CELEX: C1995/286/07
Language: en
Date: 1995-10-28 00:00:00
Title: Appeal brought on 30 August 1995 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment delivered on 29 June 1995 by the First Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance in Case T-31/91 between Solvay SA and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-287/95 P)

28 . 10 . 95             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 286/3
— Discrimination, inadequate statement of reasons ( see                    Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
      Cases C-71 /95 (2 ) and C-155/95 ( 3 )).                             Case T-7/93 (') between Langnese-Iglo GmbH and the
                                                                           Commission of the European Communities, supported
(') Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 1219/95 of 30 May 1995                 by Mars GmbH, was brought before the Court of Justice
      adopting transitional measures for the application of the tariff     of the European Communities on 18 August 1995 by
      quota arrangements for imports of bananas for the third quarter      Langnese-Iglo GmbH, Hamburg ( Federal Republic of
      of 1995 as a result of the accession of Austria , Finland and        Germany ), represented by Martin Heidenhain, Bernard M.
      Sweden ( OJ No L 120 , 31 . 5 . 1995 , p. 20 ).                      Maassen, Horst Satzky, Rechtsanwälte, Frankfurt am
( 2 ) OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 , p . 13 .                               Main, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
(■') OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 , p . 3 .
                                                                           Chambers of Jean Hoss, 15 Cote d'Eich, L-1450
                                                                           Luxembourg.
                                                                           The appellant claims that the Court should:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura                          1 . set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
Circondariale di Verona — Sezione Distaccata di Isola della                     the European Communities of 8 June 1995 in Case
Scala by order of that court of 27 July 1995 and supplement                     T-7/93 Langnese-Iglo GmbH v. Commission of the
of 4 September 1995 in the case of Impresa Agricola Buratti                     European Communities in so far as it dismissed the
Leonardo, Pierluigi and Livio against TAV Tabacchicoltori                       appellant's action against Commission Decision
                 Associati Veneti soc.coop. a r.l .                             93/406/EEC of 23 December 1992 , in a proceeding
                                                                                under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty ( Case
                           ( Case C-2 73/95                                     IV/34.072 );
                             ( 95/C 286/05 )
                                                                           2 . declare void Articles 1 , 2 and 3 of Commission Decision
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                          93/406/EEC of 23 December 1992, in a proceeding
European        Communities         by     order  of the     Pretura            under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty ( Case
Circondariale di Verona — Sezione Distaccata di Isola della                     IV/34.072 );
Scala (Verona District Magistrate's Court — Isola della
Scala Division ) of 27 July 1995 , supplemented on                         3 . order the Commission to pay the costs of the
4 September 1995 , which were received at the Court                             proceedings before the Court of First Instance and the
Registry on 11 August and 12 September 1995 , for a                             costs of the appeal proceedings; or
preliminary ruling in the case of Impresa Agricola Buratti                 in the alternative,
Leonardo, Pierluigi and Livio against TAV Tabacchicoltori
Associati Veneti soc.coop . a r.l . on the following                            refer the case back to the Court of First Instance of the
question :
                                                                                European Communities .
'Is Regulation ( EEC ) No 3478/92 ( 1 ) and in particular
Articles 10 and 1 1 thereof to be interpreted as meaning that              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
the date to be taken into consideration for the purpose of
applying the agricultural conversion rate to the processing                Infringement of Community law when appraising the pleas
premium is the date on which the tobacco is delivered to the               in law: ( a ) infringement of the principle of the protection of
processor by the producer group or the date on which the                   legitimate expectations, ( b ) infringement of Article 85 ( 1 ) of
product is supplied by the individual producer to the group                the Treaty ( effects on competition of the exclusive dealing
itself, and what constitutes " delivery under contract " within            agreements ) and ( c ) infringement of the principles of
the meaning of the abovementioned provisions ?'                            proportionality and of equal treatment .
(') O J No L 351 , 2 . 12 . 1992 , p . 17 .                                (') OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 , p . 18 .
