CELEX: C2001/227/09
Language: en
Date: 2001-08-11 00:00:00
Title: Case C-162/01 P: Appeal brought on 13 April 2000 by E. Bouma against the judgment delivered on 31 January 2001 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-533/93 between, on the one hand, E. Bouma and, on the other, the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities

C 227/6                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     11.8.2001
1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt within the period prescribed           1983, that being the Netherlands reference year), particu-
      the measures necessary to recover from the beneficiary undertak-          larly in the light of the judgment in Spagl (2): there is
      ings the aid provided for under the Maribel bis and Maribel ter           nothing to indicate that — as the Court of First Instance
      schemes which were declared unlawful and incompatible with                seeks to suggest — the Court of Justice intended to
      the common market by Commission Decision 97/239/EC of                     restrict the invalidity of Regulation No 857/84 (3) to cases
      4 December 1996 concerning aid granted by Belgium under                   in which the SLOM producers concerned were unable to
      the Maribel bis/ter scheme, the Kingdom of Belgium has                    resume production during the 1983 reference year,
      failed to fulfil its obligations under the fourth paragraph of            following the expiry of their non-marketing undertakings,
      Article 189 of the EC Treaty (now the fourth paragraph of                 which had by then come to an end. Had that indeed been
      Article 249 EC) and Articles 2 and 3 of the said decision;                the intention of the Court of Justice, it would have had to
                                                                                apply that limitation expressly, since the particular case
2.    Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                           before it was precisely concerned whit a SLOM producer
                                                                                in respect of whom it had been established that he had
                                                                                produced non milk during the entire reference year,
(1) OJ C 378 of 5.12.1998.                                                      despite the fact that his non-marketing undertaking had
                                                                                expired during the course of that year (on 31 March
                                                                                1983). The interpretation arrived at by the Court of First
                                                                                Instance reflects the principal argument raised as a
                                                                                defence by the institutions in Spagl, which was manifestly
Appeal brought on 13 April 2000 by E. Bouma against the                         rejected in the judgment.
judgment delivered on 31 January 2001 by the Fourth
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                          The case of Spagl was in the nature of a test case, and
Communities in Case T-533/93 between, on the one hand,                          was, moreover, treated as such by the Court of Justice. By
E. Bouma and, on the other, the Council of the European                         purporting, over ten years later, to limit the scope of the
Union and the Commission of the European Communities                            judgment in Spagl by applying a speculative gloss to the
                                                                                significance of the underlying facts, the Court of First
                                                                                Instance has misconstrued the judicial task of the Court
                          (Case C-162/01 P)                                     of Justice, thereby seriously undermining the principle of
                                                                                legal certainty.
                           (2001/C 227/09)                                      The judgment in the present case directly conflicts with
                                                                                an earlier judgment delivered by the Court of First
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 31 January 2001                     Instance itself, in Joined Cases T-195/94 and T-202/94
by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                     Quiller and Heusmann.
European Communities in Case T-533/93 between, on the one
hand, E. Bouma and, on the other, the Council of the European              —    Violation of the principle of equality, the principle of the
Union and the Commission of the European Communities                            protection of legitimate expectations, the principle of
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                         legal certainty and the obligation to provide a statement
Communities on 13 April 2001 by E. Bouma, represented by                        of reasons, inasmuch as the Court of First Instance, in
E.H. Pijnacker Hordijk, advocaat, the other parties tot the                     assessing Mr Bouma’s compensation claims, attached
proceedings being the Council of the European Union, rep-                       significance to the fact that he did not produce any milk
resented by A.M. Colaert, and the Commission of the European                    between 31 December 1983 and 1 April 1984: it is
Communities, represented by T. van Rijn.                                        impossible to see why a defence previously rejected by
                                                                                the Court of Justice (in paragraphs 15 and 16 of its
                                                                                judgment in Mulder I, paragraph 14 of its judgment in
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                     Spagl and paragraph 17 of its interim judgment in
                                                                                Mulder II) and also by the Court of First Instance (see
—     set aside the judgment delivered by the Court of First
                                                                                paragraph 97 of the judgment in Quiller and Heusmann)
      Instance on 31 January 2001 in Case T-533/93 (1);
                                                                                should subsequently have been accepted by the Court of
—     refer the case back to the Court of First Instance;                       First Instance.
