Order of the Court of Justice (First Chamber) of 10 July 2003 in Case C-427/02 P: Giuseppe Di Pietro v Court of Auditors of the European Communities (Appeal — Officials — Prior administrative procedure — No complaint — Application manifestly inadmissible — Appeal manifestly inadmissible in part and manifestly unfounded in part)
Date: 2003-10-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Court of Auditors, General Court (EU), access to EU information, action for annulment (EU), appointment of staff, professional qualifications

18.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/1

I

(Information)

COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT OF JUSTICE

ORDER OF THE COURT

2. Mr. Schulte is ordered to pay the costs.

(Second Chamber)

of 4 April 2003

(1) OJ C 144 of 15.6.2002.

in Case C-128/02 P: Bernhard Schulte (1)

(Actions for damages — Non-contractual liability — Milk —
Additional levy — Reference quantities — Regulation (EEC)
No 2187/93 — Compensation payable to producers — Heirs
and those of similar status — Measure of the national
authorities — Time bar — Appeal in part clearly inadmissible
and in part clearly unfounded)

(2003/C 251/01)

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Case C-128/02 P: Bernhard Schulte, residing in Delbrück
(Germany) (Lawyer: R. Freise) — Appeal against the judgment
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
(Fourth Chamber) of 7 February 2002 in Case T-261/94
Schulte v Council and Commission [2002] ECR II-441, seek-
ing to have that judgment set aside, the other parties to the
proceedings being: Council of the European Union (Agent:
A.-M. Colaert, assisted by M. Núñez Müller) and Commission
of the European Communities (Agent: M. Niejahr, assisted by
M. Núñez Müller) — the Court (Second Chamber), composed
the Chamber, V. Skouris
of R. Schintgen, President of
and N. Colneric (Rapporteur), Judges: A. Tizzano, Advocate
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 4 April
2003, the operative part of which is as follows:

1. The appeal is dismissed;

ORDER OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE

(First Chamber)

of 10 July 2003

in Case C-427/02 P: Giuseppe Di Pietro v Court of
Auditors of the European Communities (1)

(Appeal — Officials — Prior administrative procedure —
No complaint — Application manifestly inadmissible —
Appeal manifestly inadmissible in part and manifestly
unfounded in part)

(2003/C 251/02)

(Language of the case: Italian)

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

In Case C-427/02 P: Giuseppe Di Pietro, residing in Messina
(Italy) (Lawyer: G. Monforte) — appeal against the order of the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Third
Chamber) of 27 September 2002 in Case T-254/01 Di Pietro v
Court of Auditors [2002] ECR-SC I-A-177 and II-929, by
which the Court declared manifestly inadmissible the applica-
tion by Mr Di Pietro for the annulment of the decision of the
Court of Auditors of 22 February 2001 appointing Mr Michel
Hervé to the post of Secretary General of that institution, the
other party to the proceedings being Court of Auditors of the

C 251/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

18.10.2003

European Communities (Agents: J.-M. Stenier, M. Bavendamm
and I. Ní Riagáin Düro) — the Court
(First Chamber),
composed of M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, P. Jann
and A. Rosas (Rapporteur),
Jacobs, Advocate
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 10 July
2003, the operative part of which is as follows:

Judges; F. G.

1. The appeal is dismissed;

2. Mr. Di Pietro is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 19 of 25.1.2003.

member countries and aligning exemptions from tax and
from customs duty in the context of travel?

(1) OJ L 350, p. 12.
(2) OJ L 345, p. 9.
(3) OJ L 105, p. 1.
(4) OJ L 133, p. 6.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van
Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven by judgment of
that
Court of 26 June 2003 in the proceedings between
1. Cindu Chemicals B.V., 2. Rütgers VFT AG, 3. Touwen
& Co B.V., 4. Pearl Paint Holland B.V., 5. Elf Atochem
Nederland B.V., 6. Zijlstra & Co. Verf B.V. and 7. B.V.
Chemische Producten Struyk & Co. and College voor de
toelating van bestrijdingsmiddelen

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht
für ZRS (Zivilrechtssachen) Wien by order of that Court
of 30 September 2002 in the case of DLD Trading
Company Import-Export spol. s.r.o. against Republic
of Austria

(Case C-281/03)

(2003/C 251/04)

(Case C-216/03)

(2003/C 251/03)

Justice of

the
Reference has been made to the Court of
European Communities by order of
the Landesgericht für
ZRS (Zivilrechtssachen) Wien (Regional Civil Court, Vienna)
of 30 September 2002, received at the Court Registry on
19 May 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of DLD
Trading Company Import-Export spol. s.r.o. against Republic
of Austria on the following questions:

1. Are Regulation (EC) No 3316/94 (1) and Regulation (EC)
No 2744/981 (2) compatible with the provisions of
Community law relating to exemptions from customs
duties, in particular Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 (3) and
the principle of the Customs union?

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:

Did the retroactive entry into force of Regulation (EC)
No 2744/98 infringe the principles of legal certainty or
the protection of legitimate expectations?

3. Are Article 5(8) of Directive 69/169/EEC (4) and the
national provisions transposing it, namely Paragraph 3a
of the Verbrauchssteuer-befreiungsverordnung (Regulation
on exemptions from excise duties) and the Umsatzsteuer-
Verordnung,
II
No 326/1997), incompatible with the purposes of harmo-
nising turnover tax and excise duty within the Member
States, liberalising and facilitating travel to and from non-

(Turnover Tax Regulations)

(BGBl

the
Justice of
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 26 June 2003, received at the Court Registry
on 30 June 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
between 1. Cindu Chemicals B.V., 2. Rütgers VFT AG,
3. Touwen & Co B.V., 4. Pearl Paint Holland B.V., 5. Elf
Atochem Nederland B.V., 6. Zijlstra & Co. Verf B.V. and 7. B.V.
Chemische Producten Struyk & Co. and College voor de toelating
van bestrijdingsmiddelen on the following question:

Does the Substances Directive permit a Member State to lay
down additional conditions for the placing on the market and
use of a biocidal product the active substance of which is
included in Annex I to the Substances Directive?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van
Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven by judgment of
that
Court of 26 June 2003 in the proceedings between Arch
Timber Protection BV and College voor de toelating
van bestrijdingsmiddelen; party to these proceedings:
Stichting Behoud Leefmilieu en Natuur Maas en Waal

(Case C-281/03)

(2003/C 251/05)

Reference has been made to the Court of
European Communities by judgment of

Justice of
the
the College van