Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 March 2003 in Case C-156/00: Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2000) 485 final — Remission of import duties — Inward processing — Lack of equivalence between Community products and imported products)
Date: 2003-05-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: CCT duties, European Commission, Netherlands, action for annulment (EU), import, simplification of formalities

10.5.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/1

I

(Information)

COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT OF JUSTICE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 20 March 2003

in Case C-3/00: Kingdom of Denmark v Commission of
the European Communities (1)

(Approximation of laws — Directive 95/2/EC — Use of
sulphites, nitrites and nitrates as food additives — Protection
of health — Stricter national provisions — Conditions of
application of Article 95(4) EC — Principle of the right to
be heard)

(2003/C 112/01)

Denmark concerning the use of sulphites, nitrites and nitrates
in foodstuffs in so far as it rejects those national provisions
relating to the use of nitrites and nitrates in foodstuffs;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the application;

3. Orders the parties to pay their own costs;

4. Orders the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway to

pay their own costs.

(1) OJ C 122 of 29.4.2000.

(Language of the case: Danish)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

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

(Fifth Chamber)

of 13 March 2003

In Case C-3/00, Kingdom of Denmark (Agent:
J. Molde)
supported by Republic of Iceland (Agent: H. S. Kristjánsson)
and Kingdom of Norway (Agent: B. B. Ekeberg) v Commission
of
the European Communities (Agents: M. Shotter and
H. C. Støvlbæk): Application for the annulment of Commission
Decision 1999/830/EC of 26 October 1999 on the national
provisions notified by the Kingdom of Denmark concerning
the use of sulphites, nitrites and nitrates in foodstuffs (OJ 1999
L 329, p. 1), the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias,
President,
J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet and R. Schintgen
(Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward, A. La
Pergola, P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr
and J. N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), Judges; A. Tizzano,
Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has
given a judgment on 20 March 2003, in which it:

in Case C-156/00: Kingdom of the Netherlands v Com-
mission of the European Communities (1)

(Action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2000)
485 final — Remission of import duties — Inward pro-
cessing — Lack of equivalence between Community products
and imported products)

(2003/C 112/02)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

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

1. Annuls Commission Decision 1999/830/EC of 26 October
1999 on the national provisions notified by the Kingdom of

In Case C-156/00, Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agent: initially
M. A. Fierstra, and, subsequently, the former together with

C 112/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

10.5.2003

J. van Bakel) v Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: C. van der Hauwaert and R. Tricot): Application for
annulment of Commission Decision C(2000) 485 final of
23 February 2000 determining in a particular case that an
application for remission of import duties is inadmissible in a
specified amount and that there is no justification for remission
of
(Fifth
Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of
the Fourth Chamber, acting for the President of the Fifth
Chamber, D. A. O. Edward, P. Jann, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur)
and A. Rosas, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
on 13 March 2003, in which it:

import duties in a separate amount, the Court

ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Helga Kutz-Bauer and Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg, on the
interpretation of Articles 2(1) and 5(1) of Council Directive
76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the
principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards
access to employment, vocational training and promotion,
and working conditions (OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40), the Court
(Sixth Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen, President of the
Second Chamber, acting for the President of the Sixth Chamb-
er, C. Gulmann, V. Skouris, F. Macken (Rapporteur) and
J. N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General;
L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
a judgment on 20 March 2003, in which it has ruled:

1. Annuls Commission Decision C(2000) 485 final of 23 Febru-
ary 2000 determining in a particular case that an application
for remission of import duties is inadmissible in a specified
amount and that there is no justification for remission of import
duties in a separate amount in so far as it declares inadmissible
the amount of NLG 15 679 301,49 of the application for
remission of import duties submitted by Cargill BV and referred
to the Commission of the European Communities on 22 April
1999 by the Kingdom of the Netherlands;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

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

( 1) OJ C 211 of 22.7.2000.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 20 March 2003

in Case C-187/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Arbeitsgericht Hamburg): Helga Kutz-Bauer v Freie
und Hansestadt Hamburg (1)

(Social policy — Equal treatment for men and women —
Scheme of part-time work for older employees — Directive
76/207/EEC — Indirect discrimination — Objective justifi-
cation)

1. Articles 2(1) and 5(1) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC on
the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men
and women as regards access to employment, vocational
training and promotion, and working conditions, must be
interpreted as meaning that they preclude a provision of a
collective agreement applicable to the public service which allows
male and female employees to take advantage of a scheme of
part-time work for older employees where under that provision
the right to participate in the scheme of part-time work applies
only until the date on which the person concerned first becomes
eligible for a retirement pension at the full rate under the
statutory old-age insurance scheme and where the class of
persons eligible for such a pension at the age of 60 consists
almost exclusively of women whereas the class of persons
entitled to receive such a pension only from the age of
65 consists almost exclusively of men, unless that provision is
justified by objective criteria unrelated to any discrimination on
grounds of sex.

2.

In the case of a breach of Directive 76/207 by legislative
provisions or by provisions of collective agreements introducing
discrimination contrary to that directive, the national courts are
required to set aside that discrimination, using all the means at
their disposal, and in particular by applying those provisions
for the benefit of the class placed at a disadvantage, and are not
required to request or await the setting aside of the provisions
by the legislature, by collective negotiation or otherwise.

(2003/C 112/03)

(Language of the case: German)

(1) OJ C 211 of 22.7.2000.

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

In Case C-187/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Arbeitsgericht Hamburg (Germany) for a preliminary