Case C-184/01 P: Appeal brought on 27 April 2001 by Peter Hirschfeldt against the judgment delivered on 13 February 2001 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-166/00 between Peter Hirschfeldt and the European Environment Agency
Date: 2001-07-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Environment Agency, European official, General Court (EU), action for annulment (EU), competition (EU), infringement of EU law

C 200/48

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

14.7.2001

22 March 2001, received at the Court Registry on 26 April
2001,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Saatgut-
Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH against Werner Jäger on the
following questions:

1.

Can

(a)

(b)

(c)

a limited company (GmbH) established under Ger-
man law be an ‘organisation of holders’ within the
meaning of Article 3(2) of Commission Regulation
(EC) No 1768/95 (1) of 24 July 1995, and can

such a company invoke, pursuant to Article 3(2),
the rights deriving from Article 3(1) of the above-
mentioned regulation even in respect of holders
who are not shareholders in it but members of an
association which is a shareholder, and can

such a company invoke, pursuant to Article 3(2),
the rights deriving from Article 3(1) of the above-
mentioned regulation (for a consideration) even in
respect of holders who are neither shareholders nor
members of an association which is a shareholder?

2. Must the sixth indent of Article 14(3) of Council Regu-
lation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 (2) , read in
conjunction with Article 8 of Commission Regulation
(EC) No 1768/95, be interpreted as meaning that the
holder of a plant variety right protected under Regulation
No 2100/94 can request the information referred to
in the abovementioned provisions from any farmer,
irrespective of whether or not there is any indication that
he has carried out an act of use in respect of the
variety in question under Article 13(2) of Regulation
No 2100/94, or at least otherwise used the variety in
question on his holding?

The Commission claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by not adopting within the time-limits laid
down the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
necessary to comply with Council Directive 96/51/EC (1)
of 23 July 1996 amending Directive 70/524/EEC con-
cerning additives in feedingstuffs, the Hellenic Republic
has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty and
that directive;

— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 EC,
directives are binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
each Member State to which they are addressed.

Under the first paragraph of Article 10 EC, Member States are
to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular,
to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty
or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the
Community.

It is not disputed by the Hellenic Republic that it must adopt
measures to comply with the abovementioned directive.

The Commission records that until now the Hellenic Republic
has not adopted the appropriate measures for the full incorpo-
ration of the directive at issue into Greek law.

(1) OJ L 235, 17.9.1996, p. 39.

(1) OJ L 173 of 25.7.1995, p. 14.
(2) OJ L 227 of 1.9.1994, p. 1.

Action brought on 27 April 2001 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

(Case C-183/01)

(2001/C 200/85)

An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 April
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Maria Kondou-Durande, Commission Legal
Adviser.

Appeal brought on 27 April 2001 by Peter Hirschfeldt
against the judgment delivered on 13 February 2001 by
the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-166/00 between Peter
Hirschfeldt and the European Environment Agency

(Case C-184/01 P)

(2001/C 200/86)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 13 February
2001 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities in Case T-166/00 between Peter
Hirschfeldt and the European Environment Agency was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 27 April 2001 by Peter Hirschfeldt, represented by
Jean-Noël Louis and Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar, with
an address for service in Luxembourg.

14.7.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 200/49

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment delivered on 13 February 2001 by
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
(Fifth Chamber) in Case T-166/00 Hirschfeldt v European
Environment Agency;

— proceed to adjudicate afresh in the matter, and thus:

Where a lessee fills up a leased car in the name and at the
expense of the lessor at filling stations, is there a supply of fuel
by the lessor to the lessee and must tax be paid on this supply
at the place of supply within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of
Directive 77/388/EEC or is the ‘onward supply’ included in the
lessor’s supply of a service that is taxable under Article 9 of
Directive 77/388/EEC?

— annul the decision cancelling internal competition
EEA/T/99/1, communicated to the appellant by
letter of 27 September 1999;

— annul the decision of 13 December 1999 transfer-
ring the appellant from the Commission to the
European Environment Agency,
inasmuch as it
classifies him in grade A5, step 3, with effect from
1 November 1999;

— order the respondent to pay the costs of the two sets

of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— The Court of First Instance committed an error of law in
finding that the Commission’s threats ‘definitively to
cease using transfers in future’ for the benefit of the
European Environment Agency in the event of a refusal
to cancel internal competition EEA/T/99/1 did not have
the effect of vitiating the way in which the appointing
authority had exercised its discretion by proceeding to
cancel the competition in question.

— The Court of First Instance committed an error of law in
imposing conditions for appointment as an established
official which are not provided for in the third paragraph
of Article 8 of the Staff Regulations and in failing to
verify whether the European Environment Agency had in
fact reconstituted the appellant’s career as regards both
the his grade on establishment and his seniority in step.

(1) OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsger-
icht Stuttgart by order of 4 April 2001 in the case of
Alexander Dory v Federal Republic of Germany —
Kreiswehrersatzamt Schwäbisch Gmünd

(Case C-186/01)

(2001/C 200/88)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 4 April 2001 by the
Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart (Administrative Court, Stuttgart),
which was received at the Court Registry on 30 April 2001,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Alexander Dory v
Federal Republic of Germany Kreiswehrersatzamt (District
Recruiting Office) Schwäbisch Gmünd on the following ques-
tion, in particular with regard to the interpretation of Article 2
of Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implemen-
tation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women
as regards access to employment, vocational training and
promotion, and working conditions (1):

Does German compulsory military service for men only
conflict with European law?

(1) OJ L 39 of 14.2.1976, p. 40.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzh-
of by order of 22 February 2001 in the case of Auto Lease
Holland B.V. v Bundesamt für Finanzen

(Case C-185/01)

(2001/C 200/87)

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger
Verwaltungssenats Salzburg by order of that court of 25
April 2001 in the case of Francisco Javier Gonzales
Moreno

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 22 February 2001 by the
Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court), which was received
at the Court Registry on 30 April 2001, for a preliminary
ruling in the case of Auto Lease Holland B.V. v Bundesamt für
Finanzen on the following question (1):

(Case C-188/01)

(2001/C 200/89)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Unabhängiger Verwal-