Case C-279/02 P: Appeal brought on 30 July 2002 by Nuno Antas de Campos against the judgment delivered on 14 May 2002 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-194/00 between Nuno Antas de Campos and European Parliament
Date: 2002-11-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Parliament, action for annulment (EU), administrative procedure, equal treatment, regulations for civil servants

C 274/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

9.11.2002

ORDER OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 8 July 2002

Appeal brought on 30 July 2002 by Nuno Antas de
Campos against the judgment delivered on 14 May 2002
by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities in Case T-194/00 (1) between
Nuno Antas de Campos and European Parliament

in Case 203/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal)): Fazen-
da Pública v Antero & Co. Ltd (1)

(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Post-clearance
recovery of import duties — Entry in the accounts of the
import duties to be collected — Calculation of the time-limit
for taking action for recovery)

(2002/C 274/26)

(Language of the case: Portuguese)

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

In Case C-203/01: reference to the Court under Article 234
EC from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Supreme
Administrative Tribunal)
for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings pending before that court between Fazenda
Pública v Antero & Co. Ltd., intervener: Ministério Público —
on the interpretation of Articles 1, 2 and 5 of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 of 24 July 1979 on the post-
clearance recovery of import duties or export duties which
have not been required of the person liable for payment on
goods entered for a customs procedure involving the obligation
to pay such duties (OJ 1979 L 197, p. 1) — the Court (First
Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the
Chamber, M. Wathelet and A. Rosas, Judges; A. Tizzano,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on
8 July 2002, in which it has ruled:

The expression ‘entry in the accounts’ used in Article 1(2)(c) and in
the second subparagraph of Article 2(1) of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 1697/79 of 24 July 1979 on the post-clearance recovery of
import duties or export duties which have not been required of the
person liable for payment on goods entered for a customs procedure
involving the obligation to pay such duties refers to the administrative
act determining the amount of the import or export duties to be
collected by the competent authorities and not to the entry by the
customs authorities in accounts books, or on equivalent computer
media, of such amount. Such entry is not a condition prior essential
to the taking of action for post-clearance recovery.

( 1) OJ 2001 C 227.

(Case C-279/02 P)

(2002/C 274/27)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 14 May 2002 by
the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-194/00 between Nuno
Antas de Campos and European Parliament was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
30 July 2002 by Nuno Antas de Campos, represented by
C. Botelho Moniz and E. Maia Cadete, lawyers.

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— quash the contested judgment for errors in law, as a result
of the misapplication, in the present case, of the principle
of sound administration, the duty to provide reasons, the
principle of equality and non-discrimination and the rules
guaranteeing the right to a fair hearing;

— also on the grounds of breach of the principle of sound
administration and of the duty to provide reasons and
the principle of equality and non-discrimination, annul
the decision of the President of the European Parliament,
letter
communicated to the appellant by means of
No 109172, of 14 July 2000, in reply to a complaint
submitted by him on 2 December 1999;

— refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for
assessment of the facts in support of the claim for
compensation, the case to proceed to final judgment on
that matter;

— in the event that the judgment of the Court of First
Instance is quashed on the sole ground of infringement
of the right to a fair hearing, refer the case back to the
Court of First Instance to hear the evidence previously
passed over;

— order the European Parliament to pay the costs of these
proceedings as well as those incurred by the appellant in
Case T-194/00.

9.11.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 274/17

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Error in law as regards application of the principle of
sound administration: The appointing authority could
not validly make a decision on the basis of a criterion
which it itself, in the same administrative procedure, had
deemed unconvincing.

— Error in law as regards determination of the requirements
of the duty to provide reasons: There is nothing in the
contested decision to explain the change of direction
adopted by the appointing authority. The mere transfer
of the holder of an office does not make it possible to
ignore entirely the steps taken in a particular administrat-
ive procedure by the authority itself. On the contrary, the
obligations under the duty to provide reasons require, in
such circumstances, greater rigour in the explanations
provided for the decision adopted.

— Error in law as regards the application of the principle of
equality and non-discrimination: The parameters utilised
by the European Parliament changed to such an extent
that its decisions, under the same legislative instrument,
were rendered contradictory with regard to the solution
offered to the heads of the information offices.

— Error in law as regards the conditions for the exercise of
the right to a fair hearing: The rejection of the requests
submitted by the appellant, both with regard to the
calling of witnesses and the production of documentary
evidence — in blatant contrast to the unsubstantiated
statements by the European Parliament, at the hearing,
on the existence and relevance of certain documents,
without producing them — deprived the appellant of the
opportunity to support in a conclusive manner its points
of view and counter effectively the arguments put forward
by the defendant institution.

( 1) OJ C 285, 7.10.2000, p. 17.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-
richt Stuttgart by order of that Court of 21 August 2002
in the case of 1. Radlberger Getränkegesellschaft mbH &
Co., and 2. S. Spitz Kommanditgesellschaft against Land
Baden-Württemberg; intervener: Federal Republic of Ger-
many

(Case C-309/02)

(2002/C 274/28)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht

Stuttgart (Stuttgart Administrative Court) of 21 August 2002,
received at the Court Registry on 29 August 2002, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of 1. Radlberger Getränkege-
sellschaft mbH & Co., and 2. S. Spitz Kommanditgesellschaft
against Land Baden-Württemberg; intervener: Federal Republic
of Germany on the following questions:

1. On a proper construction of Article 1(2) of European
Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 Decem-
ber 1994 on packaging and packaging waste (OJ 1994
L 365, p. 10) are Member States prohibited from
favouring systems for reusing drinks packaging over
recoverable non-refillable packaging where a Federal
target for reusable packaging of 72 % is not reached by
suspending the option of obtaining an exemption from a
statutory return, disposal and deposit obligation in
respect of empty non-refillable drinks packaging by
participating in a return and disposal system for drinks
sectors in which the proportion of reusable packaging
has fallen below the level set in 1991?

2. On a proper construction of Article 18 of Directive 94/
62/EC are Member States prohibited from impeding the
placing of drinks in recoverable non-refillable packaging
on the market where a Federal
for reusable
packaging of 72 % is not reached by suspending the
option of obtaining an exemption from a statutory return,
disposal and deposit obligation in respect of empty non-
refillable drinks packaging by participating in a return
and disposal system for drinks sectors in which the
proportion of reusable packaging has fallen below the
level set in 1991?

target

3. On a proper construction of Article 7 of Directive 94/62/
EC do producers and distributors of drinks sold in
recoverable non-refillable packaging have a right
to
participate in an existing return and disposal system for
used drinks packaging,
in order to meet a statutory
obligation to charge a deposit on non-refillable drinks
packaging and to accept
the return of used drinks
packaging?

4. On a proper construction of Article 28 EC are the
Member States prohibited from enacting regulations
providing that where a Federal target for reusable packag-
ing of 72 % is not reached the option of obtaining
an exemption from statutory return, management and
deposit obligations in respect of empty non-refillable
drinks packaging by participating in a return and disposal
system is to be suspended for drinks sectors in which the
proportion of reusable packaging has fallen below the
level set in 1991?