title: Case C-34/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the House of Lords, by order of that court of 1 February 1999, in the case of Commissioners of Customs and Excise against Primback Ltd

text:
10.4.1999            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 100/9
1. Declares that, by failing to adopt and communicate to            extend to the fields covered by Articles 1 to 5, Article 7,
     the Commission within the prescribed period the laws,          Article 14, Article 16(1) and (3) and Articles 17 to 19.
     regulations and administrative provisions necessary
     to implement Council Directive 91/676/EEC of
     12 December 1991 concerning the protection of                  This view is, it is submitted, wrong in law in that it is:
     waters against pollution caused by nitrates from
     agricultural sources, and in particular by failing to
     comply with the obligation laid down in Article 3(2)           Ð contrary to the Treaty; and
     thereof, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
     obligations under Article 12(1) thereof.
                                                                    Ð inconsistent with the legislative action taken over the
                                                                        years by the Council itself, on proposals from the
2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                        Commission.
(1) OJ C 212, 12.7.1997.
                                                                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the House of Lords,
                                                                    by order of that court of 1 February 1999, in the case of
Action brought on 5 February 1999 by the Commission of              Commissioners of Customs and Excise against Primback
the European Communities against the Council of the                                               Ltd
                       European Union                                                       (Case C-34/99)
                        (Case C-29/99)                                                     (1999/C 100/15)
                       (1999/C 100/14)
                                                                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                    European Communities by an order of the House of Lords
An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                    of 1 February 1999, which was received at the Court
brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                    Registry on 8 February 1999, for a preliminary ruling in
Communities on 5 February 1999 by the Commission of
                                                                    the case of Commissioners of Customs and Excise against
the European Communities, represented by Thomas F.
                                                                    Primback Ltd, on the following questions:
Cusack and Lena Ström, Legal Advisers, acting as agents,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Office of
Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, member of the Legal Service of
the Commission, Centre Wagner.                                      1. Where a retailer offers, at a single price, goods and the
                                                                        option of a period of extendes credit to pay that price
                                                                        Ð the credit to be provided by a person other than the
                                                                        retailer, and at no additional cost to the customer Ð
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             what is the taxable amount for which the retailer must
                                                                        account in respect of the goods supplied, having
                                                                        regard to Articles 11A(1)(a) and 13B(d)(1) of Council
Ð order that the final paragraph of the Declaration by                  Directive 77/388/EEC (1)? In particular, is the taxable
     the European Atomic Energy Community according to                  amount:
     the provisions of Article 30(4)(iii) of the Convention
     on Nuclear Safety attached to the Council's Decision
     of 7 December 1998 be annulled;                                    (a) the full amount payable by the customer;
                                                                        (b) the full amount payable by the customer, less the
Ð order the Council          to  pay   the  costs   of  these               value of the credit;
     proceedings.
                                                                        (c) (if different from (b) above) the amount actually
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support                          received by the retailer; or
                                                                        (d) an amount calculated on some other, and if so
By limiting the terms of the final paragraph of the                         what, basis?
Declaration attached to its Decision of 7 December 1998
in relation to Community competence, the Council seeks
to establish that the competence of the Community in the            2. If the taxable amount is the full amount payable by
fields covered by the Convention on Nuclear Safety is                   the customer, less the value of the credit (see
limited to Article 15 and Article 16(2) and that it does not            question 1(b) above), how is that credit to be valued?
 ---pagebreak--- C 100/10               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     10.4.1999
3. Is the anwer to question 1 above affected by the fact              liability, Giovanni Bertolotto and Compagnia Assicuratrice
     that:                                                            RAS SpA, having its registered office in Milan, on the
                                                                      following questions:
     (a) the supply of goods to the customer is described as
         being on interest free' credit terms;                       (a) Does the decision of the CNF (1), approved by
                                                                           Ministerial Decree No 585/94, fixing binding tariffs
     (b) the customer signs a loan agreement with a                        for the professional activity of lawyers, come within
         finance house at the time of the sale transaction,                the scope of the prohibition in Article 85(1) of the EC
         the terms of which include:                                       Treaty?
         (i)   a promise by the finance house to pay the                   If the answer to (a) is in the affirmative:
               retailer a sum equal to the loan (which was
               for amount equal to the advertised price of
               the goods);                                            (b) Does the case none the less correspond to one of the
                                                                           situations envisaged in Article 85(3) of the Treaty to
         (ii) a statement that the interest rate applying to               which that prohibition does not apply?
               the loan is 0 %'; and
                                                                      (1) Consiglio Nazionale Forense (National Legal Council).
         (iii) an authorisation by the customer to the
               finance house for it to pay the full amount of
               the loan to the retailer and an agreement by
               the finance house to do so; and
     (c) as a result of a separate agreement between the
         retailer and the finance house (the existence and
         terms of which are not disclosed to the customer),           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de
         the sum received by the retailer is a sum less than          PremieÁre Instance, LieÁge (Seventh Chamber), by judgment
         the full amount of the advertised price for the              of that court of 8 February 1999 in the case of IdeÂal
         goods?                                                                   Tourisme SA against the Belgian State
                                                                                (Case C-36/99)
(1) Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the                                        (1999/C 100/17)
    harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to
    turnover taxes Ð Common system of value added tax:
    uniform basis of assessment (OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1).
                                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                      European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal de
                                                                      PremieÁre Instance (Court of First Instance), LieÁge (Seventh
                                                                      Chamber) of 8 February 1999, received at the Court
                                                                      Registry on 10 February 1999, for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                      the case of IdeÂal Tourisme against the Belgian State on the
                                                                      following questions:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura
Circondariale di Pinerolo (TO) by order of 13 January                 Does Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1), and in particular
1999 in the criminal proceedings against Manuele                      Article 12(3) and Article 28(3)(b) thereof, permit Member
Arduino, with the intervention of Diego Dessi, plaintiff in           States to introduce, to the detriment of motor-coach
the civil action, and the parties with civil liability,               passenger transport undertakings, discrimination whixh is
Giovanni Bertolotto and Compagnia Assicuratrice RAS                   counter to the principles of equal treatment and non-
           SpA, having its registered office in Milan                 discrimination contained in Community law?
                         (Case C-35/99)
                                                                      Can a VAT regime which favours a given sector of
                        (1999/C 100/16)                               economic activity, such as the one in issue in the present
                                                                      case, constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 92
                                                                      of the Treaty of Rome, even where it does not exclusively
                                                                      protect the interests of national industry?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 13 January 1999 from
the Pretura Circondariale di Pinerolo (TO) (District                  (1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
Magistrate's Court, Pinerolo (Turin)), which was received                 harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to
                                                                          turnover taxes Ð Common system of value added tax:
at the Court Registry on 9 February 1999, for a
                                                                          uniform basis of assessment (OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1).
preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings against
Manuele Arduino, with the intervention of Diego Dessi,
plaintiff in the civil action, and the parties with civil


