CELEX: C2000/285/14
Language: en
Date: 2000-10-07 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 June 2000 in Case T-597/97: Euromin SA v Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — Dumping — Inadmissibility)

7.10.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 285/7
                                                          COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                                     of 10 May 2000
                         of 21 June 2000
                                                                           in Case T-177/97: Odette Simon v Commission of the
in Case T-429/93: successors of Edmond Ropars v Council                                       European Communities (1)
                   of the European Union (1)
                                                                           (Officials — Claim to entitlement to the status of a member
                                                                                                 of the temporary staff)
(Action for damages — Non-contractual liability — Milk —
Additional levy — Reference quantity — Producer having
entered into an undertaking to convert — Transfer of a                                               (2000/C 285/13)
                              holding)
                                                                                               (Language of the case: French)
                         (2000/C 285/12)
                                                                           In Case T-177/97: Odette Simon, residing in Luxembourg,
                                                                           represented by J.-N. Louis, T. Demaseure and F. Parmentier, of
                                                                           the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                   (Language of the case: French)                          the offices of the Société de Gestion Fiduciaire, 2-4 Rue
                                                                           Beck, v Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
In Case T-429/93: Madeleine Amélie Le Goff, residing in                    G. Valsesia and J. Currall) — application for annulment of the
Plounevezel, France, Liliane Ropars, residing in Rouziers-de-              Commission’s decision rejecting the application made by the
Touraine, France, Jacqueline Ropars, residing in Gleize, France,           applicant for the regularisation of her administrative situation
Marie-Christine Ropars, residing in Guerlesquin, France, Gisèle            and for the award of one euro as token compensation for the
Ropars, residing in Morlaix, France, Madeleine Ropars, residing            non-material damage caused to the applicant — the Court of
in Glomel, France, Louise Ropars, residing in Saint Laurent-du-            First Instance (Single Judge), composed of: M. Vilaras, sitting as
Maroni, French Guiana, Joseph Ropars, residing in Laniscat,                a single judge; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the
France, as successors of Edmond Ropars, represented by                     Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 May 2000, in which it:
C. Larzul and F. Buffet, and subsequently by A. Delanoé, of the
Rennes Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the               1.    Dismisses the application;
Chambers of A. May, 398 Route d’Esch v Council of the
                                                                           2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
European Union (Agent: A.M. Colaert) — application for
compensation under Article 178 and the second paragraph of
Article 215 of the EC Treaty (now Article 235 EC and the                   (1) OJ C 252 of 16.8.1997.
second paragraph of Article 288 EC) for damage suffered by
Edmond Ropars as a result of his having been prevented
from marketing milk by virtue of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for the
application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation
(EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector
(OJ 1984 L 90, p. 13), as supplemented by Commission                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Regulation (EEC) No 1371/84 of 16 May 1984 laying down
detailed rules for the application of the additional levy referred                                   of 20 June 2000
to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 (OJ 1984
L 132, p. 11) — the Court (Single Judge: R.M. Moura Ramos);                in Case T-597/97: Euromin SA v Council of the European
J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given                                        Union (1)
a judgment on 21 June 2000, in which it:
                                                                              (Action for annulment — Dumping — Inadmissibility)
1.    Refuses the application for a stay of proceedings;
                                                                                                     (2000/C 285/14)
2.    Dismisses the application;
                                                                                              (Language of the case: English)
3.    Orders the applicants to pay the costs.
                                                                           In Case T-597/97: Euromin SA, established in Geneva, Switzer-
                                                                           land, represented initially by D. Horovitz, J. Bäverbrant,
(1) OJ C 217 of 20.8.91.
                                                                           G. Vandersanden and N. Stockwell, of the Brussels Bar, and
                                                                           by N. Robson, Solicitor, and subsequently by D. Horovitz,
                                                                           G. Vandersanden, N. Stockwell, M.E. Pitt and S. Sheppard,
                                                                           Solicitors, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
 ---pagebreak--- 7.10.2000                 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 285/5
2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,                            according to the State, may adversely affect both the
represented by Enrico Traversa, Legal Adviser, and Christophe                  exercise of sound competition on the cigarette market
Giolito, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address               and the pursuit of a public health policy aimed at
for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la                 combatting addiction to tobacco.
Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                    (Different rates of tax for dark-tobacco and
the Court should:                                                         light-tobacco cigarettes)
—     declare that:                                                       —    Infringement of Articles 8 (2) and 16 (5) of Directive
                                                                               95/59/EC:
      by maintaining in force a system imposing a minimum
      reference price for all cigarettes, the French Republic has              Article 575a of the French Code Général des Impôts
      failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9 (1) of Council          (General Tax Code) provides for the imposition of a
      Directive 95/59/EC of 27 November 1995 on taxes other                    consumption duty fixed, for units of 1 000, at FRF 500 in
      than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of                      1999 and FRF 530 in 2000 as regards light-tobacco
      manufactured tobacco (1);                                                cigarettes and at FRF 400 in 1999 and FRF 470 in 2000
                                                                               as regard dark-tobacco cigarettes. The Commission is
      and that:                                                                pleased to note that the French authorities acknowledge
                                                                               that Community legislation permits only a single mini-
                                                                               mum excise duty to be levied in respect of all categories
      by maintaining in force a system imposing different tax
                                                                               and sorts of cigarettes. However, in the absence of any
      rates on dark-tobacco and light-tobacco cigarettes, to the
                                                                               modification of Article 575a of the French Code Général
      disadvantage of the latter, the French Republic has failed
                                                                               des Impôts, the infringement of Community law subsists.
      to fulfil its obligations under Articles 8 (2) and 16 (5) of
      Directive 95/59/EC, under Article 2 of Council Directive
      92/79/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the approximation of                —    Infringement of Article 90 EC:
      taxes on cigarettes (2) and under the first paragraph of
      Article 90 EC, alternatively under the second paragraph
      of Article 90 EC;                                                        The imposition of different rates of tax on light-tobacco
                                                                               and dark-tobacco cigarettes constitutes a discriminatory
                                                                               fiscal practice protecting national products, inasmuch as
—     order the French Republic to pay the costs.                              99 % of the dark-tobacco cigarettes distributed in France
                                                                               are manufactured in that country.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                The products concerned are ‘similar’ products within the
                                                                               meaning of the first paragraph of Article 90 EC, having
                                                                               the same fiscal classification (Article 2 (1) of Directive
(Minimum reference price)                                                      95/59/EC applies no distinction in that regard) and the
                                                                               same customs classification. The fact that, according to
—     Infringement of Article 9 (1) of Council Directive                       the French authorities, dark tobaccoes are sold at the
      95/59/EC:                                                                lowest prices, that the market in those products is not
                                                                               attracting any more customers and that consumption of
                                                                               those products is continuing to fall may explain the
      Article 572 of the French Code Général des Impôts
                                                                               reasons for the adoption of the French measures but does
      (General Tax Code) provides that the price per 1 000 units
                                                                               not justify them, since they constitute discriminatory
      of products of a given category sold under the same
                                                                               taxation contrary to the first paragraph of Article 90 EC.
      brand may not be lower, regardless of the style or unit of
      packaging used, than that applied to the best-selling
      product of that brand; this is tantamount to the impo-                   However, even if (quod non) it were accepted that light-
      sition of a minimum reference price. The imposition of                   tobacco and dark-tobacco cigarettes are not similar
      such a minimum reference price precludes any price                       products within the meaning of the first paragraph of
      variation within the same brand of cigarettes reflecting                 Article 90 EC and that a separate market therefore exists
      the number (10, 20, 30, etc.) or length of the cigarettes                for dark-tobacco cigarettes, the latter would clearly find
      concerned (normal length, ‘king size’, ‘super long’). More-              themselves competing with light-tobacco cigarettes.
      over, it restricts the manufacturer’s right to apply different
      prices within one and the same brand according to the
      quality or intrinsic characteristics of the products in
      question, such as cigarettes with or without filter-tips,           (1) OJ 1995 L 291, p. 40.
      medium-strength or mild cigarettes, menthol cigarettes,             (2) OJ 1992 L 316, p. 8.
      etc. The French Government is incorrect in its apparent
      view that Article 9 of the directive permits a Member
      State to intervene in the event of any price reduction
      which is freely accepted by the manufacturer and which,