Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62022CN0366

Case C-366/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Pécsi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 7 June 2022 — Viterra Hungary Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

OJ C 326, 29.8.2022, pp. 9–10 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, GA, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

29.8.2022   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/9

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Pécsi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 7 June 2022 — Viterra Hungary Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

(Case C-366/22)

(2022/C 326/13)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Pécsi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Viterra Hungary Kft.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

Questions referred

1.

Must EU law, in particular Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1821 (1) amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, be interpreted as precluding the practice of a Member State whereby a toasting process, which is required in order to remove hexane (used in oil extraction and harmful to animal and human health) from the residue that remains after soya-bean oil has been extracted using the solvent hexane, is deemed to constitute final processing which provides grounds for classifying the product under heading 2309 of the nomenclature and prevents it from being classified under heading 2304 of the nomenclature?

2.

Must EU law, in particular Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1821 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, be interpreted as meaning that a product is to be considered ‘unfit for human consumption’ when:

(a)

the use of that product in the food industry is entirely ruled out or impossible, that is to say, that product cannot be used or processed in the food industry or serve as the basis for manufacturing a product which can be consumed by humans; or

(b)

that product cannot be consumed by humans in its imported state but, once that product has been used or processed in the food industry, it may serve as the basis for manufacturing a product which can be consumed by humans?

3.

Must EU law, in particular Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1821 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, be interpreted as meaning that a product may also be considered a valuable animal food where the product imported in the form of pellets or granules must be physically ground and mixed with a compound feed before it can be consumed by animals?

4.

Must EU law, in particular Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1821 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, be interpreted as precluding the practice of a Member State whereby the fact that the product has been genetically modified precludes it from being fit for human consumption, that is to say, that genetically modified soya meal cannot be used in the food industry?

5.

Must EU law, in particular Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1821 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, be interpreted as meaning that, when classifying a product under heading 2304 or heading 2309 of the nomenclature, regard must be had:

(a)

to the actual use made of the product after it has been imported; or

(b)

to the objective characteristics of the product at the time of importation, that is to say, whether the product can, in its imported state, be used for human and/or animal consumption?

6.

Must EU law, in particular Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1821 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, be interpreted as meaning that the fact that soya meal is unfit for human consumption does not prevent it from being classified under heading 2304 of the nomenclature?

7.

Must EU law, in particular Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1821 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, be interpreted as meaning that soya meal such as that at issue in the present proceedings, that is to say, soya meal which undergoes the toasting process required in order to remove the hexane used in oil extraction (which is harmful to animal and human health), is included under heading 2304 or under heading 2309 of the nomenclature?

(1)  OJ 2016 L 294, p. 1.

Top