title: Action brought on 15 December 1995 by S. Lehrfreund Limited against Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Case T-228/95)

text:
2 . 3 . 96            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 64/ 17
infringements alleged by the Commission were found not to            — order the Council and/or Commission to pay the costs
exist by the Court which annulled in whole or in part the                  incurred by the applicant in making this application .
fines imposed by the Commission . Pursuant to that
judgment, the applicants requested the Commission to
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
reimburse the fines paid by them . By the contested letter of
4 October 1995 signed by the Commissioner for
Competition, the Commission refused on the ground that               The applicant is a small family company which has been
the decision imposing the fines was still standing with regard       carrying on the business of a fur merchant since it was
to the applicants.                                                   established in the United Kingdom in 1963 , the great
                                                                     majority of the applicant's business ( about 80% ) depends
                                                                     on the use of fur pelts originating in and imported from the
The applicants submit that the effect of the Court's                 United States of America and Canada .
annulment of a Community Act is that the Act is void erga
omnes and ex tunc. The institution is thereafter required to
                                                                     Article 3 ( 1 ) of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3254/91 of
consider or reconsider the position of all interested persons
                                                                     4 November 1991 prohibiting the use of leghold traps in the
in the light of the grounds and operative part of the Court's
                                                                     Community and the introduction into the Community of
judgment. The institution is also obliged to effect a restitutio
                                                                     pelts and manufactured goods of certain wild animal species
in integrum. This requires the restoration of the status quo
                                                                     originating in countries which catch them by means of
ante and the restitution of any unjust enrichment arising
                                                                     leghold traps or trapping methods which do not meet
from the invalid Act, and includes a duty to pay interest on
                                                                     international humane trapping standards ( OJ No L 308 ,
any monies held pursuant to the invalid Act.
                                                                     1991 , p. 1 ) purports to prohibit the import into the
                                                                     Community of pelts of certain species ( including musk rat )
In the light of the Court's judgment, Articles 1(1 ) and 1 ( 2 )     originating in certain third countries ( the 'import ban'). The
of the Wood Pulp Decision do not provide a lawful basis for          wording of Article 3(1 ), taken literally, suggests that that
the imposition of fines on any of the addressees referred to in      ban will have effect as from 1 January 1996 , and will apply
Articles 1 ( 1 ) or 1 ( 2 ). Any fines paid in respect of the        to fur pelts from all third countries . The mere prospect of
allegations contained in Articles 1(1 ) and 1 ( 2 ) cannot be        such a ban and the uncertainty of the manner of its
lawfully held by the Commission . The fines must therefore           implementation have already caused serious and continuing
be repaid with interest at a rate which reflects the value to        financial loss to the applicant. As and when the ban takes
the Commission of possession over a period of 10 years of            effect ( whether on 1 January 1996 or later ), the ban will
the fines paid by the Swedish addressees . Only thus can the         cause even more severe financial loss, of a nature and extent
status quo ante be restored.                                         that is likely to be such as effectively to destroy the
                                                                     applicant's business .
                                                                     The applicant submits that such losses are and will be the
                                                                     result of unlawful conduct on the part of the Council and/or
                                                                     Commission :
                                                                     ( a ) the Commission has acted unlawfully in adopting and
Action brought on 15 December 1995 by S. Lehrfreund                          implementing the import ban under Regulation ( EEC )
Limited against Council of the European Union and                            No 3254/91 in that:
          Commission of the European Communities
                        Case T-228/95 )                                          ( i ) the Council lacked competence under the EC
                            96/C 64/35 )                                               Treaty to adopt the import ban in Regulation
                                                                                ( EEC ) No 3254/91 ;
                (Language of the case: English)                                ( ii ) the import ban in Regulation ( EEC ) No 3254/91
                                                                                is contrary to the principle of proportionality;
 An action against the Council of the European Union and
 the Commission of the European Communities was brought                      ( iii ) the import ban in Regulation ( EEC ) No 3254/91
 before the Court of First Instance of the European                                    was at the time of its adoption in breach of the
 Communities on 15 December 1995 by S. Lehrfreund                                      GATT and is now in breach of the WTO
 Limited, represented by Nicholas Forwood QC and Mark                                  Agreement.
 Hoskins, Barrister, with an address for service in
 Luxembourg at the Chambers of Thill & Pauly, 1 1 Avenue              ( b ) the Commission has unlawfully failed to adopt the
 de la Gare, L-1611 .                                                        measures necessary to implement Regulation ( EEC )
                                                                             No 3254/91 , which would have identified third
                                                                             countries from which fur pelts could be imported and
 The applicant claims that the Court should :                                the necessary procedures for certifying the origin of
                                                                             such pelts;
 — order that the Council and/or Commission is liable in
      damages to the applicant under Articles 178 and 215 of          ( c ) the acts and omissions of the Commission and/or
      the EC Treaty, the quantum of such damages to be                        Council having created a situation of legal uncertainty
      assessed, and                                                          as to the scope and effective date of the import ban,
 ---pagebreak--- No C 64/ 18              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                       2 . 3 . 96
        those institutions have unlawfully failed to take              years from the entry into force of Regulation ( EC )
        appropriate and timely steps to eradicate such                 No 2380/95 is invalid . In its submission, the second
        uncertainty .                                                  paragraph of Article 3 of Regulation ( EC ) No 2380/95 is
                                                                       invalid on the following grounds :
The loss which the applicant has suffered and will suffer falls
into two categories :
                                                                       ( a ) infringement of Article 15 ( 1 ) of Regulation ( EEC )
( a ) 'current loss' — the loss of turnover and profit that is               No 2423/88 : under this provision, anti-dumping duties
        already being sustained as a result of a current fall in             are to remain valid not only for five years from their
        demand for fur pelts and related products, in the                    entry into force, but for five years from the date on
        expectation that such pelts will or may not be able to be            which they were last modified or confirmed . That is a
        imported after 1 January 1996 ;                                      mandatory provision from which the Council may not
                                                                             derogate, and indeed has not derogated in its practice to
( b ) 'future loss' — the future losses of turnover and profit               date. The Regulation does not state any reason why
        that will be suffered as and when any import ban takes               there should be a derogation in favour of plain paper
        effect .                                                             photocopiers with a speed of more than 75 copies per
                                                                             minute ( Article 190 , EC Treaty );
                                                                       ( b ) in the alternative, manifest error of assessment in the
                                                                             shortening of the five-year period to two years : the
Action brought on 19 December 1995 by the Committee of                       restriction of the validity of Regulation ( EC )
European Copier Manufacturers ( Cecom ) against the                          No 2380/95 to two years clearly contradicts the factual
                  Council of the European Union
                                                                             findings by the Community institutions in the
                                                                             investigation proceedings . Significant dumping was
                          ( Case T-232/95 )                                  established, as was significant injury to the Community
                             ( 96/C 64/36 )                                  industry and the existence of a Community interest in
                                                                             continuing anti-dumping protection . Five years of
                  (Language of the case: German)                             anti-dumping measures are necessary in order to
                                                                             counteract the harmful dumping. Regulation ( EC )
                                                                             No 2380/95 does not state why in the case of plain
An action against the Council of the European Union was                      paper photocopiers with a speed of over 75 copies per
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European                   minute, which are protected against harmful dumping
Communities on 19 December 1995 by the Committee of                          for the first time by that Regulation, the protection is to
European Copier Manufacturers ( Cecom ) of Cologne,                          last only two years ( Article 190 , EC Treaty );
represented by Dietrich Ehle and Volker Schiller
( Rechtsanwalte ) of Cologne, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Lucius                              ( c ) disregard of the structure of the basic anti-dumping
( Rechtsanwalt), 6 Rue Michel Welter .                                       Regulation, especially the balance of rights and duties
                                                                             between the Community industry which has been
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                 injured and the dumping exporters and participating
                                                                             importers : when harmful dumping is established , the
— annul the second paragraph of Article 3 of Regulation                      rules require the Community industry to be protected
      ( EC ) No 2380/95 of 2 October 1995 ( OJ No L 244 ,                    for five years . That is balanced by Article 11 ( 3 ) of
      1995 , p. 1 ) imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on               Regulation ( EC ) No 3283/94 , which gives exporters
      imports of plain paper photocopiers originating in Japan               and importers the possibility of requesting a review,
      in so far as it provides that the Regulation is to expire              and by Article 11 ( 8 ) of the same Regulation, whereby
      two years after its entry into force,                                  importers may request a refund of anti-dumping duties
                                                                             in certain circumstances;
— in the event of the claim being successful, and in so far as
      may be necessary, order that the anti-dumping duties
      introduced by Article 1 of Regulation ( EC ) No 2380/95          ( d ) the Community industry is prevented from effectively
      are to remain in force, even after the expiry of the                   defending and asserting its rights : if the validity of
      two-year period, until the relevant institutions have                  anti-dumping measures is limited to two years from
      taken the measures required by the judgment of the                     their entry into force, the injured Community industry
      Court,                                                                 is clearly hindered from making appropriate
                                                                             and successful use of its rights under Article 12
— order the Chamber to pay the costs of these                                 ( effects of anti-dumping duties ) and Article 13
      proceedings.                                                            ( anti-circumvention ) of Regulation ( EC ) No
                                                                              3283/94 .
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant maintains that the provision whereby the
 anti-dumping duties on photocopiers are to expire after two


