CELEX: C2002/144/34
Language: en
Date: 2002-06-15 00:00:00
Title: Case C-128/02 P: Appeal brought on 8 April 2002 by Bernhard Schulte against the judgment delivered on 7 February 2002 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-261/94 between Bernhard Schulte and the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities

C 144/20               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        15.6.2002
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                     Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil
                                                                                its obligations under that directive, in particular Article 27
1.    declare null and void the terminations of guarantee                       thereof;
      notified by HDI on 30 October and 13 and 20 November
      2001;                                                               —     order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
2.    order HDI to pay damages amounting to EUR 44 556,84
      to offset the expenditure incurred by the Parliament in
      respect of additional insurance cover to replace the                Pleas in law and main arguments
      guarantees wrongfully terminated by the defendant and
      all other connected expenditure, together with interest
      calculated at the legal rate of interest, it being understood       The time-limit for transposition, extended by one year on
      that all accidents occurring during 2002 will be declared           account of the specific characteristics of Belgium’s electricity
      to HDI on the basis of the policies wrongfully terminated;          network, expired on 19 February 2000, but Belgium has not
                                                                          adopted all the requisite measures, particularly as regards the
                                                                          appointment of the network manager (as provided for in
3.    order the defendant to pay the costs.                               Article 10 of the Belgian Law on the organisation of the
                                                                          electricity market).
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           (1) OJ L 27 of 30.1.1997, p. 20.
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put
forward in Case C-123/02.
                                                                          Appeal brought on 8 April 2002 by Bernhard Schulte
                                                                          against the judgment delivered on 7 February 2002 by the
                                                                          Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities in Case T-261/94 between
                                                                          Bernhard Schulte and the Council of the European Union
                                                                              and the Commission of the European Communities
Action brought on 8 April 2002 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                             Belgium                                                              (Case C-128/02 P)
                         (Case C-126/02)                                                           (2002/C 144/34)
                         (2002/C 144/33)
                                                                          An appeal against the judgment delivered on 7 February 2002
                                                                          by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities in Case T-261/94 between Bernhard
                                                                          Schulte and the Council of the European Union and the
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before               Commission of the European Communities (1) was brought
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 April               before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,                       8 April 2002 by Bernhard Schulte, represented by Reinhard
represented by R. Tricot, acting as Agent, with an address for            Freise, Rechtsanwalt and Notar, Salzkotten.
service in Luxembourg.
                                                                          The appellant claims that the Court should:
The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should:                                                         —     set aside the judgment under appeal;
—     declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations         —     order the respondents to pay the appellant compensation,
      and administrative measures necessary in order to comply                  quantified by him to be at least DEM 30 000, plus interest
      with Directive 96/92/EC of the European Parliament                        of 5 % per annum from 1 December 1989, for the
      and of the Council of 19 December 1996 concerning                         damage suffered by him as a result of the unlawful refusal
      common rules for the internal market in electricity (1), or               to grant him the reference delivery quantities for which
      at any rate by failing to communicate the same to the                     he applied.
 ---pagebreak--- 15.6.2002                EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 144/21
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                     a)    64 % granulated sugar, 1,9 % tea-extract and water
                                                                                          and
—     In the contested judgment, the Court of First Instance
      incorrectly found that the appellant’s claim was time-                        b)    64 % granulated sugar, 1,9% tea-extract, 0,8 % citric
      barred. Even after the application had been lodged, the                             acid and water are not preparations with a basis of
      respondents had given the appellant a binding assurance                             extracts of tea?
      that — following the conclusion of certain test cases
      pending before the Court — they would make him a
      binding offer of compensation. The respondents were not                 2)    Is Commission Regulation (EC) No 306/2001 (2) of
      entitled simply to disregard that assurance and plead that                    12 February 2001 concerning the classification of certain
      the appellant’s claim was time-barred. The Court of First                     goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2001 L 44,
      Instance also failed to take into account the fact that the                   p. 25) valid in respect of the products identified at
      appellant had not been officially informed of his legal                       points 2 and 3 of the Annex?
      rights.
—     In the contested judgment, the Court of First Instance                  (1) OJ L 279 of 23.10.2001, p. 1.
      incorrectly found that the appellant was denied a refer-                (2) OJ L 044 of 15.2.2001, p. 25.
      ence quantity on different grounds from those provided
      for by Article 3a of Regulation No 857/84 (2). In that
      respect the Court of First Instance failed to take account
      of, and evaluate, the totality of the issues raised in the
      proceedings.
(1) Not yet published in the European Court Reports.
(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting
    general rules for the application of the levy referred to in Article 5c   Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechtshof
    of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk products               (Douanekamer) te Amsterdam by judgment of that Court
    sector (OJ 1984 L 90 , p. 13).                                            of 2 April 2002 in the case of Timmermans Diessen B.V.
                                                                                    against head of the Roosendaal Customs district
                                                                                                        (Case C-133/02)
                                                                                                       (2002/C 144/36)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht
München by order of that Court of 27 February 2002 in
the case of Krings GmbH against Oberfinanzdirektion
Nürnberg, Zoll- und Verbrauchsteuerabteilung, Dienstort                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                               München                                        European Communities by judgment of the Gerechtshof
                                                                              (Douanekamer) te Amsterdam (Amsterdam Regional Court of
                                                                              Appeal) Customs Chamber of 2 April 2002, received at the
                           (Case C-130/02)                                    Court Registry on 10 April 2002, for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                              the case of Timmermans Diessen B.V. against head of the
                           (2002/C 144/35)                                    Roosendaal Customs district on the following question:
                                                                              Does Article 9(1) of the Community Customs Code (1), read in
                                                                              conjunction with Article 12(5)(a)(iii) thereof, provide the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        customs authorities with a legal basis for withdrawing binding
European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht Mün-                       tariff information where they change the position adopted in
chen (Munich Finance Court) of 27 February 2002, received at                  it with regard to the interpretation of the legal provisions
the Court Registry on 9 April 2002, for a preliminary ruling                  applicable to the tariff classification of the goods concerned
in the case of Krings GmbH against Oberfinanzdirektion                        even where the change is made within the six-year period
Nürnberg, Zoll- u. Verbrauchsteuerabteilung, Dienstort                        referred to?
München on the following questions:
1)    Is the combined nomenclature in the version of Annex I                  (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992
      to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2031/2001 (1) of                           establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ L 302 of
      6 August 2001, amending Annex I to Council Regulation                       19.10.1992, p. 1.).
      (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomencla-
      ture and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2001 L 279,
      p. 1), to be interpreted as meaning that mixtures of