Accept Refuse

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62008CN0140

Case C-140/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tallinna Halduskohus (Estonia) lodged on 7 April 2008 — Rakvere Lihakombinaat AS v Põllumajandusminister and Maksu- ja Tolliameti Ida maksu- ja tollikeskus

OJ C 171, 5.7.2008, p. 13–14 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

5.7.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/13


Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tallinna Halduskohus (Estonia) lodged on 7 April 2008 — Rakvere Lihakombinaat AS v Põllumajandusminister and Maksu- ja Tolliameti Ida maksu- ja tollikeskus

(Case C-140/08)

(2008/C 171/23)

Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Tallinna Halduskohus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Rakvere Lihakombinaat AS

Defendants: Põllumajandusminister and Maksu- ja Tolliameti Ida maksu- ja tollikeskus

Questions referred

1.

Must frozen mechanically separated chicken meat (mechanically separated meat was defined for the first time in point 1.14 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin) be classified as from 1 May 2004 under CN code 0207 14 10 or CN code 0207 14 99 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?

2.

If the product described in Question 1.1 must be classified under CN code 0207 14 10, to seek a preliminary ruling on the following question:

2.1

Does Article 4(1) and (2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1972/2003 (3) preclude the ascertainment of the amount of an operator's surplus stock by automatically deducting from the surplus stock (regarded as transitional stock) the operator's average stock as at 1 May of the four years of activity preceding 1 May 2004, multiplied by 1.2?

If the answer is in the affirmative, would the answer be different if in determining the amount of the transitional stock and surplus stock it were possible also to take into account the growth of the operator's production, processing or sales volume, the maturation period of the agricultural product, the time when the stocks were built up, and other circumstances independent of the operator?

2.2

Is it compatible with the objective of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1972/2003 to levy the surplus stock charge where the operator is found to have a surplus stock as at 1 May 2004 but the operator shows that he has not obtained a real advantage in terms of a price difference from marketing the surplus stock after 1 May 2004?


(1)  OJ L 139, 30.4.2004, p. 55.

(2)  OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1.

(3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1972/2003 of 10 November 2003 on transitional measures to be adopted in respect of trade in agricultural products on account of the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (OJ L 293, 11.11.2003, p. 3).


Top