CELEX: C1997/074/23
Language: en
Date: 1997-03-08 00:00:00
Title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Metz by judgment of that court of 19 December 1996 in the case of Procureur de la République against André Ambry (Case C-410/96)

No C 74/ 12            I EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                             8 . 3 . 97
the European Communities on 23 December 1996 by                          If the appellants' action is not considered admissible, in
Sveriges Betodlares Centralforening and Mr Sven Ake                      the particular circumstances of their case, there would be
Henrikson, represented by Otfried Lieberknecht, Rechts­                  no other feasible way for them to challenge the unlawful
anwalt, Diisseldorf, Michael Schiitte, Rechtsanwalt, Berlin,             administrative act of the Commission constituted by
and Vanessa Turner, Solicitor of the Supreme Court of                    Regulation ( EC) No 1734/95 ('). This would lead to an
England and Wales, with an address for service in                        unacceptable loophole in the system of judicial review of
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Bonn & Schmitt, 62,                        administrative acts of the Commission.
avenue Guillaume .
                                                                         (') Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 1734/95 of 14 July 1995
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                   fixing, for the 1994/95 marketing year, the specific agricultural
                                                                              conversion rate applicable to the minimum sugarbeet prices
— set aside the Order of the Court of First Instance of                       and the production levy and additional levy in the sugar sector
       4 October 1996,                                                        ( OJ No L 165 , 15 . 7 . 1995 , p. 12 ).
— declare that the application in Case T- 197/95 is
       admissible,
— order the Commission to bear the costs of these
       proceedings and the proceedings                 concerning       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de
       admissibility in Case T-197/95 .                                 Grande Instance de Metz by judgment of that court of
                                                                         19 December 1996 in the case of Procureur de la
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                       Republique against Andre Ambry
                                                                                                     ( Case C-410/96 )
In its legal analysis of the case, the Court of First Instance                                           ( 97/C 74/23 )
infringed Community law (in particular, Article 173 (4 ) of
the EC Treaty, which grants the appellants the right to
challenge the contested Regulation since this Regulation                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
directly and individually concerned them ) by reaching                  European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal de
conclusions which were :                                                Grande Instance ( Regional Court), Metz, of 19 December
                                                                         1996, received at the Court Registry on 24 December
( i ) not justified on the facts;                                        1996, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Procureur de
                                                                        la Republique v. Andre Ambry on the following question:
( ii ) in contradiction to the case-law of the Court of Justice
       of the European Communities and of the Court of                  Are the provisions of Article 14 of Decree No 94.490 of
       First Instance itself.                                           15 June 1994, adopted pursuant to Article 31 of Law No
                                                                        92.645 of 13 July 1992, to be regarded as not in
In particular the Court of First Instance infringed                     conformity with Directive 73/183/EEC ( J ), the first
Community law in four ways .                                            Coordination Directive of 15 December 1989 (2 ),
                                                                        Article 59 of the Treaty establishing the European
In the first place, the Court took the view that the                    Communities and Article 73 B of the Maastricht Treaty, in
contested Regulation did not constitute a bundle of                     so far as they require that, where a financial security is
decisions, thus failing to recognize the true nature of this            issued in a Member State of the EC other than France, an
Regulation.                                                             agreement must be concluded between the credit
                                                                        institution or insurance company situated in the Member
The second infringement of Community law by the Court                   State other than France and a credit institution or an
of First Instance was the failure, having regard to the case­           insurance company situated in France ?
law of the Court of Justice, to take proper account of the
specific and serious negative effect on the appellants of the           (') OJ No L 194, 16 . 7. 1973 , p . 1 .
contested Regulation, in particular having regard to the                ( 2 ) OJ No L 386 , 30 . 12 . 1989 , p . 1 .
nine currency devaluations in Sweden between 1 January
and 30 June 1995 .
The third infringement of Community law was the Court
of First Instance 's conclusion that the Commission was
not, in this case, under a duty to take account of the                  Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein
consequences of the measure it envisaged adopting for the              Hallinto-oikeus by order of that court of 13 December
situation of certain individuals, i . e . the Swedish sugarbeet         1996 in the proceedings brought by Kainuun Liikenne Oy
growers .                                                                                   and Oy Pohjolan Liikenne Ab
                                                                                                    ( Case C-412/96 )
The fourth infringement of Community law was the Court
of     First  Instance's   conclusion that    neither   individual                                      ( 97/C 74/24 )
Swedish beet growers ( such as Mr Henrikson ) nor Sveriges
Betodlares Centralforening as the association representing              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of
all Swedish beet growers in negotiations with the Swedish              the European Communities by an order of the Korkein
sugar manufacturer were individually concerned by the                  Hallinto-oikeus ( Supreme Administrative Court ) of
contested Regulation .                                                  13 December 1996, which was received at the Court