CELEX: C2000/211/16
Language: en
Date: 2000-07-22 00:00:00
Title: Case C-180/00: Action brought on 12 May 2000 by the Kingdom of the Netherlands against the Commission of the European Communities

C 211/10                 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        22.7.2000
     (C) In a situation such as that described in (A) or (B), is the     The applicant claims that the Court should:
         pledgee, the pledgor’s customer, the forwarder, the
         warehouse keeper or the carrier the ‘holder’ for the            — Annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 465/2000 (1) of
         purposes of this regulation?                                        29 February 2000 introducing safeguard measures for
                                                                             imports from the overseas countries and territories of
4. In the case of Tunisian olive oil falling within CN code                  sugar sector products with EC/OCT cumulation of origin;
     1509 10, is the term ‘the import charge applicable in the
     Community of Twelve as at 31 December 1994’ within                  — Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.
     the meaning of Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 3108/94
     invariably to be understood as meaning
     (A) the special levy of ECU 7,8 per 100 kilograms laid              Pleas in law and main arguments
         down in Article 1(1) of Council Regulation (EC)
         No 287/94 of 7 February 1994 or                                 — Infringement of Article 109(1) of OCT Decision
                                                                             91/482/EEC of 25 July 1991 on the association of the
     (B) the levy of ECU 79 minus ECU 12,69, that is to say,                 overseas countries and territories with the European Econ-
         ECU 66,31 per 100 kilograms, as provided for in                     omic Community (2), as last amended by Decision
         Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 3307/94                    2000/169/EC (3). The Commission has manifestly miscon-
                                                                             strued the facts, in particular so far as concerns the amounts
     or                                                                      of OCT sugar products imported into the Community,
                                                                             the situation on the Community sugar market and the
     (C) does the answer to this question turn on whether the                consequences for Community market participants. The
         importation of Tunisian olive oil within the quota laid             grounds on which Article 109(1) of the OCT Decision
         down in Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 287/94 was               makes application of the power to introduce safeguard
         still possible in the Member States of the Community of             measures dependent are not present here. The Commission
         Twelve without any difficulty even at the end of 1994               consequently erred in concluding that the importation of
         or                                                                  OCT sugar could lead to a serious deterioration in the
                                                                             sugar sector and that safeguard measures were justified
     (D) is the rate of duty to be determined in each case on the            under Article 109(1) of the OCT Decision;
         basis of whether, if importation into an EC Member
         State had been planned, the taxable person would have           — Infringement of Article 109(2) of the OCT Decision:
         been able to acquire a (preferential) quota at the time
         when the transaction was concluded?                                 — The contested safeguard measure fails to take account
                                                                                  of the preferential position enjoyed by the OCT vis-à-
5. If Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) 3108/94 is                          vis the ACP States and non-member countries;
     understood as having the meaning set out at 4(b), would
     it be void because it infringed the principle of equal
                                                                             — In view of the far-reaching consequences which the
     treatment?
                                                                                  safeguard measures have for the Netherlands Antilles,
                                                                                  Aruba and the undertakings concerned, the Nether-
(1) OJ 1994 L 328, p. 42.                                                         lands take the view that the safeguard measures under
                                                                                  challenge are disproportionate, or at any rate that the
                                                                                  Commission, contrary to the obligation imposed on it,
                                                                                  failed to take those consequences into account when
                                                                                  reaching its decision;
                                                                             — In so far as safeguard measures are necessary, less
                                                                                  restrictive safeguard measures are possible, in particular
Action brought on 12 May 2000 by the Kingdom of the                               the provision of a minimum selling price;
Netherlands against the Commission of the European
                            Communities                                      — Article 3(3) of Regulation No 2553/97 in conjunction
                                                                                  with Article 2(2) of Regulation No 465/2000 infringes
                           (Case C-180/00)                                        the principle of proportionality set out in
                                                                                  Article 109(2) of the OCT Decision, since the amount
                                                                                  of security bears no relation to the amount of security
                          (2000/C 211/16)                                         for imports of sugar from ACP States and from non-
                                                                                  member countries;
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European             — Misuse of powers: after the Council had, following protrac-
Communities on 12 May 2000 by the Kingdom of the                             ted deliberation, voted unanimously, as required, to add
Netherlands, represented by Marc Fierstra, Head of the Euro-                 Article 108b to the OCT Decision by Decision 97/803/EC
pean Law Section in the Legal Service of the Ministry of                     — whereby the importation of sugar with ACP/OCT
Foreign Affairs, and Jantine van Bakel, of the Legal Service of              cumulation of origin was restricted — the importation of
that Ministry, The Hague, acting as Agents.                                  sugar with EC/OCT cumulation of origin and of mixtures
 ---pagebreak--- 22.7.2000              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 211/11
     of cocoa and sugar of OCT origin was possible without              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d’Appel
     limitation on the basis of Article 6 of Annex II to the            de Paris (Ninth Chamber) by judgment of 15 May 2000 in
     OCT Decision. The Commission seeks in Regulation                   the case of Edouard Balguerie, Bernard André Mercier
     No 465/2000 to impose a limit on an EC/OCT cumulation              and Patrick Thomas, and, as parties bearing civil liability,
     of origin upheld by the Council and thus seeks to avoid a          Société Balguerie, Société Pillet and Orkos Diffusion
     consequence which was clearly created by the OCT                   v Administration des Douanes; intervener: Ministère
     Decision and upheld by the Council;                                                                Public
— Infringement of Article 253 EC.
