MARA BOIX PEREA DISSENTING OPINION ACTIVITY

MODEL OF A DISSENTING OPINION I. I regret that I cannot adhere to the majoritys view that
The third subparagraph of Article 6(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 60/2004 of 14 January 2004 laying down transitional measures in the sugar sector by reason of the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1667/2005 of 13 October 2005, must be interpreted as meaning that the basis of assessment for the charge payable on a surplus stock of sugar syrup (CN code 2106 90 59) is the quantity of white sugar (CN code 1701 99 10) actually contained in that product and the rate of that charge is the rate of the import charge applicable to white sugar, increased by EUR 1.21/100 kg.

II. My different assessment has to do with paragraphs 16 and 17. First of all, I consider that the interpretation provided by the majority is in breach of the principle of freedom to conduct a business regarded in the Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which establishes freedom to conduct a business in accordance with Union law and national laws and practices is recognized. From my own point of view, the freedom of commerce and to conduct the business of the sugar-in that particular case- is being violated because of the fact that is not taking into account with precision the nature of the article and thus, is banning and imposing taxis on him without being based on real arguments. What is more, it is presupposing the speculative ends, which in fact are not demonstrated. On the other hand, article 16 is not the only one contradicting the Charter of Fundamental rights because we will find it also on the article 17. In my opinion, the right of

MARA BOIX PEREA DISSENTING OPINION ACTIVITY

collective bargaining and action which is contemplated on article 28 of the Charter, is being violated because the article firmly states that workers and employers, on their own organizations, have in accordance with Union law and national laws and practices, the right to negotiate and conclude collective agreements at the appropriate levels and, in cases of conflicts of interests, to take collective action to defend their interests, including strike actions. I believe that workers of that firm should preserve the right to act freely with their own surplus production, furthermore the qualification of the product has been made without any chemistry proof and thus, is an unfair way to qualify the fine and the quantity imposed by it. III. For these reasons, I think that the final decision taken by the majority is not in conformity with the correct interpretation of European Union Law. In this sense, I consider that the final decision of our Court (of Justice of the European Union) has to declare that
The third subparagraph of Article 6(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 60/2004 of 14 January 2004 laying down transitional measures in the sugar sector by reason of the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1667/2005 of 13 October 2005, must not be interpreted as meaning that the basis of assessment for the charge payable on a surplus stock of sugar syrup (CN code 2106 90 59) is the quantity of white sugar (CN code 1701 99 10) actually contained in that product and the rate of that charge should not be the rate of the import charge applicable to white sugar, increased by EUR 1.21/100 kg.