This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2006/326/49
Case C-374/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 14 September 2006 — BATIG Gesellschaft für Beteiligungen mbH v Hauptzollamt Bielefeld
Case C-374/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 14 September 2006 — BATIG Gesellschaft für Beteiligungen mbH v Hauptzollamt Bielefeld
Case C-374/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 14 September 2006 — BATIG Gesellschaft für Beteiligungen mbH v Hauptzollamt Bielefeld
OJ C 326, 30.12.2006, p. 25–25
(ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)
30.12.2006 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 326/25 |
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 14 September 2006 — BATIG Gesellschaft für Beteiligungen mbH v Hauptzollamt Bielefeld
(Case C-374/06)
(2006/C 326/49)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Finanzgericht Düsseldorf
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: BATIG Gesellschaft für Beteiligungen mbH
Defendant: Hauptzollamt Bielefeld
Question referred
Should Council Directive 92/12/EEC (1) of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products be interpreted as meaning that a Member State which has collected excise duty for manufactured tobacco by means of issuing tax markings is obliged to reimburse the recipient of the tax markings for the sum paid for them if manufactured tobacco furnished with those tax markings in another Member State departs from the duty suspension arrangement irregularly with the consequence that the latter Member State collects excise duty for the manufactured tobacco from the trader established there who dispatched the manufactured tobacco under intra-community duty-suspension arrangements ?