3.7.1999 EN C 188/11 Official Journal of the European Communities
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the French Cour de The French Republic considers that the Commission has
infringed the principle of proportionality by applying a flat-rate Cassation (Commercial, Financial and Economic Chamb-
er), by judgment of that court of 6 April 1999 in the case correction of 2% on the basis that on-the-spot checks were of
insufficient quality, even though the seriousness of the defects of Union Nationale Interprofessionnelle des Légumes
Transformés (UNILET) and Gilles Le Bars against Associ- found in 1994 does not justify such a correction and it was
permissible for the Commission to carry out an assessment of ation Comité Economique Régional Agricole Fruits et
Légumes de Bretagne (CERAFEL) the actual risk incurred by the Guarantee Section of the
European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund. TheFrench Government claims that the Court of Justice should(Case C-117/99)also annul Decision C(1999)209 final of 3 February 1999 on
that point.
(1999/C 188/24)
The French Government claims:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the — that Commission Decision 1999/187/EC should beEuropean Communities by judgment of the French Cour de annulled in so far as it concerns a flat-rate correction ofCassation (Commercial, Financial and Economic Chamber) of 567.7 million francs. (
1)6 April 1999, received at the Court Registry on 9 April 1999,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Union Nationale
Interprofessionnelle des Légumes Transformés (UNILET) andPleas in law and main argumentsGilles Le Bars against Association Comité Economique
Régional Agricole Fruits et Légumes de Bretagne (CERAFEL)The flat-rate correction of 2%, on the ground of the allegedon the following question:insufficiency of the on-the-spot checks carried out under the
support system for producers of certain arable crops (CouncilRegulation 1765/92), (
2) is based on an extrapolation of Is Article 15b(8) of Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 (1) of the
weaknesses reveaed by a mission in situ ; it rests on too small Council of 18 May 1972 on the common organisation of the
and insignificant a sample and infringes the principle of market in fruit and vegetables to be interpreted as meaning
proportionality. The French Government maintains that the that, where a Member State has applied Article 15b(l) of that
Commission has failed to carry out an assessment of the actual regulation, that is to say when it has made certain rules on
risk incurred by the Guarantee Section of the European production and marketing adopted by a producers’ organis-
Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund. ation binding on producers established in the district who do
not belong to that organisation, it is entitled to exempt certain
non-member producers from the payment of those fees, in(1) Commission Decision 1999/187/EC of 3 February 1999 on therespect of a given product, in so far as the goods produced byclearance of the accounts presented by the Member States inthem are intended for industrial processing, rather than forrespect of the expenditure for 1995 of the Guarantee Section ofmarketing fresh.the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (OJ
1999 L 61, p. 37).
(2) OJ 1992 L 181, p. 12.
(1) OJ English Special Edition i 1972 (II), p. 437.
Reference for a preliminary by the Tribunal d’lnstance
(District Court), Paris 7th, by judgment of that court of30 March 1999 in the case of Hewlett Packard BV v
Directeur Général des Douanes et Droits IndirectsAction brought on 12 April 1999 by the French Republic
against the Commission of the European Communities
(Case C-119/99)
(Case C-118/99)(1999/C 188/26)
(1999/C 188/25)Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of 30 March 1999 of the
Tribunal d’Instance, Paris 7ème, received at the Court RegistryAn action against the Commission of the European Communi-on 12 April 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case ofties was brought before the Court of Justice of the EuropeanHewlett Packard BV v Directeur Général des Douanes et DroitsCommunities on 12 April 1999 by the French Republic,Indirects on the following question:represented by Kareen Rispal-Bellanger, Deputy Director for
International Economic Law and Community Law at the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Christina Vasak, Assistant Under the Common Customs Tariff, facsimile machines and
printers do not fall under the same tariff heading. When a Secretary for Foreign Affairs in the same Ministry, acting as
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the single machine is designed to perform several functions, the
tariff heading is determined according to the principal function. French Embassy, 8b Boulevard Joseph II.
C 188/12 EN 3.7.1999 Official Journal of the European Communities
In point 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 2184/97 (1) was the — infringement of Article 43 of the Treaty, of the general
principles concerning the hierarchy of sources of law Commission therefore entitled to decide that all multi-function
facsimile machines essentially consisting of: and of Article 8(4)(ii) of Regulation No 3760/92 (2);
— a modem — manifest inadequacy of the criteria presumably adopted
in order to implement the principle of ‘relative stab-
— a scanner ility’.
— a printing device 2. Unlawfulness of Article 2(2) and of the Annex (table
relating to bluefin tuna), by reason of:
and operating either in an autonomous form or in conjunction
with a computer, fall under tariff heading 8517 21 (facsimile — absence of a statement of reasons. The fifth recital in
machines), thus excluding the possibility of determining the the preamble to the regulation contains reasoning
dominant function of each machine on a case-by-case basis which is merely ostensible, incomprehensible and
and laying down the principle that the printing device is of certainly insufficient for the purposes of providing
secondary importance, whatever the machine, provided that it any real reasons which might justify the exceptional
falls within the category described? allocation set out in the first table (bluefin tuna) in the
annex to the regulation;
(1) Commission regulation of 3 November 1997 concerning the— infringement of Regulation No 3760/92 (Article 8(4))classfication of certain goods in the combined nomenclature (OJand breach of the general principles regarding theL 299, p. 6).common agricultural policy, legal certainty and basic
guarantees relating to sanctions;
— in addition, manifest error with regard to ICCAT;
— misuse of powers.
Action brought on 10 April 1999 by the Italian Republic
(1) OJ L 13 of 18 January 1999, p. 54.against the Council of the European Union(2) OJ L 389 of 31 December 1992, p. 1.
(Case C-120/99)
(1999/C 188/27)
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-ties on 10 April 1999 by the Italian Republic, represented by Action brought on 8 April 1999 by the Commission of
Umberto Leanza, acting as Agent, assisted by Pier Giorgio the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
Ferri, Avvocato dello Stato, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Italian Embassy, Rue Marie-Adelaïde.(Case C-121/99)
The applicant claims that the Court should:(1999/C 188/28)
— allow the present application, and consequently,
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
— partially annul Council Regulation (EC) No 49/1999 (
1); the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 April
1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
— order the Commission to pay the costs. represented by Maria Kondou-Durande, of its Legal Service,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office ofCarlos Go ´mez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
Kirchberg. Pleas in law and main arguments
The Commission claims that the Court should:
1. Unlawfulness of Article 2(1) of the regulation (allocation
of percentages from the share available to the Community 1. declare that, by not communicating the laws, regulations
of bluefin tuna stocks), by reason of: and administrative provisions required to comply with
Commission Directive 97/35/EC (
1) of 18 June 1997
adapting to technical progress for the second time Council — total absence of a statement of reasons. The recitals in
the preamble to the regulation do not in any way Directive 90/220/EEC on the deliberate release into the
environment of genetically modified organisms, or by not satisfy the essential guarantee requiring the provision
of a statement of the parameters and criteria adopted adopting the necessary measures to comply therewith, the
Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under for the purposes of dividing up a total allowable catch
into national quotas; the Treaty and that directive;