CELEX: C1998/278/37
Language: en
Date: 1998-09-05 00:00:00
Title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arrondissementsrechtbank te Arnhem by order of that court of 2 April 1998 in the criminal proceedings against M. G. Berendse-Koenen and H. D. Berendse, a partnership (Case C-246/98)

C 278/22              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  5.9.98
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arrondissements-         Ð annul the Commission appointing authority's decision
rechtbank te Arnhem by order of that court of 2 April                  of 22 July 1996 expressly rejecting the appellant's
1998 in the criminal proceedings against M. G. Berendse-               complaint concerning his requests for application of
         Koenen and H. D. Berendse, a partnership                      the weightings for Zaire,
                       (Case C-246/98)
                        (98/C 278/37)
                                                                   Ð order the Commission to pay the costs of both
                                                                       proceedings,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of
the European Communities by order of the
Arrondissementsrechtbank te Arnhem (District Court,                the above being without prejudice to all other rights,
Arnhem) of 2 April 1998, received at the Court Registry            entitlements, pleas in law and remedies relied on by the
on 9 July 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case               appellant.
of M. G. Berendse-Koenen and H. D. Berendse, a
partnership, on the following questions:
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
1. Does the Verordening Stoffen met sympathico
    mimetische werking (PVV) 1991 and, more
    particularly, Articles 2 and 3 thereof, contain technical
    regulations which, pursuant to Article 8 of Council            Ð Manifest contradiction        in the grounds   for  the
    Directive 83/189/EEC (1), as it stood at the time when             judgment,
    the Verordening came into force, should have been
    notified to the Commission beforehand?
                                                                   Ð Fundamental error Ð miscalculation: according to an
2. Does the Verordening Stoffen met sympathico                         analysis of the documents used by the Court of First
    mimetische werking (PVV) 1991 and, more                            Instance, the fact that the appellant's remuneration
    particularly, Articles 2 and 3 thereof, contain                    was paid in Belgian francs during the period between
    provisions which constitute obstacles to freedom of                June 1994 and July 1996 reduced his purchasing
    trade for the purposes of Article 30 of the EC Treaty?             power by 4,1 %, contrary to the legal finding in the
                                                                       judgment under appeal to the effect that it had
(1) OJ L 109, 26.4.1983, p. 8.                                         increased by 9 %,
                                                                   Ð Manifestly erroneous reasoning: even supposing that
                                                                       prices were parallel and purchasing power became
                                                                       stable in Kinshasa and Brussels/Luxembourg as from
Appeal brought on 10 July 1998 by Mario Costacurta                     June 1994 (quod non), that would not mean that
against the judgment delivered on 26 May 1998 by                       prices and purchasing power were equal; and in no
the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of                    way would it mean that this was also true of the
the European Communities in Case T-177/96 between                      period between March 1993 and May 1994.
Mario Costacurta and Commission of the European
                         Communities
                                                                   (1) OJ C 209, 4.7.1998, p. 38.
                      (Case C-249/98 P)
                        (98/C 278/38)
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 26 May
1998 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities in Case T-177/96 between
Mario Costacurta and the Commission of the European                Action brought on 10 July 1998 by the Commission of the
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of                 European Communities against the French Republic
the European Communities on 10 July 1998 by Mario                                         (Case C-250/98)
Costacurta, represented by Albert Rodesch, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at 7Ð11 Route d'Esch.                                    (98/C 278/39)
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                   An action against the French Republic was brought before
Ð declare the appeal admissible,                                   the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                   on 10 July 1998 by the Commission of the European
Ð hold the appeal to be well founded,                              Communities, represented by Antonio Caeiro, Legal
                                                                   Adviser, and Bernard Mongin, of its Legal Service, acting
Ð set aside the judgment delivered on 26 May 1998 by               as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
    the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) in Case            the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,
    T-177/96 Costacurta v. Commission (1),                         Kirchberg.