Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1


|Views: 21|Likes:
Published by eurolex

More info:

Published by: eurolex on Nov 30, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





C 211/6 EN 22.7.2000Official Journal of the European Communitiesacknowledgment of receipt, the Member State shall waive
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesar-beitsgericht, by order of that court of 22 March 2000
application of Article 589(1) of Regulation No 2454/93.Compensatory interest thus comes within the scope of the
in the case of Land Nordrhein-Westfalen against BeataPokrzeptowicz-Meyer
customs debt.Infringement of Article 221 of Council Regulation (EEC)
(Case C-162/00)
No 2913/92(
) (Community Customs Code) in so far asthe contested decision declared part of the application tobe inadmissible on the ground that the part in question(2000/C 211/10)had become time-barred: the Commission misconstruesArticle 221 of the Community Customs Code and fails toReference has been made to the Court of Justice of theappreciate that the question whether a customs debtEuropean Communities by order of the Bundesarbeitsgerichthas become time-barred is a matter coming within the(Federal Labour Court), of 22 March 2000, received at thejurisdiction of national courts and not within the power of Court Registry on 2 May 2000, for a preliminary ruling in thethe Commission.case of Land Nordrhein-Westfalen against Beata Pokrzeptow-icz-Meyer on the following questions:Infringement of Article 239 of the Community CustomsCode and of Article 905 of Regulation No 2454/93; in thealternative, infringement of the principle of pro-1. Does Article 37(1) of the Europe Agreement of portionality; in the further alternative, infringement of the16 December 1991 establishing an association betweenobligation to state reasons laid down in Article 253 EC sothe European Communities and their Member States andfar as Article 1(2) of the contested decision is concernedthe Republic of Poland preclude the application — to(rejection of the remainder of the application for remissionPolish nationals — of national law according to whichof import duties): although the Commission is correct inposts for foreign-language assistants may be filled by stating that the party concerned has extensive professionalmeans of employment contracts oflimited duration where-experience in the agricultural products sector, the Com-as, for other teaching staff performing special duties,mission errs in its view that it ought to have been obviousrecourse to such contracts must be individually justified by to that party that neither the authorisation for inwardan objective reason?processing nor the Community legislation published andin force allows wheat to be used in place of maize for the2. If the Court of Justice answers the first question in themanufacture of glucose exported by that party. In findingaffirmative:at the same time that the competent customs authoritieshad not raised a single objection against the transactionsof the party concerned, even though these had been carriedDoes Article 37(1) of the Europe Agreement also precludeout for many years, the Commission imposed morethe application of national law where the employmentstringent requirements on the party concerned than thosecontract of limited duration was concluded before thewhich could have been imposed by the competent auth-Europe Agreement entered into force and the agreedorities. Furthermore, the Commission fails to take accountperiod comes to an end after its entry into force?of the fact that it has also been known to take the view that equivalence may be authorised between two productswhich do not satisfy the equivalence criteria.The Commission has expressly determined that there wasno question of manipulation on the part of the party concerned and that the financial advantage is attributableto price fluctuations under which the procedure followedby the party concerned might just as easily have resultedin a financial loss. That procedure resulted in a total
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht,
customs debt of NLG 17 491 244,45, while the intended
Cologne, Federal Republic of Germany, by order of that
surplus (profit) during the period in question came to
court of 14 April 2000 in the case of Ferring Arzneimittel
NLG 710 700. Under those circumstances and those
GmbH v Eurim-Pharm Arzneimittel GmbH
already pointed out, it would be disproportionate not toproceed with remission of the customs debt in so far asthat debt is higher than the advantage obtained by the
(Case C-172/00)
party concerned.(2000/C 211/11)
) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 layingdown provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
(EEC) No 2913/92, as last amended by Regulation (EEC)
European Communities by an order of the Landgericht
No 1662/99 (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1).
(Regional Court), Cologne, of 14 April 2000, which was
) OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.
received at the Court Registry on 10 May 2000, for apreliminary ruling in the case of Ferring Arzneimittel GmbH v Eurim-Pharm Arzneimittel GmbH, on the following questions:

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->