                                                                                                  (Case C-190/00)
( 1) OJ 2000 L 56, p. 39.
(2) OJ 1991 L 263, p. 1.                                                                          (2000/C 211/18)
(3) OJ 2000 L 55, p. 67.
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by judgment of 15 May 2000 by the
                                                                        Cour d’Appel de Paris (Court of Appeal, Paris) (Ninth
                                                                        Chamber), which was received at the Court Registry on 23 May
                                                                        2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Edouard Balguerie,
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsge-                  Bernard André Mercier and Patrick Thomas, and, as parties
richt Hamburg by order of that court of 3 May 2000 in                   bearing civil liability, Société Balguerie, Société Pillet and Orkos
the case of Dr Helga Kutz-Bauer v Freie und Hansestadt                  Diffusion v Administration des Douanes; intervener: Ministère
                             Hamburg                                    Public, on the following question:
                          (Case C-187/00)
                                                                        Do Commission Regulation No 4142/87 of 9 December
                          (2000/C 211/17)                               1987 (1) and the conditions imposed for its application in
                                                                        regard to imports of dates under the procedure for the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  suspension of customs duties by reason of the end-use of
European Communities by an order of the Arbeitsgericht                  the goods preclude such goods being imported in original
(Labour Court), Hamburg, of 3 May 2000, which was received              packaging with a content of less than or equal to 11 kg?
at the Court Registry on 19 May 2000, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Dr Helga Kutz-Bauer v Freie und Hansestadt
Hamburg on the following questions:                                     (1) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 4142/87 of 9 December 1987
                                                                            determining the conditions under which certain goods are eligible
1. Does a provision of a collective agreement for the public                on import for a favourable tariff arrangement by reason of their
     service which allows male and female employees to claim                end-use (OJ L 387 of 31.12.1987, p. 81).
     part-time working on grounds of age infringe Articles 2(1)
     and 5(1) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC on the im-
     plementation of the principle of equal treatment for men
     and women as regards access to employment, vocational
     training and promotion, and working conditions, if it
     allows part-time working on grounds of age only until the
     time when a full pension under the statutory old-age
     insurance scheme may first be claimed, and if the class of
     persons who may already draw a full pension at the age of
     60 consists almost exclusively of women, while the class           Action brought on 25 May 2000 by the Commission of
     who may draw a full pension only from the age of                     the European Communities against the Italian Republic
     65 consists almost exclusively of men?
2. Are national courts empowered, where provisions of                                             (Case C-191/00)
     collective agreements and legislative provisions are in
     breach of Directive 76/207/EEC (1) or Directive 79/7/
     EEC (2), to apply the corresponding provisions in favour of                                  (2000/C 211/19)
     the disadvantaged class, disregarding the restrictions which
     are contrary to Community law, until non-discriminatory
     rules are created by the parties to the collective agreement       An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
     and/or the legislature?                                            Court of Justice of the European Communities on 25 May
                                                                        2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                        represented by Karen Banks, Legal Adviser, and Laura Pignata-
(1) OJ L 39 of 14.2.1976, p. 40.                                        ro, of the Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for
(2) OJ L 6 of 10.1.1979, p. 24.
                                                                        service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
                                                                        Cruz, of the Commission’s Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
                                                                        Kirchberg.