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.