CELEX: C1995/268/34
Language: en
Date: 1995-10-14 00:00:00
Title: Appeal brought on 14 August 1995 by Erika Lenz and Volker Lenz against the order made on 14 June 1995 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-462/93, T-464/93 and T-470/93 between Erika Lenz and Volker Lenz and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-277/95 P)

14 . 10 . 95          EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 268/ 15
     action against the Council of the European Union and               the Bundesfinanzhof ( Federal Finance Court ) of 20 June
     the joined party, the Kingdom of Spain, for the                     1 995 , which was received at the Court Registry on
     annulment of Article 115 of Council Regulation ( EC )              14 August 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
     No 40/94, and declare admissible the applicant's action            Ludwig Wunsche & Co . v . Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
     against the Council of the European Union and the                  — Export refund department — on the following
     Kingdom of Spain for the annulment of the said                     questions :
     Article 115 ,
                                                                        1 . Does the classification of esterified potato starch within
— order the Council to pay the costs of the appeal .                         tariff subheading 39.06 B I of the Common Customs
                                                                             Tariff 1987 or within tariff subheading 11.08 A IV of
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                          the Common Customs Tariff 1987 depend on its acetyl
The Court of First Instance wrongly held that the applicant                  content and consequently on the degree of its
                                                                             esterification ?
was affected solely in her objective capacity as a trade-mark
agent, in the same way as any other trade-mark agent                    2 . If the answer is in the affirmative : how high could the
finding himself, actually or potentially, in a comparable                    maximum acetyl content have been in the case of
situation as regards the use of the Dutch language . The                     esterified potato starch exported between April 1987
Court of First Instance overlooked, however, the fact that,                  and August 1987 so as not to preclude its classification
where a category of persons falls to be considered, it must                  within tariff subheading 11.08 A IV of the Common
necessarily be a valid category. In the present case, the Court              Customs Tariff 1987 ?
of First Instance has created a category which is incapable of
existing, since, according to Regulation No 1 of the Council
determining the languages to be used by the European
Community, any person established in an EC country may                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof
use his own language .                                                  by order of that court of 20 June 1995 in the case of Ludwig
                                                                        Wiinsche & Co. v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas —
                                                                                           Export refund department
                                                                                                 Case C-2 76/95 )
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof
by order of that court of 20 June 1995 in the case of Ludwig                                     ( 95/C 268/33 )
                                                                                                                                  \
Wunsche & Co v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas — Export                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                       refund department                                European Communities by order of the Seventh Chamber of
                          Case C-2 74/95                                the Bundesfinanzhof ( Federal Finance Court ) of 20 June
                          ( 95/C 268/31 )                               1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on
                                                                        14 August 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  Ludwig Wunsche & Co . v . Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
European Communities by order of the Seventh Chamber of                 — Export refund department — on the following
the Bundesfinanzhof ( Federal Finance Court ) of 20 June                questions :
1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on
14 August 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of                1 . Does the classification of esterified potato starch within
Ludwig Wunsche & Co v . Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas                           tariff subheading 39.06 B I of the Common Customs
— Export refund department — on the following                                Tariff 1987 or within tariff subheading 11.08 A IV of
questions :
                                                                             the Common Customs Tariff 1987 depend on its acetyl
                                                                             content and consequently on the degree of its
1 , does the tariff classification of esterified potato starch               esterification ?
     within subheading 3505 10 50 of the combined
     nomenclature depend on its acetyl content and                      2 . If the answer is in the affirmative: how high could the
     consequently on the degree of its esterification ?                      maximum acetyl content have been in the case of
                                                                             esterified potato starch exported between March 1987
2 . If the answer is in the affirmative : how high could the                 and December 1987 so as not to preclude its
     maximum acetyl content have been in the case of                         classification within tariff subheading 1 1.08 A IV of the
     esterified potato starch exported in February 1988 so as                Common Customs Tariff 1987 ?
     not to preclude its tariff classification within subheading
      1108 13 00 of the combined nomenclature ?
                                                                        Appeal brought on 14 August 1995 by Erika Lenz and
                                                                        Volker Lenz against the order made on 14 June 1995 by the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof               Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
by order of that court of 20 June 1995 in the case of Ludwig            European Communities in Joined Cases T-462/93 ,
Wunsche & Co. v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas —                           T-464/93 and T-470/93 between Erika Lenz and Volker
                   Export refund department                             Lenz and the Commission of the European Communities
                        ( Case C-275 /95 )                                                    ( Case C-277/95 P )
                          ( 95/C 268/32 )                                                        ( 95/C 268/34 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  An appeal against the order made on 14 June 1995 by the
European Communities by order of the Seventh Chamber of                 Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
 ---pagebreak--- No C 268/ 16             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    14 . 10 . 95
European Communities in Joined Cases T-462/93 ,                         Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
T-464/93 and T-470/93 between Erika Lenz and Volker                     the Chambers of Marc Loesch, 11 rue Goethe .
Lenz and the Commission of the European Communities
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                 The appellant claims that the Court should:
Communities on 14 August 1995 by Erika Lenz and Volker
Lenz, represented by Jiirgen Schlacht, Rechtsanwalt, of                 — set aside the judgment of the Second Chamber of the
Schliiterstrafêe 22 III, D-20146 Hamburg.                                   Court of First Instance of the European Communities of
                                                                            8 June 1995 in Case T-459/93 between Siemens SA,
The appellants claim that the Court should :                                supported by the Federal Republic of Germany, and the
                                                                            Commission of the European Communities,
— set aside the order of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of
      First Instance of 14 June 1995 in Joined Cases T-462/93 ,         — consequently, annul Articles 1 ( c ) and 2 of Commission
      T-464/93 and T-470/93 , disqualify Judge K. Lenaerts                  Decision 92/483/EEC of 24 June 1992 concerning aid
      from sitting as the President of the Fourth Chamber of                provided by the Brussels Regional Authorities ( Belgium )
      the Court of First Instance and, in addition, decide Cases            in favour of the activities of Siemens SA in the
      T-462/93 , T-464/93 and T-470/93 in accordance with                   data-processing and telecommunications sectors,
      the forms of order sought in each of those cases (*).
                                                                        — order the Commission to pay the costs of the present
                                                                            proceedings and of the proceedings before the Court of
Pleas in law and arguments adduced in support:                              First Instance in Case T-459/93 .
— The contested order of the Court of First Instance was
      made in breach of the Rules of Procedure . Under                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
      Article 16 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of
      Justice of the European Communities, the Court of                 Errors of law, in particular the fact that the Court of First
                                                                        Instance examined whether the contested aid constituted
      Justice should have decided to disqualify Judge Lenaerts
      and to exclude him from taking part in the contested              investment aid within the meaning applied to that term in
      order, by reason of his extensive involvement in the              Community law, instead of verifiying, as it should have
      earlier proceedings concerning the same matter.                   done, whether such aid fell within the substantive scope of
                                                                        the Belgian Law of 1959 ' introducing and coordinating
— The contested order wrongly dismissed the actions on                  measures to encourage economic expansion and the
      the ground that they were time-barred. Contrary to the            creation of new industries', as construed in Belgian law and
      assumption made in the judgment, no administrative                as approved by the Commission .
      procedure took place pursuant to Articles 90 or 9 1 of the
      Staff Regulations in relation to the applicants' claims .
      Such an administrative procedure was not required,
      since the appellants, who are not officials, are asserting
      claims in tort which, although connected with the social          Action brought on 18 August 1995 by the Commission of
      welfare of Community officials, are not subject to the              the European Communities against the Italian Republic
      rules of procedure governing claims by officials.
                                                                                                ( Case C-280/95 )
i 1 ) OJ No C 33 , 5 . 2 . 1993 , p . 11 ;                                                        ( 95/C 268/36 )
      OJ No C 54 , 25 . 2 . 1993 , p . 4 ;
      OJ No C 139 , 18 . 5 . 1993 , p . 10,                              An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
                                                                         the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                         18 August 1995 by the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities, represented by Antonio Aresu and Anders C.
                                                                        Jessen, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address
Appeal brought on 16 August 1995 by Siemens SA against                   for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gômez de
the judgment delivered on 8 June 1995 by the Second                      la Cruz, Wagner Centre , Kirchberg.
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities in Case T-459/93 between Siemens SA,                         The applicant claims that the Court should :
supported by the Federal Republic of Germany, and the
           Commission of the European Communities                        — declare that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
                                                                             obligations under the EC Treaty, by failing to adopt the
                          ( Case C-278/95 P )                                measures necessary to comply with Commission
                             ( 95/C 268/35 )                                 Decision 93/496/EEC of 9 June 1993 concerning State
                                                                             aid procedure C 32/92 (ex NN 67/92 ) — Italy C ) (tax
 An appeal against the judgment delivered on 8 June 1995 by                  credit for professional road hauliers ) and in particular by
 the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                    failing to recover, with effect from the tax year 1992, the
 European Communities in Case T-459/93 between Siemens                       aid unlawfully introduced by the Ministerial Decree of
 SA, supported by the Federal Republic of Germany, and the                   28 January 1992 in favour of professional road hauliers
 Commission of the European Communities was brought                          in Italy in the form of a tax credit on income tax or on
 before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                  municipal tax or on VAT,
 16 August 1995 by Siemens SA, represented by Michel
 Waelbroeck, Jules Stuyck and Olivier Speltdoorn, of the                 — order the Italian Republic to pay the costs .