- 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-494/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Alessandria (Italy) lodged on 1 December 2009 — Bolton Alimentari SpA v Agenzia Dogane Ufficio delle Dogane Di Alessandria
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62009CN0494
62009CN0494
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
30.1.2010
Official Journal of the European Union
C 24/44
(Case C-494/09)
2010/C 24/76
Language of the case: Italian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Bolton Alimentari SpA
Defendant: Agenzia Dogane Ufficio delle Dogane Di Alessandria
Questions referred
1.Is Article 239 CCC to be interpreted as meaning that, in a case such as that at issue here, where the Member State takes the view that the European Commission cannot be criticised for having committed any irregularity and none of the other circumstances contemplated in Article 905(1) (of Regulation No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code)(‘ICCC’) obtain, that same Member State may decide independently on an application for repayment to the debtor within the meaning of Article 899(2) ICCC?
2.If the answer to the preceding question is in the affirmative, may the expression ‘special situation’ used in (Article 905(1) ICCC with reference to)Article 239 of the Common Customs Code refer to the exclusion of a Community importer from a tariff quota whose opening date falls on a Sunday because of the Sunday closing of the customs offices of the Member State in question?
3.Are Article 308a to 308c ICCC and the relevant provisions of the Administrative Arrangement on the management of tariff quotas to be interpreted as meaning that, in a case such as that at issue here, the Member State should have asked the Commissione Tributaria beforehand to suspend the tariff quota in question in order to enable Italian importers to receive equal and non-discriminatory treatment in comparison with importers from other Member States?
4.Are the exclusion of Bolton s.p.a. from the quota, as decided by the Commissione Tributaria and the TAXUD note, measures taken in compliance with Article 308a to 308c ICCC, as well as with the relevant provisions of the Administrative Arrangement on the management of tariff quotas adopted by the Customs Code Committee (TAXUD/3439/2006-rev.1-[EN]), and therefore valid?