EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 61989CC0018
Opinion of Mr Advocate General Lenz delivered on 7 March 1990. # Maizena GmbH v Hauptzollamt Krefeld. # Reference for a preliminary ruling: Bundesfinanzhof - Germany. # Agriculture - Production refunds - Art. 5a of Regulation (EEC) nº 2742/75 - Isoglucose used in the production of sorbitol. # Case C-18/89.
Konklużjonijiet ta' l-Avukat Ġenerali - Lenz - 7 ta' Marzu 1990.
Maizena GmbH vs Hauptzollamt Krefeld.
Talba għal deċiżjoni preliminari: Bundesfinanzhof - il-Ġermanja.
Agrikoltura.
Kawża C-18/89.
Konklużjonijiet ta' l-Avukat Ġenerali - Lenz - 7 ta' Marzu 1990.
Maizena GmbH vs Hauptzollamt Krefeld.
Talba għal deċiżjoni preliminari: Bundesfinanzhof - il-Ġermanja.
Agrikoltura.
Kawża C-18/89.
ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:C:1990:104
Opinion of Mr Advocate General Lenz delivered on 7 March 1990. - Maizena GmbH v Hauptzollamt Krefeld. - Reference for a preliminary ruling: Bundesfinanzhof - Germany. - Agriculture - Production refunds - Art. 5a of Regulation (EEC) nº 2742/75 - Isoglucose used in the production of sorbitol. - Case C-18/89.
European Court reports 1990 Page I-02587
Pub.RJ Page Pub somm
++++
Mr Advocate General Lenz delivered his Opinion on 7 March 1990 . (*) He proposed that the Court should rule as follows :
"Article 5a(1 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2742/75, as amended by Regulation ( EEC ) No 1665/77, did not, at the time with which the main proceedings are concerned, preclude the granting of production refunds for products destined for the manufacture of isoglucose, provided that the isoglucose was to be used as an intermediate product, not intended for marketing, in the manufacture of sorbitol ."