CELEX: C1997/074/24
Language: en
Date: 1997-03-08 00:00:00
Title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein Hallinto-oikeus by order of that court of 13 December 1996 in the proceedings brought by Kainuun Liikenne Oy and Oy Pohjolan Liikenne Ab (Case C-412/96)

No C 74/ 12            I EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                             8 . 3 . 97
the European Communities on 23 December 1996 by                          If the appellants' action is not considered admissible, in
Sveriges Betodlares Centralforening and Mr Sven Ake                      the particular circumstances of their case, there would be
Henrikson, represented by Otfried Lieberknecht, Rechts­                  no other feasible way for them to challenge the unlawful
anwalt, Diisseldorf, Michael Schiitte, Rechtsanwalt, Berlin,             administrative act of the Commission constituted by
and Vanessa Turner, Solicitor of the Supreme Court of                    Regulation ( EC) No 1734/95 ('). This would lead to an
England and Wales, with an address for service in                        unacceptable loophole in the system of judicial review of
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Bonn & Schmitt, 62,                        administrative acts of the Commission.
avenue Guillaume .
                                                                         (') Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 1734/95 of 14 July 1995
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                   fixing, for the 1994/95 marketing year, the specific agricultural
                                                                              conversion rate applicable to the minimum sugarbeet prices
— set aside the Order of the Court of First Instance of                       and the production levy and additional levy in the sugar sector
       4 October 1996,                                                        ( OJ No L 165 , 15 . 7 . 1995 , p. 12 ).
— declare that the application in Case T- 197/95 is
       admissible,
— order the Commission to bear the costs of these
       proceedings and the proceedings                 concerning       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de
       admissibility in Case T-197/95 .                                 Grande Instance de Metz by judgment of that court of
                                                                         19 December 1996 in the case of Procureur de la
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                       Republique against Andre Ambry
                                                                                                     ( Case C-410/96 )
In its legal analysis of the case, the Court of First Instance                                           ( 97/C 74/23 )
infringed Community law (in particular, Article 173 (4 ) of
the EC Treaty, which grants the appellants the right to
challenge the contested Regulation since this Regulation                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
directly and individually concerned them ) by reaching                  European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal de
conclusions which were :                                                Grande Instance ( Regional Court), Metz, of 19 December
                                                                         1996, received at the Court Registry on 24 December
( i ) not justified on the facts;                                        1996, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Procureur de
                                                                        la Republique v. Andre Ambry on the following question:
( ii ) in contradiction to the case-law of the Court of Justice
       of the European Communities and of the Court of                  Are the provisions of Article 14 of Decree No 94.490 of
       First Instance itself.                                           15 June 1994, adopted pursuant to Article 31 of Law No
                                                                        92.645 of 13 July 1992, to be regarded as not in
In particular the Court of First Instance infringed                     conformity with Directive 73/183/EEC ( J ), the first
Community law in four ways .                                            Coordination Directive of 15 December 1989 (2 ),
                                                                        Article 59 of the Treaty establishing the European
In the first place, the Court took the view that the                    Communities and Article 73 B of the Maastricht Treaty, in
contested Regulation did not constitute a bundle of                     so far as they require that, where a financial security is
decisions, thus failing to recognize the true nature of this            issued in a Member State of the EC other than France, an
Regulation.                                                             agreement must be concluded between the credit
                                                                        institution or insurance company situated in the Member
The second infringement of Community law by the Court                   State other than France and a credit institution or an
of First Instance was the failure, having regard to the case­           insurance company situated in France ?
law of the Court of Justice, to take proper account of the
specific and serious negative effect on the appellants of the           (') OJ No L 194, 16 . 7. 1973 , p . 1 .
contested Regulation, in particular having regard to the                ( 2 ) OJ No L 386 , 30 . 12 . 1989 , p . 1 .
nine currency devaluations in Sweden between 1 January
and 30 June 1995 .
