CELEX: C1996/046/07
Language: en
Date: 1996-02-17 00:00:00
Title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 12 December 1995 in Case C-469/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Trieste): Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v. Chiquita Italia SpA (Direct effect of provisions of the GATT and the Lomé Conventions - Internal taxation)

No C 46/4              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       17. 2 . 96
    does not qualify for exemption pursuant to                        Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
    Article 85 (3), it is automatically void arid such nullity        judgment on 12 December 1995 , in which it rules :
    has retroactive effect.
                                                                      1 . In order to decide whether fees payable under the
2 . A national court before which a party pleads the nullity                statutes of a cooperative association on withdrawal or
    of a clause in the statutes of an agricultural cooperative              exclusion are compatible with Article 85 (1 ) of the EEC
    on the ground that it infringes Article 85 (1 ) of the                  Treaty, the national court must consider the object of
    Treaty, and before which the cooperative seeks to rely                  the agreement providing for such fees, the effects of that
    on Article 2 (1 ) of Regulation No 26, may continue the                 agreement and whether it affects intra- Community
    proceedings and adjudicate on the dispute if it is clear                trade, taking into account the economic context in
    that the criteria for the application of Article 85 (1) are             which the undertakings operate, the products or services
    not fulfilled, or may declare the clause void under                     covered by the agreement, the structure of the market
    Article 85 (2) if it is certain that that provision does not            concerned and the actual conditions in which it
    fulfil the conditions for application of the exception laid             functions.
    down in Article 2 (1 ) of Regulation No 26 and does not
    qualify for exemption under Article 85 (3). Where there
    is any doubt, the national court may, if it is appropriate        2 . Fees payable under the statutes of a cooperative
    and consistent with the national rules of procedure,                    association on withdrawal or exclusion may fall within
    obtain additional information from the Commission or                    the derogation provided for in Regulation No 26 of the
    allow the parties to seek a decision from the                           Council of 4 April 1962 applying certain rules of
     Commission .                                                           competition to production of and trade in agricultural
                                                                            products only if the agreement providing for them
(•) OJ No C 204 , 28 . 7 . 1993 .
                                                                            concerns a cooperative association belonging to a single
                                                                            Member State, does not cover prices but concerns rather
                                                                            the production or sale ofagricultural products or the use
                                                                            ofjoint facilities for the storage, treatment or processing
                                                                            of such products, and finally does not exclude
                                                                            competition or jeopardize the objectives of the common
                                                                            agricultural policy.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                      of 12 December 1995                             (') OJ No C 274 , 12 . 10 . 1993 .
in Case C-3 99/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Arrondissementsrechtbank, Zutphen ): H.G. Oude
Luttikhuis and Others v. Verenigde Cooperatieve
                  Melkindustrie Coberco BA (*)
(Competition — Statutes of dairy cooperative associations
— Fee payable on withdrawal or expulsion — Article 85 of
                the Treaty and Regulation No 26)                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           ( 96/C 46/06 )                                                       ( Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                             of 12 December 1995
                  (Language of the case: Dutch)                        in Case C-469/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                       the Tribunale di Trieste): Amministrazione delle Finanze
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                       dello Stato v. Chiquita Italia SpA ( J )
         published in the European Court Reports)                      (Direct effect of provisions of the GATT and the Lomé
                                                                                     Conventions — Internal taxation)
In Case C-399/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177                                        ( 96/C 46/07 )
of the EEC Treaty from the Arrondissementsrechtbank,
Zutphen ( Zutphen District Court ), ( Holland ), for a                                 (Language of the case: Italian)
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between H.G. Oude Luttikhuis and Others and
Verenigde Cooperatieve Melkindustrie Coberco BA — on                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
 the interpretation of Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EEC Treaty and                    published in the European Court Reports)
 Article 2 ( 1 ) of Regulation No 26 of the Council of 4 April
 1962 applying certain rules of competition to production of
 and trade in agricultural products ( OJ, English Special              In Case C-469/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
 Edition 1959—1962, p. 129 ) — the Court, composed of                  of the EEC Treaty from the Tribunale di Trieste ( District
 G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C. N. Kakouris , D. A. O.        Court, Trieste ) ( Italy ) for a preliminary ruling in the
 Edward ( Rapporteur ), J. -P. Puissochet and G. Hirsch                proceedings pending before that court between
 (Presidents of Chambers ), J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P. J.           Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato and Chiquita
 G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, P. Jann and L.                   Italia SpA — on the interpretation of the General Agreement
 Sevón, Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate General; H. A. Rühl,               on Tariffs and Trade and the ACP-EEC Conventions signed
 ---pagebreak--- 17 . 2 . 96              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      No C 46/5
at Lomé concluded between the African, Caribbean and                      14 November 1995, the operative part of which is as
Pacific States and the European Economic Community —                      follows :
the Court ( Sixth Chamber), composed of C. N. Kakouris,
President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch, F. A. Schockweiler, P.               1 . the application is referred to the Court of First Instance
J. G. Kapteyn and J. L. Murray (Rapporteur ), Judges; C. O.                    of the European Communities;
Lenz, Advocate General; H. A. Rühl, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                 2.   the costs are reserved.
