CELEX: C1999/226/14
Language: en
Date: 1999-08-07 00:00:00
Title: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 April 1999 in Case C-436/97 P: Deutsche Bahn AG v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal - Admissibility - Competition - Carriage by rail of maritime containers - Dominant Position - Abuse - Fines)

7.8.1999                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 226/9
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                  1. annul the decision of the Commission of the European
                                                                               Communities of 3 February 1999 on the clearance of the
                         of 27 April 1999                                      accounts presented by the Member States in respect of the
                                                                               expenditure for 1995 of the Guarantee Section of the
in Case C-436/97 P: Deutsche Bahn AG v Commission of                           European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund
                 the European Communities (1)                                  (Decision 1999/187/EC); (1)
(Appeal — Admissibility — Competition — Carriage by rail                   2. order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.
of maritime containers — Dominant Position — Abuse —
                                Fines)
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
                          (1999/C 226/14)
                                                                           — Breach of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70 of the Council of
                   (Language of the case: German)                              29 June 1970 on the common organisation of the market
                                                                               in flax and hemp (2): the reduction of 50% for failure to
                                                                               harvest ripe hemp seed lacks any basis. Nothing in
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published         Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70 or in the measures
                   in the European Court Reports)                              implementing or applying it, as laid clown in Regulation
                                                                               (EEC) No 619/71 (3) and Regulation (EEC) No 1164/89 (4),
In Case C-436/97 P, Deutsche Bahn AG, established in                           provides that a grower is entitled to the full amount of aid
Frankfurt, Germany, represented by Jochim Sedemund,                            only if both fibres and seeds are harvested. Nor is it
Rechtsanwalt, Berlin, with an address for service in Luxem-                    anywhere provided that, where fibres alone are harvested,
bourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue —                            only half of the amount of production aid is payable;
appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First
Chamber, Extended Composition) of 21 October 1997 in Case                  — Breach of Article 8 of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70: in
T-229/94 Deutsche Bahn v Commission [1997] ECR II-1689,                        view of the fact that all hemp in the Netherlands which is
seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other party to the                eligible for aid is grown with certified seed controlled in
proceedings being: Commission of the European Communities                      accordance with Community rules, the Commission’s
(Agent: Klaus Wiedner, assisted by Heinze-Joachim Freund) —                    contention that there is inadequate control in the Nether-
the Court (Fifth Chamber) composed of: J.-P. Puissochet,                       lands of imports of hemp seed from non-member countries
President, P. Jann (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward                     is irrelevant, quite apart from the question whether this
and L. Sevón, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate Gen-                   contention is correct. With regard to the expenditure which
eral; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 27 April                    it declared for the 1995 financial year, the Netherlands
1999, in which it held:                                                        complied with the provisions;
1. The appeal is dismissed.
                                                                           — Failure to take account of the Dutch text of Article 4 of
2. Deutsche Bahn AG is to pay the costs.                                       Regulation (EEC) No 1164/89: the Dutch text of Article
                                                                               4(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 1164/89, as worded prior to
                                                                               the 1994 hemp harvest, limited the scope of that provision
(1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.                                                      to flax. There was therefore no obligation to harvest
                                                                               hemp only once the seeds had formed. The Netherlands
                                                                               authorities had no reason to doubt the accuracy of the
                                                                               Dutch translation. In taking the view that the Netherlands
                                                                               authorities acted contrary to Article 4 of Regulation (EEC)
                                                                               No 1164/89, the Commission fails to appreciate the
                                                                               significance of the principle that it must be possible to rely
                                                                               on a directly applicable provision of Community law in an
Action brought on 17 April 1999 by the Kingdom of the                          authentic language;
Netherlands against the Commission of the European
                           Communities
                                                                           — Misconstruction of the term ‘seed formation’ in Article
                          (Case C-132/99)                                      4(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1164/89: since the seeds are
                                                                               formed at the time of blossoming and are harvested after
                                                                               blossoming, the Netherlands Government takes the view
                          (1999/C 226/15)                                      that, so far as the 1994 hemp harvest is concerned, the
                                                                               requirements of Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1164/89
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                      were complied with in so far as they applied to the
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                   1994 hemp harvest. The Commission proceeds on a
Communities on 17 April 1999 by the Kingdom of the                             misconstruction of Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No
Netherlands, represented by Marc Fierstra and Jantine van                      1164/89, as it applied at the time of the 1994 harvest,
Bakel, Assistant Legal Advisers in the Ministry of Foreign                     when it claims that the Netherlands acted contrary to that
Affairs in The Hague, acting as Agents.                                        article;