Judgment of the Court of 6 March 2001 in Case C-273/99 P: Bernard Connolly v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Officials — Disciplinary proceedings — Suspension — Statement of reasons — Alleged misconduct — Articles 11, 12 and 17 of the Staff Regulations — Equal treatment)
Date: 2001-06-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, European official, appeal, damages, regulations for civil servants

C 173/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

16.6.2001

Tribunal Administrativo (Supreme Administrative Court) (Por-
tugal) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Fazenda Pu´ blica and Fa´brica de
Queijo Eru Portuguesa Lda, intervener Ministério Pu´ blico — on
the interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1999/85 of
16 July 1985 on inward processing relief arrangements
(OJ 1985 L 188, p. 1) and, in particular, Article 11 thereof —
the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, Presi-
dent of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and N. Colne-
ric, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,
has given a judgment on 22 February 2001, in which it has
ruled:

1. Article 11 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1999/85 of
16 July 1985 on inward processing relief arrangements is to
be interpreted as applying not only to the conditions or
requirements for the issue of an authorisation under the inward
processing relief arrangements but also to the conditions
imposed by the authorisation on its holder for the use or
functioning of
the
customs authority may unilaterally alter the rate of yield fixed
by it at the time when the authorisation was issued where, while
the arrangements are being used, the rate of yield proves to be
higher than the rate fixed in the authorisation.

those arrangements and, consequently,

2. Neither Regulation No 1999/85 nor the principle of legal
certainty precludes the customs authority from altering unilat-
erally a rate of yield fixed by it in the authorisation even if it is
proved that the customs authority was supervising and con-
trolling the activities of the holder of the authorisation before it
was issued.

(1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 6 March 2001

in Case C-278/98: Kingdom of the Netherlands v Com-
mission of the European Communities (1)

(EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — 1994 — Cereals, beef
and veal)

(2001/C 173/19)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

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

In Case C-278/98: Kingdom of
the Netherlands (Agents:
M.A. Fierstra and N. Wijmenga) v Commission of the European

Communities (Agent: H. van Vliet) — application for partial
annulment of Commission Decision 98/358/EC of 6 May
1998 on the clearance of the accounts presented by the
Member States in respect of the expenditure for 1994 of the
Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and
Guarantee Fund (OJ 1998 L 163, p. 28), in so far as it disallows
expenditure of NLG 16 378 716,63 incurred by the applicant
in connection with the prefinancing of export refunds — the
Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President
of the Chamber, V. Skouris, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and
F. Macken (Rapporteur), Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General;
H.A. Rühl, Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 March 2001,
in which it:

1. Dismisses the application;

2. Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 6 March 2001

in Case C-273/99 P: Bernard Connolly v Commission of
the European Communities (1)

(Appeal — Officials — Disciplinary proceedings — Suspen-
sion — Statement of reasons — Alleged misconduct —
Articles 11, 12 and 17 of the Staff Regulations — Equal
treatment)

(2001/C 173/20)

(Language of the case: French)

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

In Case C-273/99 P: Bernard Connolly, a former official of
the Commission of the European Communities, residing in
London, United Kingdom, represented by J. Sambon and
P.-P. van Gehuchten, avocats, with an address for service in
Luxembourg, appeal against the judgment of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber) of
19 May 1999 in Case T-203/95 Connolly v Commission
[1999] ECR-SC I-A-83 and II-443, seeking to have that

16.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 173/13

judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings being:
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Valses-
ia, and J. Currall, assisted by D. Waelbroeck) — the Court,
composed of G.C. Rodrı´guez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann,
A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet
(Rapporteur) and V. Skouris
(Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet,
P. Jann, L. Sevo´ n, R. Schintgen and N. Colneric, Judges; D. Ruiz-
Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
given a judgment on 6 March 2001, in which it:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mr Connolly to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 299 of 16.10.1999.

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mr Connolly to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 6 March 2001

in Case C-274/99 P: Bernard Connolly v Commission of
the European Communities (1)

(Appeal — Officials — Disciplinary proceedings —
Articles 11, 12 and 17 of the Staff Regulations — Freedom
of expression — Duty of loyalty — Conduct reflecting on an
official’s position)

(2001/C 173/21)

(Language of the case: French)

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

In Case C-274/99 P: Bernard Connolly, a former official of
the Commission of the European Communities, residing in
London, United Kingdom, represented by J. Sambon and
P.-P. van Gehuchten, avocats, with an address for service in
Luxembourg, appeal against the judgment of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber) of
19 May 1999 in Joined Cases T-34/96 and T-163/96 Connolly
v Commission [19991 ECR-SC I-A-87 and II-463, seeking to
have that judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings
being: Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
G. Valsesia and J. Currall, assisted by D. Waelbroeck) —
the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı´guez Iglesias, President,
C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur) and
V. Skouris
(Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward,
J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, L. Sevo´ n, R. Schintgen and N. Colneric,
Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 March 2001, in which it:

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 8 March 2001

in Joined Cases C-397/98 and C-410/98 (reference for a
preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of
England and Wales, Chancery Division): Metallgesellschaft
Ltd and Others (C-397/98), Hoechst AG, Hoechst UK Ltd
(C-410/98) v Commissioners of Inland Revenue, H.M.
Attorney General (1)

(Freedom of establishment — Free movement of capital —
Advance payment of corporation tax on profits distributed
by a subsidiary to its parent company — Parent company
having its seat in another Member State — Breach of
Community law — Action for restitution or action for
damages — Interest)

(2001/C 173/22)

(Language of the case: English)

In Joined Cases C-397/98 and C-410/98: reference to the
Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234
EC) from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales,
Chancery Division, (United Kingdom) for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings pending before that court between Metallge-
sellschaft Ltd and Others (C-397/98), Hoechst AG, Hoechst
UK Ltd (C-410/98) and Commissioners of Inland Revenue,
H.M. Attorney General — on the interpretation of Articles 6
and 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 12
EC and 43 EC), Article 58 of the EC Treaty (now Article 48
EC) and/or Article 73b of the EC Treaty (now Article 56 EC)
— the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola,
President of
(Rapporteur),
the Chamber, M. Wathelet
D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann and L. Sevo´ n, Judges; N. Fennelly,
Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar,
has given a judgment on 8 March 2001, in which it has ruled: