CELEX: C2000/316/32
Language: en
Date: 2000-11-04 00:00:00
Title: Case C-337/00: Action brought on 14 September 2000 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the Commission of the European Communities

4.11.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 316/17
      —     Commission Directive 98/87/EC of 13 November                 2.    Order the defendant to pay the costs.
            1998 amending Council Directive 79/373/EEC on
            the marketing of compound feedingstuffs (2), and
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
      —     Commission Directive 98/100/EC of 21 December
            1998 amending Directive 92/76/EC recognising                 The pleas in law and main arguments correspond to those in
            protected zones exposed to particular plant health           Case C-377/99 (1).
            risks in the Community (3),
                                                                         The applicant contests the decision on the financial correction
            the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil           concerning expenditure of the Land of Mecklenburg-Vorpom-
            its obligations under Article 3 of Directive 98/68/EC,       mern in the arable crops sector for the 1995 harvest, in so far
            Article 2 of Directive 98/87/EC and Article 2 of             as the Commission
            Directive 98/100/EC;
                                                                         —     now charges 5 %, instead of 2 % as originally envisaged,
2.    Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.                    of the expenditure whose justification was checked by
                                                                               classic on-the-spot control, and
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          —     applies a charge of 2 % for the expenditure whose
                                                                               justification was checked by remote sensing.
By virtue of the mandatory nature of Articles 10 EC and 249
EC, Member States are required to take the measures necessary
to transpose directives addressed to them into national law              (1) OJ C 366 of 18.12.1999, p. 19.
before the expiry of the periods prescribed for that purpose.
The periods laid down in the provisions referred to in
paragraph 1 of the heads of claim expired on 31 March 1999,
30 June 1999 and 1 January 1999, respectively, without the
Grand Duchy of Luxembourg having adopted the necessary
measures.
                                                                         Appeal brought on 18 September 2000 by the Conseil
                                                                         National des Professions de l’Automobile (‘CNPA’), la
(1) OJ L 261, 24.9.1998, p. 32.                                          Fédération Nationale de Distributeurs, Loueurs et Répara-
(2) OJ L 318, 27.11.1998, p. 43.                                         teurs de Matériel de Bâtiments et Travaux Publics et de
(3) OJ L 351, 29.12.1998, p. 35.                                         Manutention (‘DLR’), Auto Contrôle 31 SA, YAM 31 Sàrl,
                                                                         Roux SA, Marc Foucher-Creteau et Verdier Distri-
                                                                         bution Sàrl against the order made on 12 July 2000 by the
                                                                         Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                         (Third Chamber) in Case T-45/00 Conseil National des
                                                                         Professions de l’Automobile, la Fédération Nationale de
                                                                         Distributeurs, Loueurs et Réparateurs de Matériel de
Action brought on 14 September 2000 by the Federal                       Bâtiments et Travaux Publics et de Manutention, Auto
Republic of Germany against the Commission of the                        Contrôle 31 SA, YAM 31 Sàrl, Roux SA, Marc Foucher-
                     European Communities                                Creteau et Verdier Distribution Sàrl v Commission of the
                                                                                             European Communities
                          (Case C-337/00)
                                                                                                (Case C-341/00 P)
                         (2000/C 316/32)
                                                                                                 (2000/C 316/33)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European             An appeal against the order made on 12 July 2000 by the
Communities on 14 September 2000 by the Federal Republic                 Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
of Germany, represented by Wolf-Dieter Plessing, Minis-                  Communities in Case T-45/00 between CNPA and Others and
terialrat, and Thomas Jürgensen, Regierungsrat, of the Federal           the Commission was brought before the Court of Justice of
Ministry of Financial Affairs, 108 Graurheindorfer Straße,               the European Communities on 18 September 2000 by CNPA
D-53117 Bonn.                                                            and Others, represented by C. Bourgeon, of the Paris Bar, with
                                                                         an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              François Brouxel, 6 Rue Zithe.
1.    Annul Commission Decision 2000/449/EC of 5 July                    The appellants claim that the Court should:
      2000 on the exclusion from Community financing of
      certain expenditure of the Member States charged to the            having regard to Article 115(1) of the Rules of Procedure of
      Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance            the Court of First Instance
      and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), in so far as under Article 1
      the sum of DEM 17 412 165,440 is not accepted by the               —     set aside the contested order on grounds of a substantial
      EAGGF but charged to the Federal Republic of Germany;                    procedural defect;