Case C-163/01 P: Appeal brought on 13 April 2001 by B.M.J.B. Beusmans against the judgment delivered on 31 January 2001 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communuties in Case T-73/94 between, on the one hand, B.M.J.B. Beusmans and, on the other, the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2001-08-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: General Court (EU), action for annulment (EU), dairy production, farmer, indemnification, non-marketing premium

11.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 227/7

might be manifested. It is striking to note the importance
attached by the Court of Justice to the fact that in 1989,
immediately after being granted a provisional reference
quantity, the four producers concerned resumed milk
production. That circumstance is totally disregarded in
the considerations of the Court of First Instance as
contained in the contested judgment. For the rest,
it
should be noted that, in its interim judgment in Mulder II,
the Court of Justice did not deal at all with the specific
issues concerning the SLOM 83 producers.

— The Court of First Instance incorrectly allocated the
burden of proof, or at least imposed on Mr Bouma a
burden of proof which is legally impermissible: prior to
the entry into force of Regulation No 857/84, a SLOM
producer in Mr Bouma’s situation could not assume that,
if he did not resume production before 1 April 1984, he
might forfeit, definitively and completely, his right to a
reference quantity — or to alternative compensation. The
imposition of the burden of showing ‘that he had the
intention of resuming milk production upon the expiry
of his non-marketing undertaking and that he found it
impossible to do so owing to the entry into force of
Regulation No 857/84’ necessarily means that Mr Bouma
is faced, retroactively, with the consequences of the entry
into force of that regulation.

A Community citizen in the position of Mr Bouma
cannot reasonably be expected, some 17 to 18 years after
the material time, still to have at his disposal written
evidence concerning the management of his holding
during a period in the distant past — a fortiori since in no
previous judgment of the Court of Justice or the Court of
First Instance was any relevance attached to evidence
concerning the points which the Court of First Instance
now regards as crucial.

— The Court of First Instance set out and assessed the
relevant facts in such an erroneous and biased manner
that its judgment cannot be regarded as consistent with
the obligation to provide reasons or the principle of
objectivity.

(1) OJ 1993 C 334, p. 17.
(2) Judgment of 11 December 1990 in Case C-189/89.
(3) OJ 1984 L 148, p. 13.

Appeal brought on 13 April 2001 by B.M.J.B. Beusmans
against the judgment delivered on 31 January 2001 by the
Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communuties in Case T-73/94 between, on the
one hand, B.M.J.B. Beusmans and, on the other, the
Council of the European Union and the Commission of
the European Communities

(Case C-163/01 P)

(2001/C 227/10)

European Communities in Case T-73/94 between, on the one
hand, B.M.J.B. Beusmans and, on the other, the Council of
the European Union and the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
the European Communities on 13 April 2001 by B.M.J.M.
Beusmans, represented by E.H. Pijnacker Hordijk, advocaat,
ther other parties to the proceedings being the Council of
the European Union, represented by A.M. Colaert, and the
Commission of the European Communities, represented by
T. van Rijn.

The appellant claims that the Courts should:

— set aside the judgment delivered by the Court of First

Instance on 31 January 2001 in Case T-73/94 (1);

— refer the case back to the Court of First Instance;

— order the Council and the Commission to pay the costs

of the proceedings before both Courts.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
in Case C-162/01 P.

(1) OJ 1994 C 90, p. 25.

Appeal brought on 13 April 2001 by G. van den Berg
against the judgment delivered on 31 January 2001 by the
Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-143/97 between, on the
one hand, G. van den Berg and, on the other, the Council
of the European Union and the Commission of the
European Communities

(Case C-164/01 P)

(2001/C 227/11)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 31 January 2001
by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-143/97 between, on the one
hand, G. van den Berg and, on the other, the Council of
the European Union and the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 13 April 2001 by G. van den Berg,
represented by E.H. Pijnacker Hordijk, advocaat, the other
parties to the proceedings being the Council of the European
Union, represented by A.M. Colaert, and the Commission of
the European Communities, represented by T. van Rijn.

The appellant claims that the Court s hould:

— set aside the judgment delivered by the Court of First
Instance on 31 January 2001 in Case T-143/97 (1);

— refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for
further determination of
the action brought by the
appellant before the Court of First Instance on 29 April
1997;

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 31 January 2001
by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the

— order the Council and the Commission to pay the costs

of the proceedings before both Courts.