—     order the Council and the Commission to pay the costs                —    Violation of the principle of equality, the principle of the
      of the proceedings before both Courts.                                    protection of legitimate expectations, the principle of
                                                                                legal certainty and the obligation to provide a statement
                                                                                of reasons, inasmuch as the Court of First Instance
                                                                                wrongly assessed the compensation claims of SLOM 83
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 producers, particularly in the light of the judgment in
                                                                                Mulder II: it is apparent that, in paragraph 23 of the
—     Breach of the principle of equality, the principle of the                 interim judgment of the Court of Justice of 19 May 1992,
      protection of legitimate expectations, the principle of                   cited by the Court of First Instance, the Court of
      legal certainty and the obligation to provide a statement                 Justice merely concluded that the four SLOM producers
      of reasons, inasmuch as the Court of First Instance                       concerned had made it sufficiently clear that they did in
      incorrectly assessed the compensation claims of SLOM                      fact intend to resume milk production. There is nothing
      83 producers (that is to say, SLOM producers whose non-                   to indicate that the Court of Justice intended to provide
      marketing undertakings expired during the course of                       an exhaustive list of the ways in which that intention
 ---pagebreak--- 11.8.2001              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 227/7
      might be manifested. It is striking to note the importance        European Communities in Case T-73/94 between, on the one
      attached by the Court of Justice to the fact that in 1989,        hand, B.M.J.B. Beusmans and, on the other, the Council of
      immediately after being granted a provisional reference           the European Union and the Commission of the European
      quantity, the four producers concerned resumed milk               Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
      production. That circumstance is totally disregarded in           the European Communities on 13 April 2001 by B.M.J.M.
      the considerations of the Court of First Instance as              Beusmans, represented by E.H. Pijnacker Hordijk, advocaat,
      contained in the contested judgment. For the rest, it             ther other parties to the proceedings being the Council of
      should be noted that, in its interim judgment in Mulder II,       the European Union, represented by A.M. Colaert, and the
      the Court of Justice did not deal at all with the specific        Commission of the European Communities, represented by
      issues concerning the SLOM 83 producers.                          T. van Rijn.
—     The Court of First Instance incorrectly allocated the             The appellant claims that the Courts should:
      burden of proof, or at least imposed on Mr Bouma a
      burden of proof which is legally impermissible: prior to          —     set aside the judgment delivered by the Court of First
      the entry into force of Regulation No 857/84, a SLOM                    Instance on 31 January 2001 in Case T-73/94 (1);
      producer in Mr Bouma’s situation could not assume that,           —     refer the case back to the Court of First Instance;
      if he did not resume production before 1 April 1984, he
      might forfeit, definitively and completely, his right to a        —     order the Council and the Commission to pay the costs
      reference quantity — or to alternative compensation. The                of the proceedings before both Courts.
      imposition of the burden of showing ‘that he had the
      intention of resuming milk production upon the expiry
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
      of his non-marketing undertaking and that he found it
      impossible to do so owing to the entry into force of
      Regulation No 857/84’ necessarily means that Mr Bouma             The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
      is faced, retroactively, with the consequences of the entry       in Case C-162/01 P.
      into force of that regulation.
                                                                        (1) OJ 1994 C 90, p. 25.
      A Community citizen in the position of Mr Bouma
      cannot reasonably be expected, some 17 to 18 years after
      the material time, still to have at his disposal written
      evidence concerning the management of his holding                 Appeal brought on 13 April 2001 by G. van den Berg
      during a period in the distant past — a fortiori since in no      against the judgment delivered on 31 January 2001 by the
      previous judgment of the Court of Justice or the Court of         Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
      First Instance was any relevance attached to evidence             European Communities in Case T-143/97 between, on the
      concerning the points which the Court of First Instance           one hand, G. van den Berg and, on the other, the Council
      now regards as crucial.                                           of the European Union and the Commission of the
                                                                                            European Communities
—     The Court of First Instance set out and assessed the
      relevant facts in such an erroneous and biased manner                                    (Case C-164/01 P)
      that its judgment cannot be regarded as consistent with
      the obligation to provide reasons or the principle of
                                                                                                 (2001/C 227/11)
      objectivity.
                                                                        An appeal against the judgment delivered on 31 January 2001
(1) OJ 1993 C 334, p. 17.                                               by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
(2) Judgment of 11 December 1990 in Case C-189/89.                      European Communities in Case T-143/97 between, on the one
(3) OJ 1984 L 148, p. 13.                                               hand, G. van den Berg and, on the other, the Council of
                                                                        the European Union and the Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities on 13 April 2001 by G. van den Berg,
Appeal brought on 13 April 2001 by B.M.J.B. Beusmans                    represented by E.H. Pijnacker Hordijk, advocaat, the other
against the judgment delivered on 31 January 2001 by the                parties to the proceedings being the Council of the European
Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                    Union, represented by A.M. Colaert, and the Commission of
European Communuties in Case T-73/94 between, on the                    the European Communities, represented by T. van Rijn.
one hand, B.M.J.B. Beusmans and, on the other, the                      The appellant claims that the Court s hould:
Council of the European Union and the Commission of
                   the European Communities                             —     set aside the judgment delivered by the Court of First
                                                                              Instance on 31 January 2001 in Case T-143/97 (1);
                        (Case C-163/01 P)                               —     refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for
                                                                              further determination of the action brought by the
                         (2001/C 227/10)                                      appellant before the Court of First Instance on 29 April
                                                                              1997;
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 31 January 2001             —     order the Council and the Commission to pay the costs
by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                   of the proceedings before both Courts.