CELEX: C2002/202/24
Language: en
Date: 2002-08-24 00:00:00
Title: Case C-260/02 P: Appeal brought on 15 July 2002 by Michael Becker against the judgment delivered on 12 June 2002 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-9/01 between Michael Becker and the Court of Auditors of the European Communities

C 202/16                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      24.8.2002
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties                    (3) Of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports
Tribunals, London Tribunal Centre, by decision of that                          from countries not members of the European Community (OJ
court dated 5 July 2002, in the case of Fast Forward                            L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1).
Resources plc against Commissioners of Customs and
                                 Excise
                            (Case C-254/02)
                                                                            Appeal brought on 15 July 2002 by Michael Becker
                                                                            against the judgment delivered on 12 June 2002 by the
                           (2002/C 202/23)                                  Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                            European Communities in Case T-9/01 between Michael
                                                                            Becker and the Court of Auditors of the European
                                                                                                       Communities
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                              (Case C-260/02 P)
European Communities by a decision of the VAT and Duties
Tribunals, London Tribunal Centre, dated 5 July 2002, which                                           (2002/C 202/24)
was received at the Court Registry on 11 July 2002, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Fast Forward Resources plc
and Commissioners of Customs and Excise on the following                    An appeal against the judgment delivered on 12 June 2002 by
questions:                                                                  the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                            European Communities in Case T-9/01 between Michael
                                                                            Becker and the Court of Auditors of the European Communi-
(i)     In Commission Regulation (EC) 152/1999 (1) what is the              ties (1), brought on 15 July 2002 by Michael Becker, represent-
        proper meaning and legal effect of the term ‘registration           ed by Prof. Dr Ernst Fricke, Rechtsanwalt, of Kanzlei
        shall expire’ used in Article 3?                                    Prof. Dr. Fricke & Coll, Landshut (and Nuremberg, New
                                                                            Brandenburg and Luxembourg), and Roy Nathan, Rechtsan-
(ii) If Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) 152/1999                    walt, Luxembourg.
        means that the whole process of registration envisaged
        by the Regulation fails: (a) does this render Council               The appellant claims that the Court should: set aside in full the
        Regulation (EC) 175/2000 (2) ineffective in relation to the         judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 June 2002 and
        imports of leather handbags into the European Union                 grant in full the forms of order sought at first instance.
        before midnight on 23 October 1999; and (b) in relation
        to what products, if any, is Article 1.4 of Commission
        Regulation (EC) 175/2000 effective in imposing duty?
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
(iii) Is Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) 175/2000 consist-             The judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 June 2002
        ent with Article 11.4 and 14.5 of Council Regulation                infringes fundamental Community law.
        (EC) 384/96 (3) and, if not, what is the effect of this
        inconsistency on the collection of anti-dumping duties
        registered under Commission Regulation (EC) 152/1999?               —      Breach of the duty to have regard for the
                                                                                   welfare of officials
(iv) Is Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) 175/2000 consist-
                                                                            It is for the Invalidity Committee to examine, on the basis of
        ent with Council Regulation (EC) 384/96 in so far as the
                                                                            the expert medical reports, whether the conditions set out in
        adoption of the measure occurred after the 12 month
                                                                            Article 78 of the Staff Regulations have been met. It is of no
        period indicated in Article 11.5 of Council Regulation
                                                                            relevance that the appellant was on leave on personal grounds.
        (EC) 384/96?
                                                                            The grounds on which the respondent rejected his complaint
                                                                            contravene the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials
                                                                            and are neither covered by the express terms, nor reflect the
(1) Of 22 January 1999 initiating a ‘new exporter’ review of Council        spirit and the purpose, of the Staff Regulations.
     Regulation (EC) No 1567/97 imposing a definitive anti-dumping
     duty on imports of leather handbags originating in the People’s
     Republic of China, repealing the duty with regard to imports from      —      Failure to appraise decisive information
     five exporting producers and making these imports subject to
     registration (OJ L 18, 23.1.1999, p. 10).
