Case C-472/00 P: Appeal brought on 29 December 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment delivered on 24 October 2000 by the Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-178/98 between Fresh Marine Company A/S and the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2001-02-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: General Court (EU), Norway, action for annulment (EU), anti-dumping legislation, fish farming, import

24.2.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 61/5

Appeal brought on 27 December 2000 by Staff Com-
mittee of the European Central Bank, established in
Frankfurt am Main, Germany, Johannes Priesemann, mem-
ber of staff of the ECB, residing in Frankfurt am Main,
Germany, Marc van de Velde, member of staff of the
ECB, residing in Usingen-Kransberg, Germany and Maria
Concetta Cerafogli, member of staff of the ECB, residing
in Frankfurt am Main, Germany against the order made
on 24 October 2000 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court
of First Instance of the European Communities in case
T-27/00 (1) between Staff Committee of the European
Central Bank, Johannes Priesemann, Marc van de Velde
and Maria Concetta Cerafogli and European Central Bank

of the ECB do not foresee a time-limit within which an action
should be brought. Thirdly, the Conditions of Employment of
the ECB do not require internal procedures to be exhausted
prior to the bringing of an action. Lastly, this legal situation is,
in the view of
for a private law
relationship of the type established by the Conditions of
Employment of the ECB. There is no need to construct further
limitations for actions in the form of time-limits or internal
procedures.

the Appellants, usual

(1) OJ C 135, 13.5.2000, p. 13.

(Case C-467/00 P)

(2001/C 61/09)

An appeal against the order made on 24 October 2000 by the
Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities in case T-27/00 between Staff Committee of the
European Central Bank, Johannes Priesemann, Marc van de
Velde and Maria Concetta Cerafogli and European Central
Bank, was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 27 December 2000 by Staff Committee of
the European Central Bank, Johannes Priesemann, Marc van
de Velde and Maria Concetta Cerafogli,
represented by
N. Pflüger, R. Steiner and S. Mittländer, Rechtsanwalte, Frank-
furt am Main, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the office of A. Schiltz, Association Luxembourgeoise des
Employés de Banque et d’Assurance, 29 Avenue Monterey.

The Appellants claim that:

1)

the order be annulled and the claims brought in the first
instance be accepted as founded,

and if this claim cannot be accepted, demand that

the order be annulled in so far as the Court of First
Instance dismissed the action as inadmissible and the case
be referred back to the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities

2)

the Respondent be ordered to pay the costs of the appeal
and the action at the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The admissibility and timeliness of the action has to be judged
on the basis of Article 236 EC in conjunction with Article
36.2 of the Statute. Article 36.2 of the Statute, in turn, refers
to the conditions of employment. Hence, the application and
interpretation of Article 42 of the Conditions of Employment
of the ECB has to be the basis of the ruling. The Appellants
hold the view that the Court of First Instance overlooked three
aspects of law in this respect: first, Article 42 of the Conditions
of Employment of the ECB provides for access to the Court of
Justice in the case of disputes over collective rights. Second, in
the pursuit of collective rights the Conditions of Employment

Appeal brought on 29 December 2000 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the judgment deliv-
ered on 24 October 2000 by the Third Chamber, Extended
Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the Euro-
pean Communities in case T-178/98 (1) between Fresh
Marine Company A/S and the Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities

(Case C-472/00 P)

(2001/C 61/10)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 24 October 2000
by the Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities in case T-178/98
the
between Fresh Marine A/S and the Commission of
European Communities, was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 29 December 2000
by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by Viktor Kreuschitz, Legal Adviser, and Sinéad Meany, a
national civil servant on secondment to the Legal Service of
the Commission, acting as agents, assisted by Nicholas Khan,
Barrister, of the Bar of England and Wales, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Go´ mez de la
Cruz, a member of the Legal Service, Centre Wagner.

The Appellant claims that the Court should:

1.

