CELEX: C2002/305/07
Language: en
Date: 2002-12-07 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 October 2002 in Case C-208/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha): Isabel Parras Medina, Adelina Parras Medina v Consejería de Agricultura y Medio Ambiente de la Junta de Comunidades de Castilla-La Mancha (Agriculture — Common organisation of markets — Wine sector — Regulation (EC) No 1294/96 — Harvest, production and stock declarations — Failure of a holding to comply with the time-limits for making declarations — Death of the director of the holding — Force majeure)

7.12.2002                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                                C 305/5
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (Fifth Chamber)                                                              (First Chamber)
                                                                                                       of 17 October 2002
                         of 17 October 2002
                                                                              in Case C-208/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
in Case C-79/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                      the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha):
the Corte d’appello di Milano): Payroll Data Services                         Isabel Parras Medina, Adelina Parras Medina v Consejería
        (Italy) Srl, ADP Europe SA and ADP GSI SA ( 1)                        de Agricultura y Medio Ambiente de la Junta de Comuni-
                                                                                               dades de Castilla-La Mancha ( 1)
(Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services —                     (Agriculture — Common organisation of markets — Wine
           Activity of preparing and printing pay slips)
                                                                              sector — Regulation (EC) No 1294/96 — Harvest, pro-
                                                                              duction and stock declarations — Failure of a holding to
                                                                              comply with the time-limits for making declarations —
                            (2002/C 305/06)                                       Death of the director of the holding — Force majeure)
                      (Language of the case: Italian)                                                    (2002/C 305/07)
                                                                                                  (Language of the case: Spanish)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)
                                                                              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                                  in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-79/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Corte d’appello di Milano (Italy) for a preliminary ruling
                                                                              In Case C-208/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
in the non-contentious proceedings (giurisdizione volontaria)
                                                                              EC by the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha
brought before that court by Payroll Data Services (Italy) Srl,
                                                                              (Spain) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
ADP Europe SA and ADP GSI SA, on the interpretation of
                                                                              before that court between Isabel Parras Medina, Adelina Parras
Articles 43 EC and 49 EC, the Court (Fifth Chamber),
                                                                              Medina and Consejería de Agricultura y Medio Ambiente de
composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber,
                                                                              la Junta de Comunidades de Castilla-La Mancha on the
C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann,
                                                                              interpretation of Article 12 of Commission Regulation (EC)
and S. von Bahr, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General;
                                                                              No 1294/96 of 4 July 1996 laying down detailed rules for the
M.-F. Contet, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
                                                                              application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 as regards
judgment on 17 October 2002, in which it has ruled:
                                                                              harvest, production and stock declarations relating to wine-
                                                                              sector products (OJ 1996 L 166, p. 14), the Court (First
                                                                              Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the Cham-
Article 43 EC is to be interpreted as meaning that it precludes               ber, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and A. Rosas, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl,
legislation of a Member State which requires undertakings with less           Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
than 250 employees which wish to entrust the preparation and                  on 17 October 2002, in which it has ruled:
printing of their pay slips to data-processing centres to have recourse
only to those established staffed exclusively by persons registered with
certain professional associations in that Member State if, under that         On a proper construction of Article 12 of Commission Regulation
legislation, undertakings with more than 250 employees may entrust            (EC) No 1294/96 of 4 July 1996 laying down detailed rules for the
such activities to data-processing centres on the sole condition that         application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 as regards
they are assisted by one or more such persons.                                harvest, production and stock declarations relating to wine-sector
                                                                              products:
( 1) OJ C 108 of 7.4.2001.                                                    —     the concept of ‘force majeure’ referred to therein is not limited to
                                                                                    absolute impossibility but must be understood in the sense of
                                                                                    abnormal and unforeseeable circumstances, outside the oper-
                                                                                    ator’s control, the consequences of which, in spite of the exercise
                                                                                    of all due care, could not have been avoided;
 ---pagebreak--- C 305/6                   EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           7.12.2002
—     it is for the operator to prove that the conditions necessary for a    under the date-based export scheme may commence by virtue
      case of force majeure to exist have been satisfied and for the         of Article 6(5) of Council Decision 98/256/EC (OJ 1999 L 195,
      national court to verify the facts alleged and to determine            p. 42) and on the interpretation of Community law, in
      whether, having regard to the circumstances, the operators took        particular Article 30 EC, the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrí-
      every care that could have been expected of them to observe the        guez Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet and
      time-limits for making the declaration provided for by the             R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann,
      Community legislation;                                                 D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric,
                                                                             S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and A. Rosas (Rapporteur),
—     the sudden death of the sole director of a family holding in the       Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal
      form of community of property (‘comunidad de bienes’), who             Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
      was connected to the members of that community by close                22 October 2002, in which it has ruled:
      family ties, may, in principle, be regarded as a case of force
      majeure.
