CELEX: C1997/295/39
Language: en
Date: 1997-09-27 00:00:00
Title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 26 June 1997 in the case of Georg Bruner, trading as Georg Bruner v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Case C-290/97)

27 . 9 . 97              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 295/23
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Ufficio del                     Is subheading 'ex 0207 41 11 ' in sector 8 of the Annex to
Giudice di Pace di Genova by order of that court of                       Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 3846/87 of 17 De­
16 July 1997 in the case of Eridania SpA against Azienda                  cember 1987 establishing an agricultural product
             Agricola San Luca di Rumagnoli Viannj                        nomenclature for export refunds ( OJ L 366, 24. 12 . 1987,
                                                                          p. 1 ), valid for the period from 21 June 1988 to
                          ( Case C-289/97 )
                                                                          16 January 1989, to be interpreted as meaning that the
                             ( 97/C 295/38 )                              term 'quarters' ( of chicken) also includes cuts of poultry
                                                                          not yet wholly separated from each other ('posteriori') as
                                                                          described more precisely in the grounds of this order ( J )?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    ( 1 ) Divided at right angles to the backbone, not longitudinally.
European Communities by order of the Ufficio del Giudice
di Pace di Genova (Magistrate's Court, Genoa ), of 16 July
1997, received at the Court Registry on 4 August 1997,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Eridania SpA
against Azienda Agricola San Luca di Rumagnoli Viannj
on the following questions :
                                                                          Appeal brought on 5 August by Maria Grazia Colombo
                                                                          Lunghi against the judgment delivered on 3 June 1997 by
1 . Is Regulation (EC ) No 1580/96 (») of 30 July 1996,                   the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
      published in the Official Journal of the European                   European Communities in Case T- 196/95 between Maria
      Communities on 16 August 1996, and in particular                    Grazia Colombo Lunghi and the Commission of the
      Article 1 ( f) thereof, valid, above all having regard to                                  European Communities
      the arguments set out in paragraph 3 of the section of
      this order entitled ' Law'?                                                                    ( Case C-291/97 P)
                                                                                                         97/C 295/40 )
2. If the answer to the first question is 'Yes', is
      Regulation ( EEC ) No 1785/81 ( 2 ) of 30 June 1981 ,               An appeal against the judgment delivered on 3 June 1997
      published in the Official Journal of the European                   by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
       Communities on 1 July 1981 , and in particular,                    European Communities in Case T- 196/95 between Maria
      Articles 3 ( 1 ), 5 ( 3 ) and 6 (2 ) thereof as subsequently         Grazia Colombo Lunghi and the Commission of the
      amended, valid, and in consequence is Regulation ( EC )             European Communities was brought before the Court of
      No 1580/96 of 30 July 1996 valid, with particular                   Justice of the European Communities on 5 August 1997
       reference to Article 1 ( f), especially in the light of the         by Maria Grazia Colombo Lunghi, represented by Vincent
       arguments set out in paragraph 4 of the section of this             Lurquin, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
       order entitled ' Law '?
                                                                           Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du
                                                                           Fort Rheinsheim .
(') OJ L 206 , 16 . 8 . 1996 , p . 9 .
( 2 ) OJ L 177, 1 . 7. 1981 , p . 4 .
                                                                          The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          — declare the appeal admissible and well-founded,
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                                — set aside the judgment appealed against,
Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 26 June 1997 in
the case of Georg Bruner, trading as Georg Bruner v.
                   Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas                              — declare the original application admissible and well­
                                                                                 founded .
                           ( Case C-290/97 )
                              ( 97/C 295/39 )
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    — Irregularity         of    the   procedure     establishing     the
European Communities by an order of the Seventh Senate                           composition of the Invalidity Committee: the Court of
of the Bundesfinanzhof ( Federal Finance Court ) of 26 June                      First Instance wrongly considered that the procedure
 1997, which was received at the Court Registry on                               whereby the President of the Court of Justice appoints,
4 August 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of                           on his own initiative, a doctor to represent the staff
 Georg Bruner, trading as Georg Bruner v. Hauptzollamt                           member on the Invalidity Committee should not
 Hamburg-Jonas on the following question:                                        involve the consultation of that staff member. Whilst it