CELEX: C1996/210/21
Language: en
Date: 1996-07-20 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 3 June 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic (Case C-187/96)

20 . 7 . 96            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       No C 210/9
the European Communities, represented by Hendrik Van                  protection of property and the principles of equal treatment
Lier and Jean-Francis Pasquier, acting as Agents, with an             and protection of legitimate expectations ?
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of C. Gomez
de la Cruz, of its Legal Service .                                    (') OJ No L 405 , 31 . 12 . 1992 , p . 1 .
                                                                      ( 2 ) Official Journal , English Special Edition 1968 I, p . 176 .
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          ( 3 ) OJ No L 86 , 1 . 4 . 1992 , p . 83 .
— declare that, by adopting Decree No 93-999 of 9 August
     1993 relating to preparations with a basis of foie gras,
    without taking account of the contents of the detailed
    opinion and the .reasoned opinion of the Commission
    concerning mutual recognition, the French Republic has
    failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 30 of the          Action brought on 3 June 1996 by the Commission of the
    Treaty,                                                                European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
                                                                                                 ( Case C-187/96 )
— order the French Republic to pay the costs .                                                     ( 96/C 210/21 )
Pleas in law and main arguments                                       An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
                                                                      the Court of Justice on 3 June 1 996 by the Commission of
Infringement of Article 30 of the EC Treaty : the                     the European Communities, represented by Maria Patakia,
Commission considers that, while the prevention of fraud              of the Commission's Legal Service , with an address for
constitutes a legitimate objective, national rules preventing         service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlo Gômez de la
the marketing, under the names provided for therein, of               Cruz, also of the Commission's Legal Service, Wagner
products which do not comply with the requirements laid               Centre, Kirchberg.
down in those rules are disproportionate . The Commission
acknowledges that, in the absence of any equivalent rules in
the other Member States, the mutual recognition provision             The applicant claims that the Court should :
which it requires will not have any immediate effect;
however, it regards such a provision as necessary, in order           — declare that, in so far as it excludes, by regulation or
that the marketing in France of preparations with a basis of                administrative practice, account being taken in
foie gras which are legally manufactured and marketed on                    awarding seniority and grading for salary purposes to an
the territory of another Member State should not be                         employee in the Greek public service of previous service
prohibited in the future .                                                  in the public service of another Member State of the
                                                                            Community, on the sole ground that the previous service
                                                                            was not performed in the national public service, the
                                                                            Hellenic Republic is in breach of its obligations under
                                                                            Community law, in particular Articles 5 and 48 of the
                                                                            EC Treaty and Article 7 ( 1 ) of Regulation ( EEC )
                                                                            No 1612/68 ( M ,
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
Bundesfinanzhof by decision of that court of 19 March
1996 in the case of Stefan Demand v. Hauptzollamt                     — order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs .
                               Trier
                         ( Case C-186/96 )                            Pleas in law and main arguments
                            96/C 210/20 )
                                                                      In the Commission's view, the said regulations, although
                                                                      not comprising express discrimination by reason of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                nationality, nevertheless introduce covert discrimination to
European Communities by decision of the Bundesfinanzhof               the detriment of nationals of other Member States of the
( Federal Finance Court ) of 19 March 1996 , which was                Community . The fact that in certain cases previous service in
received at the Court Registry on 3 June 1996 , for a                 a foreign public service will , exceptionally, be recognized
preliminary ruling in the case of Stefan Demand v.                    corroborates non-recognition in all other cases . Moreover,
Hauptzollamt Trier on the following question :                        the case-law of the Areios Pagos ( Greek Supreme Court of
                                                                      Cassation ), which is consistent with Community law, on the
Are the combined provisions of Article 4(1 ) and the first            matter, relied upon by the Greek authorities, shows that the
paragraph of Article 3 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 3950/92 (')           regulations in question are obscure and give rise to legal
— whereby the suspension , under Article 5 c ( 3 ) ( g ) of           disputes .
