CELEX: C1998/137/17
Language: en
Date: 1998-05-02 00:00:00
Title: Appeal brought on 23 February 1998 by European Fertiliser Manufacturers Association (EFMA) against the judgment delivered on 17 December 1997 by the Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-121/95 between European Fertiliser Manufacturers Association (EFMA) and Council of the European Union, supported by the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-46/98 P)

C 137/8              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     2.5.98
Appeal brought on 23 February 1998 by European                           analyses, submitted by EFMA to demonstrate the
Fertiliser Manufacturers Association (EFMA) against the                  absence of difference between Russian and
judgment delivered on 17 December 1997 by the Fourth                     Community urea, concerned ex-Russian factory urea
Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First                     whereas the Russian urea used for the purpose of these
Instance of the European Communities in case T-121/                      analyses was, in fact, taken from the Community
95 (1) between European Fertiliser Manufacturers                         market,
Association (EFMA) and Council of the European Union,
       supported by the Commission of the European
                         Communities                                Ð incorrect legal characterisation of the facts by the
                                                                         Court of First Instance in that, on the basis of the
                      (Case C-46/98 P)                                   information/evidence available to EFMA during the
                        (98/C 137/17)                                    administrative proceedings, the Court of First Instance
                                                                         could not reasonably affirm that EFMA's right to a
                                                                         fair hearing was not infringed,
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 17 December
1997 by the Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition, of
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities             Ð violation of Article 173 of the EC Treaty in the sense
in    case    T-121/95     between      European     Fertiliser          that the Court of First Instance failed to grant a
Manufacturers Association (EFMA) and the Council of                      judicial protection to EFMA by its refusal to take into
the European Union, supported by the Commission of the                   account the Z/Yen report.
European Communities, was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 23 February                  (1) OJ C 189, 22.7.1995, p. 18.
1998 by European Fertiliser Manufacturers Association
(EFMA), represented by Dominique Voillemot and Olivier
Prost, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch and Wolter, 11,
rue Goethe.
The Appellant claims that the Court should:                         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
                                                                    Bremen by order of that court of 2 February 1998 in the
                                                                        case of Söhl & Söhlke against Hauptzollamt Bremen
1. annul the decision of the Court of First Instance dated
    17 December 1997 on the points of law described in                                      (Case C-48/98)
    the present appeal;                                                                      (98/C 137/18)
2. refer the matter back to the Court of First Instance if
    necessary;                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                    European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht
3. order the Council to pay the costs of the proceeding             Bremen (Finance Court, Bremen) of 2 February 1998,
    before the Court of First Instance and the costs of the         received at the Court Registry on 24 February 1998, for a
    present proceeding before the Court of Justice.                 preliminary ruling in the case of Söhl & Söhlke against
                                                                    Hauptzollamt Bremen on the following questions.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                    1. Does Article 859 of Commission Regulation (EEC)
Ð absence of statement of reasons in that the Court of                   No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for
    First Instance failed to indicate the reason for which it            the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC)
    refused to examine the first and the second pleas in                 No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs
    law put forward by EFMA in its application before                    Code (1) (the implementing Regulation) contain a
    the Court of First Instance,                                         validly constituted and exhaustive set of rules on
                                                                         failures, within the meaning of Article 204(1)(a) of
Ð violation of Article 173 of the EC Treaty in that the                  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October
    Court of First Instance apparently considered that                   1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2)
    EFMA did not have an interest for the determination                  (the Customs Code), which have no significant effect
    of the first and second pleas in law it put forward in               on the correct operation of the temporary storage or
    its application before the Court of First Instance,                  customs procedure in question'?
Ð substantive inaccuracy of the Court of First Instance             2. If question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative:
    findings and distortion of evidence in that the Court of
    First Instance based its findings for the quality                    (a) Where an application is made in time for an
    adjustment on a percentage figure allegedly agreed by                     extension of the time limit referred to in
    EFMA, but which, in fact, was not,                                        Article 859(1) of the implementing Regulation, is
                                                                              the national court precluded from examining of its
Ð substantive inaccuracy of the Court of First Instance                       own motion the criteria for the grant of such an
    findings and distortion of evidence in that the Court of                  extension where it has been refused by a now
    First Instance affirmed that the technical and chemical                   unappealable decision of the customs authority?