Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 October 2002 in Case C-208/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha): Isabel Parras Medina, Adelina Parras Medina v Consejería de Agricultura y Medio Ambiente de la Junta de Comunidades de Castilla-La Mancha (Agriculture — Common organisation of markets — Wine sector — Regulation (EC) No 1294/96 — Harvest, production and stock declarations — Failure of a holding to comply with the time-limits for making declarations — Death of the director of the holding — Force majeure)
Date: 2002-12-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: exchange of information, harvest, interpretation of the law, production, storage, viticulture

7.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 305/5

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 17 October 2002

(First Chamber)

of 17 October 2002

in Case C-79/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Corte d’appello di Milano): Payroll Data Services
(Italy) Srl, ADP Europe SA and ADP GSI SA (1)

(Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services —
Activity of preparing and printing pay slips)

(2002/C 305/06)

(Language of the case: Italian)

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

In Case C-79/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Corte d’appello di Milano (Italy) for a preliminary ruling
in the non-contentious proceedings (giurisdizione volontaria)
brought before that court by Payroll Data Services (Italy) Srl,
ADP Europe SA and ADP GSI SA, on the interpretation of
(Fifth Chamber),
Articles 43 EC and 49 EC,
composed of: M. Wathelet, President of
the Chamber,
C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann,
and S. von Bahr,
J. Mischo, Advocate General;
M.-F. Contet, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 17 October 2002, in which it has ruled:

the Court

Judges;

Article 43 EC is to be interpreted as meaning that it precludes
legislation of a Member State which requires undertakings with less
than 250 employees which wish to entrust the preparation and
printing of their pay slips to data-processing centres to have recourse
only to those established staffed exclusively by persons registered with
certain professional associations in that Member State if, under that
legislation, undertakings with more than 250 employees may entrust
such activities to data-processing centres on the sole condition that
they are assisted by one or more such persons.

( 1) OJ C 108 of 7.4.2001.

in Case C-208/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha):
Isabel Parras Medina, Adelina Parras Medina v Consejería
de Agricultura y Medio Ambiente de la Junta de Comuni-
dades de Castilla-La Mancha (1)

(Agriculture — Common organisation of markets — Wine
sector — Regulation (EC) No 1294/96 — Harvest, pro-
duction and stock declarations — Failure of a holding to
comply with the time-limits for making declarations —
Death of the director of the holding — Force majeure)

(2002/C 305/07)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

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

In Case C-208/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha
(Spain) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Isabel Parras Medina, Adelina Parras
Medina and Consejería de Agricultura y Medio Ambiente de
la Junta de Comunidades de Castilla-La Mancha on the
interpretation of Article 12 of Commission Regulation (EC)
No 1294/96 of 4 July 1996 laying down detailed rules for the
application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 as regards
harvest, production and stock declarations relating to wine-
sector products (OJ 1996 L 166, p. 14), the Court (First
Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the Cham-
ber, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and A. Rosas, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
on 17 October 2002, in which it has ruled:

On a proper construction of Article 12 of Commission Regulation
(EC) No 1294/96 of 4 July 1996 laying down detailed rules for the
application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 as regards
harvest, production and stock declarations relating to wine-sector
products:

— the concept of ‘force majeure’ referred to therein is not limited to
absolute impossibility but must be understood in the sense of
abnormal and unforeseeable circumstances, outside the oper-
ator’s control, the consequences of which, in spite of the exercise
of all due care, could not have been avoided;

C 305/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

7.12.2002

— it is for the operator to prove that the conditions necessary for a
case of force majeure to exist have been satisfied and for the
national court to verify the facts alleged and to determine
whether, having regard to the circumstances, the operators took
every care that could have been expected of them to observe the
time-limits for making the declaration provided for by the
Community legislation;

— the sudden death of the sole director of a family holding in the
form of community of property (‘comunidad de bienes’), who
was connected to the members of that community by close
family ties, may, in principle, be regarded as a case of force
majeure.

( 1) OJ C 227 of 11.8.2001.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 22 October 2002

in Case C-241/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Conseil d’État): National Farmers’ Union v Secrétariat
général du gouvernement (1)

(Agriculture — Combating bovine spongiform encephalopa-
thy — Decisions 98/692/EC and 1999/514/EC ending the
ban on beef and veal from the United Kingdom — Whether
a Member State to which those decisions are addressed may
challenge the legality thereof after the time-limit for bringing
proceedings has expired or invoke Article 30 EC to justify its
refusal to end the ban)

(2002/C 305/08)

(Language of the case: French)

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

In Case C-241/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Conseil d’État (France) for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings pending before that court between National
Farmers’ Union and Secrétariat général du gouvernement, on
the validity of Commission Decision 98/692/EC of 25 Novem-
ber 1998 amending Decision 98/256/EC as regards certain
emergency measures to protect against bovine spongiform
encephalopathy (OJ 1998 L 328, p. 28) and of Commission
Decision 1999/514/EC of 23 July 1999 setting the date on
which dispatch from the United Kingdom of bovine products

under the date-based export scheme may commence by virtue
of Article 6(5) of Council Decision 98/256/EC (OJ 1999 L 195,
in
p. 42) and on the interpretation of Community law,
particular Article 30 EC, the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrí-
guez Iglesias, President,
J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet and
R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann,
D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric,
S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and A. Rosas (Rapporteur),
Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
22 October 2002, in which it has ruled:

1. A Member State which is an addressee of Commission Decision
98/692/EC of 25 November 1998 amending Decision 98/
256/EC as regards certain emergency measures to protect
against bovine spongiform encephalopathy and of Commission
Decision 1999/514/EC of 23 July 1999 setting the date on
which dispatch from the United Kingdom of bovine products
under the date-based export scheme may commence by virtue of
Article 6(5) of Council Decision 98/256/EC and which has
not challenged the legality of those decisions within the time-
limit laid down by the fifth paragraph of Article 230 EC does
not have standing subsequently before a national court to invoke
their unlawfulness in order to dispute the merits of an action
brought against it.

2.

Since Council Directive 89/662/EEC of 11 December 1989
concerning veterinary checks in intra-Community trade with a
view to the completion of the internal market and Decision 98/
256, as amended by Decision 98/692, lay down the rules
necessary for the protection of public health upon the resumption
of exports of beef and veal from the United Kingdom to the
other Member States, lay down a Community procedure to
monitor compliance with that decision and a procedure for
amending it in the light of new scientific information and
provide the appropriate legal framework for the adoption of
interim protective measures by a Member State of destination
for the purpose of protecting public health, a Member State is
not entitled to invoke Article 30 EC in order to prevent the
resumption of imports to its territory of beef and veal from the
United Kingdom which were carried out in accordance with
Decisions 98/256, as amended by Decision 98/692, and
1999/514.

(1) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.