Case C-213/01 P: Appeal brought on 23 May 2001 by T. Port GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment delivered on 20 March 2001 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-52/99 between T. Port GmbH & Co. KG and the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2001-09-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: General Court (EU), action for annulment (EU), customs regulations, import, tariff quota, tropical fruit

C 245/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

1.9.2001

Directive 94/58/EC on the minimum level of training of
the Grand Duchy of
seafarers (OJ 1998 L 172, p. 1),
its obligations under
failed to fulfil
Luxembourg has
Article 249 EC and Article 2 of that directive — the Court
(Third Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of
J.-P. Puissochet and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues
the Chamber,
(Rapporteur),
Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General;
R. Grass, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 3 July
2001, in which it:

1. Declares that, by failing to bring into force within the prescribed
period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions,
including any penalties, necessary to comply with Council
Directive 98/35/EC of 25 May 1998 amending Directive
94/58/EC on the minimum level of training of seafarers, the
Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations
under Article 2 of that directive;

2. Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 273 of 23.9.2000.

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Fourth Chamber)

of 19 June 2001

in Joined Cases C-9/01 to C-12/01 (references for a
preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Gent):
Stéphane Monnier v Govan Sports NV, Edwin van Anke-
ren v Govan Sports NV, Govan Sports NV v Pascal Jacobs
and Govan Sports NV v Dannie D’Hondt (1)

(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Activity of
procuring employment for professional sportsmen)

(2001/C 245/03)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

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

of Article 59 of
the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
Article 49 EC), Articles 86 and 90(1) of the EC Treaty (now
Articles 82 EC and 86(1) EC) — the Court (Fourth Chamber),
composed of: A. La Pergola, President of
the Chamber,
D.A.O. Edward and C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), Judges;
D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,
has made an order on 19 June 2001, in which it rules:

Public employment procurement offices are subject to the prohibition
in Article 86 of the EC Treaty (now Article 82 EC), provided that
the application of that provision does not frustrate the specific
function entrusted to them. A Member State which prohibits any
activity of mediation and intervention between the seeking and
offering of employment which is not carried on by those offices
infringes Article 90(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 86(1) EC) if it
creates a situation in which public employment procurement offices
are necessarily put in a position where they contravene the provisions
of Article 86 of the Treaty. That is the case in particular where the
following conditions are met:

— the public employment procurement offices are manifestly
unable to satisfy demand on the labour market for the kind of
activities concerned;

— the actual carrying on of employment procurement activities by
private agencies is rendered impossible by the maintenance in
force of provisions of law which prohibit those activities on pain
of criminal and administrative penalties;

— the procurement activities in question are to extend to the

nationals or the territory of other Member States.

(1) OJ C 61 of 24.2.2001.

Appeal brought on 23 May 2001 by T. Port GmbH &
Co. KG against the judgment delivered on 20 March 2001
by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-52/99 between T. Port
GmbH & Co. KG and the Commission of the European
Communities

(Case C-213/01 P)

(2001/C 245/04)

In Joined Cases C-9/01 to C-12/01: references to the Court
under Article 234 EC from the Hof van Beroep te Gent (Court
of Appeal, Ghent), Belgium, for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings pending before that court between Stéphane
Monnier and Govan Sports NV, Edwin van Ankeren and
Govan Sports NV, Govan Sports NV and Pascal Jacobs, and
Govan Sports NV and Dannie D’Hondt — on the interpretation

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 20 March 2001
by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-52/99 between T. Port
GmbH & Co. KG and the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 23 May 2001 by T. Port GmbH &
Co. KG, represented by Gert Meier, Rechtsanwalt, Cologne.

1.9.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 245/3

The appellant claims that the Court should:

1.

1.

set aside the contested judgment in so far as the Court
of First Instance dismissed the plea in law, that the
Commission wrongly failed to take into account the
quantity judicially determined by the Finanzgericht Ham-
burg in calculating the reference quantity for the years
1997 to 1999 (paragraph 88); and

2.

order the Commission to pay the costs

Is the application of a provision of a bilateral agreement
concluded between a Member State and a non-member
country, under which a simpe/qualified geographical
indication which in the country of origin is the name
neither of a region nor a place nor a country is accorded
the absolute protection, regardless of any misleading, of
a qualified geographical indication within the meaning of
Regulation No 2081/92 (1), compatible with Article 28 EC
and/or Regulation No 2081/92, if on application of that
provision the import of a product which is lawfully
put on the market in another Member State may be
prevented?

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Court of First Instance fails to take proper account of the
scope of Article 5(2) and (3) of Regulation No 2362/98 (1). In
accordance with that provision, any customs duty paid in
respect of the quantity imported constitutes sufficient evidence
of the reference quantity to which the operator is entitled. The
relevant duty is that which was due from the importer on the
day of importation. The duty applicable to the appellant on
the day of importation was the quota duty, which the Court of
First Instance fails to take into account. The Finanzgericht
Hamburg had made an interim order to the effect that the
customs must accept the importation of the ‘quantity judicially
determined’ without a certificate, provided the quota duty was
paid. The competent Hauptzollamt had decided that the duty
due from the appellant was the quota duty. The appellant
actually paid it. In relation to the question of actual payment
of the customs duty by the appellant in its capacity as importer,
the fact that the appeal court annulled the interim order of the
Finanzgericht Hamburg, and that
the Hauptzollamt sub-
sequently amended the duty notice and determined the normal
In relation to the quantity judicially
duty,
determined, it is obvious from the wording of Article 5(3)(b)
that the duty determined by the customs authorities on the
day of
importation and paid for the quantity imported
constitutes sufficient evidence of the reference quantity to
which the appellant was entitled.

is irrelevant.

2. Does this apply also where the geographical indication
which in the country of origin is the name neither of a
region nor a place nor a country is not understood in the
country of origin as a geographical designation for a
specific product, and also not as a simple or indirect
geographical indication?

3. Do the answers to Questions 1 and 2 apply also where
is an agreement which the
the bilateral agreement
Member State concluded before its accession to the
European Union and continued after its accession to the
European Union with a successor State to the original
other State party to the agreement by means of a
declaration of the Federal Government?

4. Does the second paragraph of Article 307 EC oblige the
Member State to interpret such a bilateral agreement,
concluded between that Member State and a non-member
country before the Member State’s accession to the
EU,
in conformity with Community law as stated in
Article 28 EC and/or Regulation No 2081/92, so that
the protection laid down therein for a simple/indirect
geographical indication which in the country of origin is
the name neither of a region nor a place nor a country
comprises merely protection against misleading and
not the absolute protection of a qualified geographical
Regulation
indication within
No 2081/92?

the meaning

of

(1) OJ 1998 L 293, p. 32.

(1) OJ L 208 of 24.7.1992, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Handels-
gericht Wien by order of that court of 26 February
2001 in the case of Budejovicky Budvar, n.p. v Rudolf
Ammersin GmbH

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-
hof by order of 24 April 2001 in the case of British
American Tobacco Manufacturing B.V. v Hauptzollamt
Krefeld

(Case C-216/01)

(2001/C 245/05)

(Case C-222/01)

(2001/C 245/06)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Handelsgericht
Wien (Commercial Court, Vienna) of 26 February 2001, which
was received at the Court Registry on 25 May 2001, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Budejovicky Budvar, n.p. v
Rudolf Ammersin GmbH on the following questions:

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of
the Bundesfinanzhof
(Federal Finance Court) of 24 April 2001, received at the Court
Registry on 5 June 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of British American Tobacco Manufacturing B.V. v
Hauptzollamt Krefeld on the following questions: