CELEX: C2000/149/12
Language: en
Date: 2000-05-27 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 23 March 2000 in Case C-373/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Polimeles Protodikio Athinon): Dionisios Diamantis v Elliniko Dimosio (Greek State) and Organismos Ikonomikis Anasinkrotisis Epikhiriseon AE (OAE) (Company law — Second Directive 77/91/EEC — Public limited liability company in financial difficulties — Increase in the capital of the company by administrative decision — Abuse of a right arising from a provision of Community law)

27.5.2000                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 149/7
In those circumstances, the security provided for in Article 31(1) of          an objection, in accordance with Article 13(2) of that directive,
Regulation No 3665/87 must be released and only the amount paid                or if the Commission has taken a ‘favourable decision’ under
by way of advance payment of the export refund must be reimbursed              paragraph (4) of that provision, the competent authority which
by the exporter in accordance with the national provisions applicable          forwarded the application, with a favourable opinion, to the
to repayment of sums unduly paid.                                              Commission must issue the ‘consent in writing’, allowing the
                                                                               product to be placed on the market. However, if in the meantime
                                                                               the Member State concerned has new information which leads it
(1) OJ C 258 of 15.8.1998.                                                     to consider that the product for which notification has been
                                                                               received may constitute a risk to human health and the
                                                                               environment, it will not be obliged to give its consent, provided
                                                                               that it immediately informs the Commission and the other
                                                                               Member States about the new information in order that, within
                                                                               the period laid down in Article 16(2) of Directive 90/220, a
                                                                               decision may be taken in the matter in accordance with the
                                                                               procedure provided for in Article 21 of that directive.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                           2. Where the national court finds that, owing to irregularities in
                          of 21 March 2000                                     the conduct of the examination of the notification by the
                                                                               competent national authority provided for in Article 12(1) of
                                                                               Directive 90/220, it was not proper for that authority to forward
in Case C-6/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                               the dossier with a favourable opinion to the Commission as
the Conseil d’État): Association Greenpeace France and
                                                                               provided for in paragraph (2) of that provision, that court must
Others v Ministère de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche and
                                                                               refer the matter to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling if
                              Others (1)
                                                                               it considers that those irregularities are such as to affect the
                                                                               validity of the Commission’s favourable decision, if necessary
(Directive 90/220/EEC — Biotechnology — Genetically                            ordering the suspension of application of the measures for
 modified organisms — Decision 97/98/EC — Maize seeds)                         implementing that decision until the Court of Justice has ruled
                                                                               on the question of validity.
                           (2000/C 149/11)
                                                                           (1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.
                     (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
In Case C-6/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Conseil d’État,                                           (Sixth Chamber)
France, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Association Greenpeace France and                                         of 23 March 2000
Others and Ministère de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche and
Others, third parties: Novartis Seeds SA, Monsanto Europe SA               in Case C-373/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
— on the interpretation of Article 13(2) and (4) of Council                the Polimeles Protodikio Athinon): Dionisios Diamantis
Directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the deliberate                    v Elliniko Dimosio (Greek State) and Organismos Ikono-
release into the environment of genetically modified organisms                    mikis Anasinkrotisis Epikhiriseon AE (OAE) (1)
(OJ 1990 L 117, p. 15), as amended by Commission Directive
97/35/EC of 18 June 1997 adapting to technical progress for                (Company law — Second Directive 77/91/EEC — Public
the second time Council Directive 90/220 (OJ 1997 L 169,                   limited liability company in financial difficulties — Increase
p. 72) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias,                 in the capital of the company by administrative decision —
President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, L. Sevón and R. Schintgen            Abuse of a right arising from a provision of Community
(Presidents of Chambers), P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), C. Gul-                                              law)
mann, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, M. Wathelet, V. Skouris and
