CELEX: C1997/295/40
Language: en
Date: 1997-09-27 00:00:00
Title: Appeal brought on 5 August by Maria Grazia Colombo Lunghi against the judgment delivered on 3 June 1997 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-196/95 between Maria Grazia Colombo Lunghi and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-291/97 P)

27 . 9 . 97              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 295/23
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Ufficio del                     Is subheading 'ex 0207 41 11 ' in sector 8 of the Annex to
Giudice di Pace di Genova by order of that court of                       Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 3846/87 of 17 De­
16 July 1997 in the case of Eridania SpA against Azienda                  cember 1987 establishing an agricultural product
             Agricola San Luca di Rumagnoli Viannj                        nomenclature for export refunds ( OJ L 366, 24. 12 . 1987,
                                                                          p. 1 ), valid for the period from 21 June 1988 to
                          ( Case C-289/97 )
                                                                          16 January 1989, to be interpreted as meaning that the
                             ( 97/C 295/38 )                              term 'quarters' ( of chicken) also includes cuts of poultry
                                                                          not yet wholly separated from each other ('posteriori') as
                                                                          described more precisely in the grounds of this order ( J )?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    ( 1 ) Divided at right angles to the backbone, not longitudinally.
European Communities by order of the Ufficio del Giudice
di Pace di Genova (Magistrate's Court, Genoa ), of 16 July
1997, received at the Court Registry on 4 August 1997,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Eridania SpA
against Azienda Agricola San Luca di Rumagnoli Viannj
on the following questions :
                                                                          Appeal brought on 5 August by Maria Grazia Colombo
                                                                          Lunghi against the judgment delivered on 3 June 1997 by
1 . Is Regulation (EC ) No 1580/96 (») of 30 July 1996,                   the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
      published in the Official Journal of the European                   European Communities in Case T- 196/95 between Maria
      Communities on 16 August 1996, and in particular                    Grazia Colombo Lunghi and the Commission of the
      Article 1 ( f) thereof, valid, above all having regard to                                  European Communities
      the arguments set out in paragraph 3 of the section of
      this order entitled ' Law'?                                                                    ( Case C-291/97 P)
                                                                                                         97/C 295/40 )
2. If the answer to the first question is 'Yes', is
      Regulation ( EEC ) No 1785/81 ( 2 ) of 30 June 1981 ,               An appeal against the judgment delivered on 3 June 1997
      published in the Official Journal of the European                   by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
       Communities on 1 July 1981 , and in particular,                    European Communities in Case T- 196/95 between Maria
      Articles 3 ( 1 ), 5 ( 3 ) and 6 (2 ) thereof as subsequently         Grazia Colombo Lunghi and the Commission of the
      amended, valid, and in consequence is Regulation ( EC )             European Communities was brought before the Court of
      No 1580/96 of 30 July 1996 valid, with particular                   Justice of the European Communities on 5 August 1997
       reference to Article 1 ( f), especially in the light of the         by Maria Grazia Colombo Lunghi, represented by Vincent
       arguments set out in paragraph 4 of the section of this             Lurquin, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
       order entitled ' Law '?
                                                                           Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du
                                                                           Fort Rheinsheim .
(') OJ L 206 , 16 . 8 . 1996 , p . 9 .
( 2 ) OJ L 177, 1 . 7. 1981 , p . 4 .
                                                                          The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          — declare the appeal admissible and well-founded,
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                                — set aside the judgment appealed against,
Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 26 June 1997 in
the case of Georg Bruner, trading as Georg Bruner v.
                   Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas                              — declare the original application admissible and well­
                                                                                 founded .
                           ( Case C-290/97 )
                              ( 97/C 295/39 )
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    — Irregularity         of    the   procedure     establishing     the
European Communities by an order of the Seventh Senate                           composition of the Invalidity Committee: the Court of
of the Bundesfinanzhof ( Federal Finance Court ) of 26 June                      First Instance wrongly considered that the procedure
 1997, which was received at the Court Registry on                               whereby the President of the Court of Justice appoints,
4 August 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of                           on his own initiative, a doctor to represent the staff
 Georg Bruner, trading as Georg Bruner v. Hauptzollamt                           member on the Invalidity Committee should not
 Hamburg-Jonas on the following question:                                        involve the consultation of that staff member. Whilst it
 ---pagebreak--- C 295/24               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     27 . 9 . 97
     may be accepted that the act by which the President                   who — for reasons outside their control — have not
     appoints a doctor to represent the applicant on the                   delivered milk throughout the necessary qualification
     Committee is itself an administrative act, the acts                   period for the award of quota (1 March 1994 to
     which precede it or directly follow from it must                      1 January 1995 ) are refused a quota ?
     involve full consultation of the other party.
