CELEX: C2001/028/17
Language: en
Date: 2001-01-27 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 November 2000 in Case C-280/98 P: Moritz J. Weig GmbH & Co. KG v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Competition — Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) — Fines — Determination of the amount — Statement of reasons — Mitigating circumstances)

C 28/10                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    27.1.2001
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Giudice di Pace
                                                                           di Genova by order of that court of 16 October 2000 in
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                   the case of Radiosistemi Srl against Prefetto di Genova
                       of 16 November 2000                                                         (Case C-388/00)
in Case C-280/98 P: Moritz J. Weig GmbH & Co. KG v                                                  (2001/C 28/18)
       Commission of the European Communities (1)
(Appeal — Competition — Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
(now Article 81(1) EC) — Fines — Determination of the                      European Communities by order of the Giudice di Pace
amount — Statement of reasons — Mitigating circum-                         (District Court), Genoa, of 23 October 2000, received at the
                                stances)                                   Court Registry on 16 October 2000, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                           in the case of Radiosistemi Srl against Prefetto di Genova on
                            (2001/C 28/17)                                 the following questions:
                                                                           (1) Does Community law, in the light also of its fundamental
                   (Language of the case: German)                               principles for which there is no primary textual source,
                                                                                preclude legislation and/or national administrative prac-
                                                                                tice which — in the context of a system where matters
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published          concerning conformity assessment procedures for the
                    in the European Court Reports)                              purposes of placing radio equipment on the market and
                                                                                putting such equipment into service have been delegated
In Case C-280/98 P: Moritz J. Weig GmbH & Co. KG,                               to the administrative authorities, to be decided merely at
established in Mayen, Germany, represented by T. Jestaedt, of                   their discretion — precludes economic operators from
the Brussels Bar and V. von Bomhard, Rechtsanwalt, Hamburg,                     importing, marketing or holding in stock, with a view to
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                    selling, radio equipment that has not undergone national
P. Dupont, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt, appeal against the                           type-approval, and which does not admit other forms of
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European                         evidence, equally reliable but less burdensome to obtain,
Communities (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) of                            to prove that such equipment is in conformity with
14 May 1998 in Case T-317/94 Weig v Commission [1998]                           requirements concerning the proper use of the radio
ECR II-1235, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other                 frequencies authorised under national law?
party to the proceedings being, Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: R. Lyal assisted by D. Schroeder) — the                (2) Does Directive 1999/5/EC (1) of the European Parliament
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola, President                    and of the Council of 9 March 1999 confer on individuals
of the Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward,                        rights upon which they may rely before the national
P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General;                     courts, where the Directive itself has not been formally
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 November                        transposed into national law and the deadline for such
2000, in which it:                                                              transposition has already expired? If that question is
                                                                                answered in the affirmative, is it compatible with
1.    Annuls paragraph 3 of the operative part of the judgment of               Article 7(2)) of Directive 1999/5/EC to maintain in force
      the Court of First Instance of 14 May 1998 in Case T-317/94               legislation and/or administrative practice which, after
      Weig v Commission;                                                        8 April 2000, prohibits the marketing and/or the putting
                                                                                into service of radio equipment which does not bear
2.    Fixes at EUR 1 900 000 the amount of the fine to be imposed               the national type-approval stamp, where it has been
      on Moritz J. Weig GmbH & Co. KG by Article 3 of Commission                confirmed that such equipment makes efficient and
      Decision 94/601/EC of 13 July 1994 relating to a proceeding               proper use of the radio frequencies authorised under
      under Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/C/33.833 — Car-                     national law, or where it is easy to verify that this is the
      tonboard);                                                                case?
3.    Dismisses the remainder of the appeal;                               (3) On a proper construction of Article 1 of Decision
                                                                                No 3052/95/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the
4.    Orders Moritz J. Weig GmbH & Co. KG to bear its own costs                 Council of 13 December 1995, how is the term ‘the
      and to pay two-thirds of the costs of the Commission of the               measure’ to be interpreted and does that term cover the
      European Community before the Court of Justice;                           situation where the administrative authorities, having
                                                                                seized a particular model or a particular type of product
5.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear                 which is lawfully marketed in another Member State,
      one-third of its own costs before the Court of Justice.                   continue to withhold that model or product after it has
                                                                                been ascertained by the public authorities responsible for
(1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.                                                      technical checks that the good in question is in conform-
                                                                                ity with both national and Community legislation, that is
                                                                                to say, after the evidential purposes justifying the initial
                                                                                seizure have been served?