CELEX: C2000/302/34
Language: en
Date: 2000-10-21 00:00:00
Title: Case C-312/00 P: Appeal brought on 17 August 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment delivered on 8 June 2000 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-79/96, T-260/97 and T-117/98 between, on the one hand, Camar srl, applicant in Cases T-79/96, T-260/97 and T-117/98, and Tico srl, applicant in Case T-117/98, the applicant in Case T-79/96 being supported by the Italian Republic, and, on the other hand, the Commission of the European Communities, defendant in Cases T-79/96, T-260/97 and T-117/98, and the Council of the European Union, defendant in Case T-260/97, supported by the French Republic, intervener in Cases T-79/96 and T-260/97

21.10.2000              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 302/17
      ascertaining whether or not the contracts for the lease or           No 2100/94, using the variety in question or has at least
      sale of those quotas are lawful, that those originally               — otherwise — used that variety on his holding?
      allocated to the transferor were inaccurately determined,
      for reasons for which the authorities are not responsible?
                                                                           (1) OJ L 227 of 1.9.1994, p. 1.
                                                                           (2) OJ L 173 of 25.7.1995, p. 14.
(2) Are the abovementioned provisions of Community law
      valid, in the light of Article 33 (ex Article 39) of the
      Treaty, in so far as they do not provide, in the case
      of subsequent verification of the individual reference
      quantities leased or sold, for the possibility of retrospec-
      tive allocation of the quota, correcting the quantities
      incorrectly stated in the notices on account of facts for
      which the authorities are not responsible?                           Appeal brought on 17 August 2000 by the Commission
                                                                           of the European Communities against the judgment deliv-
                                                                           ered on 8 June 2000 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court
                                                                           of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined
                                                                           Cases T-79/96, T-260/97 and T-117/98 between, on the
(1) OJ L 405 of 31.12.1992, p. 1.                                          one hand, Camar srl, applicant in Cases T-79/96, T-260/97
(2) OJ L 57 of 10.3.1993, p. 12. The number of this Regulation has         and T-117/98, and Tico srl, applicant in Case T-117/98,
    been corrected, since it was incorrectly cited in the request for a    the applicant in Case T-79/96 being supported by the
    preliminary ruling.                                                    Italian Republic, and, on the other hand, the Commission
                                                                           of the European Communities, defendant in Cases
                                                                           T-79/96, T-260/97 and T-117/98, and the Council of the
                                                                           European Union, defendant in Case T-260/97, supported
                                                                           by the French Republic, intervener in Cases T-79/96 and
                                                                                                        T-260/97
                                                                                                  (Case C-312/00 P)
                                                                                                   (2000/C 302/34)
                                                                           An appeal against the judgment delivered on 8 June 2000 by
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesge-                    the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
richt Frankfurt am Main by order of 1 August 2000 in the                   European Communities in Joined Cases T-79/96, T-260/97
case of Christian Schulin v Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs                    and T-117/98 between, on the one hand, Camar srl, applicant
                               GmbH                                        in Cases T-79/96, T-260/97 and T-117/98, and Tico srl,
                                                                           applicant in Case T-117/98, the applicant in Case T-79/96
                                                                           being supported by the Italian Republic, and, on the other
                         (Case C-305/00)                                   hand, the Commission of the European Communities, defend-
                                                                           ant in Cases T-79/96, T-260/97 and T-117/98, and the Council
                                                                           of the European Union, defendant in Case T-260/97, supported
                         (2000/C 302/33)                                   by the French Republic, intervener in Cases T-79/96 and
                                                                           T-260/97, was brought before the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities on 17 August 2000 by the Com-
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     mission of the European Communities, represented by Chris-
European Communities by order of 1 August 2000 by the                      topher Van der Hauwaert and Luca Visaggio, of its Legal
Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court) Frankfurt am Main,               Service, acting as Agents, assisted by Alberto Dal Ferro, of the
which was received at the Court Registry on 11 August 2000,                Vicenza Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Christian Schulin v                office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner
Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH on the following ques-                    Centre, Kirchberg.