Appeal brought on 18 August 1995 by Langnese-Iglo                          Appeal brought on 30 August 1995 by the Commission of
GmbH against the judgment delivered on 8 June 1995 by the                  the European Communities against the judgment delivered
Second Chamber, extended composition, of the Court of                      on 29 June 1995 by the First Chamber ( Extended
First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-7/93                  Composition ) of the Court of First Instance in Case T-3 1/9 1
between Langnese-Iglo GmbH and the Commission of the                       between Solvay SA and the Commission of the European
      European Communities, supported by Mars GmbH                                                    Communities
                         ( Case C-279/95 P )                                                      ( Case C-287/95 P
                              ( 95/C 286/06 )                                                        ( 95/C 286/07 )
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 8 June 1995                    An appeal against the judgment delivered on 29 June 1995
 by the Second Chamber, extended composition, of the                        by the First Chamber ( Extended Composition ) of the Court
 ---pagebreak--- No C 286/4              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   28 . 10 . 95
of First Instance in Case T-31 /91 between Solvay SA and the                  such as to affect the interests of the addressee of the
Commission of the European Communities was brought                            decision .
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
30 August 1995 by the Commission of the European                       (') OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 , p . 21 .
Communities, represented by J. Curral and B. J. Drijber, of
the Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg
at the office of C. Gomez de la Cruz .
The appellant claims that the Court should :                           Appeal brought on 30 August 1995 by the Commission of
                                                                       the European Communities against the judgment delivered
1 . set aside the Court of First Instance 's judgment in Case          on 29 June 1995 by the First Chamber ( Extended
    T-31 /91 (');                                                      Composition ) of the Court of First Instance in Case T-32/91
                                                                       between Solvay SA and the Commission of the European
                                                                                                    Communities
2 . dismiss the ground of annulment of the Commission's                                          Case C-288/95 P)
    decision based upon the lack of authentication;                                                 95/C 286/08 )
3 . remit the case to the Court of First Instance for a                An appeal against the judgment delivered on 29 June 1995
    decision on the other grounds of annulment alleged                 by the First Chamber ( Extended Composition ) of the Court
    against the Commission 's decision ;                               of First Instance in Case T-32/91 between Solvay SA and the
                                                                       Commission of the European Communities was brought
                                                                       before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
4 . order Solvay to pay the costs of the appeal .                      30 August 1995 by the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities, represented by J. Curral and B. J. Drijber, of
                                                                       the Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    at the office of C. Gomez de la Cruz .
— Errors of law and reasoning as regards the admissibility             The appellant claims that the Court should :
    of Solvay's new plea in law, the organization of the
    procedure and the rules of proof and evidence . The                 1 . set aside the Court of First Instance's judgment in Case
    Court of First Instance committed an error of law by                      T-32/91 ( 1 );
    holding that the statements by the Commission to which
    reference is made could amount in themselves to a new              2 . dismiss the ground of annulment of the Commission 's
    matter of fact for the purposes of Article 48 ( 2 ) of its                 decision based upon the lack of authentication;
    Rules of Procedure . The Court committed an error of
                                                                        3.     remit the case to the Court of First Instance for a
    law by holding that there was no limit of time for raising
    a new plea in law under Article 48 ( 2 ) of its Rules of                   decision on the other grounds of annulment alleged
    Procedure . In ordering the Commission to produce the                      against the Commission 's decision;
    text of the decision at issue as authenticated at the time,
    the Court committed an error of law, in that it took a              4 . order Solvay to pay the costs of the appeal .
     mistaken view of its procedure and the rules of proof and
     evidence, and also made a mistake of reasoning in that it          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     failed to explain in both the order of 25 October and the
     judgment why it had concluded that it should order the             The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
     Commission to produce that text .                                  in Case C-287/95 P ( 2 ).
 — Errors of law and reasoning as regards the purpose of                (') OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 , p. 21 .
     authentication and the consequences of a failure to                ( 2 ) See page 3 of this Official Journal .
     authenticate the decision at the time of its adoption. The
     Court committed an error of law by holding that
     authentication was a formal requirement which had to
     be observed independently of the existence or not of any
     evidence capable of casting doubt on the authenticity of
     the notified text . The Court committed an error of law            Action brought on 30 August 1995 by the Commission of
     and of reasoning by holding that authentication had to                the European Communities against the Italian Republic
     take place before the act was notified to the addressee,                                     ( Case C-290/95 )
     failing which it was void, and that the authentication
                                                                                                    ( 95/C 286/09 )
     carried out in the present case had been defective . The
     Court committed an error of law and incidentally failed
     to fulfill its obligation to give reasons for its judgment by       An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
     failing to consider whether the alleged defect had been             the Court of Justice of the European Communities on