Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 April 2003 in Case C-217/01 P: Michel Hendrickx v Centre européen pour le développement de la formation professionnelle (Cedefop) (Appeal — Officials — Resettlement Allowance — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2003-06-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Cedefop, European official, action for annulment (EU), installation allowance

C 146/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.6.2003

— precluding the application of national legislation which excludes
Turkish workers duly registered as belonging to the labour force
of the host Member State from eligibility for election to the
general assembly of a body representing and defending the
interests of workers, such as the chambers of workers in Austria.

( 1) OJ C 173 of 16.6.2001.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 8 May 2003

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 10 April 2003

in Case C-217/01 P: Michel Hendrickx v Centre européen
pour le développement de la formation professionnelle
(Cedefop) (1)

(Appeal — Officials — Resettlement Allowance — Action
which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudi-
cate)

(2003/C 146/16)

(Language of the case: French)

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

In Case C-217/01 P, Michel Hendrickx (represented by
J.-N. Louis and V. Peere): Appeal against the order of the Court
of First Instance of the European Communities (Fifth Chamber)
of 12 March 2001 in Case T-298/00 Hendrickx v Cedefop
(not published in the ECR), seeking to have that order set aside,
the other party to the proceedings being: Centre européen pour
le développement de la formation professionnelle (Cedefop)
(represented by B. Wägenbaur), the Court (Sixth Chamber),
composed of:
J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,
C. Gulmann, F. Macken, N. Colneric (Rapporteur) and
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General;
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 April 2003, in
which it:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mr Hendrickx to pay the costs.

( 1) OJ C 212 of 28.7.2001.

in Case C-268/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Verwaltungsgericht Weimar): Agrargenossenschaft
Alkersleben eG, v Freistaat Thüringen, (1)

(Milk and milk products — Council Regulation (EEC)
No 3950/92 — Scheme applicable to the territory of the
former German Democratic Republic — Reference quantities
— Concepts of ‘producer’ and ‘holding’ — Lessee of a
holding situated within that territory)

(2003/C 146/17)

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Case C-268/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Verwaltungsgericht Weimar (Germany) for a prelimi-
nary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
between Agrargenossenschaft Alkersleben eG, and Freistaat
Thüringen, on the interpretation of Articles 3(2), 4(4), 5 and
9(c) and (d) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of
28 December 1992 establishing an additional levy in the milk
and milk products sector (OJ 1992 L 405, p. 1), as amended
by Commission Regulation (EC) No 751/1999 of 9 April 1999
(OJ 1999 L 96, p. 11), the Court (Second Chamber), composed
the Chamber, V. Skouris
of: R. Schintgen, President of
(Rapporteur) and N. Colneric,
Judges; P. Léger, Advocate
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 May
2003, in which it has ruled:

1. Article 9(c) and (d) of Council Regulation No 3950/92 of
28 December 1992 establishing an additional
levy in the
milk and milk products sector, as amended by Commission
Regulation (EC) No 751/1999 of 9 April 1999 and read
with Articles 3(2), 4(4) and 5 of the former regulation, must
be interpreted as meaning that all the milk production of a
farmer established in the territory of the former German
Democratic Republic obtained on an independent basis in
leased facilities situated in that territory but in different länder
must be imputed to the reference quantity provisionally allocated
to him.

2. Article 9(c) and (d) of Regulation No 3950/92, as amended
by Regulation No 751/99, and read with Articles 3(2), 4(4)
and 5 of the former regulation, must be interpreted as precluding
the competent national authorities from prohibiting a producer
established in the former German Democratic Republic from
transferring his milk production to facilities in a commune
which, although forming part of that territory on the date of