Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 November 2001 in Case C-430/00 P: Anton Dürbeck GmbH v Commission of the European Communities (Appeals — Common organisation of the markets — Bananas — Importation from ACP States and third countries — Request for additional licences — Case of hardship — Transitional measures — Article 30 of Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 — Limitation of damages — Action for annulment)
Date: 2002-04-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: General Court (EU), action for annulment (EU), organisation, tariff quota, tropical fruit

6.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 84/33

3.

The Commission of the European Communities shall bear its
own costs.

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the appeal brought by Zino
Davidoff SA and Davidoff & Cie SA.

(1) OJ C 259 of 9.9.2000.

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 23 October 2001

in Case C-313/00 P: Zino Davidoff SA v European
Parliament and Others (1)

(Directive 98/43/EC concerning the advertising and sponsor-
ship of tobacco products — Appeal — No need to adjudicate
— Costs)

(2002/C 84/54)

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Case C-313/00 P: appeal by Zino Davidoff SA, established
in Fribourg (Switzerland), and Davidoff & Cie SA, established
in Geneva (Switzerland), represented by R. Wägenbaur, Avocat,
against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities (Third Chamber) of 27 June 2000 in
Joined Cases T-172/98 and T-175/98 to T-177/98 Salamander
and Others v Parliament and Council [2000] ECR II-2487,
seeking to have that judgment set aside and the claims made
by the applicants at first instance upheld, the other parties to
the proceedings being: European Parliament (Agents: C. Penn-
era and M. Berger), Council of the European Union (Agents:
R. Gosalbo Bono and S. Marquardt), defendants at
first
instance, Lancaster BV, established in Amsterdam (Nether-
lands), represented by B. Wägenbaur, Avocat, Commission of
the European Communities (Agents: U. Wölker and I. Martı´nez
del Peral), Markenverband eV, established in Wiesbaden (Germ-
any), Manifattura Lane Gaetano Marzotto & Figli SpA, estab-
lished in Valdagno (Italy), French Republic, Republic of Finland,
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
interveners at first instance, Salamander AG, established in
Kornwestheim (Germany), Una Film ‘City Revue’ GmbH,
established in Vienna (Austria), Alma Media Group Advertising
SA & Co. Partnership, Panel Two and Four Advertising
SA, Rythmos Outdoor Advertising SA and Media Center
Advertising SA, established in Athens (Greece) — the Court
(Third Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, acting for the
President of the Third Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur)
and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on
23 October 2001, the operative part of which is as follows:

2. Zino Davidoff SA, Davidoff et Cie SA, the European Parlia-
ment and the Council of the European Union shall bear their
own costs.

3.

Lancaster BV and the Commission of the European Communi-
ties shall bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 302 of 21.10.2000.

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 13 November 2001

in Case C-430/00 P: Anton Dürbeck GmbH v Commission
of the European Communities (1)

(Appeals — Common organisation of the markets —
Bananas — Importation from ACP States and third countries
— Request for additional licences — Case of hardship —
Transitional measures — Article 30 of Regulation (EEC)
No 404/93 — Limitation of damages — Action for annul-
ment)

(2002/C 84/55)

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Case P: Anton Dürbeck GmbH, established in Frankfurt-am-
Main, represented by Dr Gert Meier, Rechtsanwalt — appeal
against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities (Fifth Chamber) of 19 September
2000 in Case T-252/97 Dürbeck v Commission [2000] ECR
II-3031, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other
party to the proceedings being Commission of the European
Communities
(Agents: K.-D. Borchardt and C. van der
Hauwert), Kingdom of Spain (Agent: R. Silva de Lapuerta) and
by French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues and C. Vasak) —
the Court (Third Chamber), composed of C. Gulmann, acting
for the President of the Third Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet and
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate
General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 13 November
2001, the operative part of which is as follows:

C 84/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

6.4.2002

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

2. Anton Dürbeck GmbH shall pay the costs.

3.

The French Republic and the Kingdom of Spain shall bear their
own cost.

(1) OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001.

Article 3(a) and (b) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
Article 3(a) and (b) EC), the first recital in the preamble to, and
Article 3(2) of, Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992
on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and
on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products and the
sixth and eighth recitals in the preamble to Council Directive
92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the
structures of excise duties on mineral oils of 19 October 1992 on
the harmonization of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils
must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude a Member
State refusing, upon the failure to pay by the customer of a trader in
petroleum products, to reimburse an excise duty such as the domestic
duty on petroleum products paid by such a trader.

ORDER OF THE COURT

(1) OJ C 108 of 7.4.2001.

(First Chamber)

of 22 November 2001

in Case C-80/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal d’Instance de Châteauroux): Michel SARL v
Recettes des douanes (1)

(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Question the
answer to which may manifestly be deduced from the case-
law — Directive 92/12/EEC — General arrangements for,
holding, movement and monitoring of products subject to
excise duty — Directive 92/81/EEC — Harmonization of
the structures of excise duties on mineral oils — Non-
reimbursement of an internal tax on petroleum products)

(2002/C 84/56)

(Language of the case: French)

ORDER OF THE COURT

of 24 October 2001

in Case C-186/01 R (reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart): Alexander Dory
v Federal Republic of Germany (1)

(Applications for interim relief — Preliminary reference
procedure — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

(2002/C 84/57)

(Language of the case: German)

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

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

In Case C-80/01: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
from the Tribunal d’Instance (District Court), Châteauroux
(France), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Michel SARL and Recettes des
douanes — on the interpretation of Article 3(a) and (b) of the
EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 3(a) and (b) EC), the
first recital in the preamble to, and Article 3(2) of, Council
Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general
arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the
holding, movement and monitoring of such products (OJ
1992 L 76, p. 1), and the sixth and eighth recitals in the
preamble to Council Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992
on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on
mineral oils of 19 October 1992 on the harmonization of the
structures of excise duties on mineral oils (OJ 1992 L 316,
p. 12), the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann,
President of Chamber, L. Sevo´ n and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur),
Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a
judgment on 22 November 2001, the operative part of which
is as follows:

In Case C-186/01 R: reference to the Court under Article 234
EC from the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart (Germany) for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Alexander Dory and The Federal Republic of
Germany — on the interpretation of Article 2 of Council
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 (OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40) —
the Court has made an order on 24 October 2001 in which it
has ruled as follows:

The application for interim relief is inadmissible.

(1) OJ C 200 of 14.7.2001.