Order of the Court of 11 November 2003 in Case C-488/01 P: Jean-Claude Martinez (Appeal — Statement of formation of a group under Rule 29(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament — Lack of political affinities — Retroactive dissolution of the TDI Group — Appeal manifestly inadmissible in part and manifestly unfounded in part)
Date: 2004-03-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: France, General Court (EU), Member of the European Parliament, action for annulment (EU), constitutional law, operation of the Institutions, political parties

C 59/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.3.2004

5. Orders Ciments français SA and the Commission of

the
European Communities to bear their own costs in Case C-211/
00 P.

(1) OJ C 247 of 26.08.2000.

1. Dismisses the appeals;

2. Orders the Bundesverband der Arzneimittel-Importeure eV,
Bayer AG and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical
Industries’ Associations to bear their own costs in relation to
Case C-2/01 P;

3. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay

the costs in relation to Case C-3/01 P;

4. Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to bear its own costs.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 6 January 2004

(1) OJ C 79 of 10.03.2001.

in Joined Cases C-2/01 P and C-3/01 P: Bundesverband
der Arzneimittel-Importeure eV against Commission of
the European Communities (1)

(Appeals — Competition — Parallel imports — Article 85(1)
of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) — Meaning of
agreement between undertakings — Proof of the existence of
an agreement — Market in pharmaceutical products)

(2004/C 59/02)

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Joined Cases C-2/01 P and C-3/01 P: Bundesverband der
Arzneimittel-Importeure eV, established in Mülheim an der
Ruhr (Germany), (Agnets: U. Zinsmeister and W.A. Rehmann),
with an address for service in Luxembourg, supported by
European Association of Euro Pharmaceutical Companies
(EAEPC), established in Brussels (Belgium), (Agents: M. Epping
and M. Lienemeyer), with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg, against Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: K. Wiedner and W. Wils, assisted by H.-J. Freund),
with an address for service in Luxembourg, supported by
Kingdom of Sweden (Agent: A. Kruse), and by European
Association of Euro Pharmaceutical Companies (EAEPC): two
Appeals against the judgment of the Court of First Instance
the European Communities (Fifth Chamber, Extended
of
Composition) of 26 October 2000 in Case T-41/96 Bayer v
Commission [2000] ECR II-3383, seeking to have that judg-
ment set aside, the other parties to the proceedings being: Bayer
AG, established in Leverkusen (Germany), (Agent: J. Sedemund)
with an address for service in Luxembourg, and European
Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries’ Associations, estab-
lished in Geneva (Switzerland), (Agent: A. Woodgate), the
Court,
Jann,
composed of: V. Skouris, President, P.
C.W.A. Timmermans and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Presidents of
Chambers), D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), A. La Pergola, J.-
P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, F. Macken, N. Colneric and S. von
Bahr,
Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
on 6 January 2004, in which it:

ORDER OF THE COURT

of 11 November 2003

in Case C-488/01 P: Jean-Claude Martinez (1)

(Appeal — Statement of formation of a group under
Rule 29(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the European
Parliament — Lack of political affinities — Retroactive
dissolution of the TDI Group — Appeal manifestly inadmis-
sible in part and manifestly unfounded in part)

(2004/C 59/03)

(Language of the case: French)

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

In Case C-488/01 P,
Jean-Claude Martinez, a member of
the European Parliament, residing in Montpellier (France),
represented by F. Wagner and V. de Poulpiquet de Brescanvel,
avocats: Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First
Instance of
the European Communities (Third Chamber,
Extended Composition) in Joined Cases T-222/99, T-327/99
and T-329/99 Martinez and Others v Parliament [2001]
ECR II-2823, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other
parties to the proceedings being: European Parliament (Agents:
G. Garzón Clariana, J. Schoo and H. Krück), defendant at first
the European
instance, Charles de Gaulle, a member of
Parliament, residing in Paris (France), applicant at first instance,
the Court, composed of: V. Skouris, President, P.
Jann,
C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann, J.N. Cunha
Rodrigues
of Chambers,
D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen,
F. Macken, N. Colneric and S. von Bahr, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo
Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an
order on 11 November 2003, the operative part of which is as
follows:

and A. Rosas,

Presidents

6.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 59/3

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

2. Mr Martinez is ordered to pay the costs of

the present

proceedings.

