CELEX: C1999/281/13
Language: en
Date: 1999-10-02 00:00:00
Title: Case C-275/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Administratif de Strasbourg, by judgment of that court of 22 July 1999 in the case of Société Adidas v Directeur des Services Fiscaux du Bas-Rhin

2.10.1999               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 281/7
— Insufficient statement of reasons, misinterpretation of                 Action brought on 23 July 1999 by the Federal Republic
     the authority of measures: The Court of First Instance               of Germany against the Commission of the European
     misinterprets the authority of the suspension decision of                                        Communities
     27 September 1995, which linked the alleged unauthorised
     public expression only to Article 17 of the Staff Regu-
     lations and not to Articles 11 and 12 thereof.                                                 (Case C-276/99)
— Infringement of the rules on the burden of proof and the
     duty of loyalty: The applicant having stated that it was not                                   (1999/C 281/14)
     possible for him to take cognisance of a disciplinary
     sanction, even with the penalised officials enjoying the
     benefit of anonymity, it was for the Commission to                   An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
     produce evidence demonstrating the policy followed in                ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
     cases of publication by a serving official without prior             Communities on 23 July 1999 by the Federal Republic of
     authorisation.                                                       Germany, represented by Wolf-Dieter Plessing, Ministerialrat,
                                                                          and Claus-Dieter, Quassowski, Regierungsdirektor, of the
                                                                          Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs, D-53117 Bonn.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          (1) annul Decision K(1999) 1123 final of the Commission of
                                                                               21 April 1999 concerning a proceeding under Article 88
                                                                               of the ECSC Treaty concerning State aid granted by
                                                                               Germany to Neue Maxhütte Stahlwerke GmbH;
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Admin-
istratif de Strasbourg, by judgment of that court of                      (2) order the defendant to pay the costs.
22 July 1999 in the case of Société Adidas v Directeur des
                  Services Fiscaux du Bas-Rhin
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
                          (Case C-275/99)
                          (1999/C 281/13)                                 The applicant challenges the finding in the contested decision
                                                                          that Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the ECSC
                                                                          Treaty in relation to the recovery of State aid (1) Unlike the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    Commission, the applicant takes the view that the bringing of
European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal Adminis-                 court proceedings initially in respect of only 20 % of the claims
tratif de Strasbourg (Administrative Court, Strasbourg) of                in question is reasonable in order to economise on costs
22 July 1999, received at the Court Registry on 23 July 1999,             and is unobjectionable even though no notarially certified
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Société Adidas v                  agreement is available in respect of the remaining 80 % which
Directeur des Services Fiscaux on the following question:                 would ensure that following the delivery of a court decision
                                                                          on the partial claim, the Commission’s decision would be
                                                                          implemented without delay as regards the rest of the claim.
                                                                          The applicant further considers, unlike the Commission, that
Whether the authorisation granted to France by the Council                the decision of the Free State of Bavaria not to lodge an appeal
Decision of 28 July 1989, published in the Official Journal of            against the order for a stay of proceedings made by the
the European Communities on 16 August 1989 (1), to intro-                 Landgericht Amberg (Amberg Regional Court) does not
duce measures derogating from the Sixth Directive, excluding              infringe Article 86 of the ECSC Treaty; although the lodging of
value added tax which has been charged on expenditure in                  an appeal against an order staying proceedings was theoreti-
respect of accommodation, food, hospitality and entertainment             cally possible, it would have served no purpose in the
from the right to deduct, is disproportionate to the aim of               specific circumstances of the case and was not, therefore, an
combating tax evasion laid down in Article 27 of the Sixth                appropriate measure within the meaning of Article 86 of the
Directive.                                                                ECSC Treaty.
(1) Council Decision 89/487/EEC of 28 July 1989 authorising the           (1) The aid in question is that which was the subject-matter of Joined
    French Republic to apply a measure derogating from the second             Cases T-129/95, T-2/96 ant T-97/96 (judgment of the Court of
    subparagraph of Article 17(6) of the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC           First Instance of 21 January 1999) and of Cases C-158/95 (OJ
    on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating            C 208 of 12.8.1995, p. 4), C-399/95 (OJ C 77 of 16.3.1996, p.
    to turnover taxes (OJ L 239 of 16.8.1989, p. 21).                         5) and C-195/96 (OJ C 247 of 24.8.1996, p. 5).