CELEX: C2000/047/27
Language: en
Date: 2000-02-19 00:00:00
Title: Case C-456/99 P: Appeal brought on 30 November 1999 by J against the judgment delivered on 28 September 1999 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-28/98 between J and the Commission of the European Communities

19.2.2000               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 47/17
2. Order the Republic of Austria to bear the costs of the              Crehan (by original action) and Bernard Crehan against 1)
     action.                                                           Courage Ltd, 2) Inntrepreneur Estates (CPC) plc, 3) Courage
                                                                       Group Ltd (by counterclaim), on the following questions:
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        1. Is Article 81EC (ex Article 85) to be interpreted as meaning
                                                                           that a party to a prohibited tied house agreement may rely
All the Member States are under a duty to transpose the                    upon that article to seek relief from the courts from the
Directive into mandatory national provisions in due time. The              other contracting party?
period provided for in Article 25 of the Directive expired on
31 December 1997, without Austria having                               2. If the answer to Question 1 is yes is the party claiming
                                                                           relief entitled to recover damages alleged to arise as a result
— restricted the time-limit for the granting of individual                 of his adherence to the clause in the agreement which is
     licences where there are special circumstances to a                   prohibited under Article 81?
     maximum of four months;
                                                                       3. Should a rule of national law which provides that Courts
— transposed into national law the maximum time-limit of                   should not allow a person to plead and/or rely upon his
     two months for decisions in the event of withdrawal,                  own illegal actions as a necessary step to recovery of
     amendment or temporary suspension pursuant to                         damages be allowed as consistent with Community law?
     Article 9(4) of the Directive;
                                                                       4. If the answer to Question 3 is that in some circumstances
— laid down an appropriate procedure for appealing pursuant                such a rule may be inconsistent with Community law
     to Article 9(4) and (6): the Constitutional Court has                 what circumstances should the national court take into
     established the failure to transpose (2) and is now rou-              consideration?
     tinely (3) refusing to deal with complaints addressed to it
     against decisions of the Telecom Control Commission,
     referring to the existence of a right to appeal to the
     Administrative Court, which, in its view, stems directly
     from Community law. However, there has not thus far
     been any Declaration from the Administrative Court
     confirming that it has jurisdiction. Nor can, in the Com-
     mission’s view, the right of appeal to the Administrative
     Court be regarded, contra legem, purely on the basis of the       Appeal brought on 30 November 1999 by J against the
     case-law of the Constitutional Court as sufficient for            judgment delivered on 28 September 1999 by the Third
     reasons of legal certainty.                                       Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                       Communities in Case T-28/98 between J and the Com-
                                                                                   mission of the European Communities
(1) OJ 1997 L 117, p. 15.
(2) In Declaration B 1625/98 of 24.2.1999 relating to a similar
    provision in a directive.                                                                   (Case C-456/99 P)
(3) Decisions of 11.3.1999 in complaint proceedings B 1637/98, B
    2175/98, B. B 1768/98 and B 1884/98.
                                                                                                  (2000/C 47/27)
                                                                       An appeal against the judgment delivered on 28 September
                                                                       1999 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                       the European Communities in Case T-28/98 between J and the
                                                                       Commission of the European Communities was brought
                                                                       before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal              30 November 1999 by J, represented by Georges Vandersan-
(England and Wales) (Civil Division), by order of that                 den and Laure Lévi, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
court of 4 August 1999, in the case of Courage Ltd against             service in Luxembourg at the office of Société de Gestion
Bernard Crehan (by original action) and Bernard Crehan                 Fiduciaire, 24 Rue Beck.
against 1) Courage Ltd, 2) Inntrepreneur Estates (CPC)
         plc, 3) Courage Group Ltd (by counterclaim)
                                                                       The appellant claims that the Court should:
                           (Case C-453/99)                             — Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                           28 September 1999 in Case T-28/98;
                            (2000/C 47/26)
                                                                       — Consequently, grant the form of order sought by the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     appellant at first instance, and therefore annul the Com-
European Communities by an order of the Court of Appeal                    mission’s decision of 6 January 1997 fixing the appellant’s
(England and Wales) (Civil Division) of 4 August 1999, which               place of recruitment as Brussels;
was received at the Court Registry on 30 November 1999, for
a preliminary ruling in the case of Courage Ltd against Bernard        — Order the Commission to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 47/18                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     19.2.2000
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          The Member States are required by the binding character of
Error in the legal assessment of the facts entailing a breach of          the third paragraph of Article 249 EC and of Article 10 EC (ex
rules of law, in this case Article 7(3) of Annex VII to the Staff         third paragraph of Article 189 and Article 5 of the EC Treaty)
Regulations of Officials and the implementing provisions.                 to adopt the measures needed to transpose directives into
                                                                          national law before the expiry of the period laid down for that
                                                                          purpose and to communicate those measures immediately to
                                                                          the Commission. Those periods expired without the Hellenic
                                                                          Republic having communicated to the Commission the pro-
                                                                          visions transposing the directives at issue into national law.
                                                                          (1) OJ No L 265, 8.11.1995, p. 17.
                                                                          (2) OJ No L 332, 30.12.1995, p. 15.
                                                                          (3) OJ No L 351, 23.12.1997, p. 55.
Action brought on 1 December 1999 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Hellenic Repub-
                                 lic
                                                                          Action brought on 1 December 1999 by the Commission
                          (Case C-457/99)                                 of the European Communities against the Hellenic Repub-
                                                                                                          lic
                           (2000/C 47/28)                                                         (Case C-458/99)
                                                                                                   (2000/C 47/29)
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 1 December                An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the
1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,                       Court of Justice of the European Communities on 1 December
represented by Maria Kondou-Durande, of its Legal Service,                1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of                represented by Maria Kondou-Durande, of its Legal Service,
Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,            with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
Kirchberg.                                                                Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
                                                                          Kirchberg.
The Commission claims that the Court should:                              The Commission claims that the Court should:
                                                                          — declare that, by not adopting within the time-limit laid
1. declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and                    down the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
    administrative provisions necessary to comply with:                       necessary to comply with Commission Directive
                                                                              98/19/EC (1) of 18 March 1998 amending Council Direc-
                                                                              tive 70/524/EEC concerning additives in feedingstuffs, the
    — Council Directive 95/53/EC (1) of 25 October 1995                       Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
         fixing the principles governing the organisation of                  the Treaty and that directive;
         official inspections in the field of animal nutrition;
                                                                          — order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
    — Council Directive 95/69/EC (2) of 22 December 1995
         laying down the conditions and arrangements for                  Pleas in law and main arguments
         approving and registering certain establishments and
         intermediaries operating in the animal feed sector               The Member States are required by the binding character of
         and amending Directives 70/524/EEC, 74/63/EEC,                   the third paragraph of Article 249 EC and of Article 10 EC (ex
         79/373/EEC and 82/471/EEC; and                                   third paragraph of Article 189 and Article 5 of the EC Treaty)
                                                                          to adopt the measures needed to transpose directives into
                                                                          national law before the expiry of the period laid down for that
    — Commission Directive 97/72/EC (3) of 15 December                    purpose and to communicate those measures immediately to
         1997 amending Council Directive 70/524/EEC con-                  the Commission. That period expired on 31 May 1998
         cerning additives in feedingstuffs,                              without the Hellenic Republic having communicated to the
                                                                          Commission the provisions transposing the directive at issue
                                                                          into national law.
    the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
    under the Treaty and those directives;
                                                                          (1) OJ No L 96, 28.3.1998, p. 39.
2. order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.