- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-568/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark), lodged on 14 November 2011 — Agroferm A/S v Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62011CN0568
62011CN0568
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
28.1.2012
Official Journal of the European Union
C 25/35
(Case C-568/11)
(2012/C 25/67)
Language of the case: Danish
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Agroferm A/S
Defendant: Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri
Questions referred
1.Does a product which is manufactured from sugar fermented with the aid of Corynebacterium glutamicum bacteria and which — as specified in more detail in Annex 1 to the order for reference — consists of approximately 65 % lysine sulphate, in addition to impurities from the manufacturing process (unmodified raw materials, reagents used in the manufacturing process, and by-products), come under heading 2309, heading 2922 or heading 3824 in the Combined Nomenclature, in the version resulting from Annex I to [Commission] Regulation (EC) No 1719/2005 (1) of 27 October 2005 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff? Is it relevant in this connection whether the impurities have been retained deliberately with a view to making the product particularly suitable, or to improve its suitability, for feed production, or whether the impurities have been retained because it is not necessary or expedient to remove them? What guidelines should be used to assess this matter in any given case?
2.If it is assumed that, according to the principle of legality, the production was not covered by the refund scheme, would it be contrary to European Union law for the national authorities, in compliance with national principles of legal certainty and the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, to refrain, in a case such as the present, from seeking recovery of refund amounts that the producer accepted in good faith?
3.If it is assumed that, according to the principle of legality, the production was not covered by the refund scheme, would it be contrary to European Union law for the national authorities, in compliance with national principles of legal certainty and the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, to honour, in a case such as the present, commitments (refund certificates) which were subject to time-limits and which the producer accepted in good faith?
(1) OJ 2005 L 286, p. 1.