tion:
                                                                           The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           —     set aside the contested judgment;
Are the provisions of Article 14(3), sixth indent, of Council
Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994(1), in conjunc-
tion with Article 8 of Commission Regulation (EC)                          and consequently:
No 1768/95 of 24 July 1995 (2), to be construed as meaning
that the owner of a plant variety which is protected under                 —     declare the application in Case T-79/96 unfounded;
Regulation No 2100/94 can require any farmer to provide the
information specified in the above provisions irrespective of              —     declare the application in Case T-260/97 unfounded,
whether there is anything to suggest that the farmer has carried                 including the claim for compensation for damage suf-
out any act, within the meaning of Article 13(2) of Regulation                   fered;
 ---pagebreak--- C 302/18                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    21.10.2000
—     declare inadmissible, alternatively unfounded, the appli-          Appeal brought on 18 August 2000 by Zino Davidoff SA
      cation in Case T-117/98;                                           and Davidoff & Cie SA against the judgment delivered on
                                                                         27 June 2000 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First
—     order the respondents to pay the costs of the present              Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases
      proceedings and those of the proceedings before the                T-172/98 and T-175/98 to T-177/98 between Salamander
      Court of First Instance.                                           AG, Una Film ‘City Revue’ GmbH, Alma Media Group
                                                                         Advertising SA & Co. Partnership and Others, Zino
                                                                         Davidoff SA and Davidoff & Cie SA, supported by
                                                                         Markenverband eV, Manifattura Lane Gaetano Marzotto
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          & Figli SpA and Lancaster BV, and European Parliament
                                                                         and Council of the European Union, supported by Repub-
The first plea alleges infringement by the Court of First Instance       lic of Finland, Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                         United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
of the criteria governing the admissibility of the action in Case
                                                                                              and French Republic
T-117/98. The measure which, it is claimed, the Commission
should have adopted, namely a regulation increasing the
Community quota for imports of bananas from third countries
or ACP countries, would necessarily have been a measure of                                      (Case C-313/00 P)
general, abstract application which could not have been
regarded as being of individual concern to the respondents.
                                                                                                 (2000/C 302/35)
The second plea alleges infringement of two of the conditions
governing the applicability of Regulation No 404/93 (1):
                                                                         An appeal against the judgment delivered on 27 June 2000 by
      The first part of the plea concerns the first condition laid       the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities in Joined Cases T-172/98 and
      down by Article 30, namely that the difficulties facing an
                                                                         T-175/98 to T-177/98 between Salamander AG, Una Film
      operator must result from the transition from the old
      national regime to the new Community regime. The                   ‘City Revue’ GmbH, Alma Media Group Advertising SA & Co.
                                                                         Partnership and Others, Zino Davidoff SA and Davidoff &
      judgment infringed Community law, inasmuch as it did
                                                                         Cie SA, supported by Markenverband eV, Manifattura Lane
      not contain any analysis of the specific effects on the
      position of an applicant under the old regime which was            Gaetano Marzotto & Figli SpA and Lancaster BV, and European
                                                                         Parliament and Council of the European Union, supported by
      aimed at establishing whether the national regime would
                                                                         Republic of Finland, Commission of the European Communi-
      have guaranteed a solution to the difficulties facing such
      an applicant.                                                      ties, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
                                                                         and French Republic, was brought before the Court of Justice
                                                                         of the European Communities on 18 August 2000 by Zino
      The second part concerns the criterion of the existence of         Davidoff SA and Davidoff & Cie SA, represented by Professor
      ‘difficulties threatening the existence of the undertaking’.       Rolf Wägenbaur, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
      The Court of First Instance expressly ruled that that              in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt & Medernach,
      criterion was not a condition necessary for the application        8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt, B.P. 39, L-2010 Luxembourg.
      of Article 30, thereby violating the Community case-law
      in force, as observed by the Commission.
                                                                         The appellants claims that the Court should:
The third plea alleges infringement of one of the criteria
governing the applicability of Article 16(3) of Regulation
No 404/93, namely the need for the existence of difficulties in          1.    Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
supplying the Community. By declaring that ‘there is no need                   27 June 2000, in so far as it relates to the applicants and
for the applicants to prove the existence of an actual shortage                appellants, and reject the plea of inadmissibility;
of supplies to the Community market; instead, it is enough for
them to show that there is a risk of a shortage of supplies’, the
Court of First Instance contravened the letter and the spirit of
                                                                         2.    Consequently, declare the application of the applicants
the article in question, as interpreted by Community case-law
                                                                               and appellants admissible;
up until the present time. Moreover, the Court of First Instance
committed an error of law by maintaining, without providing
any reasons, that, where supplies to the Italian market alone
are affected, that must automatically affect supplies to the             3.    Uphold the application and consequently annul Directive
Community, thereby isolating a part of the Community                           98/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
market.                                                                        of 6 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws,
                                                                               regulations and administrative provisions of the Member
                                                                               States relating to the advertising and sponsorship of
                                                                               tobacco products (OJ 1998 L 213, p. 9), at least in so far
(1) OJ L 47 of 25.2.1993, p. 1.
                                                                               as it prohibits or hinders sponsorship and advertising
                                                                               relating to brand names which were used before 30 July
                                                                               1998 for the advertising of products other than tobacco
                                                                               products;