2.

set aside the judgment, dismiss the Application, and order
the Respondent to pay the costs, or alternatively,

set aside the judgment and refer the case back to the
Court of First Instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

It is submitted that the judgment appealed is vitiated by a
number of errors of law and should be set aside and the
Application dismissed. It is submitted that the Court of First
Instance erred in law in the following respects:

— In holding that the damage arose from the allegedly
unlawful conduct of the Commission when it examined
the October 1997 report.

C 61/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

24.2.2001

— In holding that the jurisprudence characterising anti-
dumping measures as legislative acts involving choices of
economic policy concerned cases ‘radically different’ from
the present case, and in thereby holding that a mere
infringement of Community law would suffice to give
rise to liability under Article 288 EC.

— In holding that the October 1997 report prima facie
suggested that the Respondent had complied with its
undertaking and in holding therefore that;

a)

b)

the Commission’s reaction in amending the report
was disproportionate, and

the Commission had committed an error which
would not have been made had it exercised ordinary
care and diligence.

— In holding that the Respondent had shown reasonable
diligence in mitigating the extent of the damage it had
claimed to have suffered.

— In holding that the Commission unjustifiably delayed in
adopting the necessary measures to restore the Respon-
dent’s undertaking and consequently holding that the
Commission should bear
the
Respondent’s loss of profit as from the end of January
1998.

responsibility for

full

(1) OJ C 160, 5.6.1999, p. 21.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal d’In-
stance, Vienne, by judgment of that court of 15 December
2000, rectified by a judgment of 26 January 2001, in the
case of Codifis SA against Jean Louis Fredout

(Case C-473/00)

(2001/C 61/11)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal d’Instance
(District Court), Vienne, of 15 December 2000, received at the
Court Registry on 27 December 2000, and rectified by a
judgment of 26 January 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Codifis SA v Jean Louis Fredout on the following
question:

Given that the protection under Council Directive 93/13/EEC
of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (1)
implies that a national court, applying provisions of national
law previous or subsequent to that directive, is to interpret
them so far as possible in the light of the wording and purpose
of the latter;

Does that requirement of the system of consumer protection
laid down by the directive that interpretation is to be in
conformity require a national court, when hearing an action
for payment brought by a seller or supplier against a consumer
with whom he has contracted, to set aside an exceptional
procedural rule, such as that in Article L 311-37 of the
Consumer Code, in so far as it prohibits the national court,
either on the application of the consumer or of its own
motion, from annulling any unfair clause which vitiates the
contract where the latter was made more than two years before
the commencement of proceedings and in so far as it thereby
permits the seller or supplier to rely in law on those clauses
and to base its action upon them?

(1) OJ L 95, 21.4.1993, p. 29.

Appeal brought on 3 January 2001 by Asia Motor France
SA, Jean-Michel Cesbron and Monin Automobiles SA
against the judgment delivered on 26 October 2000 by
the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-154/98 between Asia
Motor France SA, Jean-Michel Cesbron and Monin Auto-
mobiles SA and the Commission of the European Com-
munities

(Case C-1/01 P)

(2001/C 61/12)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 26 October 2000
by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-154/98 between Asia Motor
France SA, Jean-Michel Cesbron and Monin Automobiles SA
and the Commission of
the European Communities was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 3 January 2001 by Asia Motor France SA, Jean-Michel
Cesbron and Monin Automobiles SA,
represented by
J-C. Fourgoux of the Brussels and Paris Bars, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of P. Schiltz, 4 Rue
Béatrix de Bourbon.

The appellants claim that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of

26 October 2000(1);

— annul the Commission’s decision of 14 July 1998, and

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Infringement of fundamental rights: after dismissing the
plea alleging breach of the requirement of a reasonable
period [within which the administrative procedure must
be completed], necessary to ensure fair legal process,
which constitutes a fundamental right, the Court of First
Instance admitted that it was entitled to consider of its
own motion the question of infringement of essential
procedural requirements and of the procedural guarantees
conferred by Community law, but decided not to do so.