Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 February 2005 in Case C-13/03 P: Commission of the European Communities v Tetra Laval BV (Appeal — Competition — Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 — Judgment holding that a decision ordering a separation of undertakings is illegal as a result of the illegality of an earlier decision declaring a merger incompatible with the common market)
Date: 2005-04-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, General Court (EU), action for annulment (EU), economic concentration, merger control, packaging product, plastics industry, pulp and paper industry

C 106/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2005

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Grand Chamber)

of 1 March 2005

(Grand Chamber)

of 15 February 2005

in Case C-377/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Raad van State (Belgium) in Léon Van Parys NV v
Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau (BIRB) (1)

in Case C-13/03 P: Commission of the European Commu-
nities v Tetra Laval BV (1)

(Common organisation of the markets — Bananas — GATT
1994 — Articles I and XIII — Framework agreement of 23
April 1993 between the EEC and the Cartagena Group —
Direct effect — Recommendations and decisions of the WTO
Dispute Settlement Body — Legal effects)

(Appeal — Competition — Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 —
Judgment holding that a decision ordering a separation of
undertakings is illegal as a result of the illegality of an
earlier decision declaring a merger incompatible with the
common market)

(2005/C 106/06)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

(2005/C 106/07)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case C-377/02: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Raad van State (Belgium), made by
decision of 7 October 2002, received at the Court on 21
October 2002, in the proceedings between Léon Van Parys NV
and Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau (BIRB) — the
Court: (Grand Chamber) composed of V. Skouris, President, P.
Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans and A. Borg Barthet, Presidents of
J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), N.
Chambers,
Colneric, S. von Bahr, G. Arestis, M. Ilešič, J. Malenovský, J.
Klučka and U. Lõhmus,, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General,
M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a
judgment on 1 March 2005, in which it ruled:

In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, an operator
may not rely in proceedings before a national court on the fact that
Community legislation is incompatible with certain rules of the World
Trade Organisation even where the Dispute Settlement Body referred
to in Article 2(1) of the Understanding on rules and procedures
governing the settlement of disputes, which forms Annex 2 to the
Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation, approved by
Council Decision 94/800/EC of 22 December 1994 concerning the
conclusion on behalf of the European Community, as regards matters
within its competence, of the agreements reached in the Uruguay
Round multilateral negotiations (1986-1994), has declared that
legislation to be incompatible with those rules.

In Case C-13/03 P: appeal under Article 49 of the EC Statute of
the Court of Justice lodged on 8 January 2003 by Commission
of the European Communities (Agents: M. Petite, A. Whelan
and P. Hellström), the other party to the proceedings being
Tetra Laval BV established in Amsterdam (Netherlands) (repre-
sented by A. Vandencasteele and D. Waelbroeck, M. Johnsson,
A. Weitbrecht and S. Völcker) — the Court (Grand Chamber),
composed of P. Jann, President of the First Chamber (acting as
President), C.W.A. Timmermans and A. Rosas (Rapporteur),
J.-P. Puissochet, R.
Presidents of Chambers, C. Gulmann,
Schintgen, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues,
Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal
Administrator,
for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 15
February 2005, in which it:

1. Declares that there is no need to give a ruling on the appeal;

2. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the

costs.

(1) OJ C 7 of 11.01.2003.

(1) OJ C 70 of 22.03.2003.