CELEX: C2000/316/31
Language: en
Date: 2000-11-04 00:00:00
Title: Case C-335/00: Action brought on 11 September 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

C 316/16              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        4.11.2000
1.   May Article 22 of Directive 93/36/EEC (1) of 14 June              2.    Was it permissible to increase the prices established for
     1993 be interpreted as meaning that the competent                       Hamburg and ‘Fac Atlant’ by the addition of notional
     national courts are required to protect citizens of the                 freight costs of ECU 3,8 per tonne?
     Union adversely affected by measures adopted in breach
     of Community law, by resorting, in particular, to disappli-
     cation as provided for in Article 5 of Law No 2248 of             3.    When determining the final reference price was it per-
     20 March 1865 with respect to clauses of an invitation                  missible to use as a basis purely mathematically deter-
     to tender which are contrary to Community law but were                  mined average prices, without taking into account the
     not challenged within the short time-limit laid down by                 different quantities marketed in the individual months of
     national procedural law for the application of Community                the calculation period?
     law by the court of its own motion, whenever it is found,
     first, that the application of Community law has been             4.    If questions 1, 2 and 3 are answered in the affirmative, is
     seriously impeded or rendered difficult in any way, and                 Regulation (EEC) No 525/93 defective as regards its
     second, that there is a public interest, of Community or                criteria for calculating the final regional reference amount
     national origin, which justifies such application?                      in that it fails to state reasons within the meaning of
                                                                             Article 253 (previously Article 190) of the EC Treaty?
2.   Does Article 6(2) of the Treaty which, by providing for
     respect of the fundamental rights safeguarded by the              5.    Would that failure to state reasons be so material that it
     European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamen-                       would lead to the nullity, in whole or in part, of the
     tal Freedoms, has adopted the principle of effective                    regulation?
     judicial protection provided for in Articles 6 and 13 of
     that Convention, lead to the same conclusion?
                                                                       (1) OJ 1993 L 56 of 9.3.1993, p. 18.
(1) OJ L 199 of 9.8.1993, p. 1.
                                                                       Action brought on 11 September 2000 by the Com-
                                                                       mission of the European Communities against the Grand
                                                                                             Duchy of Luxembourg
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bayerisches
Verwaltungsgericht Regensburg by order of 30 August
2000 in the case of Maria Weber and Martin Weber v                                               (Case C-335/00)
                        Freistaat Bayern
                                                                                                 (2000/C 316/31)
                        (Case C-328/00)
                                                                       An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                                                       brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                        (2000/C 316/30)                                ties on 11 September 2000 by the Commission of the
                                                                       European Communities, represented by Gérard Berscheid, of
                                                                       its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, also
European Communities by order of 30 August 2000 by
                                                                       of the Commission’s Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
the Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht (Bavarian Administrative
Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 6 Septemb-
er 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Maria
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
Weber and Martin Weber v Freistaat Bayern on the following
questions:
                                                                       1.    Declare that, by failing to bring into force within the
                                                                             prescribed time-limits the laws, regulations and adminis-
1.   Was the Commission, when establishing the final regional                trative provisions needed in order to comply with
     reference amount, entitled, notwithstanding the wording
     of Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 525/93 (1), to leave
     out of account reference prices from months in the                      —     Commission Directive 98/68/EC of 10 September
     period between 1 July 1992 and January 1993, to include                       1998 laying down the standard document referred
     in its calculation reference prices from months after that                    to in Article 9(1) of Council Directive 95/53/EC and
     period, and to replace missing information on reference                       certain rules for checks at the introduction into the
     prices by an estimate?                                                        Community of feedingstuffs from third countries (1),
 ---pagebreak--- 4.11.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 316/17
      —     Commission Directive 98/87/EC of 13 November                 2.    Order the defendant to pay the costs.