12 December 1995 , in which it rules:
                                                                          (') OJ No C 299, 11 . 11 . 1995 .
1 . The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade does not
       contain provisions ofsuch a nature as to confer rights on
       individuals which they could rely on before national
       courts in order to challenge the application of
       conflicting national provisions . The Fourth ACP-EEC
       Convention may contain such provisions.                            Action brought on 13 December 1995 by the Kingdom of
                                                                                      Belgium against the Kingdom of Spain
2 . The ACP-EEC Conventions preclude increases in                                                ( Case C-388/95 )
       internal taxation on bananas originating in the ACP                                          ( 96/C 46/09 )
       States, such as the Italian consumption tax, where those
       increases take place after 1 April 1 976 and their effect is       An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
       to put those banana exports in a situation less                    the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
       favourable than before, as regards access to their                 13 December 1995 by the Kingdom of Belgium, represented
       traditional markets and the advantages they enjoy on               by J. Devadder, Director of Administration in the Ministry
       those markets.                                                     of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Cooperation,
                                                                          acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg
 f 1 ) OJ No C 43 , 12 . 2 . 1994 .                                       at the Belgian Embassy, 4 Rue des Girondins.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          — declare that, by maintaining Royal Decree 157/1988 and
                     ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                               in particular Article 19 ( 1 ) ( b ) thereof, the Kingdom of
                                                                               Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 34
                       of 14 November 1995                                     of the EC Treaty as interpreted by the Court of Justice of
 in      Case    C-281/95 :       Hedwig     Kuchlenz-Winter      v.           the European Communities in its judgment of 9 June
          Commission of the European Communities ( x )                         1992 ( J ) and its obligations under Article 5 of the
                                                                               Treaty,
  (Lack ofcompetence ofthe Court — Reference to the Court
                            of First Instance)                            — order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
                              ( 96/C 46/08 )
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                           — By failing to take the measures necessary to comply with
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                 Article 34 as interpreted by the Court of Justice, the
            published in the European Court Reports)                           Kingdom of Spain disregards the principle of fair
                                                                               competition, incumbent upon it by virtue of Article 5 of
                                                                               the EC Treaty.
 In Case C-281 /95 : Hedwig Kuchlenz-Winter, the divorced
  spouse of a former official of the European Parliament,                  — In Case C-47/90, the Court ofJustice gave a ruling on the
  represented by Dieter Rogalla, Rechtsanwalt, Sprockhövel,                    interpretation of Article 34 of the Treaty in which it
  with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers                     found that the Spanish provisions did not comply with
  of Armin Machmer, 1 Rue Roger Barthel, v. Commission of                       Community law. The Court's reasoning is still
  the European Communities — application for a declaration                     completely relevant: no legislation in the field of wine
  of failure to act on the part of the Commission, in that it                   production has had any effect on the legal context in
  omitted, in breach of the Treaty, to propose amendments to                   which the judgment of the Court of Justice is set.
  the Staff Regulations of officials so as to enable the divorced
  spouse of a former official receiving the retirement pension                 The fact that the Consejo Regulador de la Ribera del
  payable in respect of her former spouse to obtain cover                   .   Duero has taken a decision similar to that of the Consejo
  under the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme — the Court,                        Regulador de la Rioja ( after the abovementioned
  composed of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C. N.                        judgment was published) runs counter to the existence
  Kakouris, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet and G. Hirsch                    of the internal market.
   ( Presidents    of Chambers ),       G.   F.   Mancini,    F.  A.
  Schockweiler, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn,               0 ) Case C-47/90 Delhaize and Others v. Commission [ 1992] ECR
  C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, P. Jann ( Rapporteur), H.                          1-3669 .
  Ragnemalm, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet, Judges; P. Leger,
  Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on