CELEX: C1997/212/45
Language: en
Date: 1997-07-12 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 30 May 1997 by the Kingdom of Sweden against the Council of the European Union (Case C-206/97)

No C 212/24          EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   12 . 7 . 97
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      — Breach of the general criteria for the application of
                                                                             the derogations under Article 92 ( 3 ): by approving
— Infringement of essential procedural requirements                          measures of indeterminate duration whose detailed
    — Infringement of Articles 93 ( 2 ) and ( 3 ) of the EC                  rules and conditions for implementation are not
        Treaty: by undertaking long and complex                              set out in a transparent manner, the Commission
        negotiations with the French authorities — lasting                   breached the general criteria for the application of
        nearly 16 months from the date of notification —                     the derogations under Article 92 ( 3 ), in particular
        in the context of the preliminary stage provided                     the criterion that the aid should be transparent and
        for in Article 93 ( 3 ), the Commission undermined                   the criterion that aid for restructuring should be
        the system of procedural rules established by that                   temporary and progressively reduced.
        provision . The Commission brought forward into
        that preliminary stage — which does not provide
        the procedural guarantees for either the other
        Member States or third parties concerned which
        flow from the opening of the Article 93 ( 2 )
        procedure — the detailed examination of the
        notified measures which should be carried out in             Action brought on 30 May 1997 by the Kingdom of
        the framework of the aforementioned procedure .                  Sweden against the Council of the European Union
                                                                                            ( Case C-206/97
        Moreover, the Commission infringed the
        procedural rights of the AEVP — Associafao de                                         ( 97/C 212/45 )
        Empresas de Vinho de Porto, in its capacity as a
        third party submitting a complaint, inasmuch as it
        completely sidetracked the right of that body to             An action against the Council of the European Union was
        participate in the administrative procedure. Having          brought before the Court of Justice of the European
        conducted extensive negotiations with the French             Communities on 30 May 1997 by the Kingdom of
        authorities in the preliminary stage, the                    Sweden, represented by Lotty Nordling, Under-Secretary
        Commission was under an obligation to inform                 for Legal Affairs, with an address for service in
        AEVP of the essential elements of the notified
                                                                     Luxembourg at the Swedish Embassy, 2 rue H. Heine,
        measures and of the reservations made by the                 Luxembourg.
        Commission with regard to those measures, and to
        have asked AEVP to submit any observations it
        considered appropriate .                                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
    — Infringement of Article 190 of the EC Treaty: the
        contested measure does not set out adequately the            1 . pursuant to Article 173 , declare TAC Regulation (EC )
         factual or legal reasons which led to the adoption               No 390/97 H invalid to the extent that the Regulation
         of the Decision .
                                                                          concerns the allocation of cod in Zone Illb, c, d,
— Infringement of the Treaty or of any rule of law
    relating to its application                                           and
    — Infringement of Article 90 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty, in
         conjunction with Article 95 thereof: the
         Commission could not have been unaware — since              2 . order the Council to pay Sweden's costs.
         the matter was expressly raised by the third party
         submitting a complaint — of the terms of the                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
         domestic tax legislation relating to both the
         products benefiting from the approved aid and the
         competing products . While that French legislation          Article 121 ( 1 ) of the Act concerning the conditions of
         is not formally discriminatory, it cannot be denied          accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of
         that its effect is, in substance, discriminatory.            Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments
         Thus, natural sweet wines ( 92% of which are                to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded,
         produced in France ) are taxed at a rate of FF 350,          in the wording laid down in Council Decision 95/1/EC,
         whereas the remaining liqueur wines ( 81% of                 Euratom, ECSC (2 ) is to be set aside :
         which are imported from other Member States ) are
         taxed at the rate of FF 1 400 per hectolitre of the
         final product ( that is to say, four times as much ).        As regards 1997, a catch of 112 452 tonnes of cod was
         By approving a system of aid of indeterminate                available to the Community for fish in Community waters
          duration, intended to respond to the interests of           in Zone Illb, c, d. In accordance with Article 121 ( 1 ) of
          the French liqueur wine producers excluded from             the Act of Accession, Sweden was to be allocated 39 999
         the more advantageous tax category, the                      tonnes ( 0,35037 x 50 000 tonnes + 0,4 x 62 452 tonnes -
          Commission simply established a system whereby              2 500 tonnes ) of that catch. Account was taken in this
          all French-produced liqueur wines benefit from the          regard of the fact that 2 500 tonnes of Sweden's quota
          greatest competitive advantages over similar                during 1997 was to be transferred to other Member States
          products originating in or coming from other                in accordance with the agreement concluded in connection
          Member States .                                             with the signing of the EEA Agreement. Instead, Sweden
 ---pagebreak--- 12 . 7. 97                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 212/25
was allocated, by Regulation ( EC ) No 390/97, 38 886                              Removal from the register of C-40/95 (')
tonnes, which is 1 139 tonnes less than the quantity                                                 ( 97/C 212/46 )
provided for by the Act of Accession.