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 24 October 2001 in Case T-352/00: Andrew M. Rosemarine v Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Temporary staff — Recruitment — Age limit — Rejection of application — Action for damages — Inadmissibility — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
C 31/10                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          2.2.2002
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Council of
                                                                         the European Union (Agents: S. Marquardt and G. Berrisch) —
                     of 19 September 2001                                application for the annulment of Council Regulation (EC)
                                                                         No 978/2000 of 8 May 2000 imposing a definitive
                                                                         countervailing duty on imports of synthetic fibres of polyester
in Case T-226/00: Nan Ya Plastics Corporation v Council
                                                                         originating in Australia, Indonesia and Taiwan and collecting
                    of the European Union (1)
                                                                         definitively the provisional duty imposed (OJ 2000 L 113,
                                                                         p. 1) — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended
(Action for annulment — Retrospective amendment of the                   Composition), composed of P. Lindh, President, R. Garcı́a-
      contested act — Case not proceeding to judgment)                   Valdecasas, J.D. Cooke, M. Vilaras and N.J. Forwood, Judges;
                                                                         H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 19 September 2001, the
                          (2002/C 31/19)                                 operative part of which is as follows:
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                         1.    There is no need to adjudicate on the application.
In Case T-226/00: Nan Ya Plastics Corporation, established in            2.    There is no need to give a decision on the application for leave
Taiwan (Republic of China), represented by P. De Baere, lawyer,                to intervene submitted by the Commission.
with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Council of
the European Union (Agents: S. Marquardt and G. Berrisch) —              3.    The defendant shall pay the costs.
application for the annulment of Council Regulation (EC)
No 978/2000 of 8 May 2000 imposing a definitive
countervailing duty on imports of synthetic fibres of polyester          (1) OJ C 316, 4.11.2000.
originating in Australia, Indonesia and Taiwan and collecting
definitively the provisional duty imposed (OJ 2000 L 113,
p. 1) — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended
Composition), composed of P. Lindh, President, R. Garcı́a-
Valdecasas, J.D. Cooke, M. Vilaras and N.J. Forwood, Judges;
H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 19 September 2001, the
operative part of which is as follows:
1.   There is no need to adjudicate on the application.
                                                                               ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
2.   There is no need to give a decision on the application for leave
     to intervene submitted by the Commission.
                                                                                of 24 October 2001
3.   The defendant shall pay the costs.
                                                                         in Case T-352/00: Andrew M. Rosemarine v Office for
(1) OJ C 316, 4.11.2000.                                                 Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                                                                                Designs) (OHIM) (1)
                                                                         (Temporary staff — Recruitment — Age limit — Rejection
                                                                         of application — Action for damages — Inadmissibility —
                                                                                Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                     of 19 September 2001                                                          (2002/C 31/21)
in Case T-227/00: Far Eastern Textiles Ltd v Council of                                      (Language of the case: English)
                     the European Union (1)
(Action for annulment — Retrospective amendment of the
      contested act — Case not proceeding to judgment)
                                                                         In Case T-352/00: Andrew M. Rosemarine, residing in Salford
                          (2002/C 31/20)                                 (United Kingdom), represented initially by J. Davies and
                                                                         subsequently by S. Whale, lawyers, against Office for Harmon-
                                                                         ization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                         (OHIM) (Agents: O. Montalto and F. Casertano) — application
                                                                         for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the
                                                                         applicant by reason of the rejection of his application for a
In Case T-227/00: Far Eastern Textiles Ltd, established in               post of English-language lawyer-linguist — the Court of First
Taiwan (Republic of China), represented by P. De Baere, lawyer,          Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras, President,
 ---pagebreak--- 2.2.2002                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 31/11
V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an                   ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
order on 24 October 2001, the operative part of which is as
follows:                                                                                of 19 October 2001
1.    The application is dismissed.                                       in Case T-121/01: Laurent Piau v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
2.    The parties shall bear their own costs.
                                                                          (Action for failure to act — Communication under Article 6
                                                                          of Regulation No 2542/98 — Taking of position bringing
                                                                                infringement to an end — No need to adjudicate)
(1) OJ C 61, 24.2.2001.
                                                                                (2002/C 31/23)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          In Case T-121/01: Laurent Piau, residing in France, represented
                                                                          by M. Fauconnet, lawyer, with an address for service in
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties (Agent: E. Gippini Fournier) — application for a declaration
                     of 19 September 2001                                 that the Commission refrained, contrary to the Treaty, from
                                                                          ruling on a complaint concerning alleged infringements of
                                                                          Article 81 EC — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber),
in Case T-83/01: Merck KGaA v Office for Harmonisation                    composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, N.J. Forwood and
in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)                          H. Legal, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
                              (OHIM) (1)                                  19 October 2001, the operative part of which is as follows:
(Community trade mark — Irregularity of the application                   1.    There is no need to adjudicate on the action.
                         — Inadmissibility)
                                                                          2.    The parties shall bear their own costs.
                          (2002/C 31/22)
                                                                          (1) OJ C 227, 11.8.2001.
                   (Language of the case: English)
In Case T-83/01: Merck KGaA, having its registered office in
Darmstadt, Germany, against Office for Harmonisation in the               ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) — action                                              INSTANCE
brought against Decision R 299/2000-3 of the Third Board of
Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) of 31 January 2001 concerning the                                     of 21 September 2001
registration of the term ‘OSTEOCALCIUM’ as a Community
trade mark — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),                in Case T-138/01 R: F v Court of Auditors of the European
composed of A. W. H. Meij, President, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung,                                      Communities
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 19 September
2001, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                          (Application for interim measures — Officials — Decision
                                                                                to reassign — Urgency — Balance of interests)
1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
                                                                                (2002/C 31/24)
2.    The applicant shall bear its own costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(1) OJ C 173 of 16.6.01.
                                                                          In Case T-138/01 R: F, residing in Luxembourg, represented by
                                                                          P. Goergen, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
                                                                          against Court of Auditors of the European Communities


