Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 September 2001 in Case C-467/00 P: Staff Committee of the European Central Bank and Others v European Central Bank (Appeal — Application for annulment of an administrative circular concerning Internet usage within the European Central Bank — Application for directions to be issued to the European Central Bank — Inadmissibility — Appeal in part clearly inadmissible and in part clearly unfounded)
Date: 2002-01-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Central Bank, Internet, action for annulment (EU), form

19.1.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 17/7

Article 87 EC) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
F. Macken, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric, C. Gulmann
(Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges;
A. Tizzano, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 November 2001, in
which it has ruled:

1. Article 92 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87
EC) is to be interpreted as meaning that, because it is charged
only on direct sales of medicines by pharmaceutical laboratories,
a measure such as the tax introduced by Article 12 of Law
No 97-1164 of 19 December 1997 on social security funding
for 1998 amounts to State aid to wholesale distributors only
to the extent that the advantage in not being assessed to the tax
on direct sales of medicines exceeds the additional costs that
they bear in discharging the public service obligations imposed
on them by national law.

2. Article 90(2) of the EC Treaty (now Article 86(2) EC) is to be
interpreted as meaning that it does not cover a tax advantage
enjoyed by undertakings entrusted with the operation of a public
service such as those concerned in the main proceedings in so
far as that advantage exceeds the additional costs of performing
the public service.

3. Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49
EC) must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply to a
situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, where
there is no connection with the provision of services.

(1) OJ C 122 of 29.4.2000.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 22 November 2001

in Case C-184/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal de premiere instance de Charleroi): Office
des produits wallons ASBL v Belgian State (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive — Article 11A(1)(a) — Taxable
amount — Subsidies directly linked to the price)

(2002/C 17/10)

(Language of the case: French)

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

(Belgium), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Office des produits wallons ASBL
and Belgian State — on the interpretation of Article 11A(1)(a)
of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on
the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating
to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax:
uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — the
Court (Third Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann (Rappor-
teur), acting for the President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet
and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate
General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of Division, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 November 2001, in
which it has ruled:

For the purposes of Article 11A(1)(a) of Sixth Council Directive
77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of
the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of
value added tax: uniform basis of assessment ‘subsidies directly linked
to the price’ must be interpreted as covering only subsidies which
constitute the whole or part of the consideration for a supply of goods
or services and which are paid by a third party to the seller or supplier.
It is for the national court to determine, on the basis of the facts
before it, whether or not the subsidy constitutes such consideration.

(1) OJ C 192 of 8.7.2000.

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 13 September 2001

in Case C-467/00 P: Staff Committee of the European
Central Bank and Others v European Central Bank (1)

(Appeal — Application for annulment of an administrative
circular concerning Internet usage within the European
Central Bank — Application for directions to be issued to
the European Central Bank — Inadmissibility — Appeal in
part clearly inadmissible and in part clearly unfounded)

(2002/C 17/11)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case C-184/00: reference to the Court under Article 234
EC from the Tribunal de première instance de Charleroi

In Case C-467/00 P: Staff Committee of the European Central
Bank, established in Frankfurt am Main, Germany, Johannes
Priesemann, member of staff of the European Central Bank,

C 17/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

19.1.2002

residing in Frankfurt am Main, Marc van de Velde, member of
staff of the European Central Bank, residing in Usingen-
Kransberg, Germany, and Maria Concetta Cerafogli, member
of staff of the European Central Bank, residing in Frankfurt am
Main, represented by N. Pflüger, R. Steiner and S. Mittländer
— appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities (Fourth Chamber) of 24 October
2000 in Case T-27/00 Staff Committee of the ECB and Others
v ECB [2000] ECR-SC I-A-217 and II-987, seeking to have
that order set aside, the other party to the proceedings being
European Central Bank (Agents: C. Zilioli, V. Saintot and
M. Lo´ pez Torres) — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of:
C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, F. Macken (Rapporteur)
and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General;
R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 13 September 2001,
the operative part of which is as follows:

1.

2.

The appeal is dismissed.

The Staff Committee of the European Central Bank, Mr Priese-
mann, Mr Van de Velde and Ms Cerafogli shall pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 61 of 24.2.2001.

A) Do Article 39 EC (formerly Article 48 of the EC Treaty)
and Articles 1 and 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 (1)
of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of
movement for workers within the Community permit a
Member State to reserve the posts of captain and first
officer of its merchant ships to its own nationals? If the
reply is in the affirmative, may that reservation be
formulated in absolute terms (for all types of merchant
ships) or is it valid only in cases in which it is foreseeable
and reasonable that it may be necessary for captains and
first officers on board actually to carry out certain public
duties?

B)

If the national provisions of a Member State exclude from
the reservation of those posts to its nationals certain
commercial shipping situations (defined on the basis of
factors such as the gross tonnage of the ship, the cargo
or number of passengers and the characteristics of its
voyages) and, in those situations, allow citizens of other
Member States of the European Union to have access to
the posts in question, may that access be made subject to
the condition of reciprocity?

(1) OJ English Special Edition 1968(II) P. 475.

Action brought on 12 November 2001 by the Com-
the
mission of

the European Communities against

Kingdom of Belgium

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Third Division
of the Sala De Lo Contencioso-administrativo by order of
that court of 4 October 2001 in the case of Colegio de
Oficiales de la Marina Mercante Espan˜ ola, the State
Administration and Asociacio´ n de Navieros Espan˜ oles
(ANAVE)

(Case C-435/01)

(2002/C 17/13)

(Case C-405/01)

(2002/C 17/12)

An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
12 November 2001 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by H. van Lier, acting as Agent.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Third Division of
the Sala De Lo Contencioso-administrativo (Chamber for
Contentious-Administrative Proceedings), which was received
at the Court Registry on 15 October 2001, for a preliminary
ruling in the case of Colegio de Oficiales de la Marina Mercante
Espan˜ ola, the State Administration and Asociacio´ n de Navieros
Espan˜ oles (ANAVE), on the following questions:

1.

declare that, by failing within the time-limits prescribed
to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative
provisions necessary to comply fully and correctly with
Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 (1)
concerning integrated pollution prevention and control,
or at any rate to notify the same to the Commission, the
Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
under that directive;