Case C-254/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties Tribunals, London Tribunal Centre, by decision of that court dated 5 July 2002, in the case of Fast Forward Resources plc against Commissioners of Customs and Excise
Date: 2002-08-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, fancy leather goods and glove-making industry, import, interpretation of the law, leather

C 202/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

24.8.2002

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties
Tribunals, London Tribunal Centre, by decision of that
court dated 5 July 2002, in the case of Fast Forward
Resources plc against Commissioners of Customs and
Excise

(3) Of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports
from countries not members of the European Community (OJ
L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1).

(Case C-254/02)

(2002/C 202/23)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a decision of the VAT and Duties
Tribunals, London Tribunal Centre, dated 5 July 2002, which
was received at the Court Registry on 11 July 2002, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Fast Forward Resources plc
and Commissioners of Customs and Excise on the following
questions:

(i)

(ii)

(iii)

(iv)

In Commission Regulation (EC) 152/1999 (1) what is the
proper meaning and legal effect of the term ‘registration
shall expire’ used in Article 3?

If Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) 152/1999
means that the whole process of registration envisaged
by the Regulation fails:
(a) does this render Council
Regulation (EC) 175/2000 (2) ineffective in relation to the
imports of leather handbags into the European Union
before midnight on 23 October 1999; and (b) in relation
to what products, if any, is Article 1.4 of Commission
Regulation (EC) 175/2000 effective in imposing duty?

Is Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) 175/2000 consist-
ent with Article 11.4 and 14.5 of Council Regulation
(EC) 384/96 (3) and, if not, what is the effect of this
inconsistency on the collection of anti-dumping duties
registered under Commission Regulation (EC) 152/1999?

Is Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) 175/2000 consist-
ent with Council Regulation (EC) 384/96 in so far as the
adoption of the measure occurred after the 12 month
period indicated in Article 11.5 of Council Regulation
(EC) 384/96?

(1) Of 22 January 1999 initiating a ‘new exporter’ review of Council
Regulation (EC) No 1567/97 imposing a definitive anti-dumping
duty on imports of leather handbags originating in the People’s
Republic of China, repealing the duty with regard to imports from
five exporting producers and making these imports subject to
registration (OJ L 18, 23.1.1999, p. 10).

(2) Of 24 January 2000 reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty
on imports of leather handbags originating in the People’s Repubic
of China and sold for export to the Community by certain
exporting producers and amending Regulation (EC) No 1567/97
(OJ L 22, 27.1.2000, p. 25).

Appeal brought on 15 July 2002 by Michael Becker
against the judgment delivered on 12 June 2002 by the
Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-9/01 between Michael
Becker and the Court of Auditors of the European
Communities

(Case C-260/02 P)

(2002/C 202/24)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 12 June 2002 by
the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-9/01 between Michael
Becker and the Court of Auditors of the European Communi-
ties (1), brought on 15 July 2002 by Michael Becker, represent-
ed by Prof. Dr Ernst Fricke, Rechtsanwalt, of Kanzlei
Prof. Dr. Fricke & Coll, Landshut (and Nuremberg, New
Brandenburg and Luxembourg), and Roy Nathan, Rechtsan-
walt, Luxembourg.

The appellant claims that the Court should: set aside in full the
judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 June 2002 and
grant in full the forms of order sought at first instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 June 2002
infringes fundamental Community law.

— B r e a c h o f t h e d u t y t o h a v e r e g a r d f o r t h e

w e l f a r e o f o f f i c i a l s

It is for the Invalidity Committee to examine, on the basis of
the expert medical reports, whether the conditions set out in
Article 78 of the Staff Regulations have been met. It is of no
relevance that the appellant was on leave on personal grounds.
The grounds on which the respondent rejected his complaint
contravene the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials
and are neither covered by the express terms, nor reflect the
spirit and the purpose, of the Staff Regulations.

— F a i l u r e t o a p p r a i s e d e c i s i v e i n f o r m a t i o n

The European Commission replied to a request from the Court
for information and, in its reply, fully supported the appellant’s
legal position. In the grounds for its judgment, the Court of
First Instance did not refer to the Commission’s opinion,
thereby failing to make a proper legal appraisal of that opinion.