title: Case T-443/10 P: Appeal brought on 20 September 2010 by Stefano Sotgia against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 8 July 2010 in Case F-130/06, Sotgia v Commission

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/36

         Appeal brought on 20 September 2010 by Stefano Sotgia against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 8 July 2010 in Case F-130/06, Sotgia v Commission
   (Case T-443/10 P)
   ()
   2010/C 328/62
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Stefano Sotgia (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by M. Velardo, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Forms of order sought by the appellant

               —

               Annulment of the judgment in Case F-130/06 Sotgia v Commission;

               —

               Annulment of the decision of 11 April 2006 in so far as it classifies the applicant as a probationary official in grade A*6, step 2, as from 16 April 2006;

               —

               In the alternative, reference of the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal for judgment;

               —

               Costs against the Commission, including those of the procedure at first instance.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments raised by the appellant are essentially identical or similar to those raised in Case T-441/10 P Kurrer v Commission.


title: Case T-467/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 1 July 2009 — Du Pont de Nemours (France) and Others v Commission

text:
               29.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/47

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 1 July 2009 — Du Pont de Nemours (France) and Others v Commission
   (Case T-467/07) (1)

   2009/C 205/86

      Language of the case: English

   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 51, 23.2.2008.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 March 2000 in Case T-10/99: Miguel Vicente Nuñez v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Promotion — Examination of comparative merits — List of officials considered to be most deserving of promotion — List of officials promoted — Staff report — Absence of statement of reasons)

