CELEX: C2002/191/31
Language: en
Date: 2002-08-10 00:00:00
Title: Case C-204/02 P: Appeal brought on 3 June 2002 by Colin Joynson against the judgment delivered on 21 March 2002 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-231/99 between Colin Joynson and the Commission of the European Communities, supported by Bass plc

10.8.2002             EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 191/19
The applicant claims that the Court should :                              European Communities in Case T-231/99 between Colin
                                                                          Joynson and the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                          supported by Bass plc, was brought before the Court of Justice
—     Declare that, by maintaining in force Articles 9.4, 21.3
                                                                          of the European Communities on 3 June 2002 by Colin
      and 22.6 of Royal Decree No 2822/1998, under which
                                                                          Joynson, represented by B. Bedford, Barrister, instructed by
      motorcycles, three-wheeled vehicles, mopeds and bicycles
                                                                          Ferdinand Kelly, Solicitors.
      may not tow a trailer or semi trailer, the Kingdom of
      Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 18,
      28 and 49 EC and Article 11 of the European Economic
      Area (EEA) Agreement;
                                                                          The Appellant claims that the Court should:
—     Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
                                                                          a)    set aside the judgment appealed against in whole; and
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           b)    grant the relief sought by the appellant in the proceedings
                                                                                before the Court of First Instance; alternatively
The total prohibition on the use on the road of a two- or three-
                                                                          c)    remit the case to the Court of First Instance; and in any
wheeled vehicle towing a trailer constitutes, first, an obstacle
                                                                                event
to the importation of that type of vehicle from other Member
States or from the signatories to the EEA Agreement. Secondly,
such prohibition, inasmuch as it applies to persons travelling
to Spain in vehicles registered in other Member States, may               d)    order the defendant to pay the appellant’s costs.
constitute an obstacle to the freedom of movement of persons
and to the freedom to provide services. The Commission
points out that there is no technical reason to justify the
absolute ban adopted by the Spanish Government which
affects vehicles which fully meet all safety requirements for
their use on the public highway. Nor does the nature of                   Pleas in law and main arguments
Spanish roads justify total banning from the road of two- or
three-wheeled vehicles towing a trailer, which also includes a
ban on the use of such vehicles in urban areas and on those
                                                                          The Appellant maintains that the Court of First Instance erred
roads (motorways and dual carriageways, for example) which
                                                                          in law:
by their nature have eliminated the very risks highlighted by
the Spanish authorities.
                                                                          a)    In holding that the Commission, on the question of
                                                                                whether a beer supply agreement contributes to an
                                                                                improvement in distribution, was right to consider only
                                                                                the effect of possible deliberate price discrimination on
                                                                                the part of Bass plc and not the poor profitability said
                                                                                to be the consequence of the system of leases itself
                                                                                independently of any deliberate price discrimination,
Appeal brought on 3 June 2002 by Colin Joynson against
the judgment delivered on 21 March 2002 by the Third                      b)    In holding that a failure to specify beers in the purchasing
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                          obligation by brand or denomination leading to the
Communities in Case T-231/99 (1) between Colin Joynson                          exclusion of a beer supply agreement from Regulation
and the Commission of the European Communities,                                 1984/83 (2) is, in the present case, a purely technical
                     supported by Bass plc                                      matter which does not prevent the agreement from
                                                                                complying with the spirit of that Regulation,
                       (Case C-204/02 P)
                                                                          c)    In concluding that an examination of the possibility of a
                                                                                grant of individual exemption to a beer supply under
                        (2002/C 191/31)                                         Article 81(3) EC can be limited to the application of the
                                                                                frame work analysis provided by Regulation 1984/83,
                                                                          d)    In holding that the price differential and the reference
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 21 March 2002                       group used to measure the differential can be limited by
by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                      reference to Article 14(c)(2) of Regulation 1984/83,
 ---pagebreak--- C 191/20                EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                    10.8.2002
e)    In upholding the Commission in its use of the turnover                       (a)  only the right to be heard in proceedings before the
      method of assessing rent subsidy,                                                 competent authority for the recognition of another
                                                                                        breeding organisation (breeding association) but
                                                                                        not the right to have recognition of that other
f)    In concluding that non-contractual benefits said to be
                                                                                        organisation (association) refused where recognition
      provided by Bass plc can be off-set against the price
                                                                                        would endanger the preservation of the breed or
      differentials.
