CELEX: C2001/227/13
Language: en
Date: 2001-08-11 00:00:00
Title: Case C-198/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale, Lazio, by order of 24 January 2001 in the case of Consorzio Industrie Fiammiferi (CIF) v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato

11.8.2001              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 227/9
      tories of sugar sector products with EC/OCT cumulation           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supremo
      of origin for the period 1 March to 30 June 2001;                Tribunal Administrativo, 2a Secçao, by judgment of that
                                                                       court of 4 April 2001 in the case of Fazenda Pública
2.    Order the Commission to pay the costs.                                             against Antero & CC.a, Lda
Pleas in law and main arguments
The Netherlands refers to the application made in Case                                         (Case C-203/01)
C-452/00 (2).
(1) OJ L 58 of 28.02.2001, p. 13.
(2) OJ C 45 of 10.02.2001, p. 12.                                                              (2001/C 227/14)
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by judgment of the Supremo Tribunal
                                                                       Administrativo, 2a Secçao (Second Chamber of the Supreme
                                                                       Administrative Court), of 4 April 2001, which was received at
                                                                       the Court Registry on 17 May 2001, for a preliminary ruling
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
                                                                       in the case of Fazenda Pública against Antero & CC.a, Lda on
Amministrativo Regionale, Lazio, by order of 24 January
                                                                       the following questions:
2001 in the case of Consorzio Industrie Fiammiferi (CIF)
    v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato
                         (Case C-198/01)                               1.   What is the meaning and scope of the expression
                                                                            ‘prise en compte’ used in the second subparagraph of
                                                                            Article 2(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 (1)
                         (2001/C 227/13)                                    of 24 July 1979?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 24 January 2001 by the
First Chamber of the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale                2.   Was the official act by which the amount of the import
(Regional Administrative Court), Lazio, which was received at               duties or export duties to be collected by the competent
the Court Registry on 11 March 2001, for a preliminary ruling               authorities is duly determined referred to in Article 1(2)(c)
in the case of Consorzio Industrie Fiammiferi (CIF) v Autorità              of that regulation ‘registo de liquidaçao’ (entry in the
Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato on the following                    accounts) or was it ‘liquidaçao’ (assessment), calculation
questions:                                                                  or computation of those duties by the customs auth-
                                                                            orities?
(1) Where an agreement between undertakings adversely
      affects Community trade, and where that agreement is
      required or facilitated by national legislation which
      legitimises or reinforces those effects, specifically with       3.   On 19 April 1988, was ‘registo de liquidaçao’ (entry in
      regard to the determination of prices or market-sharing               the accounts) a procedural requirement essential for
      arrangements, does Article 81 [EC] require or permit the              the validity of the assessment or was it a procedural
      official anti-trust Authority to disapply that measure                requirement rendering it enforceable or payable?
      and to penalise the anti-competitive conduct of the
      undertakings or, in any event, to prohibit it for the future,
      and if so, with what legal consequences?                         4.   On 19 April 1988, did assessment (calculation or compu-
                                                                            tation) of import duties duly notified to the debtor for
(2) For the purposes of applying Article 81(1) [EC], is
                                                                            post-clearance recovery, even where there is no entry in
      it possible to regard national legislation under which
                                                                            the accounts, render the customs debt due and payable?
      competence to fix the selling prices of a product is
      delegated to a ministry and power to allocate production
      between undertakings is entrusted to a consortium to
      which the relevant producers are obliged to belong, as           5.   Did the appeal against the order for payment of the
      leaving room for competition which is open to hindrance,              customs authorities which had refused to grant the
      restriction or distortion by the autonomous conduct of                application for remission of post-clearance recovery of
      those undertakings?                                                   duty and which was before the Portuguese courts from
                                                                            1988 until 15 November 1995 have the effect of
                                                                            suspending the period of three years for post-clearance
                                                                            recovery?