text:
C 122/32                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        29.4.2000
technical measures for the conservation of fishery resources                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
(OJ 1997 L 171, p. 1) — the Court of First Instance (First
Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of: B. Vesterdorf,                                         of 22 February 2000
President, K. Lenaerts, A. Potocki, A.W.H. Meij and M. Vilaras,
Judges: H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 February             in Case T-171/98: Maria Adelina Biasutto v Council of the
2000, in which it:                                                                                European Union (1)
1. Dismisses the application as inadmissible.                               (Officials — Sick leave — Irregular absence — Article 59
                                                                            of the Staff Regulations — Procedure to be followed in the
2. Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and to pay the costs                   event of absence on account of sickness)
      incurred by the Council.
                                                                                (2000/C 122/45)
3. Orders the interveners to bear their own costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(1) OJ C 340 of 7.11.98.
                                                                            In Case T-171/98: Maria Adelina Biasutto, an official of
                                                                            the Council of the European Union, residing in Brussels,
                                                                            represented by J.-N. Louis, of the Brussels Bar, with an address
                                                                            for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
                                                                            SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange, v Council of the European Union
                                                                            (Agents: P. Borges and M. Bauer) — application for annulment
                                                                            of the Council’s decision of 20 February 1998 refusing regis-
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                            tration of the applicant’s medical certificate and declaring her
                                                                            absence during the period from 9 to 22 February 1998
                        of 23 February 2000                                 inclusive to be irregular — the Court of First Instance (Fifth
                                                                            Chamber), composed of: R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas, President, and
in Case T-164/98: Giuseppe Carraro v Commission of the                      P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges; G. Herzig, Administrator, for
                     European Communities (1)                               the Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 February 2000, in
                                                                            which it:
(Officials — Staff report — Action for annulment — Action                   1. Annuls the Council’s decision of 20 February 1998 declaring
                            for damages)                                         the applicant’s absence during the period from 9 to 22 February
                                                                                1998 inclusive to be irregular;
                          (2000/C 122/44)
                                                                            2. Orders the Council to pay the costs.
                     (Language of the case: Italian)                        (1) OJ C 397 of 19.12.1998.
In Case T-164/98: Giuseppe Carraro, an official of the Com-
mission of the European Communities, assigned to the Joint
Research Centre, Ispra, and residing at Ispra (Italy), represented
by G. Marchesini, advocate with a right of audience before the
Italian Corte Suprema di Cassazione, with an address for                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of E. Arendt, 8-10 Rue
Mathias Hardt, v Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                of 9 March 2000
(Agent: G. Valsesia) — application, first, for annulment of the
decision definitively adopting the applicant’s staff report for
the period from 1 July 1993 to 30 June 1995 and, second, for                in Case T-10/99: Miguel Vicente Nuñez v Commission of
compensation for the non-material damage alleged — the                                       the European Communities (1)
Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of:
A. Potocki, President, and J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges;              (Officials — Promotion — Examination of comparative
J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given           merits — List of officials considered to be most deserving of
a judgment on 23 February 2000, in which it:                                promotion — List of officials promoted — Staff report —
                                                                                Absence of statement of reasons)
1. Dismisses the action;
                                                                                (2000/C 122/46)
2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
( 1) OJ C 378 of 5.12.1998.
                                                                            In Case T-10/99: Miguel Vicente Nuñez, an official of the
                                                                            Commission of the European Communities, residing at Kraai-
                                                                            nem (Belgium), represented by M.A. Lucas, of the Liège Bar,
 ---pagebreak--- 29.4.2000                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 122/33
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of                O. Montaldo, E. Joly and S. Laitinen) — application for annul-
Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange, v Commission                    ment of the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office
of the European Communities (Agents: C. Berardis-Kayser and                for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
D. Waelbroeck) — application for annulment of the list of                  Designs) of 15 March 1999 (Case R 74/1998-3) relating to
officials promoted to grade A 5 and of the list of officials               Community trade mark application No 230680 concerning a
considered to be the most deserving of promotion to that                   representation of soap — the Court of First Instance (Second
grade in the context of the 1998 promotions procedure, in                  Chamber), composed of: J. Pirrung, President, A. Potocki and
that those lists do not include the name of the applicant, and             A.W.H. Meij, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for
for annulment of the implicit decision rejecting the applicant’s           the Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 February 2000, in
complaint, together with damages — the Court of First                      which it:
Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts, President,
and J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; G. Herzig, Administrator,              1. Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 February 2000, in                  for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
which it:                                                                       Designs) of 15 March 1999 (Case R 74/1998-3);
1. Annuls the Commission’s decision, confirmed by the implicit             2. Orders the Office to bear its own costs and to pay those of the
     decision rejecting the complaint, not to include the applicant’s           applicant.
     name in the list of officials promoted to grade A 5 in the
     context of the 1998 promotions procedure, as published in the
     Administrative Notices of 6 April 1998;                               (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
2. Dismisses the remainder of the application;
3. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 121 of 1.5.1999.
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 9 February 2000
                                                                           in Case T-111/97: Gregorio Valero Jordana and Serge
                                                                              Vadé v Commission of the European Communities (1)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                           (Officials — Request for reclassification in grade — Objec-
                                                                           tion of inadmissibility — Material new fact — Admissibility)
                        of 16 February 2000
                                                                                (2000/C 122/48)
in Case T-122/99: The Procter & Gamble Company v
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
                       Marks and Designs) (1)                                                  (Language of the case: Spanish)
(Community trade mark — Soap bar shape — Formal                            In Case T-111/97: Gregorio Valero Jordana and Serge Vadé,
irregularity in an application for registration — Absolute                 officials of the Commission of the European Communities,
grounds for refusal to register — Review by the Board of                   represented by Carlos Amo Quiñones, of the Madrid Bar, with
Appeal of it own motion — Observance of the rights of the                  an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
defence — Sign consisting exclusively of a shape which                     Emilio de la Guardia, 46 Rue Tony Neumann, v Commission
results from the nature of the goods themselves — Earlier                  of the European Communities (Agent: Julian Currall) —
       registration of the mark in some Member States)                     application for annulment of the Commission’s decisions of
                                                                           27 December 1996 rejecting the applicants’ complaints dated
                          (2000/C 122/47)                                  13 and 17 September 1996 by which they sought a review of
                                                                           their initial classification with a view to obtaining classification
                                                                           in grade A 6 with effect from the date of their recruitment,
                                                                           and of the Commission’s decisions of 1 March 1990 and
                     (Language of the case: French)                        2 June 1992 inasmuch as those decisions fix the applicants’
                                                                           classification in grade A 7 — the Court of First Instance
In Case T-122/99: The Procter & Gamble Company, a company                  (First Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, and
established in Cincinnatti, Ohio, United States of America,                M. Vilaras and N. Forwood, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made
represented by T. van Innis, of the Brussels Bar, with an address          an order on 9 February 2000, the operative part of which is as
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of K. Manhaeve,                  follows:
56-58 Rue Charles Martel, against Office for Harmonisation
in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs (Agents:                   1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible;


title: Case C-422/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 33 de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 12 September 2014  — Christian Pujante Rivera v Gestora Clubs Dir, S.L., Fondo de Garantía Salarial

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/20

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 33 de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 12 September 2014 — Christian Pujante Rivera v Gestora Clubs Dir, S.L., Fondo de Garantía Salarial
   (Case C-422/14)
   2014/C 421/29
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de lo Social No 33 de Barcelona

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Christian Pujante Rivera

      Defendants: Gestora Clubs Dir, S.L., Fondo de Garantía Salarial

      Questions referred

               1.

               If temporary workers, whose contracts have been terminated on the lawful ground that those contracts are temporary, are to be regarded as falling outside the scope and protection of Directive 98/59 (1) on collective redundancies, by virtue of Article 1(2)(a) thereof (judgment on the request for a preliminary ruling in Case C-392/13 pending), would it be consistent with the purpose of the Directive if — conversely — such workers were taken into account for the purposes of determining the number of workers ‘normally’ employed at an establishment (or, in Spain, an undertaking) in order to calculate the numerical threshold for collective redundancies (10 % or 30 workers) laid down in Article 1(a)(i) of the Directive?

               2.

               The requirement under the second subparagraph of Article 1(1)(b) of Directive 98/59 that ‘terminations’ be ‘assimilated’ to ‘redundancies’ is made subject to the condition ‘that there [be] at least five redundancies’. Must that condition be interpreted as relating to the ‘redundancies’ previously effected or brought about by the employer, as provided for in Article 1(1)(a) of the Directive, and not to the minimum number of ‘assimilable terminations’ that must exist in order for such assimilation to take place?

