Case C-80/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal d'Instance de Châteauroux by Judgment of 26 January 2001 in the case of SARL Michel v Recettes des Douanes
Date: 2001-04-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: France, excise duty, interpretation of the law, mineral oil, petroleum product, tax system

7.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 108/11

The Appellant claims that:

— the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 29 Novem-
ber 2000 in case T-213/97 be annulled in so far as it
applies to the Appellants;

— the Council’s Decision not to adopt the proposal for a
regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on
imports of unbleached (grey) cotton fabrics in the People’s
Republic of China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Pakistan and
Turkey (COM (97) 160 final, of 21 April 1997) be
annulled in so far as it applies to the Appellants;

— it infringed Articles 190 and 215 of the EC Treaty (now
Articles 253 and 288 EC), and the general legal principle
of coherence in that it held that the argument that the
Measure Challenged was unlawful for failure to state
reasons cannot be upheld and, additionally, it implied that
the Council had complete freedom of action unfettered by
the Basic Regulation.

(1) OJ C 318, 18.10.1997, p. 23.

— the Appellants’ claim for compensation for the damage
in case T-213/97 be declared founded and the determi-
nation of the amount of compensation referred back to
the Court of First Instance;

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte d’appello
di Milano by order of 29 January 2001 in the appeal
brought by Payroll Data Services (Italy) srl, ADP Europe
SA and ADP GSI SA

— the Council be ordered to pay the Appellants’ costs both

in the present appeal and also in case T-213/97.

(Case C-79/01)

(2001/C 108/16)

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellants submit that the Court of First Instance infringed
Community law in the following ways:

— it infringed Article 173 of the EC Treaty (now Article 230
EC) as interpreted by the case law (and additionally, as
read in the light of Article 9.1, 6.9, 12.2 and 13 and of
the GATT 1994 Anti-dumping Agreement) and the
general legal principle of coherence, in that it held the
Measure Challenged was not a reviewable act within the
meaning of the said Article 173 of the EC Treaty (now
Article 230 EC);

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 29 January 2001 by the
Corte d’appello di Milano (Court of Appeal, Milan), which was
received at the Court Registry on 15 February 2001, for a
preliminary ruling in the appeal brought by Payroll Data
Services (Italy) srl, ADP Europe SA and ADP GSI SA on the
following question:

Do Articles 43 EC and 49 EC preclude Italian courts from
applying Article 1 of Law No 12 of 11 January 1979, as
amended by Article 58(16) of Law No 144 of 17 May 1999,
regulating the profession of employment consultant, to the
in absolute terms, external
extent
undertakings providing services relating to the preparation
and printing of pay slips from providing their services to
undertakings having less than 250 employees?

to which it prohibits,

— it infringed Article 19 of the EC Statute of the Court of
Justice and Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure of the
Court of First Instance in that it held that the Appellants
had submitted a new claim in breach of those dispositions;

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal d’In-
stance de Châteauroux by Judgment of 26 January 2001
in the case of SARL Michel v Recettes des Douanes

— it infringed Article 173 of the EC Treaty (now Article 230
EC) as interpreted by the case law (and additionally as
read in the light of Articles 9.1, 6.9, 12.2 and 13 of the
GATT 1994 Anti-dumping Agreement) in that it held
that the mere expiry of the 15-month period provided
for in Article 6(9) of the Basic Regulation does not
constitute a decision by the Council which could be the
subject of an action for annulment on the basis of Article
173 of the EC Treaty (now Article 230 EC); and

(Case C-80/01)

(2001/C 108/17)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of 26 January 2001
by the Tribunal d’Instance de Châteauroux (District Court,
Châteauroux), which was received at the Court Registry on
16 February 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of SARL
Michel v Recettes des Douanes on the following question:

C 108/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

7.4.2001

Must Article 3(a) and (b) of the Treaty of Rome, the first recital
in the preamble to, and Article 3(2) of, Directive 92/12 of
25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products
subject to excise duty (1), and the sixth and eighth recitals in
the preamble to Directive 92/81 of 19 October 1992 on the
harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on mineral
oils (2) be interpreted as precluding the French Republic
from refusing to reimburse the domestic duty on petroleum
products (TIPP) paid by a trader in petroleum products
following the failure by one of his customers to make payment?

(1) Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general
arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the
holding, movement and monitoring of such products (OJ 1992
L 76, 23.03.1992, p. 1).

(2) Council Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmon-
isation of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils (OJ 1992
L 316, 31.10.1992, p. 12).

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the French Cour de
cassation, Commercial, Financial and Economic Chamber,
by judgment of that court of 13 February 2001 in the case
of SARL, Borie Manoux v Directeur de l’Institut national
de la propriété industrielle (INPI)

(Case C-81/01)

(2001/C 108/18)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a judgment of the French Cour de
cassation (Court of Cassation), Commercial, Financial and
Economic Chamber, of 13 February 2001, received at the
Court Registry on 16 February 2001, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of SARL Borie Manoux v Directeur de l’Institut
national de la propriété industrielle (INPI) on the following
question:

Must Article 40 of Regulation No 2392/89 (1) be interpreted
as prohibiting the registration as a trade mark, for the products
covered by the regulation, of a geographical reference the use
of which is not provided for by Article 11, even where the
registration of such a trade mark is not likely to mislead the
consumer as to the provenance of the wine and does not
give rise to any confusion with a registered geographical
designation, in so far as such registration might suggest that
the geographical reference in question, which relates to the
region where that wine is actually produced but which covers
other designations of origin, is protected?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de
Grande Instance (Regional Court), Paris (31st Chamber)
by judgment of that court of 19 February 2001 in the case
of Ministère Public against John Greenham and Léonard
Abel

(Case C-95/01)

(2001/C 108/19)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of
the Tribunal de
Grande Instance (Regional Court), Paris (31st Chamber) of
19 February 2001, received at the Court Registry on 27 Febru-
ary 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ministère
Public against John Greenham and Léonard Abel on the
following question:

Must Articles 28 and 30 of the Treaty be interpreted as
prohibiting a Member State from preventing the free move-
ment and marketing of a food supplement lawfully sold in
another Member State?

Action brought on 27 February 2001 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy
of Luxembourg

(Case C-97/01)

(2001/C 108/20)

An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
brought before the Court of Justice on 27 February 2001 by
the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by S. Rating and F. Siredey-Garnier, acting as Agents, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2392/89 of 24 July 1989 laying
down general rules for the description and presentation of wines
and grape musts (OJ L 232, 9.8.1989, p. 13).

— declare that, by failing to ensure the transposition in
practice of Article 4d of Directive 90/388/EEC(1), as
amended by Directive 96/19/EC (2), the Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg has failed to comply with its obligations;

— order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.