CELEX: C2002/274/27
Language: en
Date: 2002-11-09 00:00:00
Title: Case C-279/02 P: Appeal brought on 30 July 2002 by Nuno Antas de Campos against the judgment delivered on 14 May 2002 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-194/00 between Nuno Antas de Campos and European Parliament

C 274/16                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     9.11.2002
                     ORDER OF THE COURT                                     Appeal brought on 30 July 2002 by Nuno Antas de
                                                                            Campos against the judgment delivered on 14 May 2002
                                                                            by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
                           (First Chamber)                                  the European Communities in Case T-194/00 (1) between
                                                                                Nuno Antas de Campos and European Parliament
                            of 8 July 2002
                                                                                                  (Case C-279/02 P)
in Case 203/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal)): Fazen-
               da Pública v Antero & Co. Ltd ( 1)
                                                                                                   (2002/C 274/27)
(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Post-clearance
recovery of import duties — Entry in the accounts of the
import duties to be collected — Calculation of the time-limit
                  for taking action for recovery)
                                                                            An appeal against the judgment delivered on 14 May 2002 by
                           (2002/C 274/26)                                  the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                            European Communities in Case T-194/00 between Nuno
                                                                            Antas de Campos and European Parliament was brought
                  (Language of the case: Portuguese)                        before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                            30 July 2002 by Nuno Antas de Campos, represented by
                                                                            C. Botelho Moniz and E. Maia Cadete, lawyers.
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                            The appellant claims that the Court should:
In Case C-203/01: reference to the Court under Article 234
EC from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Supreme                        —    quash the contested judgment for errors in law, as a result
Administrative Tribunal) for a preliminary ruling in the                         of the misapplication, in the present case, of the principle
proceedings pending before that court between Fazenda                            of sound administration, the duty to provide reasons, the
Pública v Antero & Co. Ltd., intervener: Ministério Público —                    principle of equality and non-discrimination and the rules
on the interpretation of Articles 1, 2 and 5 of Council                          guaranteeing the right to a fair hearing;
Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 of 24 July 1979 on the post-
clearance recovery of import duties or export duties which
have not been required of the person liable for payment on
                                                                            —    also on the grounds of breach of the principle of sound
goods entered for a customs procedure involving the obligation
to pay such duties (OJ 1979 L 197, p. 1) — the Court (First                      administration and of the duty to provide reasons and
                                                                                 the principle of equality and non-discrimination, annul
Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the
                                                                                 the decision of the President of the European Parliament,
Chamber, M. Wathelet and A. Rosas, Judges; A. Tizzano,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on                      communicated to the appellant by means of letter
                                                                                 No 109172, of 14 July 2000, in reply to a complaint
8 July 2002, in which it has ruled:
                                                                                 submitted by him on 2 December 1999;
The expression ‘entry in the accounts’ used in Article 1(2)(c) and in
the second subparagraph of Article 2(1) of Council Regulation (EEC)         —    refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for
No 1697/79 of 24 July 1979 on the post-clearance recovery of                     assessment of the facts in support of the claim for
import duties or export duties which have not been required of the               compensation, the case to proceed to final judgment on
person liable for payment on goods entered for a customs procedure               that matter;
involving the obligation to pay such duties refers to the administrative
act determining the amount of the import or export duties to be
collected by the competent authorities and not to the entry by the          —    in the event that the judgment of the Court of First
customs authorities in accounts books, or on equivalent computer                 Instance is quashed on the sole ground of infringement
media, of such amount. Such entry is not a condition prior essential             of the right to a fair hearing, refer the case back to the
to the taking of action for post-clearance recovery.                             Court of First Instance to hear the evidence previously
                                                                                 passed over;
( 1) OJ 2001 C 227.
                                                                            —    order the European Parliament to pay the costs of these
                                                                                 proceedings as well as those incurred by the appellant in
                                                                                 Case T-194/00.
