CELEX: C1995/189/11
Language: en
Date: 1995-07-22 00:00:00
Title: Appeal brought on 24 March 1995 by 1. Roger Tremblay, 2. Harry Kestenberg and 3. Syndicat des Exploitants de Lieux de Loisirs (SELL) against the judgment delivered on 24 January 1995 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-5/93 between Roger Tremblay, François Lucazeau and Harry Kestenberg, supported by Syndicat des Exploitants de Lieux de Loisirs (SELL), and Commission of the European Communities (Case C-91/95 P)

No C 189/6                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      22 . 7 . 95
Appeal brought on 24 March 1995 by 1 . Roger Tremblay,                   Reference for a preliminary ruling from the 0stre Landsret
2 . Harry Kestenberg and 3 . Syndicat des Exploitants de                 by decision of that court of 10 April 1995 in the case of Bent
Lieux de Loisirs ( SELL ) against the judgment delivered on              Jensen and Korn- og Foderstofkompagniet A/S v. Ministry
24 January 1995 by the Second Chamber of the Court of                                     of Agriculture EC-Directorate
First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-5/93                                         (Case C- 1 3 2/95 )
between Roger Tremblay, François Lucazeau and Harry
                                                                                                    ( 95/C 189/12 )
Kestenberg, supported by Syndicat des Exploitants de Lieux
de Loisirs ( SELL), and Commission of the European
                               Communities
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                           ( Case C-91/95 P)                             European Communities by a decision of the 0stre Landsret
                              ( 95/C 189/11 )                            ( Eastern Regional Court) of 10 April 1995 , which was
                                                                         received at the Court Registry on 24 April 1995 , for a
                                                                         preliminary ruling in the case of Bent Jensen and Korn­
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 24 January
                                                                         og Foderstofkompagniet A/S v. Ministry of Agriculture
1995 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance
                                                                         EC-Directorate on the following questions :
of the European Communities in Case T-5/93 between
Roger Tremblay, François Lucazeau and Harry Kestenberg,
supported by Syndicat des Exploitants de Lieux de Loisirs                — Question 1 :
( SELL ), and Commission of the European Communities
was brought before the Court of Justice on 24 March 1995
by 1 . Roger Tremblay, 2 . Harry Kestenberg and 3 . Syndicat                 Does Community law in general preclude a Member
                                                                             State from setting off of an amount due to the
des Exploitants de Lieux de Loisirs ( SELL), represented by
Claude Fourgoux, of the Paris and Brussels Bar, with an                      beneficiary of aid under a Community measure against
                                                                             outstanding debts to a Member State ?
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Pierrot Schiltz, 4 Rue Béatrix de Bourbon.
                                                                         — Question 2a :
The appellant claims that the Court should :
                                                                             Is it of any significance for the answer to question 1
 1 , annul the part of the judgment of the Court of First                    whether the amount of aid under Community law is
       Instance of 24 January 1995 which dismissed the                       attached in advance by the Member State which has only
       application for the annulment of the Commission                       a claim to be reimbursed for the aid paid out, provided
       decision of 12 November 1992, which referred the
                                                                             that the rules of Community law on payment are
       matter back to the national courts f 1 );
                                                                             satisfied, and which must itself defray the expenditure
                                                                             involved in the administration of the support system ?
2 , pursuant to Article 54 of the Statute of the Court of
       Justice ,
                                                                          — Question 2b :
       — annul the Commission decision of 12 December
           1994 in so far as it rejects the complaint and refers             Is it of any significance for the answer to question 1 that
           the matter to the national courts ,                                under the Member State's rules on set-off it is a
                                                                             condition for effecting set-off that there be reciprocity
       — hold :                                                               between the debtor under the principal claim and the
                                                                             creditor under the counterclaim ?
           — that the Commission must notify to Sacem the
                 objections which are inexorably to be inferred           — Question 2c :
                 from the conclusions of the report of
                 7 November 1991 ,
                                                                              Is it of any significance for the answer to question 1 that
                                                                              the Member State's practice with regard to certain trade
           — in the alternative, that the Commission must                     and environmental subsidies is established in such a way
                 resume the procedure at the point at which it                as to permit set-off in an amount not exceeding 20 % of
                 discontinued it, with a view to issuing a                    the said State subsidies ?
                 statement of objections at the same time as
                 considering the restrictive agremeent;
                                                                          — Question 2d :
 3 , order the Commission to pay the costs .
                                                                              Is it of any significance for the answer to question 1 what
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                          legal basis exists for the outstanding debt to the State
                                                                              against which set-off is to be effected ?
 Breach of Community law.
                                                                              An answer is desired in particular to the question
 i 1 ) Case T-5/93 ( OJ No C 74 , 25 . 3 . 199 5 , p . 10 ).                  whether the Member States have a further facility to
                                                                              effect set-off if all or part of the sum to be set off
                                                                              constitutes part of the Community's own income ?