(2) Of 24 January 2000 reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty            The European Commission replied to a request from the Court
     on imports of leather handbags originating in the People’s Repubic     for information and, in its reply, fully supported the appellant’s
     of China and sold for export to the Community by certain               legal position. In the grounds for its judgment, the Court of
     exporting producers and amending Regulation (EC) No 1567/97            First Instance did not refer to the Commission’s opinion,
     (OJ L 22, 27.1.2000, p. 25).                                           thereby failing to make a proper legal appraisal of that opinion.
 ---pagebreak--- 24.8.2002              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 202/17
—     Failure to comply with statutory pro-                              b.     Order the French Republic to pay into the account ‘own
      visions                                                                   resources of the EC’ of the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities a penalty payment of EUR 242 650 in
                                                                                respect of each day’s delay in implementing the measures
The Court of First Instance incorrectly held that, pursuant to                  necessary to comply with the judgment in Case C-239/
Article 40(4)(d) of the Staff Regulations, on expiry of his leave               98 Commission v France;
on personal grounds, the appellant must be ‘reinstated in the
first post corresponding to his grade which falls vacant in his
category or service provided that he satisfies the requirements
                                                                         c.     Order the French Republic to pay the costs.
for that post’. An official who is seriously ill clearly does not
satisfy the requirements for reinstatement.
(1) Not yet published in the European Court Reports.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Although Article 228 EC does not specify the period available
                                                                         to the Member State to comply with its obligations, it is none
                                                                         the less the case that implementation of the judgment must be
Action brought on 15 July 2002 by the Commission of                      initiated immediately and be completed as quickly as possible.
 the European Communities against the French Republic                    In the present case, all the provisions and measures necessary
                                                                         for the French Republic to bring its legislation into conformity
                                                                         with the judgment of the Court should long since have been
                          (Case C-261/02)                                adopted and have entered into force; at the time of the
                                                                         Commission’s reasoned opinion, almost a year had already
                                                                         passed since the Court’s judgment. The texts communicated
                         (2002/C 202/25)                                 by the French authorities subsequent to the reply to the
                                                                         reasoned opinion still represent merely a very fragmented and
                                                                         unsatisfactory implementation of the judgment of 16 Decem-
                                                                         ber 1999.
An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 15 July
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by C. Tufvesson and H. van Lier, acting as Agents,           The Commission considers that a penalty payment of
with an address for service in Luxembourg.                               EUR 242 650 per day is appropriate, given the seriousness
                                                                         and duration of the infringement, as well as the need to apply
                                                                         an effective penalty. It calculated the amount of the penalty to
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                   be proposed to the Court by using the method of calculation
the Court should:                                                        defined in its information notice of 8 January 1997 (4). It
                                                                         attributed to the seriousness of the infringement the coefficient
                                                                         10/20 and to the duration of the infringement a coefficient of
a.    Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and        2.3. In order to ensure the effectiveness of the penalty, it
      administrative provisions necessary to comply fully with           applied the factor 21.1 to the result obtained by multiplying
      Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the                 the uniform flat-rate amount of EUR 500 by the coefficient of
      coordination of laws, regulations and administrative               seriousness and of duration.
      provisions relating to direct insurance other than life
      assurance and amending Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/
      357/EEC (third non-life insurance Directive) (1) and with
      Council Directive 92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992 on
      the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative           ( 1) OJ L 228 of 11.8.1992, p. 1.
      provisions relating to direct life assurance and amending          ( 2) OJ L 360 of 9.12.1992, p. 1.
                                                                         ( 3) [1999] ECR I-8935.
      Directives 79/267/EEC and 90/619/EEC (third life assur-            ( 4) OJ C 63 of 28.2.1997, p. 2.
      ance Directive) (2) and, in particular, by not transposing
      those directives with regard to mutual societies governed
      by the Code de la Mutualité, the French Republic has
      failed to implement all the measures necessary to comply
      with the judgment of 16 December 1999 in Case C-239/
      98 Commission v France (3) and has failed to fulfil its
      obligations under Article 228 EC;