This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62019CN0674
Case C-674/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 10 September 2019 — ‘Skonis ir kvapas’ UAB v Muitinės departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos
Case C-674/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 10 September 2019 — ‘Skonis ir kvapas’ UAB v Muitinės departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos
Case C-674/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 10 September 2019 — ‘Skonis ir kvapas’ UAB v Muitinės departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos
OJ C 413, 9.12.2019, p. 26–26
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
9.12.2019 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 413/26 |
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 10 September 2019 — ‘Skonis ir kvapas’ UAB v Muitinės departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos
(Case C-674/19)
(2019/C 413/31)
Language of the case: Lithuanian
Referring court
Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant:‘Skonis ir kvapas’ UAB
Defendant: Muitinės departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos
Questions referred
|
(1) |
Is Article 2(2) of Council Directive 2011/64/EU (1) of 21 June 2011 on the structure and rates of excise duty applied to manufactured tobacco to be construed as meaning that water-pipe tobacco, such as that under consideration in the present case (that is to say, consisting of tobacco (up to 24 %), sugar syrup, glycerine, flavourings and preservative), is to be regarded as ‘consisting […] in part of substances other than tobacco’ for the purposes of the application of that provision? |
|
(2) |
Is Article 5(1) of Directive 2011/64/EU, including in those cases in which it is to be read together with Article 2(2) of that directive, to be construed as meaning that, in the case where the tobacco contained in a blend intended for smoking — in this case, water-pipe tobacco (the contested product in the case under examination) — satisfies the criteria listed in Article 5(1) of Directive 2011/64/EU, that entire blend is to be regarded as smoking tobacco, irrespective of the other substances contained therein? |
|
(3) |
If the second question is answered in the negative, is Article 2(2) and/or Article 5(1) of Directive 2011/64/EU to be construed as meaning that the entire contested product, such as that in the main proceedings, made by blending fine-cut tobacco with other liquid and normally fine substances (sugar syrup, glycerine, flavourings and preservative), is to be treated as smoking tobacco for the purposes of the application of that directive? |
|
(4) |
If the second question is answered in the negative and the first and third questions are answered in the affirmative, are the provisions in heading 2 403 of the Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (2) of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1006/2011 of 27 September 2011, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 927/2012 of 9 October 2012, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1001/2013 of 4 October 2013 and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1101/2014 of 16 October 2014, to be construed as meaning that such components of water-pipe tobacco as (1) sugar syrup, (2) flavourings and/or (3) glycerine are not to be treated as ‘tobacco substitutes’? |