Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

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
You are here

Document C2005/143/32

Case C-140/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat by order of that court of 17 March 2005 in the proceedings between Amalia Valesko and Zollamt Klagenfurt

OJ C 143, 11.6.2005, p. 23–23 (ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)

11.6.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 143/23

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat by order of that court of 17 March 2005 in the proceedings between Amalia Valesko and Zollamt Klagenfurt

(Case C-140/05)

(2005/C 143/32)

Language of the case: German

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat (Austria) of 17 March 2005, received at the Court Registry on 29 March 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Amalia Valesko and Zollamt Klagenfurt on the following questions:

Question 1:

 

On a proper construction of the provisions contained in the Documents concerning the accession of ... the Republic of Slovenia ... to the European Union, Annex XIII: List referred to in Article 24 of the Act of Accession: Slovenia; Heading 6. Taxation, paragraph 2 (Official Journal of the European Union of 23.9.2003, L 236), which state that, without prejudice to Article 8 of Council Directive 92/12/EEC on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products, and having informed the Commission, Member States may, as long as the derogation from Article 2(1) of Directive 92/79/EEC — as last amended — applies, ‘maintain’ the same quantitative limits for cigarettes which may be brought into their territories from Slovenia without further excise duty payment as those applied with regard to cigarette imports from third countries, do they — in the light of the technical term ‘maintain’ — permit quantitative limits which applied in a Member State in respect of imports from inter alia the Republic of Slovenia as a third country until the accession of that country?

Question 2:

 

If the Court of Justice concludes that the Treaty provisions in question are not in fact to be construed as permitting quantitative limits which applied in a Member State in respect of imports from inter alia the Republic of Slovenia as a third country until the accession of that country:

 

On a proper construction of Articles 23, 25 and 26 of the EC Treaty, do the rules of a Member State, under which the exemption from excise duty applicable to tobacco products imported in the personal luggage of travellers who are normally resident in the tax territory of that Member State and enter that territory directly via a land border or inland waters is limited to 25 cigarettes on entry from certain other Member States, comply with the principles of the free movement of goods where a quantitative limit of that kind exists only in respect of a customs exclave in a single third country (Switzerland) whilst from any other third country importation of 200 cigarettes free of excise duty into that Member State is allowed?
Top