Case C-128/02 P: Appeal brought on 8 April 2002 by Bernhard Schulte against the judgment delivered on 7 February 2002 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-261/94 between Bernhard Schulte and the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2002-06-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, General Court (EU), action for annulment (EU), limitation of legal proceedings, milk, milk product

C 144/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

15.6.2002

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1.

2.

declare null and void the terminations of guarantee
notified by HDI on 30 October and 13 and 20 November
2001;

order HDI to pay damages amounting to EUR 44 556,84
to offset the expenditure incurred by the Parliament in
respect of additional
insurance cover to replace the
guarantees wrongfully terminated by the defendant and
all other connected expenditure, together with interest
calculated at the legal rate of interest, it being understood
that all accidents occurring during 2002 will be declared
to HDI on the basis of the policies wrongfully terminated;

3.

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil
its obligations under that directive, in particular Article 27
thereof;

— order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit for transposition, extended by one year on
account of the specific characteristics of Belgium’s electricity
network, expired on 19 February 2000, but Belgium has not
adopted all the requisite measures, particularly as regards the
appointment of the network manager (as provided for in
Article 10 of the Belgian Law on the organisation of the
electricity market).

Pleas in law and main arguments

(1) OJ L 27 of 30.1.1997, p. 20.

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put
forward in Case C-123/02.

Action brought on 8 April 2002 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
Belgium

(Case C-126/02)

(2002/C 144/33)

An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 April
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by R. Tricot, acting as Agent, with an address for
service in Luxembourg.

Appeal brought on 8 April 2002 by Bernhard Schulte
against the judgment delivered on 7 February 2002 by the
Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities
in Case T-261/94 between
Bernhard Schulte and the Council of the European Union
and the Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-128/02 P)

(2002/C 144/34)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 7 February 2002
by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-261/94 between Bernhard
Schulte and the Council of the European Union and the
Commission of the European Communities (1) was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
8 April 2002 by Bernhard Schulte, represented by Reinhard
Freise, Rechtsanwalt and Notar, Salzkotten.

The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should:

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment under appeal;

— declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations
and administrative measures necessary in order to comply
with Directive 96/92/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 19 December 1996 concerning
common rules for the internal market in electricity (1), or
at any rate by failing to communicate the same to the

— order the respondents to pay the appellant compensation,
quantified by him to be at least DEM 30 000, plus interest
of 5 % per annum from 1 December 1989, for the
damage suffered by him as a result of the unlawful refusal
to grant him the reference delivery quantities for which
he applied.

15.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 144/21

Pleas in law and main arguments

— In the contested judgment, the Court of First Instance
incorrectly found that the appellant’s claim was time-
barred. Even after the application had been lodged, the
respondents had given the appellant a binding assurance
that — following the conclusion of certain test cases
pending before the Court — they would make him a
binding offer of compensation. The respondents were not
entitled simply to disregard that assurance and plead that
the appellant’s claim was time-barred. The Court of First
Instance also failed to take into account the fact that the
appellant had not been officially informed of his legal
rights.

— In the contested judgment, the Court of First Instance
incorrectly found that the appellant was denied a refer-
ence quantity on different grounds from those provided
for by Article 3a of Regulation No 857/84 (2). In that
respect the Court of First Instance failed to take account
of, and evaluate, the totality of the issues raised in the
proceedings.

(1) Not yet published in the European Court Reports.
(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting
general rules for the application of the levy referred to in Article 5c
of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk products
sector (OJ 1984 L 90 , p. 13).

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht
München by order of that Court of 27 February 2002 in
the case of Krings GmbH against Oberfinanzdirektion
Nürnberg, Zoll- und Verbrauchsteuerabteilung, Dienstort
München

(Case C-130/02)

(2002/C 144/35)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht Mün-
chen (Munich Finance Court) of 27 February 2002, received at
the Court Registry on 9 April 2002, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Krings GmbH against Oberfinanzdirektion
Nürnberg, Zoll- u. Verbrauchsteuerabteilung, Dienstort
München on the following questions:

1)

Is the combined nomenclature in the version of Annex I
to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2031/2001 (1) of
6 August 2001, amending Annex I to Council Regulation
(EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomencla-
ture and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2001 L 279,
p. 1), to be interpreted as meaning that mixtures of

a)

b)

64 % granulated sugar, 1,9 % tea-extract and water
and

64 % granulated sugar, 1,9% tea-extract, 0,8 % citric
acid and water are not preparations with a basis of
extracts of tea?

2)

Is Commission Regulation (EC) No 306/2001 (2) of
12 February 2001 concerning the classification of certain
goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2001 L 44,
p. 25) valid in respect of the products identified at
points 2 and 3 of the Annex?

(1) OJ L 279 of 23.10.2001, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 044 of 15.2.2001, p. 25.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechtshof
(Douanekamer) te Amsterdam by judgment of that Court
of 2 April 2002 in the case of Timmermans Diessen B.V.
against head of the Roosendaal Customs district

(Case C-133/02)

(2002/C 144/36)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of
the Gerechtshof
(Douanekamer) te Amsterdam (Amsterdam Regional Court of
Appeal) Customs Chamber of 2 April 2002, received at the
Court Registry on 10 April 2002, for a preliminary ruling in
the case of Timmermans Diessen B.V. against head of the
Roosendaal Customs district on the following question:

Does Article 9(1) of the Community Customs Code (1), read in
conjunction with Article 12(5)(a)(iii)
thereof, provide the
customs authorities with a legal basis for withdrawing binding
tariff information where they change the position adopted in
it with regard to the interpretation of the legal provisions
applicable to the tariff classification of the goods concerned
even where the change is made within the six-year period
referred to?

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992
establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ L 302 of
19.10.1992, p. 1.).