importer to pay
       as from 20 December 1999, the Kingdom of Denmark                      duty for any of the imports in question.