               3.

               Does the concept of ‘terminations of an employment contract which occur on the employer’s initiative for one or more reasons not related to the individual workers concerned’, as referred to in the last subparagraph of Article 1(1) of Directive 98/59, cover the termination of a contract between the employer and the worker which, although initiated by the worker, comes about in response to a previous change in working conditions that was initiated by the employer on account of the critical difficulties being experienced by the undertaking and for which compensation is ultimately to be awarded in an amount equivalent to that payable for unfair dismissal?

      (1)  Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies (OJ 1998 L 225, p. 16).


title: Case T-217/09: Action brought on 3 June 2009 — Mitteldeutsche Flughafen and Flughafen Dresden v Commission

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/58

         Action brought on 3 June 2009 — Mitteldeutsche Flughafen and Flughafen Dresden v Commission
   (Case T-217/09)
   2009/C 180/108
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Mitteldeutsche Flughafen AG (Leipzig, Germany) and Flughafen Dresden GmbH (Dresden, Germany) (represented by: M. Núñez-Müller und M. le Bell, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Article 1 of Commission Decision C (2009) 2010 final of 24 March 2009 pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 231 EC in so far as the Commission deemed the financing of the reconstruction and extension of the runway at Dresden airport to be State aid;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicants object to Commission Decision C (2009) 2010 final of 24 March 2009 (NN 4/2009, ex N 361/2008) — Germany, Dresden Airport, by which the Commission approved Germany’s own proposed capital contribution for the reconstruction and extension of the runway at Dresden airport as being a measure compatible with the common market under Article 87(3)(c) EC. They seek the annulment of the decision in so far as the Commission categorised the measure at issue as State aid.
   In support of their application, the applicants submit, first, that the Commission acted contrary to the division of powers and the principle that the Community can only act within the powers conferred on it enshrined in Article 5 EC, as it is not responsible for reviewing the measure at issue, according to the division of powers of the EC. Planning powers and responsibility for infrastructure in respect of airport capacity fall within the original competences of the Member States of the European Union.
   By their second plea, the applicants allege infringement of Article 87 EC. They submit that, in the 1994 guidelines, (1) the Commission explicitly ruled out the application of the Treaty rules on State aid to measures relating to airport infrastructure. Those guidelines, the applicants submit, continue to be applicable, because they are not contrary to primary Community law as interpreted by the Community judicature, nor have they been effectively repealed by the Commission. In particular, the 1994 guidelines have not been repealed by the 2005 guidelines. (2) In the alternative, the applicants submit that the 2005 guidelines are not applicable.
   Furthermore, Flughafen Dresden GmbH should not be categorised as an undertaking within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC so far as the measure at issue is concerned, but should be regarded as a public authority. Moreover, there is no benefit, for the purposes of the rules on State aid, because the standard applied by the Commission — that of the private investor in a market economy — cannot be applied in relation to airport infrastructure.
   By their third plea, the applicants submit that the decision should be annulled to the extent applied for also on the grounds that the Commission has infringed essential procedural requirements, the prohibition on retroactivity and the protection of legitimate expectations, and that the decision is inherently contradictory.

      (1)  Communication from the Commission — Application of Articles 92 and 93 of the EC Treaty and Article 61 of the EEA Agreement to State aids in the aviation sector, OJ 1994 C 350, p. 5.

      (2)  Communication from the Commission — Community Guidelines on financing of airports and start-up aid to airlines departing from regional airports, OJ 2005 C 312, p. 1.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 October 1999 in Case C-229/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'Appel, Brussels): Georges Vander Zwalmen, Elisabeth Massart v Belgian State (Officials and other servants of the European Communities — Personal income tax — Taxation of the spouse of a Community official)