 ---pagebreak--- 9.11.2002               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 274/17
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Stuttgart (Stuttgart Administrative Court) of 21 August 2002,
                                                                        received at the Court Registry on 29 August 2002, for a
—     Error in law as regards application of the principle of           preliminary ruling in the case of 1. Radlberger Getränkege-
      sound administration: The appointing authority could              sellschaft mbH & Co., and 2. S. Spitz Kommanditgesellschaft
      not validly make a decision on the basis of a criterion           against Land Baden-Württemberg; intervener: Federal Republic
      which it itself, in the same administrative procedure, had        of Germany on the following questions:
      deemed unconvincing.
—     Error in law as regards determination of the requirements         1.    On a proper construction of Article 1(2) of European
      of the duty to provide reasons: There is nothing in the
                                                                              Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 Decem-
      contested decision to explain the change of direction                   ber 1994 on packaging and packaging waste (OJ 1994
      adopted by the appointing authority. The mere transfer                  L 365, p. 10) are Member States prohibited from
      of the holder of an office does not make it possible to
                                                                              favouring systems for reusing drinks packaging over
      ignore entirely the steps taken in a particular administrat-            recoverable non-refillable packaging where a Federal
      ive procedure by the authority itself. On the contrary, the             target for reusable packaging of 72 % is not reached by
      obligations under the duty to provide reasons require, in
                                                                              suspending the option of obtaining an exemption from a
      such circumstances, greater rigour in the explanations                  statutory return, disposal and deposit obligation in
      provided for the decision adopted.
                                                                              respect of empty non-refillable drinks packaging by
                                                                              participating in a return and disposal system for drinks
—     Error in law as regards the application of the principle of             sectors in which the proportion of reusable packaging
      equality and non-discrimination: The parameters utilised                has fallen below the level set in 1991?
      by the European Parliament changed to such an extent
      that its decisions, under the same legislative instrument,
      were rendered contradictory with regard to the solution
      offered to the heads of the information offices.                  2.    On a proper construction of Article 18 of Directive 94/
                                                                              62/EC are Member States prohibited from impeding the
—     Error in law as regards the conditions for the exercise of              placing of drinks in recoverable non-refillable packaging
      the right to a fair hearing: The rejection of the requests              on the market where a Federal target for reusable
      submitted by the appellant, both with regard to the                     packaging of 72 % is not reached by suspending the
      calling of witnesses and the production of documentary                  option of obtaining an exemption from a statutory return,
      evidence — in blatant contrast to the unsubstantiated                   disposal and deposit obligation in respect of empty non-
      statements by the European Parliament, at the hearing,                  refillable drinks packaging by participating in a return
      on the existence and relevance of certain documents,                    and disposal system for drinks sectors in which the
      without producing them — deprived the appellant of the                  proportion of reusable packaging has fallen below the
      opportunity to support in a conclusive manner its points                level set in 1991?
      of view and counter effectively the arguments put forward
      by the defendant institution.
                                                                        3.    On a proper construction of Article 7 of Directive 94/62/
( 1) OJ C 285, 7.10.2000, p. 17.                                              EC do producers and distributors of drinks sold in
                                                                              recoverable non-refillable packaging have a right to
                                                                              participate in an existing return and disposal system for
                                                                              used drinks packaging, in order to meet a statutory
                                                                              obligation to charge a deposit on non-refillable drinks
                                                                              packaging and to accept the return of used drinks
                                                                              packaging?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-
                                                                        4.    On a proper construction of Article 28 EC are the
richt Stuttgart by order of that Court of 21 August 2002
in the case of 1. Radlberger Getränkegesellschaft mbH &                       Member States prohibited from enacting regulations
Co., and 2. S. Spitz Kommanditgesellschaft against Land                       providing that where a Federal target for reusable packag-
Baden-Württemberg; intervener: Federal Republic of Ger-                       ing of 72 % is not reached the option of obtaining
                                many                                          an exemption from statutory return, management and
                                                                              deposit obligations in respect of empty non-refillable
                                                                              drinks packaging by participating in a return and disposal
                          (Case C-309/02)                                     system is to be suspended for drinks sectors in which the
                                                                              proportion of reusable packaging has fallen below the
                                                                              level set in 1991?
                          (2002/C 274/28)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht