CELEX: C1996/145/15
Language: en
Date: 1996-05-18 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 1 April 1996 by the United Kingdom against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-106/96)

18 . 5 . 96             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 145/7
2 . Does Directive 91 /414/EEC permit a Member State to                   took place was so plain that no reasonable third party
     allow a plant protection product imported from another               could have asserted that no such conflict existed ?
     EEA State or from outside the EEA onto the market as
     identical ( as defined in question 1 ) to a master product       (') OJ, English Special Edition 1968 ( I ), p . 41 .
     without any analysis of the actual contents of the
     imported product prior to placing on the market ?
3 . If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative, does
     Article 9 ( 2 ) of Directive 91 /414/EEC permit a Member
     State to allow a plant protection product imported from          Action brought on 1 April 1996 by the United Kingdom
     countries outside the EEA onto the market when the                 against the Commission of the European Communities
     importer or person placing the product on the market is                                  ( Case C-106/96 )
     a person without a permanent office within the EEA ?                                       ( 96/C 145/ 15 )
(M OJ No L 230 , 19 . 8 . 1991 , p . 1 .
                                                                      An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
                                                                      European Communities on 1 April 1996 by the United
                                                                      Kingdom, represented by Mr John E. Collins , Assistant
                                                                      Treasury Solicitor, acting as agent, assisted by Mr Derrick
                                                                      Wyatt QC , of the English Bar, with an address for service in
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad                   Luxembourg at the British Embassy, 14 Boulevard
der Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 22 March                 Roosevelt.
1996 in the case of Cooperatieve Rabobank 'Vecht en
Plassengebied' BA and Erik Aarnoud Minderhoud, receiver               The applicant seeks the annulment of the decision or
                in bankruptcy of Mediasafe BV                         decisions referred to in the press release of the Commission
                         ( Case C- 1 04/96                            of 23 January 1 996, without prejudice to the competence of
                           ( 96/C 145/ 14                             the Court of Justice to declare the decision or decisions in
                                                                      issue of definitive effect .
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a judgment of the Hoge Raad                   The applicant asks for costs against the Commission
der Nederlanden ( Supreme Court of the Netherlands ) of               pursuant to Article 69 of the Rules of Procedure .
22 March 1 996 , which was received at the Court Registry
on 1 April 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of             Pleas in law and main arguments
Cooperatieve Rabobank 'Vecht en Plassengebied' BA and
Erik Aarnoud Minderhoud, receiver in bankruptcy of                    The United Kingdom seeks the annulment of the decision or
Mediasafe BV, on the following questions :                            decisions referred to in the press release of 23 January 1 996
                                                                      on the following grounds specified in Article 173 ( 2 ) of the
1 . Is it consistent with the First Directive ( J ) for a company     EC Treaty, namely lack of competence, infringement of an
     to be allowed to rely, as against a third party with whom        essential procedural requirement, and infringement of the
     a director generally authorized to represent the                 EC Treaty.
     company has entered into a transaction on its behalf, on
     the fact that the director lacked authority on the ground        The United Kingdom alleges lack of competence, since the
     that the transaction involved a conflict of interests            Commission incurred legal expenditure without lawful
     between him and the company ?                                    authority. The United Kingdom also alleges breach of
                                                                      Article 4 of the EC Treaty, which provides that each
2 . Is question 1 to be answered in the affirmative only if the       institution shall act within the limits of the powers conferred
     third party had knowledge of the conflict of interests at        upon it by this Treaty .
     the time when the transaction took place, or would
     reasonably have been expected to have knowledge of               The United Kingdom also alleges breach of an essential
     that conflict of interests on the basis of the information       procedural requirement, since the challenged expenditure
     available to him at the time ?                                   was unsupported by reasoning specifying its legal basis.
                                                                      Such reasoning should have been incorporated in a decision
3 . Is question 1 to be answered in the affirmative only if the       of the Commission addressed to and notified in full to the
     conflict of interests at the time when the transaction           Member States .