text:
C 20/4                    EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          22.1.2000
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                   2. Dismisses the action for damages brought by Atlanta AG;
                            (Fifth Chamber)                                3. Upholds Points 2 and 3 of the operative part of the judgment of
                                                                               the Court of First Instance in Case T-521/93 Atlanta AC and
                         of 14 October 1999                                    Others v European Community;
in Case C-104/97 P, Atlanta AG v European Community,                       4. Orders Atlanta AG to pay the costs incurred in the appeal;
represented by (1) Council of the European Union and
      (2) Commission of the European Communities (1)                       5. Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs incurred in the
                                                                               appeal.
(Appeal — Action for damages — Common organisation of
       the markets — Bananas — Import arrangements)
                                                                           (1) OJ C 142 of 10.5.1997.
                             (2000/C 20/06)
                    (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-104/97: — appeal by Atlanta AG, a company                                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
incorporated under German law, established in Bremen, Ger-
many, represented by E.A. Undritz and G. Schohe, Rechtsan-
wälte, Hamburg, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                                        (Sixth Chamber)
the chambers of M. Baden, 34B Rue Philipppe II, against the
judgment delivered on 11 December 1996 by the Fourth
                                                                                of 14 October 1999
Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities in Case T-521/93 Atlanta AG
and Others v European Community [1996] ECR 11-1707,                        in Case C-229/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other parties to              the Cour d’Appel, Brussels): Georges Vander Zwalmen,
the proceedings being: the European Community, represented                               Elisabeth Massart v Belgian State (1)
by (1) the Council of the European Union (Agent: J. Huber)
and (2) the Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
K.-D. Borchardt); Atlanta Handelsgesellschaft Harder & Co.                 (Officials and other servants of the European Communities
GmbH, a company incorporated under German law, estab-                      — Personal income tax — Taxation of the spouse of a
lished in Bremen, Afrikanische Frucht-Companie GmbH, a                                            Community official)
company incorporated under German law, established in
Hamburg (Germany), Cobana Bananeneinkaufsgesellschaft                                                (2000/C 20/07)
mbH & Co. KG, a company incorporated under German
law, established in Hamburg, Edeka Fruchtkontor GmbH, a
company incorporated under German law, established in
Hamburg, Internationale Fruchtimport Gesellschaft Weichert                                     (Language of the case: French)
& Co., a company incorporated under German law, established
in Hamburg, Pacific Fruchtimport GmbH, a company incor-
porated under German law, established at Hamburg, the                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
French Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-Bellinger and G. Mignot)                                   in the European Court Reports)
and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
— the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of J.C. Moitinho de
Almeida (Rapporteur), President of the Sixth Chamber, acting               In Case C-229/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
as President of the Fifth Chamber, L. Sevón, C. Gulmann,                  the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Cour d’Appel,
J.-P. Puissochet and M. Wathelet, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate              Brussels, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,            before that court between Georges Vander Zwalmen, Élisabeth
has given a judgment on 14 October 1999, in which it:                      Massart and Belgian State — on the interpretation of Article 13
                                                                           of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the
1. Sets aside the judgment delivered on 11 December 1996 by the            European Communities of 8 April 1965 — the Court (Sixth
     Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case           Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen, President of the Second
     T-521/93 Atlanta AG and Others v European Community                   Chamber, acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber,
     [1996] ECR II-1707, in so far as that court dismissed the             P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), and G. Hirsch, Judges; D. Ruiz-
     action for damages brought by Atlanta AG without dealing with         Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,
     the allegation that there had been an unlawful delegation of          Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
     legislative power to the Commission;                                  on 14 October 1999, in which it has ruled:
 ---pagebreak--- 22.1.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 20/5
Article 13 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
European Communities of 8 April 1965 does not preclude a Member
State, which grants tax relief to households with a single income and
to those with two incomes, the second of which is less than the                                     (Sixth Chamber)
index-linked sum of BEF 270 000, from refusing that benefit to
households in which one spouse is an official or other servant of the
European Communities where his salary exceeds that amount.                                        of 21 October 1999
(1) OJ C 258 of 15.8.1998.                                                 in Case C-333/97 (request for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                           the Arbeitsgericht Gelsenkirchen): Susanne Lewen v
                                                                                Lothar Denda (1)
                                                                           (Equal pay for male and female workers — Entitlement to a
                                                                             Christmas bonus — Parental leave and maternity leave)
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (2000/C 20/09)
                         (Sixth Chamber)
                       of 21 October 1999                                                     (Language of the case: German)
in Case C-44/97: Federal Republic of Germany v Com-
          mission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Clearance of accounts — EAGGF — Disallowance of                                              in the European Court Reports)
                expenditure — 1992 and 1993)
                                                                           In Case C-333/97: Reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                          (2000/C 20/08)                                   the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Arbeitsgericht
                                                                           Gelsenkirchen (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                           proceedings pending before that court between Susanne Lewen
                   (Language of the case: German)                          and Lothar Denda — on the interpretation of Article 119 of
                                                                           the EC Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have been
                                                                           replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC), of Article 11(2)(b) of
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the
                   in the European Court Reports)                          introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the
                                                                           safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers
In Case C-44/97: Federal Republic of Germany (Agents:                      who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (tenth
E. Röder and B. Kloke) v Commission of the European Com-                   individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of
munities (Agent: K.-D. Borchardt) — application for the partial            Directive 89/391/EEC) (OJ 1989 L 348, p. 1) and of Clause
annulment of Commission Decision 96/701/EC of 20 No-                       2(6) of the Annex to Council Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June
vember 1996, amending Decision 96/311/EC on the clearance                  1996 on the framework agreement on parental leave con-
of the accounts presented by the Member States in respect of               cluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC (OJ 1996 L 145, p. 4)
the expenditure for 1992 of the Guarantee Section of the                   — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn
European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF)                  (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch and
and in respect of certain expenditure for 1993 (OJ 1996                    R. Schintgen, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate Gen-
L 323, p. 26), inasmuch as it refused to charge to the EAGGF               eral; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
the sum of DEM 19 591 000 — the Court (Sixth Chamber),                     given a judgment on 21 October 1999, in which it held that:
composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), acting as President
of the Sixth Chamber, G. Hirsch and H. Ragnemalm, Judges;                  1. A Christmas bonus of the kind at issue in the main proceedings
J. Mischo, Advocate General; D. Louterman, Principal Adminis-                  constitutes pay within the meaning of Article 119 of the EC
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 October                  Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have been replaced
1999, in which it:                                                             by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC), even if it is paid voluntarily by
                                                                               the employer and even if it is paid mainly or exclusively as an
1. Dismisses the action.                                                       incentive for future work or loyalty to the undertaking or both.
                                                                               However, it does not fall within the concept of payment within
2. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.                    the meaning of Article 11(2)(b) of Council Directive 92/85/EEC
                                                                               of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to
(1) OJ C 108 of 5.4.1997.                                                      encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of
                                                                               pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or
                                                                               are breastfeeding (tenth individual Directive within the meaning
                                                                               of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC).


title: Case F-30/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 15 January 2015  — Speyart v European Commission

text:
               9.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 81/30

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 15 January 2015 — Speyart v European Commission
   (Case F-30/14) (1)

   (2015/C 081/39)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 175, 10/6/14, p. 56.


title: Case T-260/00, T-261/00, T-262/00 e T-263/00: Action brought on 16 September 2000 by Cooperativa San Marco fra lavoratori della piccola pesca — Burano s.c.r.l. and Others against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 355/28               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   9.12.2000
Action brought on 16 September 2000 by Hotel Cipriani                     va San Marco fra lavoratori della piccola pesca — Burano
    against Commission of the European Communities                        s.c.r.l. and Others, represented by Alessio Vianello, of the
                                                                          Venice Bar.
                         (Case T-254/00)
                                                                          The applicants claim that the Court should:
                         (2000/C 355/61)
                                                                          —      annul Commission Decision 2000/394/EEC;
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                        —      order the Commission to pay the costs.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                Pleas in law and main arguments
European Communities on 16 September 2000 by Hotel
Cipriani, represented by Marina Marinoni, of the Venice Bar,              The pleas in law and main arguments are those relied upon in
and Gian Michele Roberti and Francesco Sciaudone, of the                  Cases T-234/00 Fondazione Opera S. Maria della Carità v
Naples Bar.                                                               Commission and T-235/00 Codess Sociale and Others (1).
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          (1) Not yet published.
—     annul Commission Decision 2000/394/EC;
—     in the alternative, annul Article 5 of that decision;
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Action brought on 14 September 2000 by Compagnia
                                                                          Generale delle Acque against Commission of the Euro-
                                                                                pean Communities
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put
forward in Case T-234/00 Fondazione Opera S. Maria della
Carità v Commission and in Case T-235/00 Codess Sociale                                           (Case T-264/00)
and Others v Commission (1).
                                                                                (2000/C 355/63)
The applicant alleges infringement of Article 87(1) and 3(c)
and (d) of the Treaty, and breach of the principles of
proportionality and equal treatment in the decision to recover                               (Language of the case: Italian)
the aid in question.
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
(1) Not yet published.                                                    ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 14 September 2000 by Compagnia
                                                                          Generale delle Acque, represented by Alfredo Biagini, Andrea
                                                                          Bortoluzzi and Paolo Pettinelli, of the Venice Bar.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
Action brought on 16 September 2000 by Cooperativa                        —      annul Commission Decision 2000/394/EEC;
San Marco fra lavoratori della piccola pesca — Burano
s.c.r.l. and Others against Commission of the European                    —      order the Commission to pay the costs.
                           Communities
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
       (Case T-260/00, T-261/00, T-262/00 e T-263/00)
                         (2000/C 355/62)                                  The pleas in law and main arguments are those relied upon in
                                                                          Cases T-234/00 Fondazione Opera S. Maria della Carità v
                                                                          Commission and T-235/00 Codess Sociale and Others (1).
                   (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                          (1) Not yet published.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 16 September 2000 by Cooperati-