F. Macken, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; H. von                                               (2000/C 149/12)
Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 21 March 2000, in which it has ruled:
                                                                                               (Language of the case: Greek)
1. Council Directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the
     deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified
     organisms, as amended by Commission Directive 97/35/EC of             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
     18 June 1997 adapting to technical progress for the second time                          in the European Court Reports)
     Council Directive 90/220, is to be interpreted as meaning that,
     if, after an application for placing a GMO on the market has          In Case C-373/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
     been forwarded to the Commission, no Member State has raised          the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Polimeles
 ---pagebreak--- C 149/8                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          27.5.2000
Protodikio Athinon, Greece, for a preliminary ruling in the                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
proceedings pending before that court between, on the one
hand, Dionisios Diamantis and, on the other hand, Elliniko
Dimosio and Organismos Ikonomikis Anasinkrotisis Epikhiri-                                            (Fifth Chamber)
seon AE (OAE) — on the interpretation of Articles 25 and
29 of the Second Council Directive 77/91/EEC of 13 Decem-
ber 1976 on coordination of safeguards which, for the                                                of 23 March 2000
protection of the interests of members and others, are required
by Member States of companies within the meaning of the
second paragraph of Article 58 of the Treaty, in respect of
the formation of public limited liability companies and the                 in Case C-208/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                            the Landgericht Potsdam): Berliner Kindl Brauerei AG v
maintenance and alteration of their capital, with a view to
making such safeguards equivalent (OJ 1977 L 26, p. 1) and                                          Andreas Siepert (1)
on the abuse of a right arising from those provisions — the
Court, composed of: R. Schintgen, President of the Second
Chamber, acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber,                     (Approximation of laws — Consumer credit — Directive
P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), G. Hirsch, H. Ragnemalm and                    87/102 — Scope — Contracts of guarantee — Not covered)
V. Skouris, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
23 March 2000, in which it has ruled:                                                                 (2000/C 149/13)
                                                                                               (Language of the case: German)
Community law does not preclude national courts from applying a
provision of national law which enables them to determine whether a
right deriving from a Community law provision is being abused.
However, in making that determination, it is not permissible to deem        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
a shareholder relying on Article 25(1) of the Second Directive                                 in the European Court Reports)
77/91/EEC of 13 December 1976 on coordination of safeguards
which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are
required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the            In Case C-208/98: Reference to the Court under Article 177 of
second paragraph of Article 58 of the Treaty, in respect of the             the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Landgericht
formation of public limited liability companies and the maintenance         Potsdam (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
and alteration of their capital, with a view to making such safeguards      pending before that court between Berliner Kindl Brauerei AG
equivalent, to be abusing his rights under that provision merely            and Andreas Siepert, on the interpretation of Council Directive
because he is a minority shareholder of a company subject to                87/102/EEC of 22 December 1986 for the approximation of
reorganisation measures, or has benefited from reorganisation of the        the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the
company, or has not exercised his right of pre-emption, or was              Member States concerning consumer credit (OJ 1987 L 42,
among the shareholders who asked for the company to be placed               p. 48) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J.C.
under the scheme applicable to companies in serious difficulties, or        Moitinho de Almeida, President of the Sixth Chamber, acting
has allowed a certain period of time to elapse before bringing his          for the President of the Fifth Chamber, L. Sevón (Rapporteur),
action. In contrast, Community law does not preclude national courts        C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet and M. Wathelet, Judges; P. Léger,
from applying the provision of national law concerned if, of the            Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Adminis-
remedies available for a situation that has arisen in breach of that        trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 March
provision, a shareholder has chosen a remedy that will cause such           2000, in which it has ruled:
serious damage to the legitimate interests of others that it appears
manifestly disproportionate.
                                                                            On a proper construction of Council Directive 87/102/EEC of
                                                                            22 December 1986 for the approximation of the laws, regulations
                                                                            and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning
                                                                            consumer credit, it does not cover a contract of guarantee for
                                                                            repayment of credit where neither the guarantor nor the borrower was
(1) OJ C 7 of 10.1.1998.                                                    acting in the course of his trade or profession.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 234 of 25.7.1998.