You are on page 1of 1

C 135/18 EN Official Journal of the European Union 7.6.

2003

2. Annul the respondent ECB’s formal warning of 28 Febru- Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commission de
ary 2002; Conciliation et d’Expertise Douaniere (France) by decision
of that Court of 18 March 2003 in the case of Customs
against CAFOM and SAMSUNG Electronics France
3. Order the defendant to pay the costs.

(Case C-161/03)

Pleas in law and main arguments


(2003/C 135/26)

The Court of First Instance of the European Communities


failed to recognise that the contested measure is an act
adversely affecting the person concerned against which an
action lies under Article 42(1) of the Conditions of Employ-
ment for staff of the ECB. Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by decision of the Commission de
Conciliation et d’Expertise Douaniere (Customs Arbitration
and Advisory Committee) (France) of 18 March 2003, received
at the Court Registry on 8 April 2003, for a preliminary ruling
Contrary to the findings of the order under appeal the in the case of Customs against CAFOM and SAMSUNG
contested measure is not merely a preparatory act in a multi- Electronics France on the following questions:
stage procedure which may culminate in dismissal. Rather it is
a direct and immediate infringement (a) of the general right to
protection of personality and (b) of the applicant’s right to
protection of data. 1. Is Article 27 of Protocol 4 annexed to the EC/Hungary
Agreement of 13 March 1993 to be interpreted as
meaning that the authorities of the importing State must
(a) First the applicant’s general right to protection of person- apply the preferential arrangement established by that
ality is directly and immediately affected because the ECB Agreement when the authorities of the exporting State,
did not confront the applicant at the appropriate time to whom they have addressed queries concerning specific
with the allegations which formed the subject-matter of facts on which the granting of the arrangement depends,
a reproach. The applicant was thus precluded from merely declare that the products to which the certificates
responding to the allegations and obtaining immediate of origin which they have issued relate fulfil the conditions
clarification in regard to them. Secondly, the reproach is for granting the arrangement?
said to be based on inaccurate factual assertions, thus
constituting a direct and immediate infringement of the
general right to protection of personality.
2. Is a reply furnished by the authorities of the exporting
State after the expiry of the 10-month period referred to
in Article 27(7) of the [Protocol] to be taken into account
(b) In the contested order the Court of First Instance failed to in determining whether the goods in question qualify for
recognise the direct and immediate infringement of the the preferential arrangement?
applicant’s right to data protection. The applicant’s right
to be informed, prior to collection of personal data
concerning him, of the purpose pursued thereby was
infringed by the contested act. 3. May it be inferred from Article 27(2) of the [Protocol]
that, if the request for verification is made by the
authorities of the importing State more than two years
after the disputed operations, the fact that the authorities
of the exporting State are unable to carry out that
In particular, the Court of First Instance failed to recognise that investigation since they have not kept the necessary
that infringement is not remedied even where at the end of the documents must mean that the goods qualify for the
procedure under Article 2.2.5 of the ECB Staff Rules it is preferential arrangement?
decided not to proceed with dismissal.