3. Mr Martinez is also ordered to pay the Parliament’s costs in
connection with the application for interim measures in Case
C-488/01 P-R.

(1) OJ C 84 of 6.4.2002.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden by order of that Court of 5 December 2003
in the case of the State of the Netherlands (Ministry of
Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries) against
1. Ten Kate Holding Musselkanaal BV, 2. Ten Kate
Europrodukten BV, and 3. Ten Kate Produktie Maatschap-
pij BV

(Case C-511/03)

(2004/C 59/04)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of
the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden of 5 December 2003, received at the Court
Registry on 8 December 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of the State of the Netherlands (Ministry of Agriculture,
Nature Management and Fisheries) against 1. Ten Kate Holding
Musselkanaal BV, 2. Ten Kate Europrodukten BV, and 3. Ten
Kate Produktie Maatschappij BV on the following questions:

1. Must the question whether, in a case such as this, the
State has an obligation towards a citizen who has an
interest in it, such as Ten Kate, to make use of the legal
remedies available to it under Article 175 of the EC
Treaty (Article 232 EC) or Article 173 of the EC Treaty
(Article 230 EC) and, in the event of failure to comply
with such an obligation, to pay compensation for the
damage sustained as a consequence by the citizen con-
cerned, be answered by reference to rules of Netherlands
national law or by reference to rules of Community law?

2.

If the question referred to in Question 1 must be answered
wholly or partly by reference to rules of Community law:

(a) Are there circumstances in which Community law
can entail an obligation and liability as referred to in
that question?

3. Must Article 1(2) of Decision 94/381/EC, read as far as
necessary in conjunction with the provisions of Article 17
of Directive 90/425/EEC and Article 17 of Directive 89/
662/EEC, be interpreted as giving rise to an obligation for
the Commission or the Council to grant an authorisation
as referred to therein if the system which the requesting
Member State applies or intends to apply is in fact suitable
for distinguishing between protein from ruminant and
non-ruminant species?

4.

To what extent does the answer to Question 3 entail a
restriction of the right, or of the State’s obligation referred
to in Question 1, to challenge a failure to grant an
authorisation such as that at issue in this case under
Article 175 of the EC Treaty (Article 232 EC), or to
challenge a refusal to grant such an authorisation under
Article 173 of the EC Treaty (Article 230 EC)?

(Question 3 is relevant whether the question referred to
in Question 1 must be answered according to Netherlands
national law or whether that answer must be determined
according to Community law, in the latter case unless the
answer to Question 2(a) is in the negative. Question 4 is
relevant only in the light of an answer to Question 2(b).)

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht
Hamburg by order of that Court of 12 November 2003 in
the case of Eichsfelder Schlachtbetrieb GmbH against
Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

(Case C-515/03)

(2004/C 59/05)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht Ham-
burg (Hamburg Finance Court) of 12 November 2003, received
at the Court Registry on 9 December 2003, for a preliminary
ruling in the case of Eichsfelder Schlachtbetrieb GmbH against
Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas on the following question:

Is Article 17(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 (1) as amended
by Regulation (EC) No 1384/95 (2)
to be interpreted as
meaning that a product is considered to have been imported
if, after its release for free circulation in a non-member country,
it undergoes substantial processing or working within the
meaning of Article 24 of Regulation (EC) No 2913/92 (3) and
then is brought back into the Community upon drawback and
payment of the normal import duties?

(b)

If the answer to Question 2(a) is in the affirmative,
which rules of Community law must be used as the
criterion when answering the question referred to

(1) OJ L 351, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 134, p. 14.
(3) OJ L 302, p. 1.

in Question 1 in a specific case such as this?