CELEX: C1997/074/19
Language: en
Date: 1997-03-08 00:00:00
Title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main by order of that court of 9 December 1996 in the commercial registration case brought by the European Information Technology Observatory, a European Economic Interest Group (Case C-402/96)

No C 74/ 10             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     8 . 3 . 97
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                          relevant to the subject-matter under examination, the
                        ( Fourth Chamber)                                       case where an importer acting in good faith and with
                                                                                the authorization of the customs authority took
                      of 28 November 1996
                                                                                delivery of and placed into circulation products
in Case C-2 77/95 P: Erika Lenz and Volker Lenz v.                              imported from a non-member State, without paying
          Commission of the European Communities (')                            the countervailing charge imposed by Commission
                                                                                Regulation ( EEC ) No 1591/92 ( 3 ), where that omission
(Officials — Time-limit for the bringing of an action for                       is attributable to the fact that the competent customs
damages by the spouse or child of an official — Principle                       authority was not aware of the existence of that
           of res judicata — Manifest inadmissibility)                          Regulation owing either to the lack of any machinery
                             ( 97/C 74/ 17 )                                    for punctual communication to it of the applicability
                                                                                of a Community rule having direct application or to a
                 (Language of the case: German)                                 failure of coordination between the Community and
                                                                                national bodies involved, or to any other reason
                                                                                unconnected with any action taken by the importer, or
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                does the adoption of the Regulation afford sufficient
           published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                warrant on its own for the post-clearance imposition
                                                                                of the countervailing charge ?
In Case C-277/95 P: an appeal against the order of the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities                        2.   Are the time-limits laid down in Articles 3 and 5
( Fourth Chamber) of 14 June 1995 in Cases T-462/93 ,
T-464/93       and   T-470/93       Lenz     v.  Commission,     not
                                                                                of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1854/85 (4 ) for
                                                                                determining customs duty preclusive in the sense that
published in the European Court Reports, seeking to have
that order set aside, the other party to the proceedings                        the expiry thereof with action not having been taken
                                                                                nullifies the right of the customs authorities to
being: Commission of the European Communities ( Agent:
Julian Curall, assisted by Bertrand Wagenbaur, of the                           determine and collect the countervailing charge ?
                                                                                Furthermore, in the absence of exceptional
Hamburg Bar ), — the Court ( Fourth Chamber ), composed
                                                                                circumstances or a situation of force majeure, can the
of: J. L. Murray ( Rapporteur), President of the Chamber,
                                                                                lapse of time amounting to upwards of five months
C. N. Kakouris and P. J. G. Kapteyn, Judges; A. La
                                                                                from the time when the customs authority became
Pergola, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given
                                                                                aware of the situation and was in a position to
a judgment on 28 November 1996 in which it:
                                                                                calculate the amount due be regarded as exceeding a
                                                                                reasonable period within which it ought to have
1 . dismisses the appeal;                                                       acted ?
2 . orders Erika Lenz and Volker Lenz to pay the costs.                    3 . Does the imposition of the countervailing charge in
                                                                                issue concern solely fresh dessert cherries or also
(>) OJ No C 268 , 14 . 10 . 1995 .                                              cherries intended for industrial processing ?
                                                                           (') OJ  No  L 175 , 12 . 7. 1979 , p. 1 .
                                                                           (2) OJ  No  L 197,  3 . 8 . 1979, p . 1 .
                                                                           (3) OJ  No  L 168 , 23 . 6 . 1992 , p . 18 .
                                                                           (4) OJ  No  L 186 , 30 . 6 . 1989, p . 1 .
