Case C-204/02 P: Appeal brought on 3 June 2002 by Colin Joynson against the judgment delivered on 21 March 2002 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-231/99 between Colin Joynson and the Commission of the European Communities, supported by Bass plc
Date: 2002-08-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, General Court (EU), action for annulment (EU), alcoholic beverage, competition, contract, exclusive distribution agreement, exclusive purchasing agreement, lease

10.8.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 191/19

The applicant claims that the Court should :

— Declare that, by maintaining in force Articles 9.4, 21.3
and 22.6 of Royal Decree No 2822/1998, under which
motorcycles, three-wheeled vehicles, mopeds and bicycles
may not tow a trailer or semi trailer, the Kingdom of
Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 18,
28 and 49 EC and Article 11 of the European Economic
Area (EEA) Agreement;

— Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The total prohibition on the use on the road of a two- or three-
wheeled vehicle towing a trailer constitutes, first, an obstacle
to the importation of that type of vehicle from other Member
States or from the signatories to the EEA Agreement. Secondly,
such prohibition, inasmuch as it applies to persons travelling
to Spain in vehicles registered in other Member States, may
constitute an obstacle to the freedom of movement of persons
and to the freedom to provide services. The Commission
points out that there is no technical reason to justify the
absolute ban adopted by the Spanish Government which
affects vehicles which fully meet all safety requirements for
their use on the public highway. Nor does the nature of
Spanish roads justify total banning from the road of two- or
three-wheeled vehicles towing a trailer, which also includes a
ban on the use of such vehicles in urban areas and on those
roads (motorways and dual carriageways, for example) which
by their nature have eliminated the very risks highlighted by
the Spanish authorities.

Appeal brought on 3 June 2002 by Colin Joynson against
the judgment delivered on 21 March 2002 by the Third
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities in Case T-231/99 (1) between Colin Joynson
and the Commission of the European Communities,
supported by Bass plc

(Case C-204/02 P)

(2002/C 191/31)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 21 March 2002
by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the

European Communities in Case T-231/99 between Colin
Joynson and the Commission of the European Communities,
supported by Bass plc, was brought before the Court of Justice
of the European Communities on 3 June 2002 by Colin
Joynson, represented by B. Bedford, Barrister, instructed by
Ferdinand Kelly, Solicitors.

The Appellant claims that the Court should:

a)

set aside the judgment appealed against in whole; and

b)

c)

grant the relief sought by the appellant in the proceedings
before the Court of First Instance; alternatively

remit the case to the Court of First Instance; and in any
event

d)

order the defendant to pay the appellant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant maintains that the Court of First Instance erred
in law:

a)

b)

c)

d)

In holding that the Commission, on the question of
whether a beer supply agreement contributes to an
improvement in distribution, was right to consider only
the effect of possible deliberate price discrimination on
the part of Bass plc and not the poor profitability said
to be the consequence of the system of leases itself
independently of any deliberate price discrimination,

In holding that a failure to specify beers in the purchasing
obligation by brand or denomination leading to the
exclusion of a beer supply agreement from Regulation
1984/83 (2) is,
in the present case, a purely technical
matter which does not prevent
the agreement from
complying with the spirit of that Regulation,

In concluding that an examination of the possibility of a
grant of individual exemption to a beer supply under
Article 81(3) EC can be limited to the application of the
frame work analysis provided by Regulation 1984/83,

In holding that the price differential and the reference
group used to measure the differential can be limited by
reference to Article 14(c)(2) of Regulation 1984/83,

C 191/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

10.8.2002

only the right to be heard in proceedings before the
competent authority for the recognition of another
breeding organisation (breeding association) but
not the right to have recognition of that other
organisation (association) refused where recognition
would endanger the preservation of the breed or
jeopardise the operation or the improvement or
selection programme of an existing organisation or
association, and

(b) no right to challenge the grant of recognition by the
authority in the courts (the Verwaltungsgerichtshof),
even where the existing organisation or association
made submissions opposing recognition?

(1) OJ L 192, p. 63.

e)

f)

In upholding the Commission in its use of the turnover
method of assessing rent subsidy,

(a)

In concluding that non-contractual benefits said to be
provided by Bass plc can be off-set against the price
differentials.

(1) OJ C 6, 8.1.2000, p. 29.
(2) Commission Regulation (EEC) No. 1984/83 of 22 June 1983 on
the application of Article 85(3) of categories of exclusive purchas-
ing agreements (OJ L 173, 30.6.1983, p. 5).

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungs-
gerichtshof by order of that Court of 23 May 2002 in the
action of the O¨ sterreichischer Zuchtverband für Ponys,
intervener: O¨ sterrei-
Kleinpferde und Spezialrassen;

chischer Shetlandponyzuchtverband

(Case C-216/02)

(2002/C 191/32)

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d’E´ tat,
Section d’Administration (Belgium) by judgment of that
Court of 28 May 2002 in the case of Michel Tillieut,
Association des habitants de Louvain-La-Neuve, Willy
Gregoire and Association L’E´ pine Blanche against Région
wallonne; intervener: Propreté, Assainissement, Gestion
de l’Environnement SA (‘PAGE’)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgerichts-
hof (Administrative Court) of 23 May 2002, received at the
Court Registry on 12 June 2002, for a preliminary ruling in
the action of the O¨ sterreichischer Zuchtverband für Ponys,
intervener: O¨ sterreichischer
Kleinpferde und Spezialrassen;
Shetlandponyzuchtverband, on the following questions:

1. Does Article 2(2), first indent, of Commission Decision
92/353/EEC (1) of 11 June 1992 laying down the criteria
for the approval or recognition of organisations and
associations which maintain or establish stud-books for
registered equidae (OJ 1992 L 192, p. 63) confer on
existing breeding organisations (breeding associations) a
right to have the competent authority refuse recognition
of another breeding organisation (another breeding
association) if recognition of that other breeding organis-
ation (breeding association) would endanger the preser-
vation of the breed or jeopardise the operation or the
improvement or selection programme of an existing
organisation or association?

2. Does Article 2(2),

first

indent, of

the Commission
Decision referred to in the first question preclude the
application of a provision of national law which confers
on an existing breeding organisation or breeding associ-
ation

(Case C-217/02)

(2002/C 191/33)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Conseil d’E´ tat,
Section d’Administration (Belgium) (Council of State, Adminis-
trative Section) of 28 May 2002, received at the Court Registry
on 13 June 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Michel
Tillieut, Association des habitants de Louvain-La-Neuve, Willy
Gregoire and Association L’E´ pine Blanche against Région
intervener: Propreté, Assainissement, Gestion de
wallonne;
l’Environnement SA (‘PAGE’) on the following questions:

1. Does the obligation imposed on Member States by
Article 7 of Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975
on waste (1), as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC of
18 March 1991 (2), to draw up one or more waste
management plans relating in particular to ‘suitable
disposal sites or installations’ mean that the States to
which the Directive is addressed are required to mark on
a geographical map the precise locations of the planned