CELEX: C1995/268/12
Language: en
Date: 1995-10-14 00:00:00
Title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 11 August 1995 in Case C-1/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato): Cavarzere Produzioni Industriali SpA and Others v. Ministero dell'Agricoltura e delle Foreste and Others (Common organization of the market - Sugar quotas - Transfers between undertakings)

No C 268/6              EN |                Official Journal of the European Communities                                    14 . 10 . 95
1 , declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
    period the laws, regulations and administrative                                             ( Fifth Chamber)
    provisions necessary to comply with the requirements
    arising under Council Directive 88/29S/EEC of                                             of 11 August 1995
    22 March 1 988 amending Directive 77/62/EEC relating               in Case C-l /94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the
    to the coordination of procedures on the award of                  Consiglio di Stato ): Cavarzere Produzioni Industriali SpA
    public supply contracts and repealing certain provisions           and Others v. Ministero dell'Agricoltura e delle Foreste and
    of Directive 80/767/EEC and under Council Directive                                              Others (M
    89/440/EEC of 18 July 1989 amending Directive                      (Common organization of the market — Sugar quotas —
    71 /305/EEC concerning coordination ofprocedures for                               Transfers between undertakings)
    the award of public works contracts, the Federal
    Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations                                      ( 95/C 268/12 )
    under the EC Treaty;
2 , orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the                                   (Language of the case: Italian)
    costs .
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
H OJ No C 338 , 15 . 12 . 1993 .                                                 published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                       In Case C-l /94 : reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                                                                       the EC Treaty from the Consiglio di Stato (Council ofState)
                                                                       ( Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
                                                                       before that court between Cavarzere Produzioni Industriali
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                    SpA and Others and Ministero deH'Agricoltura e delle
                         ( Fifth Chamber)                              Foreste and Others — on the interpretation of Council
                                                                       Regulation ( EEC ) No 1785/81 of 30 June 1981 on the
                        of 11 August 1995
                                                                       common organization of the markets in the sugar sector ( OJ
in Case C-448/93 P: Commission of the European                         No L 177, p. 4 ) and Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 193/82 of
            Communities v. Muireann Noonan ( x )                       26 January 1982 laying down general rules for transfers of
(Appeal — Official — Admissibility ofan action challenging             quotas in the sugar sector ( OJ No L 21 , p. 3 ) — the Court
a decision of a selection board applying the conditions laid           ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of
down in a competition notice the lawfulness of which is                the Chamber, P. Jann, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida , D. A. O.
                              contested)                               Edward and L. Sevon, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate-General;
                           ( 95/C 268/ 11 )                            H. A. Rùhl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
                                                                       given a judgment on 11 August 1 995 , in which it rules :
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                       I . Member States may not, for the marketing year starting
In Case C-448/93 P: Commission of the European                               on 1 July, exercise the power ofmanoeuvre conferred on
Communities ( agent: John Forman ) — appeal against the                      them by Article 25 (2) of Council Regulation (EEC)
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European                      No 1785/81 of 30 June 1981 on the common
Communities ( Fourth Chamber ) of 16 September 1993 in                       organization of the markets in the sugar sector after the
Case T-60/92 Muireann Noonan v. Commission [ 1993 ]                          date of 1 March laid down by Council Regulation (EEC)
ECR 11-911 , seeking to have that judgment set aside, the                    No 193/82 of 26 January 1982 laying down general
other party to the proceedings being: Muireann Noonan,                       rules for transfers of quotas in the sugar sector, even if
represented by James O'Reilly, Senior Counsel, with an                       the Council Regulation fixing the quotas and stating
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of                          that power to be applicable has been adopted after
Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 1 Rue Glesener the Court ( Fifth                      1 March, since no Community legislation expressly
Chamber ), composed of: J. C. Moitinho de Almeida                            derogating from that time limit has been enacted;
( Rapporteur ), acting as President of the Chamber, D. A. O.
