Judgment of the Court 25 July 2002 in Case C-50/00 P: Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v Council of the European Union (Appeal — Regulation (EC) No 1638/98 — Common organisation of the market in oils and fats — Action for annulment — Person individually concerned — Effective judicial protection — Admissibility)
Date: 2002-09-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: General Court (EU), Spain, action for annulment (EU), olive oil, producer organisation, redevelopment aid

C 233/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

28.9.2002

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

2 July 2002

in Case C-499/99: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v Kingdom of Spain (1)

incompatible with the common market and with Commission
Decision 1999/509/EC of 14 October 1998 concerning aid
granted by Spain to companies in the Magefesa group and their
successors, in so far as it declared the aid granted to Gursa,
Migsa and Cunosa illegal and incompatible with the common
market, and second, by failing to inform the Commission,
within the prescribed period, of measures taken to implement
Decision 1999/509 in so far as it declared aid granted to
Indosa illegal and incompatible with the common market, the
Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
fourth paragraph of Article 249 EC and Articles 2 and 3 of
those decisions;

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — State
aid — Aid granted to companies in the Magefesa group —
Commission Decisions 91/1/EEC and 1999/509/EC — Non-
performance)

2.

For the rest, dismisses the Commission’s action;

3. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

(2002/C 233/05)

(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.

(Language of the case: Spanish)

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

In Case C-499/99, Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: G. Rozet and R. Vidal) v Kingdom of Spain (Agent:
R. Silva de Lapuerta): Application for a declaration that, by
failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures
necessary to comply with Commission Decision 91/1/EEC of
20 December 1989 concerning aids in Spain which the central
and several autonomous governments granted to Magefesa,
producer of domestic articles of stainless steel and small
electric appliances (OJ 1991 L 5, p. 18) and Commission
Decision 1999/509/EC of 14 October 1998 concerning aid
granted by Spain to companies in the Magefesa group and
their successors (OJ 1999 L 198, p. 15), declaring that certain
aid to companies in the Magefesa group was granted unlawfully
and is incompatible with the common market, the Kingdom
of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under the fourth
paragraph of Article 249 EC and Articles 2 and 3 of those
decisions, the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: F. Macken,
President of
(Rapporteur),
R. Schintgen, V. Skouris and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges;
J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 2 July 2002, in which it:

J.-P. Puissochet

the Chamber,

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

25 July 2002

in Case C-50/00 P: Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v
Council of the European Union (1)

(Appeal — Regulation (EC) No 1638/98 — Common
organisation of the market in oils and fats — Action for
annulment — Person individually concerned — Effective
judicial protection — Admissibility)

(2002/C 233/06)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

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

1. Declares that, first, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed
period, the necessary measures to comply with Commission
Decision 91/1/EEC of 20 December 1989 concerning aids in
Spain which the central and several autonomous governments
granted to Magefesa, producer of domestic articles of stainless
steel and small electric appliances, in so far as it declared the
aid granted to Industrias Domésticas SA (Indosa), Manufactu-
ras Gur SA (Gursa), Manufacturas Inoxidables Gibraltar SA
illegal and
(Migsa) and Cuberta del Norte SA (Cunosa)

In Case C-50/00 P, Unión de Pequeños Agricultores (Agents:
J. Ledesma Bartret and J. Jiménez Laiglesia y de Oñate): Appeal
against the order of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities (Third Chamber) of 23 November 1999 in Case
T-173/98 Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v Council [1999]
ECR II-3357, seeking to have that order set aside, the other
parties to the proceedings being: Council of the European
Union (Agent: I. Díez Parra), supported by Commission of the
J. Guerra Fernández and
European Communities (Agents:

28.9.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 233/5

M. Condou-Durande), the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez
Iglesias, President, P. Jann, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von
Bahr (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann (Rapporteur),
D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet,
R. Schintgen, V. Skouris and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges;
F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of
Division, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 25 July
2002, in which it:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Unión de Pequeños Agricultores to pay the costs;

let, R. Schintgen and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur),
Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
11 July 2002, in which it has ruled:

Article 49 EC, read in the light of the fundamental right to respect
for family life, is to be interpreted as precluding, in circumstances
such as those in the main proceedings, a refusal, by the Member State
of origin of a provider of services established in that Member State
who provides services to recipients established in other Member States,
of the right to reside in its territory to that provider’s spouse, who is a
national of a third country.

3. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear

its own costs.

(1) OJ C 122 of 29.4.2000.

( 1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

11 July 2002

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

11 July 2002

in Case C-60/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Immigration Appeal Tribunal): Mary Carpenter v
Secretary of State for the Home Department (1)

(Freedom to provide services — Article 49 EC — Directive
73/148/EEC — National of a Member State established in
that State and providing services to persons established in
other Member States — Right of residence in that State of a
spouse who is a national of a third country)

in Case C-62/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division)):
Marks & Spencer plc v Commissioners of Customs &
Excise (1)

(Sixth VAT directive — National legislation retroactively
curtailing a limitation period for repayment of sums unduly
paid — Compatibility with the principles of effectiveness
and of the protection of legitimate expectations)

(2002/C 233/07)

(Language of the case: English)

(2002/C 233/08)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case C-60/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal (United Kingdom) for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Mary Carpenter and Secretary of State for the
Home Department, on the interpretation of Article 49 EC and
Council Directive 73/148/EEC of 21 May 1973 on the
abolition of restrictions on movement and residence within
the Community for nationals of Member States with regard to
establishment and the provision of services (OJ 1973 L 172,
p. 14), the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias,
President, N. Colneric and S. von Bahr (Presidents of Cham-
bers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathe-

In Case C-62/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
(England and Wales) in the proceedings pending before that
court between Marks & Spencer plc and Commissioners of
Customs & Excise, on the interpretation of Community law on
the recovery of sums unduly paid, the Court (Fifth Chamber),
the Chamber,
composed of:
D.A.O. Edward and A. La Pergola (Rapporteur),
Judges;
L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 July 2002, in
which it has ruled:

President

Jann,

of

P.