CELEX: C1999/299/10
Language: en
Date: 1999-10-16 00:00:00
Title: Case C-288/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hessische Finanzgericht by order of that court of 11 March 1999 in the case of vauDe Sport Albrecht von Dewitz against Oberfinanzdirektion Koblenz, ZuVA-Außenstelle Frankfurt am Main

C 299/10              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    16.10.1999
   Staff Regulations did not lead to an infringement of the                 before the Commission and the pleadings and supplemen-
   right to property. Finally, the Court of First Instance                  tary pleadings presented by the applicant before the
   misinterprets the scope of Article 11 of the Staff Regu-                 Disciplinary Board.
   lations in that it distorts the system established by that
   provision by making it subject to the system of prior               — Lack of reasoning; failure to reply to the plea for annulment;
   authorisation under Article 17.                                          misinterpretation of the second paragraph of Article 87 of
                                                                            the Staff Regulations.
                                                                       — Infringement of the legal rules governing the proof of facts
                                                                            and the burden of proof; lack of reasoning; misinterpret-
— Infringement of Article 6(2) (ex Article F) of the TEU,                   ation of Articles 3, 6 and 7 of Annex IX to the Staff
   Article 10 ECHR, Articles 116 point 3 (ex 109 E3), 177.2                 Regulations; failure to give due weight to acts, particularly
   (ex 109 F2), 121 (ex 109 J), 220 (ex 164a), 225 (ex 168a)                the minutes of the first meeting of the Disciplinary Board
   and 236 (ex 179) of the EC Treaty, and of Articles 12, 87                and the Commission’s defence.
   and 91 of the Staff Regulations and Annex IX thereto,
   more particularly in Article 1 of the latter, and of the            — Infringement of Articles 164, 168a and 179 of the
   prohibition on the substitution of reasoning, failure to give            EC Treaty and of Article 91 of the Staff Regulations;
   due weight to acts and infringement of the rules governing               infringement of the rules on the burden of proof and on
   the adducing of evidence: The Court of First Instance                    the method and admissibility of evidence; infringement of
   infringed the above provisions by taking account of certain              the rights of the defence and of the prohibition of reliance
   references in the applicant’s book on the (unjustified)                  by the court on all facts known to it personally.
   reading of them by the Commission, without having regard
   to, or giving reasons for its rejection of the objections put       — Inadequate reasoning for the judgment and failure to reply
   forward by the applicant relating to the fact that, by so                to the pleas in the action for annulment.
   doing, the Commission continues to feed the disciplinary
                                                                       — Lack of reasoning.
   inquiry in the adversarial stage of the dispute.
— Insufficient reasons for the judgment; failure to give due
   weight to acts, particularly the report of the appointing           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hessische
   authority and the minutes of the hearing of the applicant           Finanzgericht by order of that court of 11 March 1999 in
   before the Disciplinary Board; lack of reasoning; infringe-         the case of vauDe Sport Albrecht von Dewitz against
   ment of the rights of the defence; failure to respond to            Oberfinanzdirektion Koblenz, ZuVA-Außenstelle Frank-
   pleas; flawed logic in reasoning: The applicant argues that,                                   furt am Main
   in holding that the Commission’s report included the
   contents of the book amongst the facts of which he stood                                     (Case C-288/99)
   accused, meaning the expression of an economic argument
   at odds with the line of action adopted by the Commission                                    (1999/C 299/10)
   as an institution of the European Union, the Court of First
   Instance fails to give due weight to the Commission report
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
   which referred to ‘derogatory and unsubstantiated attacks’          European Communities by order of the Hessische Finanzge-
   and commits an error of logic in giving the term ‘contents’         richt (Finance Court, Hessen) of 11 March 1999, received at
   a variable meaning, referring sometimes to allegedly diver-         the Court Registry on 2 August 1999, for a preliminary ruling
   gent economic arguments and sometimes to derogatory
                                                                       in the case of vauDe Sport Albrecht von Dewitz against
   attacks on persons.
                                                                       Oberfinanzdirektion Koblenz, ZuVA-Außenstelle Frankfurt am
                                                                       Main on the following question:
                                                                       Is the term ‘similar containers’ in CN heading 4202 of the
— Failure to give due weight to acts, particularly the minutes         Common Customs Tariff to be interpreted as including a
   of the hearing before the Disciplinary Board and of the             product described as a child carrier consisting essentially of a
   work published by the applicant; infringement of the law            support frame made of aluminium tubing and woven fabric
   on the proof of facts, the burden of proof and the duty to          made of synthetic fibres — assembled by being sewn together
   give a fair hearing; lack of adequate and relevant reasoning        — in which a child may be carried in a seated position on a
   for the judgment; infringement of Articles 220 (ex 164),            person’s back and small items stored under the seat,
   225 (ex 168a) and 236 (ex 179) of the EC Treaty, of
   Articles 87 and 91 of the Staff Regulations and Article 1           or
   of Annex IX thereto. The Court of First Instance was not
   entitled to regard an essential element of the Commission’s         is the aforementioned product to be classified pursuant to
   disciplinary decision (the existence of a conflict of opinion)      General Rule 3(b) among other made up textile articles of
   as an established fact when it did not appear in argument           woven fabric under CN subheading 6307 9099 0990
   from the disciplinary procedure.
                                                                       or
                                                                       is the aforementioned product covered by another heading?
— Insufficient reasons for the judgment; failure to give due
   weight to acts, particularly the minutes of the hearing