     Consequently, the Commission was under an
     obligation to inform the applicant of its decision to           (') OJ L 405 , 31 . 12 . 1992, p . 40.
     refer the matter to the President of the Court of
     Justice. Once that appointment had taken place, the
     Commission was also obliged to communicate a copy
     of the appointment order made by the President of the
     Court of Justice.
— Infringement of the first paragraph of Article 9 of                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Divisional
     Annex II to the Staff Regulations of Officials: the             Court, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of
     Court of First Instance wrongly considered that the             17 June 1997, in the case of The Queen against
     applicant was in a position to exercise the rights              ( 1 ) Secretary of State for the Environment (2 ) Minister of
     conferred on her by that provision.                             Agriculture, Fisheries & Food, ex parte: ( 1 ) H. A.
                                                                     Standley and Others (2 ) D. G. D. Metson and Others,
                                                                                   Intervener: National Farmers ' Union
                                                                                                ( Case C-293/97 )
                                                                                                  ( 97/C 295/42 )
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsratt
by order of that court of 23 July 1997 in the case brought
    by Kjell Karlsson and Others against Jordbruksverket
                                                                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                         (Case C-292/97)                             European Communities by an order of the Divisional
                          ( 97/C 295/41 )                            Court, Queen's Bench Division, of 17 June 1997, which
                                                                     was received at the Court Registry on 11 August 1997, for
                                                                     a preliminary ruling in the case of The Queen against
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the               ( 1 ) Secretary of State for the Environment ( 2 ) Minister of
European Communities by order of the Regeringsratt                   Agriculture, Fisheries & Food, ex parte: ( 1 ) H. A.
(Supreme Administrative Court) of 23 July 1997, which                Standley and Others ( 2 ) D. G. D. Metson and Others,
was received at the Court Registry on 8 August 1997, for             Intervener: National Farmers' Union, on the following
a preliminary ruling in the case brought by Kjell Karlsson           questions:
and Others against Jordbruksverket on the following
questions:
                                                                      1 . Does Council Directive 91 /676/EEC (*) of 12 December
Do Council Regulation ( EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December                      1991 concerning the protection of waters against
1992 establishing an additional levy in the milk and milk                  pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources
products sector ('), Articles 5 and 40 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty              ('the Nitrates Directive') require Member States, in
and the fundamental Community law principle of equal                       accordance, in particular, with Articles 2 (j ) and 3 ( 1 )
treatment permit national provisions of a State which                      and Annex I thereof, to identify surface freshwaters as
acceded to the Union on 1 January 1995 under which:                        'waters affected by pollution', and then to designate as
                                                                           vulnerable zones in accordance with Article 3 (2 )
                                                                           thereof all known areas of land which drain into such
1 . for producers who have not altered their production,                   waters and which contribute to pollution:
      average deliveries in 1991 , 1992 and 1993 are adopted
      as the basis for the award of a milk quota,
                                                                            (i)  where those waters contain a concentration of
2. producers who have commenced or increased                                     nitrates in excess of 50 mg/1 ( being the
      production of milk between 1 January 1991 and                              concentration of nitrates laid down by Annex I to
      31 December 1994 must accept a reduction in milk                           the Nitrates Directive, by reference to Directive
      quota, unlike milk producers whose production                              75/440/EEC (2) and the Member State is satisfied
      circumstances have not altered in that period and                          that the discharge of nitrogen compounds
      producers of ecologically produced milk, and that                          from agricultural sources makes a 'significant
                                                                                 contribution' to this overall concentration of
      reduction is determined differently for producers who
      have commenced production than for those who have                          nitrates and, if so, is a Member State entitled to
                                                                                 be so satisfied if it has reason to believe that the
      increased production,
                                                                                 contribution to this overall concentration of
                                                                                 nitrates, of nitrogen compounds discharged from
 3 . producers who delivered milk before the State's                             agricultural sources, is greater than de minimis or
      accession to the Community's milk quota system but                         some other amount or degree of contribution,