Case C-40/03 P: Appeal brought on 4 February 2003 by Rica Foods (Free Zone) NV against the judgment delivered on 14 November 2002 by the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) in Joined Cases T-332/00 and T-350/00 Rica Foods (Free Zone) NV, supported by the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Free Trade Foods NV, v Commission of the European Communities, supported by the Kingdom of Spain
Date: 2003-06-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Netherlands, Spain, action for annulment (EU), import, sugar product

21.6.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/13

ORDER OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 6 March 2003

Appeal brought on 4 February 2003 by Rica Foods (Free
Zone) NV against the judgment delivered on 14 Novem-
ber 2002 by the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber)
in Joined Cases T-332/00 and T-350/00 Rica Foods (Free
Zone) NV, supported by the Kingdom of the Netherlands
and Free Trade Foods NV, v Commission of the European
Communities, supported by the Kingdom of Spain

in Case C-449/01 Reference for a preliminary ruling by
the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division):
Abbey Life Assurance Co. Ltd v Kok theam Yeap (1)

(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Directive 86/
653/EEC — Coordination of the laws of the Member States
relating to self-employed commercial agents — Applicability
to agents in the insurance and financial services fields)

(2003/C 146/21)

(Language of the case: English)

(Case C-40/03 P)

(2003/C 146/22)

An appeal has been brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 4 February 2003 by Rica Foods
(Free Zone) NV, represented by G. van der Wal, advocaat
before the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, against the judgment
delivered on 14 November 2002 by the Court of First Instance
(Third Chamber) in Joined Cases T-332/00 and T-350/00 Rica
Foods (Free Zone) NV, supported by the Kingdom of the
Netherlands and Free Trade Foods NV, v Commission of the
European Communities, supported by the Kingdom of Spain.

The appellant claims that the Court should:

In Case C-449/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division)
(United Kingdom) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
pending before that court between Abbey Life Assurance Co.
Ltd and Kok Theam Yeap, on the interpretation of Council
Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordi-
nation of the laws of the Member States relating to self-
employed commercial agents (OJ 1986 L 382, p. 17), the
Court (First Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of
Judges;
the Chamber, P.
C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made
an order on 6 March 2003, the operative part of which is as
follows:

Jann (Rapporteur) and A. Rosas,

1.

2.

Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the
coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-
employed commercial agents must be interpreted as meaning that
self-employed agents appointed for the purpose of soliciting appli-
cations for policies for life assurance, annuities or savings do not fall
within its scope.

( 1) OJ C 84 of 6.4.2002.

declare admissible the appeal lodged by the appellant
against the judgment delivered on 14 November 2002 by
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
in Joined Cases T-332/00 and T-350/00;

set aside the judgment delivered on 14 November 2002
by the Court of First Instance of the European Communi-
ties in Joined Cases T-332/00 and T-350/00 and, ruling
afresh pursuant to the application at first instance lodged
by the present appellant on 27 October 2000:

— annul Regulation (EC) No 2081/2000; (1)

— declare that the Community is liable for the damage
suffered by the appellant by reason of the fact that
imports of the products referred to in Regulation
(EC) No 2081/2000 have, since 1 October 2000,
been prevented or restricted as a result of that
regulation, and order the parties to reach agreement
on the extent of the damage suffered by the appel-
lant, and, if no agreement is reached on that matter,
order that the procedure be continued within a
period to be determined by the Court of Justice for
the purpose of determining the extent of the damage,
or at any rate order the Community to pay compen-
sation for the provisionally estimated damage and
for that still to be assessed; in the further alternative,

C 146/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.6.2003

order the Community to pay compensation to be
determined on an equitable basis by the Court of
Justice, plus annual interest of 8 % from the date of
the application at first instance to the date of full
and final payment;

3.

order the respondent to pay the costs of both sets of
proceedings, in accordance with Article 69(2) of the Rules
of Procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
Case C-41/03 P, it being understood that the present case
relates to Regulation (EC) No 2081/2000.

( 1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2081/2000 of 29 September
2000 providing for the continued application of safeguard
measures for imports from the overseas countries and territories
of sugar sector products with EC/OCT cumulation of origin
(OJ 2000 L 246, p. 64).

Pleas in law and main arguments

is not

— Incorrect implementation of Article 5 of the Directive.
The Law transposing Article 5 of Directive 93/13/EEC
into Spanish law fails to mention that the rule that the
interpretation that is the most favourable to the consumer
to apply in the context of the
is to prevail
procedures laid down in Article 7(2) of the Directive
(prohibitory actions). Thus a situation is created in which
consumers run the risk that the interpretation rule may
go counter to their interests, inasmuch as it will be an
obstacle to the removal from contracts with consumers,
by means of a prohibitory action, unclear terms which,
according to a ‘normal’ interpretation, are unfair;

— incorrect implementation of Article 6(2) of the Directive:
by referring to the provision ‘in Article 5 of the 1980
Rome Convention on the Law applicable to Contractual
Obligations’, the Spanish Law limits the protection offered
by the Directive to consumers, by introducing a twofold
restriction. Thus, the Directive provides for the protection
of all consumers in all contracts concluded with a seller
or supplier, whereas the Spanish Law provides such
protection only for certain types of contract and only
where certain conditions are satisfied, a twofold restric-
tion prohibited by the Directive.

(1) Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in

consumer contracts (OJ L 95 of 21.4.1993, p. 29).

Action brought on 17 February 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
Spain

(Case C-70/03)

(2003/C 146/23)

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van
Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven by judgment of that Court
of 7 January 2003 in the proceedings between A. Tempel-
man and Directeur van de Rijksdienst voor de keuring
van Vee en Vlees

An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 Febru-
ary 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Isabel Martínez del Peral and Miguel França, of
its Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. Declare that, by failing to transpose fully into its national
law Articles 5 and 6(2) of Directive 93/12/EEC (1) of
5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, the
Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under
the Treaty and under that directive;

2. Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

(Case C-96/03)

(2003/C 146/24)

Justice of the
Reference has been made to the Court of
European Communities by judgment of the College van Beroep
voor het Bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court for Trade and
Industry) of 7 January 2003, received at the Court Registry on
4 March 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
between A. Tempelman and Directeur van de Rijksdienst voor
de keuring van Vee en Vlees on the following questions:

1. May a Member State derive from Community law the
power to decide to kill animals which are suspected of
being infected or contaminated with the foot-and-mouth
virus?