CELEX: C1995/315/17
Language: en
Date: 1995-11-25 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 29 September 1995 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Council of the European Union (Case C-309/95)

25 . 11 . 95           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 315/9
     of the judgment by persons who have not brought legal             Action brought on 29 September 1995 by the Commission
     proceedings or made an equivalent claim prior to that             of the European Communities against the Council of the
     date.                                                                                    European Union
                                                                                              ( Case C-309/95 )
(') OJ No C 202 , 23 . 7. 1994 .                                                                ( 95/C 315/ 17 )
                                                                       An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                       brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                       Communities on 29 September 1 995 by the Commission of
                                                                       the European Communities, represented by Gerard Rozet
                                                                       and Jean-Paul Keppenne, acting as Agents, with an address
                                                                       for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de
                  ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                       la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                       ( Second Chamber)
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should :
                      of 17 October 1995                               — annul the Council 's decision of 22 June 1995 on the
in Case C-62/94 P: Mariette Turner v. Commission of the                    granting of exceptional aid to producers of table wine in
                  European Communities ( 1 )                               France ,
(Official — Compulsory reassignment — Non-material
damage — Claim for compensation — Appeal manifestly                    — order the Council to pay the coses .
                 inadmissible and unfounded)
                           ( 95/C 315/ 16 )                            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                       — Misapplication of the third subparagraph of Article
                (Language of the case: French)                             93 ( 2 ) of the EC Treaty; abuse of process; lack of
                                                                           competence .
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be               The Council is not empowered to take decisions — on
          published in the European Court Reports)                         the basis of the third subparagraph of Article 93 ( 2 )
                                                                           which was extended to certain agriculturl products by a
                                                                           Regulation on the common organization of the relevant
In Case C-62/94 P : Mariette Turner, a former official of the              markets — derogating from provisions which are of
Commission of the European Communities, residing in                        central importance to the machinery for the common
Brussels , represented by Georges Vandersanden, of the                     organization of the market ( COM ), where the effect of
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                 those decisions is to impair the proper operation of the
the office of Fiduciaire Myson, 1 Rue Glesener — appeal                    principal mechanisms of the COM . State aid which
against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the                 causes the purchase price of table wines delivered for
European Communities ( Fifth Chamber ) of 16 December                      preventive distillation to rise to the level of market prices
 1993 in Case T-80/92 Turner v. Commission ( 1993 ) ECR                    not only distorts competition between producers within
11-1465 , seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other               the meaning of Article 92 ( 1 ), but it lends greater support
party to the proceedings being Commission of the European                  to prices than that expressly envisaged by the COM and
Communities ( Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and Denis                         counters the dissuasive effect expressly mentioned in the
Waelbroeck ) — the Court, composed of: G. Hirsch                           preamble to the basic Regulation, which is necessary to
 ( Rapporteur ), President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini and               enable production to be controlled, and at the same time
F. A. Schockweiler, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate-General;                   makes the Commission 's management task impossible
R. Grass , Registrar, made an order on 17 October 1995 , the               to carry out .
 operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                           If the Council wished to change the common
                                                                           organization of the market in wine in order to obtain the
 1 . The appeal is dismissed.                                              result sought, it should have followed the procedural
                                                                           rules laid down by Article 43 ( 2 ) and ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty
                                                                           which ensure compliance with the institutional balance
 2 . Mrs Turner is ordered to pay the costs of these                       established by the Treaty . Consequently, the contested
     proceedings.                                                          decision is vitiated by lack of competence .
 (') OJ No C 103 , 11 . 4 . 1994 .                                          ( By way of subsidiary pleas )
                                                                        — Absence of 'exceptional circumstances' within the
                                                                            meaning of the third subparagraph of Article 93 ( 2 ) of
 ---pagebreak--- No C 315/ 10            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    25 . 11 . 95
      the Treaty: the low production of table wine in the                 Directive 92/50/EEC ( ) of 18 June 1992 relating to the
      Community in the 1994/95 wine-growing year has led to               coordination of procedures for the award of public service
      a market situation which is generally satisfactory and , in         contracts into its national law .
      particular, to quite favourable prices, which should raise
      the income of wine growers . As regards the attempts on             (') OJ No L 209 , 24 . 7 . 1992 , p . 1 .
      the part of French wine growers to curtail the
      production of table wine, the Commission points out
      that those attempts have been supported by the
      Community, in particular through the measures laid
      down by Council Directive 78/627/EEC ( ] ) on the
      programme to accelerate the restructuring and
      conversion of vineyards in certain Mediterranean
      regions in France and those laid down by Council                   Action brought on 3 October 1995 by the Commission of
      Regulation ( EEC ) No 458/80 ( 2 ) on collective projects          the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
      for the restructuring of vineyards .                                                            Luxembourg
                                                                                                   ( Case C-3 12/95 )
— Insufficient and erroneous statement of reasons .                                                  ( 95/C 315/ 19 )
(') OJ No L 206 , 29 . 7 . 1978 , p . 1 .                                An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
( 2 ) OJ No L 57, 29 . 2 . 1980 , p . 27 .                               brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                         Communities on 3 October 1995 by the Commission of the
                                                                         European Communities, represented by Frank Benyon,
                                                                         Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
                                                                         Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
                                                                         Wagner Centre , Kirchberg.
                                                                         The Commission of the European Communities claims that
Action brought on 2 October 1995 by the Commission of                    the Court should :
the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
                          ( Case C-3 11 /95 )
                                                                          1 . Declare that, by failing within the prescribed period
                            ( 95/C 315/18 )                                    to adopt all the measures necessary in order to comply
                                                                               with Council Directives 90/219/EEC of 23 April 1990
                                                                               on the contained use of genetically modified
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before                     micro-organisms (') and 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990
the Court of Justice on 2 October 1995 by the Commission                       on the deliberate release into the environment of
of the European Communities, represented by Dimitrios                          genetically modified organisms ( 2 ), the Grand Duchy of
Gouloussis , Legal Advisor, with an address for service in                     Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of the                    Articles 22 and 23 of Directives 90/219/EEC and
Commission 's Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                         90/220/EEC respectively and Articles 5 and 189 of the
                                                                               EC Treaty .
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                        2 . Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the
                                                                               costs .
1 . Declare that, by failing to bring into force and, in the
      alternative, to communicate to the Commission, the
      laws , regulations and administrative provisions                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
      necessary to comply fully with Council Directive
      92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination            The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third
      of procedures for the award of public service contracts ,         paragraph of Article 189 and of the first paragraph of
      the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations        Article 5 of the EC Treaty is such as to oblige Member States
      under the EC Treaty .                                             to whom directives are addressed to adopt the measures
                                                                        necessary for the implementation of such directives within
2 . Order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs .                      the time limit prescribed therein . The time limit in question,
                                                                        as regards both the above Directives, expired on 23 October
                                                                         1991 but the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has not adopted
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     the necessary measures .
In this action for failure by a Member State to fulfil its               (') OJ No L 117 , 8 . 5 . 1990 , p . 1 .
Treaty obligations ( Article 169 of the EC Treaty), the                  ( 2 ) OJ No L 117, 8 . 5 . 1990 , p . 15 .
Commission complains that the Hellenic Republic has not
taken, and subsequently not communicated to the
Commission, the measures necessary to transpose Council