Edward and J. -P. Puissochet, Judges; P. Léger,                        2 , the power ofmanoeuvre conferred on Member States by
Advocate-General ; R. Grass, for the Registrar, has given a                  Article 25 of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 may be
judgment on 11 August 1995 , in which it:                                    exercised at the same time as an adjustment of quotas
                                                                             pursuant to Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 193/82
1 , dismisses the appeal;                                                    following a transfer of undertakings or factories,
                                                                             provided that the specific conditions governing the
                                                                             application of each of those provisions are complied
2 , orders the Commission to pay the costs.                                  with;
(') OJ No C 1 , 4 . 1 . 1994 .
                                                                       3 . Article 25 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 must be
                                                                             interpreted as meaning that Member States may reduce
                                                                             the A quota and the B quota by 10% each;
 ---pagebreak--- 14 . 10 . 95           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 268/7
4 , the 1 0 % margin of manoeuvre provided for in the first            costs arising from the performance by the customs and
     subparagraph of Article 25 (2) of Regulation (EEC)                veterinary services of their tasks as providers of services in
     No 1 785/81 relates to the A and B quotas allocated to an         the public interest even if it has not been imposed by the
     undertaking, within the framework of the quota system             State but arises from an agreement concluded by that
     in force, by a national decision taken by the Member              undertaking with its customers.
     State on the basis of Article 24 of that Regulation,
     sharing out among the undertakings operating in its
     territory the basic A and B quantities allocated to it;           (>) OJ No C 76 , 12 . 3 . 1994 .
5 , the term 'restructuring plans ' within the meaning of the
     second subparagraph of Article 25 (2) of Regulation
     (EEC) No 1785/81 , allowing quotas to be adjusted in
     Italy without the 10% limit applying, refers to plans
     concerning the sugar sector as a whole at national or
     regional level.
                                                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(M OJ No C 59 , 26 . 2 . 1994 .
                                                                                                ( First Chamber )
                                                                                             of 11 August 1995
                                                                       in Case C-43/94 P: European Parliament v. Philippe
                                                                                                     Vienne H
                                                                       (Officiai — Daily subsistence allowance — Cumulative
                                                                                                      benefits)
                                                                                                  ( 95/C 268/14 )
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         ( Fifth Chamber)                                              (Language of the case: French)
                        of 11 August 1995
in Case C- 1 6/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the
French Cour de Cassation ): Édouard Dubois et Fils SA and               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Général Cargo Services SA v. Garonor Exploitation                                published in the European Court Reports)
                                SA (M
 (Transit charge payable under a private contract — Charge
                     having équivalent effect)                         In Case C-43/94 P : European Parliament ( agent: Ezio
                           ( 95/C 268/13 )                             Perillo ) — appeal against the judgment of the Court of First
                                                                       Instance of the European Communities ( Fourth Chamber )
                                                                        of 30 November 1993 in Case T-15/93 Vienne v . European
                                                                        Parliament [ 1993 ] ECR 11-1327, seeking to have that
                (Language of the case: French)                          judgment set aside — the other party to the proceedings
                                                                        being: Philippe Vienne, an official of the European
                                                                        Parliament, resident in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be           Louis, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
          published in the European Court Reports)                      Luxembourg at the office of SARL Fiduciaire Myson, 1 Rue
                                                                        Glesener — the Court ( First Chamber ), composed of: P.
                                                                       Jann ( Rapporteur ), President of the Chamber, D. A. O.
 In Case C- 1 6/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177 of        Edward and L. Sévon, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate-General;
 the EC Treaty from the French Cour de Cassation ( Court of             R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 August
 Cassation ) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                1995 , in which it:
 pending before that court between Édouard Dubois et Fils
 SA and Général Cargo Services SA and Garonor
 Exploitation SA — on the interpretation of Articles 9,12,13             1 , dismisses the appeal;
 and 16 of the EC Treaty — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ),
 composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, P.
 Jann, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, D. A. O. Edward                       2 , orders the Parliament to pay the costs.
 (Rapporteur) and L. Sévon, Judges; A. M. La Pergola,
 Advocate-General ; H. von Holstein, for the Registrar, has
 given a judgment on 11 August 1995, in which it rules:              , (!) OJ No C 76 , 12 . 3 . 1994 .
 Articles 9 and 12 of the EC Treaty apply to a transit charge
 designed to compensate a private undertaking for bearing