                                                                                        jeopardise the operation or the improvement or
                                                                                        selection programme of an existing organisation or
                                                                                        association, and
(1) OJ C 6, 8.1.2000, p. 29.
(2) Commission Regulation (EEC) No. 1984/83 of 22 June 1983 on
    the application of Article 85(3) of categories of exclusive purchas-           (b) no right to challenge the grant of recognition by the
    ing agreements (OJ L 173, 30.6.1983, p. 5).                                         authority in the courts (the Verwaltungsgerichtshof),
                                                                                        even where the existing organisation or association
                                                                                        made submissions opposing recognition?
                                                                             (1) OJ L 192, p. 63.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungs-
gerichtshof by order of that Court of 23 May 2002 in the
action of the Österreichischer Zuchtverband für Ponys,
Kleinpferde und Spezialrassen; intervener: Österrei-
             chischer Shetlandponyzuchtverband
                          (Case C-216/02)                                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d’État,
                                                                             Section d’Administration (Belgium) by judgment of that
                                                                             Court of 28 May 2002 in the case of Michel Tillieut,
                          (2002/C 191/32)                                    Association des habitants de Louvain-La-Neuve, Willy
                                                                             Gregoire and Association L’Épine Blanche against Région
                                                                             wallonne; intervener: Propreté, Assainissement, Gestion
                                                                                            de l’Environnement SA (‘PAGE’)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgerichts-                                            (Case C-217/02)
hof (Administrative Court) of 23 May 2002, received at the
Court Registry on 12 June 2002, for a preliminary ruling in
the action of the Österreichischer Zuchtverband für Ponys,                                          (2002/C 191/33)
Kleinpferde und Spezialrassen; intervener: Österreichischer
Shetlandponyzuchtverband, on the following questions:
1.    Does Article 2(2), first indent, of Commission Decision
      92/353/EEC (1) of 11 June 1992 laying down the criteria                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      for the approval or recognition of organisations and                   European Communities by judgment of the Conseil d’État,
      associations which maintain or establish stud-books for                Section d’Administration (Belgium) (Council of State, Adminis-
      registered equidae (OJ 1992 L 192, p. 63) confer on                    trative Section) of 28 May 2002, received at the Court Registry
      existing breeding organisations (breeding associations) a              on 13 June 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Michel
      right to have the competent authority refuse recognition               Tillieut, Association des habitants de Louvain-La-Neuve, Willy
      of another breeding organisation (another breeding                     Gregoire and Association L’Épine Blanche against Région
      association) if recognition of that other breeding organis-            wallonne; intervener: Propreté, Assainissement, Gestion de
      ation (breeding association) would endanger the preser-                l’Environnement SA (‘PAGE’) on the following questions:
      vation of the breed or jeopardise the operation or the
      improvement or selection programme of an existing
                                                                             1.    Does the obligation imposed on Member States by
      organisation or association?
                                                                                   Article 7 of Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975
                                                                                   on waste (1), as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC of
2.    Does Article 2(2), first indent, of the Commission                           18 March 1991 (2), to draw up one or more waste
      Decision referred to in the first question preclude the                      management plans relating in particular to ‘suitable
      application of a provision of national law which confers                     disposal sites or installations’ mean that the States to
      on an existing breeding organisation or breeding associ-                     which the Directive is addressed are required to mark on
      ation                                                                        a geographical map the precise locations of the planned