CELEX: C2002/084/74
Language: en
Date: 2002-04-06 00:00:00
Title: Case C-462/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Halmstads Tingsrätt (Sweden) by order of that court of 8 November 2001 in the case of Åklagaren v Ulf Hammarsten

6.4.2002               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 84/43
      should proceed to enter the customs debt in question in          (1) Does Article 28 of the Treaty of Rome permit a Member
      the accounts. By virtue of Article 221(1) of the CCC, the             State to prohibit cultivation or other processing of
      Member State is required to take immediate steps,                     ‘industrial hemp’ allowed under EC regulations?
      following the entry in the accounts, to recover the debt
      by communicating the amount thereof to the debtor. The
      Netherlands is incorrect in its view that it may take as         (2) If that is not the case, can an exception nevertheless be
      much time as it wishes to carry out a careful assessment,             made under Article 30 of the Treaty of Rome with the
      ‘having regard to the quantity and complexity of the                  result that such a prohibition does not conflict with EC
      evidence produced in a given case’. The argument                      law?
      advanced by the Netherlands can only be regarded as
      seeking the application of Article 219 of the CCC.
      However, Articles 218 and 219 of the CCC are provisions          (3) If that is not the case, can the Swedish prohibition be
      designed to safeguard the financial interests of the                  accepted on some other ground?
      Community, for which customs receipts constitute a
      form of own resources, and which thus has an interest in
      the rapid determination of those receipts. Consequently,
      it is not open to the Member States to invoke, at will,
      extensions under Article 219 of the CCC as against the
      Commission. On the contrary, the Member States must
      always show why the reasons invoked by them render it
      necessary to extend the time-limit for entry in the
      accounts.
—     Infringement of Articles 9 and 10 of Regulation
      No 1552/89.                                                      Action brought on 4 December 2001 by the Commission
                                                                       of the European Communities against the Republic of
—     Infringement of Article 11 of Regulation No 1552/89:                                         Austria
      the infringements complained of in the last two pleas are
      necessary consequences of the infringement described in
      the first plea. During the period in question, the Nether-
      lands failed to make the principal sum available. In                                    (Case C-465/01)
      addition, it has hitherto constantly refused to pay the
      corresponding default interest. Since the end of 1996
      the Commission has been requesting the Netherlands
                                                                                               (2002/C 84/75)
      authorities to pay to it the sum of NLG 5 323 395,06 by
      way of default interest.
( 1) OJ 1987 L 107, p. 1.
( 2) OJ 1992 L 132, p. 1.
( 3) OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1.                                              An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
( 4) OJ 1989 L 155, p. 1.                                              before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
( 5) OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.                                              4 December 2001 by the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities, represented by Jörn Sack, Legal Adviser in the
                                                                       Commission of the European Communities, with an address
                                                                       for service at the office of Luis Escobar Guerrero, of the
                                                                       Commission’s Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg, Lux-
                                                                       embourg.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Halmstads
Tingsrätt (Sweden) by order of that court of 8 November
      2001 in the case of Åklagaren v Ulf Hammarsten
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
                          (Case C-462/01)
                                                                       (1) declare that:
                           (2002/C 84/74)
                                                                            (a)  by excluding workers from other EC/EEA Member
                                                                                 States from the right to stand for election to
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                           chambers of workers, the Republic of Austria has
European Communities by order of the Halmstads Tingsrätt                         failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8 of
(District Court, Halmstad) of 8 November 2001, which was                         Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 (1) on freedom of
received at the Court Registry on 3 December 2001, for a                         movement for workers within the Community and
preliminary ruling in the case of Åklagaren v Ulf Hammarsten                     under Article 28 of the Agreement on the European
on the following questions:                                                      Economic Area;