( 1) OJ C 227 of 11.8.2001.
                                                                             1.    A Member State which is an addressee of Commission Decision
                                                                                   98/692/EC of 25 November 1998 amending Decision 98/
                                                                                   256/EC as regards certain emergency measures to protect
                                                                                   against bovine spongiform encephalopathy and of Commission
                                                                                   Decision 1999/514/EC of 23 July 1999 setting the date on
                                                                                   which dispatch from the United Kingdom of bovine products
                                                                                   under the date-based export scheme may commence by virtue of
                                                                                   Article 6(5) of Council Decision 98/256/EC and which has
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                           not challenged the legality of those decisions within the time-
                                                                                   limit laid down by the fifth paragraph of Article 230 EC does
                                                                                   not have standing subsequently before a national court to invoke
                         of 22 October 2002                                        their unlawfulness in order to dispute the merits of an action
                                                                                   brought against it.
in Case C-241/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Conseil d’État): National Farmers’ Union v Secrétariat
                    général du gouvernement (1)
                                                                             2.    Since Council Directive 89/662/EEC of 11 December 1989
                                                                                   concerning veterinary checks in intra-Community trade with a
(Agriculture — Combating bovine spongiform encephalopa-                            view to the completion of the internal market and Decision 98/
thy — Decisions 98/692/EC and 1999/514/EC ending the                               256, as amended by Decision 98/692, lay down the rules
ban on beef and veal from the United Kingdom — Whether                             necessary for the protection of public health upon the resumption
a Member State to which those decisions are addressed may                          of exports of beef and veal from the United Kingdom to the
challenge the legality thereof after the time-limit for bringing                   other Member States, lay down a Community procedure to
proceedings has expired or invoke Article 30 EC to justify its                     monitor compliance with that decision and a procedure for
                        refusal to end the ban)                                    amending it in the light of new scientific information and
                                                                                   provide the appropriate legal framework for the adoption of
                                                                                   interim protective measures by a Member State of destination
                            (2002/C 305/08)
                                                                                   for the purpose of protecting public health, a Member State is
                                                                                   not entitled to invoke Article 30 EC in order to prevent the
                      (Language of the case: French)                               resumption of imports to its territory of beef and veal from the
                                                                                   United Kingdom which were carried out in accordance with
                                                                                   Decisions 98/256, as amended by Decision 98/692, and
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published             1999/514.
                     in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-241/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Conseil d’État (France) for a preliminary ruling in                (1 ) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.
the proceedings pending before that court between National
Farmers’ Union and Secrétariat général du gouvernement, on
the validity of Commission Decision 98/692/EC of 25 Novem-
ber 1998 amending Decision 98/256/EC as regards certain
emergency measures to protect against bovine spongiform
encephalopathy (OJ 1998 L 328, p. 28) and of Commission
Decision 1999/514/EC of 23 July 1999 setting the date on
which dispatch from the United Kingdom of bovine products