The third infringement of Community law was the Court
of First Instance 's conclusion that the Commission was
not, in this case, under a duty to take account of the                  Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein
consequences of the measure it envisaged adopting for the              Hallinto-oikeus by order of that court of 13 December
situation of certain individuals, i . e . the Swedish sugarbeet         1996 in the proceedings brought by Kainuun Liikenne Oy
growers .                                                                                   and Oy Pohjolan Liikenne Ab
                                                                                                    ( Case C-412/96 )
The fourth infringement of Community law was the Court
of     First  Instance's   conclusion that    neither   individual                                      ( 97/C 74/24 )
Swedish beet growers ( such as Mr Henrikson ) nor Sveriges
Betodlares Centralforening as the association representing              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of
all Swedish beet growers in negotiations with the Swedish              the European Communities by an order of the Korkein
sugar manufacturer were individually concerned by the                  Hallinto-oikeus ( Supreme Administrative Court ) of
contested Regulation .                                                  13 December 1996, which was received at the Court
 ---pagebreak--- 8 . 3 . 97               EN [                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 74/13
Registry on 23 December 1996, for a preliminary ruling in                 2 . Must the words '[. . .] legally due [. . .]' in Article 2(1 )
the proceedings brought by Kainuun Liikenne Oy and Oy                          of Council Regulation (EEC ) No 1697/79 be
Pohjolan Liikenne Ab on the following questions :                              interpreted as meaning that:
1 . Is the Regulation on public service obligations                            — it is the factual and legal circumstances at the time
       ( Regulation (EEC ) No 1191 /69 (') as amended by
                                                                                   when the competent authorities receive a
       Regulation ( EEC ) No 1893/91 (2 )), in particular                          declaration containing an incorrect tariff heading
       Article 4 in conjunction with Article 1 ( 3 ), to be                        that are conclusive for determining whether an
                                                                                    amount is due ?
       interpreted as meaning that it entitles a transport
       undertaking to have a part, of whatever size, of its
       operating obligation terminated, for example, only a                         or as meaning that:
       certain part of one route operated ?
                                                                               — it is the factual and legal circumstances at the time
                                                                                    when the competent authorities establish that a
2 . If the answer to the first question is wholly or                                declaration contained an incorrect tariff heading
       conditionally in the affirmative, in which case the                          that are conclusive for determining whether an
       Korkein Hallinto-oikeus may remit the case to the                            amount is due ?
       Laaninhallitus for a fresh decision, in order to reach a
       final decision in the case the question arises whether it
       also follows, from the right given to transport                    3 . A. What is the legal effect of a decision by the
       undertakings in the Regulation on public service                             European Commission, after consultation with the
       obligations to have a service obligation partially                           Customs Code Committee, addressed to a Member
       terminated, that the authorities' power under national                       State following a request by a Member State to the
        law to revoke a traffic licence in order reasonably to                      Committee that it take a decision on whether there
       reorganize the traffic is precluded or restricted where                      was, in specified circumstances, justification for
       the need to reorganize results from a partial                                granting remission of import duties, and in which
       termination .                                                                the Commission and the Committee decided that
                                                                                    there was no justification for granting remission of
 (') OJ, English Special Edition 1969 ( I), p. 276.                                 import duties referred to in the Member State's
 ( 2 ) OJ No L 169, 29 . 6 . 1991 , p. 1 .                                          request to the Committee ?
                                                                               B. Is it compatible with the legal effects described in
                                                                                    the answer to question 3 .A for a court in the
                                                                                    Member State concerned to rule in a judgment
                                                                                    that there was no necessary legal basis for post­
                                                                                    clearance recovery of import duties ?
 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Appeals and
 Objections Committee of the Hojesteret by decision of
 that      court   of 20      December     1996   in  the   case  of
                 Skatteministeriet v. Sportgoods A/S
                            ( Case C-413/96 )
                               ( 97/C 74/25 )                             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Immigration
                                                                          Adjudicator, by decision of the Adjudicator of
                                                                          20 December 1996, in the case of Nour Eddline El Yassini
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        against Secretary of State for the Home Department
 European Communities by decision of the Appeals and                                              ( Case C-416/96 )
  Objections Committee of the Hojesteret ( Supreme Court)
  of 20 December 1996, which was received at the Court                                               97/C 74/26 )
  Registry on 27 December 1996, for a preliminary ruling in
  the case of Skatteministeriet ( Ministry of Fiscal Affairs ) v.
  Sportgoods A/S on the following questions :                              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities by decision of the Immigration
                                                                           Adjudicator of 20 December 1996, which was received at
  1 . Must Article 2 ( 1 ) of Council Regulation ( EEC )                   the Court Registry on 31 December 1996 , for a
        No 1697/79 on the post-clearance recovery of import                preliminary ruling in the case of Nour Eddline El Yassini
         duties or export duties which have not been required              against Secretary of State for the Home Department, on
         of the person liable for payment on goods entered for             the following questions:
         a customs procedure involving the obligation to pay
         such duties ( OJ No L 197, 1979, p. 1 ) be interpreted
         as meaning that post-clearance recovery may be                    1 . In a case of a Moroccan national, who is lawfully
         effected only in cases in which there is a difference in               resident in a Member State and who is lawfully
         the amount of duty involved, but not in cases of                       employed in that Member State, does the term
         incorrect declarations of headings which have not had                  'working conditions' in Article 40 of the EC/Morocco
         any bearing on the amount ?                                            Cooperation Agreement include security of such