Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 December 2000 in Case C-482/98: Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Council Directive 92/83/EEC — Harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages — Commission Decision 98/617/EC of 21 October 1998 denying authority to Italy to refuse the grant of exemption to certain products exempt from excise duty under Council Directive 92/83 — Cosmetic products)
Date: 2001-03-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Italy, action for annulment (EU), cosmetic product, fiscal policy, labelling

C 79/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

10.3.2001

A Member State may prohibit imports of bovine heads containing
material presenting risks as regards bovine spongiform encephalopa-
thy, by way of an interim protective measure within the meaning of
the fourth subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Council Directive
89/662/EEC of 11 December 1989 concerning veterinary checks in
intra-Community trade with a view to the completion of the internal
market, where the Commission has adopted, pursuant to Article 9(4)
of that directive, a decision such as Commission Decision 97/534/EC
of 30 July 1997 on the prohibition of the use of material presenting
risks as regards transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, requiring
the removal of, and prohibiting the use of, such material but where
the date on which the measures laid down by that decision are to
become applicable has been postponed.

(1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.

and Vingrau, France, contrary to Article 6(2) to (4) of Council
Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of
natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206,
p. 7), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
under the EC Treaty — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed
of: C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), President of the Sixth Chamber,
V. Skouris and R. Schintgen,
Judges; S. Alber, Advocate
General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 December 2000, in
which it:

1. Declares that, by not classifying any part of the Basses Corbières
site as a special protection area and by not adopting special
conservation measures for that site sufficient in their geographi-
cal extent, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
under Article 4(1) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April
1979 on the conservation of wild birds;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the application;

3. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(1) OJ C 378 of 5.12.1998.

(Sixth Chamber)

of 7 December 2000

in Case C-374/98: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v French Republic (1)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Failure of Member State to fulfil its obligations — Direc-
tives 79/409/EEC and 92/43/EEC — Conservation of wild
birds — Special protection areas)

(Fifth Chamber)

of 7 December 2000

(2001/C 79/10)

in Case C-482/98: Italian Republic v Commission of the
European Communities (1)

(Language of the case: French)

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

In Case C-374/98: Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: P. Stancanelli and O. Couvert-Castéra) v French
Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger and R. Nadal) — appli-
cation for a declaration, first, that, by failing to classify the
Basses Corbières site, France, as a special protection area for
the conservation of certain species of birds listed in Annex I to
Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the
conservation of wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1) and of certain
migratory species not listed in that Annex, and by also failing
to adopt special conservation measures concerning their
habitat, contrary to Article 4(1) and (2) of that directive, and,
second, that, by failing to take appropriate steps in relation to
the Basses Corbières to avoid disturbance of the species
protected on that site and deterioration of their habitat likely
to have a significant effect, as a result of the opening and
working of limestone quarries in the municipalities of Tautavel

(Action for annulment — Council Directive 92/83/EEC —
Harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol
and alcoholic beverages — Commission Decision 98/617/EC
of 21 October 1998 denying authority to Italy to refuse the
grant of exemption to certain products exempt from excise
duty under Council Directive 92/83 — Cosmetic products)

(2001/C 79/11)

(Language of the case: Italian)

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

In Case C-482/98: Italian Republic (Agents: Professor U. Lean-
za, assisted by O. Fiumara) v Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: E. Traversa) — application for annulment
of Commission Decision 98/617/EC of 21 October 1998
denying authority to Italy to refuse the grant of exemption to
certain products exempt from excise duty under Council

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