Regulation ( EEC ) No 804/68 ( 2 ), as amended by Regulation
( EEC ) No 8 1 6/92 ( 3 ), of part of the reference quantities       The Commission maintains that those regulations are
allocated to producers was transformed without                       capable of deterring Greek citizens from exercising their
compensation into a permanent reduction of those reference            right to free movement within the Community and adds that
quantities, without exempting from that reduction at least            although the Member States are free, in the absence of
additional quantities acquired by producers — compatible              harmonization, to lay down the conditions under which
with Community law, and in particular with the right to the          previous service in the public sector will be recognized,
 ---pagebreak--- No C 210/ 10            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   20 . 7 . 96
nevertheless they may not create obstacles to the exercise of               evidence, that he had had advance knowledge of the
the fundamental freedoms derived from the Treaty.                           model answers to the accounting and possibly the
                                                                            auditing questions, or of both the model answers and the
Lastly, in the Commission's view the present case does not                  questions themselves; the principles that no one may be
concern access to posts within the public administration but                obliged to incriminate himself cannot be relied on to
rather compliance with the principles of freedom of                         justify a total failure to cooperate in establishing the
movement and equal treatment in relation to conditions of                   truth,
employment and , consequently, it does not fall within the
exception of Article 48 ( 4 ).                                          — its assessment of the standard of proof required in order
                                                                            to establish a disciplinary offence : the contested
(') Official Journal , English Special Edition 1968 II, p . 475 .
                                                                            judgment in effect denies the disciplinary authorities the
                                                                            possibility of establishing a fact on the basis of a
                                                                            consistent body of relevant evidence obtained after a
                                                                            rigorously conducted disciplinary inquiry .
                                                                        (') OJ No C 133 , 1 . 5 . 1996 , p . 22 .
Appeal brought on 3 June 1996 by the Commission of the
European Communities against the judgment delivered on
28 March 1996 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities in Case T-40/95
between Philippe Guebels and the Commission of the                      Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura
                     European Communities                               Circondariale di Roma, Tivoli Division, by order of that
                        ( Case C-188/96 P                               court of 20 March 1996 in the criminal proceedings against
                                                                                           Rosalinda Marchionne
                           ( 96/C 210/22 )
                                                                                                 ( Case C-189/96 )
                                                                                                   ( 96/C 210/23 )
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 28 March 199 6
by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-40/95 between Philippe                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Guebels and the Commission of the European Communities                  European Communities by an order of the Pretura
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                 Circondariale di Roma ( Rome District Magistrates ' Court ),
Communities on 3 June 1996 by the Commission of the                     Tivoli Division, of 20 March 1996 , which was received at
European Communities, represented by A. M. Alves Vieira                 the Court Registry on 3 June 1996 , for a preliminary ruling
and D. Waelbroeck , with an address for service in                      in the criminal proceedings against Rosalinda Marchionne
Luxembourg at the office of C. Gomez de la Cruz, of its                 on questions which are the same as those in Joined Cases
Legal Service, Wagner Centre .                                          C-58/95 and others ( M.
                                                                        (') OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 , p . 6 .
The appellant claims that the Court should :
— set aside the judgment delivered on 28 March 1996 by
    the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance in Case
    T-40/95 ('), Philippe Guebels v. Commission of the
    European Communities, and
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura
                                                                        Circondariale di Roma, Tivoli Division, by order of that
— make an appropriate ruling as to costs .                              court of 3 April 1996 in the criminal proceedings against
                                                                                                   Amerigo Alari
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                  ( Case C-190/96 )
                                                                                                    ( 96/C 210/24 )
Breach of Community law in that the contested judgment
errs in :
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
— its interpretation of the scope of the obligation to state            European Communities by an order of the Pretura
    reasons ,
                                                                        Circondariale di Roma ( Rome District Magistrates ' Court ),
                                                                        Tivoli Division, of 3 April 1996 , which was received at the
                                                                        Court Registry on 3 June 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in
— its legal assessment of the factors regarded by the
                                                                        the criminal proceedings against Amerigo Alari on questions
    appointing authority as aggravating by considering that
                                                                        which are the same as those in Joined Cases C-58/95 and
    they did not justify the adoption of a disciplinary                 others ( M.
    measure more severe than that recommended by the
    Disciplinary Board : the Court of First Instance was
    wrong in not considering the applicant's attitude to be             (>) OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 , p . 6 .
    an aggravating factor when, instead of producing a
    plausible defence, he merely denied , against all the