Case C-93/02 P: Appeal brought on 16 March 2002 by Biret International SA against the judgment delivered on 11 January 2002 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-174/00 between Biret International SA and Council of the European Union, supported by the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2002-05-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: General Court (EU), action for annulment (EU), hormone, import restriction, liquidation, meat processing industry

C 109/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

4.5.2002

The ‘Lotto Zero’ project is a project covered by Annex II to the
directive. The Commission takes the view that, by failing to
ascertain whether that project required to be assessed for its
environmental effects in accordance with Articles 5 to 10 of
the directive, Italy has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Article 4(2).

— Infringement of Article 48 of the Rules of Procedure of
the Court of First Instance: it is hardly possible to claim
that the matter of direct liability of the Community was
totally absent from the application initiating proceedings
and that it only appeared as a new plea in law in the
reply.

(1) OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40.

Appeal brought on 16 March 2002 by Biret International
SA against the judgment delivered on 11 January 2002 by
the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-174/00 between Biret
International SA and Council of the European Union,
supported by the Commission of the European Communi-
ties

Appeal brought on 16 March 2002 by Etablissements
Biret et Cie SA against the judgment delivered on 11 Janu-
ary 2002 by the First Chamber of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities in Case T-210/00
between Etablissements Biret et Cie SA and Council of
the European Union, supported by the Commission of
the European Communities

(Case C-93/02 P)

(2002/C 109/64)

(Case C-94/02 P)

(2002/C 109/65)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 11 January 2002
by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-174/00 between Biret
International and Council of the European Union, supported
by Commission of the European Communities, was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
16 March 2002 by Biret International SA, represented by M. de
Thoré and S. Rodrigues, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 11 January 2002
by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-210/00 between Etablisse-
ments Biret et Cie SA and Council of the European Union,
supported by Commission of the European Communities,
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 16 March 2002 by Etablissements Biret et
Cie SA, represented by S. Rodrigues, with an address for
service in Luxembourg.

The appellant claims that the Court should:

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the contested judgment delivered by the Court
the European Communities on

Instance of

of First
11 January 2002 in Case T-174/00;

— uphold the form of order sought by it at first instance;

and

— order the defendant to pay the entire costs.

Pleas and main arguments

— Infringement of Article 300(7) EC: should the question as
to whether the WTO Agreements have direct effect, quod
non, be regarded by the Court of Justice as continuing to
condition the liability of the Community for infringement
of those Agreements, contrary to the requirements and
scope of Article 300(7) EC, the appellant requests the
Court of Justice, after having failed to persuade the Court
of First Instance and relying on its role of maintaining the
unity of the interpretation of Community law, to develop
its case-law and acknowledge that all or part of the WTO
Agreements have direct effect.

— set aside the contested judgment delivered by the Court
the European Communities on

Instance of

of First
11 January 2002 in Case T-210/00;

— uphold the form of order sought by it at first instance;

and

— order the defendant to pay the entire costs.

Pleas and main arguments

The pleas and main arguments are similar to those put forward
in Case C-93/02 P (1).

(1) See p. 38 of this Official Journal.