                                                                         By order of 3 February 1997 the President of the Court of
( 1 ) Council Regulation (EC ) No 390/97 of 20 December 1996             Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
      fixing, for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, the     removal from the register of Case C-40/95 ( reference for a
      total allowable catches for 1997 and certain conditions under      preliminary ruling from the VAT and Duties Tribunal,
      which they may be fished ( OJ No L 66, 6. 3 . 1997, p. 1 ).        London ): Conoco Ltd v. Commissioners of Customs and
( 2 ) OJNoL 1 , 1 . 1 . 1995 , p . 1 .                                   Excise .
                                                                         (') OJ No C 119, 13 . 5 . 1995 ,
                                                                             OJ No C 31 , 3 . 2 . 1996 .
                                                        COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Decisions adopted by the Court of First Instance at its                       the President of the Court of First Instance designates
                 plenary conference on 5 June 1997                            the Judge who will not take part in the judgment of
                             ( 97/C 212/47)                                   the case, will be in the reverse order of precedence of
                                                                              those Judges based, in accordance with Article 6 of the
                                                                              Rules of Procedure, on their seniority in office, save
 1 . Composition of the First Chamber, Extended                               where the Judge thus designated is the Judge­
        Composition, of the Second Chamber and of the                         Rapporteur. In the latter case, the Judge immediately
        Second Chamber, Extended Composition —                                senior to him is to be designated .
        Assignment of Judges to Chambers
        In the light of the decision of the Governments of the
        Member States of 29 May 1997 appointing Karl Joerg
        Pirrung a Member of the Court of First Instance
        following the death of Judge Heinrich Kirschner, the
        Court of First Instance decided at its plenary
        conference on 5 June 1997, in accordance with                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
        Article 10 of its Rules of Procedure, to modify the                                        (Fourth Chamber)
        composition of its Chambers, as decided on                                                  of 15 May 1997
        12 September 1996 ( OJ No C 294, 5 . 10 . 1996 , p. 10 ).
                                                                          in Case T-273/94: N v. Commission of the European
        For the period from 11 June 1997 to 30 September                                            Communities ( ] )
        1997, Judge Pirrung is assigned to the First Chamber,             (Officials — Duty to act in good faith — Official
        Extended Composition, the Second Chamber and the                  suspected of conduct inconsistent with the dignity of his
        Second Chamber, Extended Composition .                            office — Official's cooperation in good faith with the
                                                                          investigation — Lacking — Disciplinary proceedings —
        In cases where another Judge has been designated by                                       Removal from post)
        the President of the Court of First Instance, pursuant
        to Article 32 ( 3 ) of the Rules of Procedure, to                                              ( 97/C 212/48 )
        complete those Chambers in place of Judge Kirschner
         and the written procedure has been completed and a                               (Language of the case: French)
         hearing in the oral procedure has been held or fixed
         before 11 June 1996 , those Chambers shall continue              In Case T-273/94: N, a former official of the Commission
         to sit with that composition for the purposes of the              of the European Communities, residing in Brussels,
         oral procedure, deliberation and judgment.                        represented by Xavier Magnee, of the Brussels Bar, with
                                                                           an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
   2 . Plenary session                                                     Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue Fort Rheinsheim v. Commission of
                                                                           the European Communities ( Agents : Gianluigi Valsesia,
         At is plenary conference on 5 June 1997, the Court of             Ana Maria Alves Vieira and Denis Waelbroeck ) —
         First Instance decided, in accordance with the second             application for annulment of the Commission's decision of
         subparagraph of Article 32 ( 1 ) of its Rules of                  4 October 1993 removing the applicant from his post, and
         Procedure, that where, following the designation of an            a claim for damages — the Court of First Instance ( Fourth
         Advocate-General pursuant to Article 17 of the Rules              Chamber ), composed of K. Lenaerts, President, P. Lindh
         of Procedure , there is an even number of Judges of the           and J. D. Cooke, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the
          Court of First Instance sitting in plenary session, the          Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 May 1997, the operative
          rota established in advance, in accordance with which            part of which is as follows: