CELEX: C1999/188/26
Language: en
Date: 1999-07-03 00:00:00
Title: Case C-119/99: Reference for a preliminary by the Tribunal d'lnstance (District Court), Paris 7th, by judgment of that court of 30 March 1999 in the case of Hewlett Packard BV v Directeur Général des Douanes et Droits Indirects

3.7.1999                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 188/11
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the French Cour de                    The French Republic considers that the Commission has
Cassation (Commercial, Financial and Economic Chamb-                        infringed the principle of proportionality by applying a flat-rate
er), by judgment of that court of 6 April 1999 in the case                  correction of 2% on the basis that on-the-spot checks were of
of Union Nationale Interprofessionnelle des Légumes                         insufficient quality, even though the seriousness of the defects
Transformés (UNILET) and Gilles Le Bars against Associ-                     found in 1994 does not justify such a correction and it was
ation Comité Economique Régional Agricole Fruits et                         permissible for the Commission to carry out an assessment of
               Légumes de Bretagne (CERAFEL)                                the actual risk incurred by the Guarantee Section of the
                                                                            European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund. The
                                                                            French Government claims that the Court of Justice should
                         (Case C-117/99)                                    also annul Decision C(1999)209 final of 3 February 1999 on
                                                                            that point.
                         (1999/C 188/24)
                                                                            The French Government claims:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      — that Commission Decision 1999/187/EC should be
European Communities by judgment of the French Cour de                           annulled in so far as it concerns a flat-rate correction of
Cassation (Commercial, Financial and Economic Chamber) of                        567.7 million francs. (1)
6 April 1999, received at the Court Registry on 9 April 1999,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Union Nationale
Interprofessionnelle des Légumes Transformés (UNILET) and                   Pleas in law and main arguments
Gilles Le Bars against Association Comité Economique
Régional Agricole Fruits et Légumes de Bretagne (CERAFEL)
on the following question:                                                  The flat-rate correction of 2%, on the ground of the alleged
                                                                            insufficiency of the on-the-spot checks carried out under the
                                                                            support system for producers of certain arable crops (Council
Is Article 15b(8) of Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 (1) of the                 Regulation 1765/92), (2) is based on an extrapolation of
Council of 18 May 1972 on the common organisation of the                    weaknesses reveaed by a mission in situ; it rests on too small
market in fruit and vegetables to be interpreted as meaning                 and insignificant a sample and infringes the principle of
that, where a Member State has applied Article 15b(l) of that               proportionality. The French Government maintains that the
regulation, that is to say when it has made certain rules on                Commission has failed to carry out an assessment of the actual
production and marketing adopted by a producers’ organis-                   risk incurred by the Guarantee Section of the European
ation binding on producers established in the district who do               Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund.
not belong to that organisation, it is entitled to exempt certain
non-member producers from the payment of those fees, in
respect of a given product, in so far as the goods produced by              (1) Commission Decision 1999/187/EC of 3 February 1999 on the
                                                                                clearance of the accounts presented by the Member States in
them are intended for industrial processing, rather than for                    respect of the expenditure for 1995 of the Guarantee Section of
marketing fresh.                                                                the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (OJ
                                                                                1999 L 61, p. 37).
                                                                            (2) OJ 1992 L 181, p. 12.
(1) OJ English Special Edition i 1972 (II), p. 437.
                                                                            Reference for a preliminary by the Tribunal d’lnstance
                                                                            (District Court), Paris 7th, by judgment of that court of
                                                                            30 March 1999 in the case of Hewlett Packard BV v
Action brought on 12 April 1999 by the French Republic                           Directeur Général des Douanes et Droits Indirects
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                                     (Case C-119/99)
                         (Case C-118/99)
                                                                                                     (1999/C 188/26)
                         (1999/C 188/25)                                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                            European Communities by judgment of 30 March 1999 of the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                   Tribunal d’Instance, Paris 7ème, received at the Court Registry
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                on 12 April 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Communities on 12 April 1999 by the French Republic,                        Hewlett Packard BV v Directeur Général des Douanes et Droits
represented by Kareen Rispal-Bellanger, Deputy Director for                 Indirects on the following question:
International Economic Law and Community Law at the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Christina Vasak, Assistant                 Under the Common Customs Tariff, facsimile machines and
Secretary for Foreign Affairs in the same Ministry, acting as               printers do not fall under the same tariff heading. When a
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                    single machine is designed to perform several functions, the
French Embassy, 8b Boulevard Joseph II.                                     tariff heading is determined according to the principal function.
 ---pagebreak--- C 188/12                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         3.7.1999
In point 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 2184/97 (1) was the                         — infringement of Article 43 of the Treaty, of the general
Commission therefore entitled to decide that all multi-function                    principles concerning the hierarchy of sources of law
facsimile machines essentially consisting of:                                      and of Article 8(4)(ii) of Regulation No 3760/92 (2);
— a modem                                                                     — manifest inadequacy of the criteria presumably adopted
                                                                                   in order to implement the principle of ‘relative stab-
— a scanner                                                                        ility’.
— a printing device                                                       2. Unlawfulness of Article 2(2) and of the Annex (table
                                                                              relating to bluefin tuna), by reason of:
and operating either in an autonomous form or in conjunction
with a computer, fall under tariff heading 8517 21 (facsimile                 — absence of a statement of reasons. The fifth recital in
machines), thus excluding the possibility of determining the                       the preamble to the regulation contains reasoning
dominant function of each machine on a case-by-case basis                          which is merely ostensible, incomprehensible and
and laying down the principle that the printing device is of                       certainly insufficient for the purposes of providing
secondary importance, whatever the machine, provided that it                       any real reasons which might justify the exceptional
falls within the category described?                                               allocation set out in the first table (bluefin tuna) in the
                                                                                   annex to the regulation;
(1) Commission regulation of 3 November 1997 concerning the
    classfication of certain goods in the combined nomenclature (OJ           — infringement of Regulation No 3760/92 (Article 8(4))
    L 299, p. 6).                                                                  and breach of the general principles regarding the
                                                                                   common agricultural policy, legal certainty and basic
                                                                                   guarantees relating to sanctions;
                                                                              — in addition, manifest error with regard to ICCAT;
                                                                              — misuse of powers.
Action brought on 10 April 1999 by the Italian Republic
          against the Council of the European Union                       (1) OJ L 13 of 18 January 1999, p. 54.
                                                                          (2) OJ L 389 of 31 December 1992, p. 1.
                           (Case C-120/99)
                           (1999/C 188/27)
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 10 April 1999 by the Italian Republic, represented by             Action brought on 8 April 1999 by the Commission of
Umberto Leanza, acting as Agent, assisted by Pier Giorgio                 the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
Ferri, Avvocato dello Stato, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Italian Embassy, Rue Marie-Adelaïde.
                                                                                                   (Case C-121/99)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                                   (1999/C 188/28)
— allow the present application, and consequently,
                                                                          An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
— partially annul Council Regulation (EC) No 49/1999 (1);                 the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 April
                                                                          1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                  represented by Maria Kondou-Durande, of its Legal Service,
                                                                          with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
                                                                          Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Kirchberg.
                                                                          The Commission claims that the Court should:
1. Unlawfulness of Article 2(1) of the regulation (allocation
     of percentages from the share available to the Community             1. declare that, by not communicating the laws, regulations
     of bluefin tuna stocks), by reason of:                                   and administrative provisions required to comply with
                                                                              Commission Directive 97/35/EC (1) of 18 June 1997
     — total absence of a statement of reasons. The recitals in               adapting to technical progress for the second time Council
         the preamble to the regulation do not in any way                     Directive 90/220/EEC on the deliberate release into the
         satisfy the essential guarantee requiring the provision              environment of genetically modified organisms, or by not
         of a statement of the parameters and criteria adopted                adopting the necessary measures to comply therewith, the
         for the purposes of dividing up a total allowable catch              Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
         into national quotas;                                                the Treaty and that directive;