            1998 amending Council Directive 79/373/EEC on
            the marketing of compound feedingstuffs (2), and
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
      —     Commission Directive 98/100/EC of 21 December
            1998 amending Directive 92/76/EC recognising                 The pleas in law and main arguments correspond to those in
            protected zones exposed to particular plant health           Case C-377/99 (1).
            risks in the Community (3),
                                                                         The applicant contests the decision on the financial correction
            the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil           concerning expenditure of the Land of Mecklenburg-Vorpom-
            its obligations under Article 3 of Directive 98/68/EC,       mern in the arable crops sector for the 1995 harvest, in so far
            Article 2 of Directive 98/87/EC and Article 2 of             as the Commission
            Directive 98/100/EC;
                                                                         —     now charges 5 %, instead of 2 % as originally envisaged,
2.    Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.                    of the expenditure whose justification was checked by
                                                                               classic on-the-spot control, and
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          —     applies a charge of 2 % for the expenditure whose
                                                                               justification was checked by remote sensing.
By virtue of the mandatory nature of Articles 10 EC and 249
EC, Member States are required to take the measures necessary
to transpose directives addressed to them into national law              (1) OJ C 366 of 18.12.1999, p. 19.
before the expiry of the periods prescribed for that purpose.
The periods laid down in the provisions referred to in
paragraph 1 of the heads of claim expired on 31 March 1999,
30 June 1999 and 1 January 1999, respectively, without the
Grand Duchy of Luxembourg having adopted the necessary
measures.
                                                                         Appeal brought on 18 September 2000 by the Conseil
                                                                         National des Professions de l’Automobile (‘CNPA’), la
(1) OJ L 261, 24.9.1998, p. 32.                                          Fédération Nationale de Distributeurs, Loueurs et Répara-
(2) OJ L 318, 27.11.1998, p. 43.                                         teurs de Matériel de Bâtiments et Travaux Publics et de
(3) OJ L 351, 29.12.1998, p. 35.                                         Manutention (‘DLR’), Auto Contrôle 31 SA, YAM 31 Sàrl,
                                                                         Roux SA, Marc Foucher-Creteau et Verdier Distri-
                                                                         bution Sàrl against the order made on 12 July 2000 by the
                                                                         Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                         (Third Chamber) in Case T-45/00 Conseil National des
                                                                         Professions de l’Automobile, la Fédération Nationale de
                                                                         Distributeurs, Loueurs et Réparateurs de Matériel de
Action brought on 14 September 2000 by the Federal                       Bâtiments et Travaux Publics et de Manutention, Auto
Republic of Germany against the Commission of the                        Contrôle 31 SA, YAM 31 Sàrl, Roux SA, Marc Foucher-
                     European Communities                                Creteau et Verdier Distribution Sàrl v Commission of the
                                                                                             European Communities
                          (Case C-337/00)
                                                                                                (Case C-341/00 P)
                         (2000/C 316/32)
                                                                                                 (2000/C 316/33)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European             An appeal against the order made on 12 July 2000 by the
Communities on 14 September 2000 by the Federal Republic                 Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
of Germany, represented by Wolf-Dieter Plessing, Minis-                  Communities in Case T-45/00 between CNPA and Others and
terialrat, and Thomas Jürgensen, Regierungsrat, of the Federal           the Commission was brought before the Court of Justice of
Ministry of Financial Affairs, 108 Graurheindorfer Straße,               the European Communities on 18 September 2000 by CNPA
D-53117 Bonn.                                                            and Others, represented by C. Bourgeon, of the Paris Bar, with
                                                                         an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              François Brouxel, 6 Rue Zithe.
1.    Annul Commission Decision 2000/449/EC of 5 July                    The appellants claim that the Court should:
      2000 on the exclusion from Community financing of
      certain expenditure of the Member States charged to the            having regard to Article 115(1) of the Rules of Procedure of
      Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance            the Court of First Instance
      and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), in so far as under Article 1
      the sum of DEM 17 412 165,440 is not accepted by the               —     set aside the contested order on grounds of a substantial
      EAGGF but charged to the Federal Republic of Germany;                    procedural defect;