- 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-67/23, W. GmbH: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 8 February 2023 — Criminal proceedings against S.Z.
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62023CN0067
62023CN0067
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
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 155/32
(2023/C 155/42)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Accused: S.Z.
Confiscation party: W. GmbH.
Other party to the proceedings: Der Generalbundesanwalt beim Bundesgerichtshof
Questions referred
1.Is the term ‘originate in Burma/Myanmar’ under Article 2(2)(a)(i) of Regulation (EC) No 194/2008 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that none of the following processing operations performed in a third country (in the present case: Taiwan) on teak logs grown in Myanmar brought about a change of origin, to the effect that teak wood processed accordingly remained ‘goods’ that ‘originate in Burma/Myanmar’:
Debranching and debarking of teak logs;
Sawing teak logs into teak squares (debranched and debarked logs sawn into the shape of wooden cuboids);
Sawing teak logs into planks or boards (sawn wood)?
2.Is the term ‘exported from Burma/Myanmar’ under Article 2(2)(a)(ii) of Regulation No 194/2008 to be interpreted as meaning that only goods imported into the European Union directly from Myanmar are covered, to the effect that goods initially exported to a third country (in the present case: Taiwan), and then transported onwards from there to the European Union, were not subject to the regulation, irrespective of whether they had undergone working or processing conferring origin in that third country?
3.Is Article 2(2)(a)(i) of Regulation No 194/2008 to be interpreted as meaning that a certificate of origin issued by a third country (in the present case: Taiwan) — which states that teak logs originating from Myanmar that have been sawn up or sawn to size have, as a result of that processing in the third country, acquired a status of origin in that State — is not binding for the purposes of assessing whether there has been an infringement of the import prohibition laid down in Article 2(2) of Regulation No 194/2008?
Council Regulation (EC) No 194/2008 of 25 February 2008 renewing and strengthening the restrictive measures in respect of Burma/Myanmar and repealing Regulation (EC) No 817/2006 (OJ 2008 L 66, p. 1).