Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 April 2001 in Case C-518/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Bruxelles): Richard Gaillard v Alaya Chekili (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Brussels Convention — Article 16(1) — Exclusive jurisdiction in proceedings which have as their object rights in rem in immovable property — Scope — Action for rescission of a contract of sale of immovable property and for damages)
Date: 2001-07-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: building, civil law, commercial law, damages, interpretation of the law, sale

C 200/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

14.7.2001

ORDER OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 15 March 2001

even where the tax in question is levied on that part of the net assets
which is made up of the share capital as set out annually in the
balance sheet.

(1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999 (C-279/99, C-296/99, C-336/99);
OJ C 314 of 30.10.1999 (C-293/99); OJ C 352 of 4.12.1999
(C-330/99).

in Joined Cases C-279/99, C-293/99, C-296/99, C-330/99
and C-336/99 (references for a preliminary ruling from
the Commissione Tributaria di Primo Grado di Trento):
Petrolvilla & Bortolotti SpA and Others v Direzione delle
Entrate per la Provincia di Trento, Hotel Bellavista di
Litterini Valter e Nadia Snc and Others v Ufficio Imposte
Dirette di Tione di Trento and Centro di Servizio delle
Imposte Dirette e Indirette di Trento, and Tumedei SpA
v Centro di Servizio delle Imposte Dirette e Indirette di
Trento (1)

(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Answer capable
of being clearly deduced from case-law)

(2001/C 200/65)

(Language of the case: Italian)

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

In Joined Cases C-279/99, C-293/99, C-296/99, C-330/99
and C-336/99: references to the Court under Article 234 EC
from the Commissione Tributaria di Primo Grado di Trento
(Tax Court of First Instance, Trento) (Italy) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Petrolvilla & Bortolotti SpA and Direzione delle Entrate per la
Provincia di Trento (C-279/99), between Energy Service Srl
and Direzione delle Entrate per
la Provincia di Trento
(C-293/99), between Pavarini Components SpA and Direzione
delle Entrate per la Provincia di Trento (C-296/99), between
Hotel Bellavista di Litterini Valter e Nadia Snc, Cattoni Hotel
Plaza di Cattoni Gian Carlo e C. Snc, Villa Luti Srl and Ufficio
Imposte Dirette di Tione di Trento, Centro di Servizio delle
Imposte Dirette e Indirette di Trento (C-330/99), and between
Tumedei SpA and Centro di Servizio delle Imposte Dirette e
Indirette di Trento (C-336/99) on the interpretation of Council
Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect
taxes on the raising of capital (OJ, English Special Edition 1969
(II), p. 412), as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of
10 June 1985 (OJ 1985 L 156, p. 23) — the Court
(First Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of
the Chamber, P.
Judges;
L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made
an order on 15 March 2001, the operative part of which is as
follows:

Jann (Rapporteur) and L. Sevo´ n,

Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect
taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Council Directive
85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985, does not preclude the levying on
capital companies of a tax such as the tax on companies’ net assets,

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 5 April 2001

in Case C-518/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles): Richard Gaillard v Alaya
Chekili (1)

(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Brussels
Convention — Article 16(1) — Exclusive jurisdiction in
proceedings which have as their object rights in rem in
immovable property — Scope — Action for rescission of a
contract of sale of immovable property and for damages)

(2001/C 200/66)

(Language of the case: French)

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

In Case C-518/99: reference to the Court pursuant to the
Protocol of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of
Justice of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdic-
tion and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial
matters from the Cour d’appel, Bruxelles (Court of Appeal,
Brussels) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Richard Gaillard and Alaya Chekili
— on the interpretation of Article 16(1) of the Convention of
27 September 1968 (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 36), as amended by
the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the accession of the
Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 1 —
see p. 77 for the amended text) and by the Convention of
25 October 1982 on the accession of the Hellenic Republic
(OJ 1982 L 388, p. 1) the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed
of: C. Gulmann, President of
the Chamber, V. Skouris,
J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and N. Colneric,
Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
made an order on 5 April 2001, in which it has ruled:

14.7.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 200/37

An action for rescission of a contract for the sale of land and
consequential damages is not within the scope of the rules on exclusive
jurisdiction in proceedings which have as their object rights in rem
in immovable property under Article 16(1) of the Convention of
27 September 1968 between the Member States of the European
Economic Community on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judg-
ments in civil and commercial matters, as amended by the Convention
of 9 October 1978 on the accession of the Kingdom of Denmark,
Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland and by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the accession
of the Hellenic Republic.

Articles I and XIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
1994, in Annex 1A to the Agreement establishing the World Trade
Organisation, approved on behalf of the European Community, as
regards matters within its
competence, by Council Decision
94/800/EC of 22 December 1994, are not such as to create rights
which individuals may rely on directly before a national court in order
to oppose the application of the second subparagraph of Article
18(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 of 13 February
1993 on the common organisation of the market in bananas, as
amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1637/98 of 20 July 1998.

(1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000

(1) OJ C 299 of 16.10.1999

ORDER OF THE COURT

of 2 May 2001

in Case C-307/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Finanzgericht Hamburg, Germany): OGT Fruchthand-
elsgesellschaft mbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-St. Ann-
en (1)

(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Bananas —
Common organisation of the market — GATT — Direct
effect — First paragraph of Article 234 of the EC Treaty
(now, after amendment, first paragraph of Article 307 EC))

(2001/C 200/67)

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Case C-307/99: reference to the Court under Article 234
EC from the Finanzgericht (Finance Court) Hamburg for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between OGT Fruchthandelsgesellschaft mbH and
Hauptzollamt Hamburg-St. Annen — on the interpretation of
Articles I and XIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade 1994, in Annex 1A to the Agreement establishing the
World Trade Organisation, approved on behalf of the Euro-
pean Community, as regards matters within its competence,
by Council Decision 94/800/EC of 22 December 1994 (OJ
1994 L 336, p. 1) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı´guez
Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet and
V. Skouris
(Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward,
J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, L. Sevo´ n, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur),
F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and
C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General;
R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 2 May 2001, in
which it has ruled:

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 10 May 2001

in Case C-345/00 P: Fédération Nationale d’Agriculture
Biologique des Régions de France (FNAB) and Others v
Council of the European Union (1)

(Appeal — Regulation (EEC) No 1804/1999 — Prohibition
of using indications suggesting an organic method of pro-
duction in the labelling and advertising of products not
obtained by that production method — Temporary dero-
gation for existing trade-marks — Application for annul-
ment — Inadmissible — Appeal manifestly unfounded)

(2001/C 200/68)

(Language of the case: French)

(Provisional translation: the definitive translation will be published
in the Reports of Cases before the Court)

In Case C-345/00 P Fédération Nationale d’Agriculture Biolo-
gique des Régions de France (FNAB), established in Paris,
France, Syndicat Européen des Transformateurs et Distrib-
uteurs de Produits de l’Agriculture Biologique (SETRAB),
established in Paris, France, Est Distribution Biogam Sàrl,
established in Château-Salins, France, represented by the
lawyer D. Leermakers and C. Hatton, Solicitor, with an address