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Diikitiko Efetio,
Salonika (Third section ) by judgment of that court of
24 October 1996 in the case of Covita AVE against the
                              Greek State
                          ( Case C-3 70/96 )
                                                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
                             ( 97/C 74/18 )                                Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main by order of that
                                                                           court of 9 December 1996 in the commercial registration
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     case brought by the European Information Technology
European Communities by judgment of the Diikitiko                               Observatory, a European Economic Interest Group
Efetio (Administrative Court of Appeal ), Salonika (Third                                              ( Case C-402/96 )
section ) of 24 October 1996, received at the Court
                                                                                                          ( 97/C 74/ 19 )
Registry on 25 November 1996, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Covita AVE against the Greek State on the
following questions :                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of
                                                                           the European Communities by an order of the
1 . May the terms ' special circumstances' and 'error made                 Oberlandesgericht ( Higher Regional Court ) Frankfurt am
     by the competent authorities' used in Article 13 of                   Main of 9 December 1996 , which was received at the
     Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1430/79 (') and Article 5               Court Registry on 23 December 1996 , for a preliminary
     ( 2 ) of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1697/79 (2 )                   ruling in the commercial registration case brought by the
    respectively be interpreted as including, each one                     European Information Technology Observatory, a
     separately or in conjunction both with each other and                 European Economic Interest Group on the following
    such other provisions or principles as may be                          question:
 ---pagebreak--- 8 . 3 . 97             EN 1                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 74/11
Is Article 5 ( a ) of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2137/85            Appeal brought on 23 December 1996 by Glencore Grain
of 25 July 1985 on the European Economic Interest                      Ltd, formerly Richco Commodities Ltd, against the
Grouping ( EEIG ) O to be interpreted as meaning that,                 judgment delivered on 24 September 1996 by the Court of
apart from the additions of 'European Economic Interest                First Instance of the European Communities in Case
Grouping' or 'EEIG', the name or business name of an                   T-509/93     between Richco Commodities Ltd and the
EEIG may consist of a purely descriptive designation, even                      Commission of the European Communities
where internal law in principle precludes the use of such a                                     ( Case C-404/96 P)
name for the formation of a European Economic Interest
                                                                                                      97/C 74/21 )
Grouping ?
H OJ No L 199, 31 . 7 . 1985 , p . 1 .                                 An appeal against the judgment delivered on 24 September
                                                                       1996 by the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                       Communities       in       Case      T-509/93  between   Richco
                                                                       Commodities Ltd and the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
                                                                       the European Communities on 23 December 1996 by
                                                                       Glencore Grain Ltd, formerly Richco Commodities Ltd,
Appeal brought on 23 December 1996 by Glencore Grain                   represented by P. V. F. Bos, J. G. A. van Zuuren and M. M.
Ltd, formerly Richco Commodities Ltd, against the                      Slotboom, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an address for
judgment delivered on 24 September 1996 by the Court of                service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Loesch,
First Instance of the European Communities in Case                      11 rue Goethe .
T-491 /93 between Richco Commodities Ltd and the
           Commission of the European Communities                      The appellant claims that the Court should:
                       ( Case C-403/96 P)
                                                                       — partially set aside the judgment of the Court of First
                           ( 97/C 74/20 )                                   Instance in Case T-509/93 , in so far as that judgment
                                                                            declares inadmissible Glencore's application for
                                                                            annulment of the Commission Decision of 10 June
 An appeal against the judgment delivered on 24 September                   1993 addressed to the SEIB under reference SG ( 93 )
 1996 by the Court of First Instance of the European                        D/ 11703 ,
 Communities        in   Case     T-491 /93   between     Richco
 Commodities Ltd and the Commission of the European                     — declare Glencore's application, referred to in the first
 Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of                     indent above, admissible,
 the European Communities on 23 December 1996 by
 Glencore Grain Ltd, formerly Richco Commodities Ltd,                   — order the Commission to pay all the costs, including
 represented by P. V. F. Bos, J. G. A. van Zuuren and M. M.                 those incurred in the proceedings before the Court of
 Slotboom, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an address for                        First Instance .
 service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Loesch,
 11 rue Goethe .                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                        The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
 The appellant claims that the Court should :                           Case C-386/96 P (').
 — partially set aside the judgment of the Court of First               (') OJ No C 40, 8 . 2 . 1997, p . 10 .
       Instance in Case T-491 /93 , in so far as that judgment
       declares inadmissible Glencore 's application for
       annulment of the decision or at least the act of the
       Commission of 1 April 1993 addressed to the
       Vnesheconombank under reference SG ( 93 ) D/5397,
                                                                        Appeal brought on 23 December 1996 by Sveriges
                                                                        Betodlares Centralforening and Mr Sven Ake Henrikson
 — declare Glencore's application, referred to in the first             against the order made on 4 October 1996 by the First
       indent above, admissible,                                        Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                        Communities in Case T-l 97/95 between Sveriges
 — order the Commission to pay all the costs.                           Betodlares Centralforening and Mr Sven Ake Henrikson
                                                                             and the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                                  ( Case C-409/96 P)
  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                                      ( 97/C 74/22 )
  The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
  Case C-386/96 P ( M.                                                   An appeal against the order made on 4 October 1996 by
                                                                         the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European     Communities           in  Case T-l 97/95  between
  H OJ No C 40, 8 . 2 . 1997, p . 10 .                                   Sveriges Betodlares Centralforening and Mr Sven Ake
                                                                         Henrikson and the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities, was brought before the Court of Justice of