Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 September 2000 in Case C-456/99 P: J v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Place of recruitment — Habitual residence at the time of recruitment — Legal characterisation of the facts found — Manifestly inadmissible appeal)
Date: 2001-03-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action for annulment (EU), appeal, recruitment, regulations for civil servants

10.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 79/7

Directive 92/83/EEC on the harmonisation of the structures of
excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages (OJ 1998
L 295, p. 43) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A.
La Pergola, President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur)
and D.A.O. Edward, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate
General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
a judgment on 7 December 2000, in which it:

1. Dismisses the application;

2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.

The term ‘party concerned’ used in Article 7(5) of Commission
Regulation (EEC) No 2169/86 of 10 July 1986 laying down
detailed rules for the control and payment of the production refunds
in the cereals and rice sectors, as amended by Commission Regulation
(EEC) No 165/89 of 24 January 1989, is to be construed as
meaning that it does not refer to a purchaser of esterified or etherified
starch who has undertaken to his supplier to use that product
exclusively for the manufacture of products other than those listed in
Annex I to that regulation. Such a purchaser cannot therefore have
imposed on him the penalty provided for in Article 7(5) of that
regulation, namely, payment of an amount equal to 105 % of the
highest production refund applicable to the product in question
during the previous 12-month period.

(1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 7 December 2000

in Case C-2/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Hessisches Finanzgericht, Kassel): Döhler GmbH v
Hauptzollamt Darmstadt (1)

(Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets —
Production refunds — Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No
2169/86, as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 165/89 —
Esterified or etherified starch — Proper use — Penalties —
Meaning of ‘party concerned’)

(2001/C 79/12)

(Language of the case: German)

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 27 September 2000

in Case C-456/99 P: J v Commission of the European
Communities (1)

(Officials — Place of recruitment — Habitual residence at
the time of recruitment — Legal characterisation of the facts
found — Manifestly inadmissible appeal)

(2001/C 79/13)

(Language of the case: French)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-2/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Hessisches
Finanzgericht (Finance Court, Hessen), Kassel, Germany, for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Döhler GmbH and Hauptzollamt Darmstadt —
on the interpretation of Article 7(5) of Commission Regulation
(EEC) No 2169/86 of 10 July 1986 laying down detailed rules
for the control and payment of the production refunds in the
cereals and rice sectors (OJ 1986 L 189, p. 12), as amended by
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 165/89 of 24 January 1989
(OJ 1989 L 20, p. 14) — the Court (First Chamber), composed
of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, P. Jann (Rapporteur)
and L. Sevo´ n, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General; D. Louter-
man-Hubeau, Head of Division, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 7 December 2000, in which it has ruled:

In Case C-456/99 P: J, an official of the Commission of the
European Communities, residing in Brussels, represented by
G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, of the Brussels Bar, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Société de
Gestion Fiduciaire, 2-4 Rue Beck — appeal against
the
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities (Third Chamber) of 28 September 1999 in Case
T-28/98 J v Commission (not yet published in the European
Court Reports), seeking to have that judgment set aside and to
obtain relief in the form of order sought by the appellant in
instance, the other party to the
the proceedings at
proceedings being the Commission of the European Communi-
ties (Agent: J. Currall, assisted by D. Waelbroeck) — the Court
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward, President of the
Chamber, L. Sevo´ n, A. La Pergola, P. Jann and M. Wathelet,
Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
made an order on 27 September 2000, the operative part of
which is as follows:

first

C 79/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

10.3.2001

1.

2.

The appeal is dismissed.

J is to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 5 October 2000

in Case C-363/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling by
the Tribunale di Catania): ISFA SpA v Ministero delle
Finanze (1)

(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Manifestly
identical question)

(2001/C 79/14)

(Language of the case: Italian)

In Case C-363/96: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Tribunale di Catania
(District Court, Catania) (Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings pending before that court between ISFA SpA and
Ministero delle Finanze — on the interpretation of Community
law concerning the recovery of sums paid but not due — the
Court (Third Chamber), composed of: J.C. Moitinho de Almei-
da, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann and J.-P. Puissochet
(Rapporteur), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate Gen-
eral; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 5 October
2000, the operative part of which is as follows:

In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, Community
law does not prevent a Member State from resisting actions for
repayment of charges levied in breach of a directive by relying on a
time-limit under national law which is reckoned from the date of
payment of the charges in question, even if, at that date, the directive
concerned had not yet been properly transposed into national law.

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 5 October 2000

in Case C-182/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Tribunale di Brescia): Palazzo Piacentini Srl v
Amministrazione Finanzaria dello Stato (1)

(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Manifestly
identical question)

(2001/C 79/15)

(Language of the case: Italian)

In Case C-182/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunale di
Brescia (Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
pending before that court between Palazzo Piacentini Srl and
Amministrazione Finanzaria dello Stato on the interpretation
of Community law concerning the recovery of sums paid but
not due — the Court, composed of: J.C. Moitinho de Almeida,
President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann and J.-P. Puissochet
(Rapporteur), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate Gen-
eral; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 5 October
2000, the operative part of which is as follows:

1.

2.

Community law does not prevent a Member State from resisting
actions for repayment of charges levied in breach of Community
law by relying on a three-year time-limit under national law
which derogates from the ordinary rules governing actions for
sums paid but not due between private
the recovery of
individuals, the latter actions being subject to a more favourable
time-limit, provided that the time-limit in question applies in
the same way to actions for recovery of such charges which are
based on Community law as to actions based on domestic law.

In circumstances such as those of
the main proceedings,
Community law does not prevent a Member State from resisting
actions for repayment of charges levied in breach of a directive
by relying on a time-limit under national law which is reckoned
from the date of payment of the charges in question, even if, at
that date, the directive concerned had not yet been properly
transposed into national law.

(1) OJ C 9 of 11.1.1997.

(1) OJ C 212 of 12.7.1997.