CELEX: C2001/108/17
Language: en
Date: 2001-04-07 00:00:00
Title: Case C-80/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal d'Instance de Châteauroux by Judgment of 26 January 2001 in the case of SARL Michel v Recettes des Douanes

7.4.2001               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 108/11
The Appellant claims that:                                               —     it infringed Articles 190 and 215 of the EC Treaty (now
                                                                               Articles 253 and 288 EC), and the general legal principle
                                                                               of coherence in that it held that the argument that the
—     the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 29 Novem-                 Measure Challenged was unlawful for failure to state
      ber 2000 in case T-213/97 be annulled in so far as it                    reasons cannot be upheld and, additionally, it implied that
      applies to the Appellants;                                               the Council had complete freedom of action unfettered by
                                                                               the Basic Regulation.
—     the Council’s Decision not to adopt the proposal for a             (1) OJ C 318, 18.10.1997, p. 23.
      regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on
      imports of unbleached (grey) cotton fabrics in the People’s
      Republic of China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Pakistan and
      Turkey (COM (97) 160 final, of 21 April 1997) be
      annulled in so far as it applies to the Appellants;
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte d’appello
—     the Appellants’ claim for compensation for the damage              di Milano by order of 29 January 2001 in the appeal
      in case T-213/97 be declared founded and the determi-              brought by Payroll Data Services (Italy) srl, ADP Europe
      nation of the amount of compensation referred back to                                    SA and ADP GSI SA
      the Court of First Instance;
                                                                                                   (Case C-79/01)
—     the Council be ordered to pay the Appellants’ costs both
      in the present appeal and also in case T-213/97.                                            (2001/C 108/16)
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by order of 29 January 2001 by the
                                                                         Corte d’appello di Milano (Court of Appeal, Milan), which was
                                                                         received at the Court Registry on 15 February 2001, for a
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          preliminary ruling in the appeal brought by Payroll Data
                                                                         Services (Italy) srl, ADP Europe SA and ADP GSI SA on the
                                                                         following question:
The Appellants submit that the Court of First Instance infringed         Do Articles 43 EC and 49 EC preclude Italian courts from
Community law in the following ways:                                     applying Article 1 of Law No 12 of 11 January 1979, as
                                                                         amended by Article 58(16) of Law No 144 of 17 May 1999,
                                                                         regulating the profession of employment consultant, to the
—     it infringed Article 173 of the EC Treaty (now Article 230         extent to which it prohibits, in absolute terms, external
      EC) as interpreted by the case law (and additionally, as           undertakings providing services relating to the preparation
      read in the light of Article 9.1, 6.9, 12.2 and 13 and of          and printing of pay slips from providing their services to
      the GATT 1994 Anti-dumping Agreement) and the                      undertakings having less than 250 employees?
      general legal principle of coherence, in that it held the
      Measure Challenged was not a reviewable act within the
      meaning of the said Article 173 of the EC Treaty (now
      Article 230 EC);
—     it infringed Article 19 of the EC Statute of the Court of          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal d’In-
      Justice and Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure of the            stance de Châteauroux by Judgment of 26 January 2001
      Court of First Instance in that it held that the Appellants            in the case of SARL Michel v Recettes des Douanes
      had submitted a new claim in breach of those dispositions;
                                                                                                   (Case C-80/01)
—     it infringed Article 173 of the EC Treaty (now Article 230
      EC) as interpreted by the case law (and additionally as                                     (2001/C 108/17)
      read in the light of Articles 9.1, 6.9, 12.2 and 13 of the
      GATT 1994 Anti-dumping Agreement) in that it held                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      that the mere expiry of the 15-month period provided               European Communities by judgment of 26 January 2001
      for in Article 6(9) of the Basic Regulation does not               by the Tribunal d’Instance de Châteauroux (District Court,
      constitute a decision by the Council which could be the            Châteauroux), which was received at the Court Registry on
      subject of an action for annulment on the basis of Article         16 February 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of SARL
      173 of the EC Treaty (now Article 230 EC); and                     Michel v Recettes des Douanes on the following question:
 ---pagebreak--- C 108/12                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                    7.4.2001
Must Article 3(a) and (b) of the Treaty of Rome, the first recital          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de
in the preamble to, and Article 3(2) of, Directive 92/12 of                 Grande Instance (Regional Court), Paris (31st Chamber)
25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products                   by judgment of that court of 19 February 2001 in the case
subject to excise duty (1), and the sixth and eighth recitals in            of Ministère Public against John Greenham and Léonard
the preamble to Directive 92/81 of 19 October 1992 on the                                                 Abel
harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on mineral
oils (2) be interpreted as precluding the French Republic
from refusing to reimburse the domestic duty on petroleum                                            (Case C-95/01)
products (TIPP) paid by a trader in petroleum products
following the failure by one of his customers to make payment?
                                                                                                    (2001/C 108/19)
(1) Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general
    arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the
    holding, movement and monitoring of such products (OJ 1992              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    L 76, 23.03.1992, p. 1).                                                European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal de
(2) Council Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmon-           Grande Instance (Regional Court), Paris (31st Chamber) of
    isation of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils (OJ 1992     19 February 2001, received at the Court Registry on 27 Febru-
    L 316, 31.10.1992, p. 12).                                              ary 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ministère
                                                                            Public against John Greenham and Léonard Abel on the
                                                                            following question:
                                                                            Must Articles 28 and 30 of the Treaty be interpreted as
                                                                            prohibiting a Member State from preventing the free move-
                                                                            ment and marketing of a food supplement lawfully sold in
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the French Cour de                    another Member State?
cassation, Commercial, Financial and Economic Chamber,
by judgment of that court of 13 February 2001 in the case
of SARL, Borie Manoux v Directeur de l’Institut national
                de la propriété industrielle (INPI)
                            (Case C-81/01)
                           (2001/C 108/18)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      Action brought on 27 February 2001 by the Commission
European Communities by a judgment of the French Cour de                    of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy
cassation (Court of Cassation), Commercial, Financial and                                           of Luxembourg
Economic Chamber, of 13 February 2001, received at the
Court Registry on 16 February 2001, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of SARL Borie Manoux v Directeur de l’Institut
                                                                                                     (Case C-97/01)
national de la propriété industrielle (INPI) on the following
question:
                                                                                                    (2001/C 108/20)
Must Article 40 of Regulation No 2392/89 (1) be interpreted
as prohibiting the registration as a trade mark, for the products
covered by the regulation, of a geographical reference the use              An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
of which is not provided for by Article 11, even where the                  brought before the Court of Justice on 27 February 2001 by
registration of such a trade mark is not likely to mislead the              the Commission of the European Communities, represented
consumer as to the provenance of the wine and does not                      by S. Rating and F. Siredey-Garnier, acting as Agents, with an
give rise to any confusion with a registered geographical                   address for service in Luxembourg.
designation, in so far as such registration might suggest that
the geographical reference in question, which relates to the
region where that wine is actually produced but which covers                The applicant claims that the Court should:
other designations of origin, is protected?
                                                                            —    declare that, by failing to ensure the transposition in
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2392/89 of 24 July 1989 laying                   practice of Article 4d of Directive 90/388/EEC(1), as
    down general rules for the description and presentation of wines             amended by Directive 96/19/EC (2), the Grand Duchy of
    and grape musts (OJ L 232, 9.8.1989, p. 13).                                 Luxembourg has failed to comply with its obligations;
                                                                            —    order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.