title: Case C-195/99 P: Appeal brought on 25 May 1999 by Krupp Hoesch Stahl AG against the judgment delivered on 11 March 1999 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) in Case T-147/94 Krupp Hoesch Stahl AG v Commission of the European Communities

text:
16.10.1999               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 299/5
     In its examination of the pricing agreements in the light of        Pleas in law and main arguments
     Article 65(1) of the ECSC Treaty, the Court also failed
     entirely to take account of the special features of ‘normal
     competition’ within the meaning of Article 65(1) of the             The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those in
     ECSC Treaty. In this it accepted that DG III could modify           Case C-194/99 P, with the exception of those set out in the
     ‘normal competition’ and, in particular, that it had con-           first indent in the notice relating to that case.
     ceded to undertakings, within the context of cooperation
     with DG III, scope for discussions on price forecasts. Had
                                                                         (*) See case C-199/99 P, OJ C 204, 17.7.1999, p. 32.
     it acted correctly, the Court ought to have examined
     whether the practices in question came within that scope,
     since, if that were so, there would be no anti-competitive
     conduct within the meaning of Article 65(1) of the ECSC
     Treaty.
— Error in law in the quantification of the fine.
— Infringement of Article 6 of the European Convention on
     Human Rights by reason of the unduly lengthy duration               Appeal brought on 25 May 1999 by Siderúrgica Aristrain
     of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance.              Madrid S.L. against the judgment delivered on 11 March
                                                                         1999 by the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                         Communities (Second Chamber, Extended Composition)
(*) See case C-199/99 P, OJ C 204, 17.7.1999, p. 32.
                                                                         in Case T-156/94 Siderúrgica Aristrain Madrid S.L. v
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case C-196/99 P) (*)
Appeal brought on 25 May 1999 by Krupp Hoesch Stahl                                                 (1999/C 299/06)
AG against the judgment delivered on 11 March 1999 by
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
(Second Chamber, Extended Composition) in Case                           An appeal has been brought before the Court of Justice of the
T-147/94 Krupp Hoesch Stahl AG v Commission of the                       European Communities on 25 May 1999 by Siderúrgica
                     European Communities                                Aristrain Madrid S.L., represented by Antonio Creus, of the
                                                                         Barcelona Bar, and Natalia Lacalle Mangas, of the Madrid Bar,
                        (Case C-195/99 P) (*)                            with an address for service at the Cuatrecasas Law Chambers,
                                                                         78 Avenue d’Auderghem, B-1040 Brussels, against the judg-
                          (1999/C 299/05)                                ment delivered on 11 March 1999 by the Court of First
                                                                         Instance of the European Communities (Second Chamber,
An appeal has been brought before the Court of Justice of the            Extended Composition) in Case T-156/94 Siderúrgica Aristrain
European Communities on 25 May 1999 by Krupp Hoesch                      Madrid S.L. v Commission of the European Communities.
Stahl AG, represented by Frank Montag, of Freshfields Dering-
er, Bastion Tower, 5 Place du Champs de Mars, B-1050                     The appellant claims that the Court should:
Brussels, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand Rue, against the judgment
delivered on 11 March 1999 by the Court of First Instance                I.   Annul the judgment delivered on 11 March 1999 by the
of the European Communities (Second Chamber, Extended                         Court of First Instance in Case T-156/94 (1) on the ground
Composition) in Case T-147/94 Krupp Hoesch Stahl AG v                         of all or some of the defects indicated, and draw from
Commission of the European Communities.                                       the annulment of that judgment all legal consequences,
                                                                              whether the Court rules expressly on the substance or
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                   refers the case back to the Court of First Instance, and, in
                                                                              particular:
1. Set aside the judgment delivered on 11 March 1999 by the
     Court of First Instance of the European Communities                      1. Annul the contested judgment in so far as it finds that
     (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) in Case                               the decision does not infringe Community law by
     T-147/94 in so far as that judgment fixes the fine imposed                   reason of misapplication and misinterpretation of
     on the appellant at EUR 9 000 (paragraph (1) of the                          Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty and, accordingly, annul
     operative part), dismisses the appellant’s action (paragraph                 the decision on that ground;
     (2) of the operative part), and orders the appellant to bear
     its own costs and to pay half of the Commission’s costs                  2. Rule on the substance, in so far as it is ready for
     (paragraph (3) of the operative part);                                       judgment, or, if not, refer the case back to the Court of
                                                                                First Instance in order that it may rule on the grounds
2. Annul Articles 1, 3 and 4 of Commission Decision                               set out below, and accordingly annul the decision in
     C(94)321 final of 16 February 1994 relating to a proceed-                    so far as it relates to these grounds or, in the alternative,
     ing pursuant to Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty concerning                     reduce the fine imposed on the appellant:
     agreements and concerted practices engaged in by Euro-
     pean producers of beams;
                                                                                — joint responsibility,
3. Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings
     at first instance and those of the present appeal.                           — failure to state reasons,


title: Case T-246/99: Action brought on 19 October 1999 by Tirrenia di Navigazione SpA and Others against Commission of the European Communities

text:
22.1.2000             EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 20/25
— the contested decision threatens now, at a distance of                  Action brought on 19 October 1999 by Tirrenia di
    years, to undermine the balance achieved and to recreate              Navigazione SpA and Others against Commission of the
    the dangers previously pre-empted by the action taken by                                  European Communities
    the Italian authorities.
                                                                                (Case T-246/99)
                                                                                (2000/C 20/51)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
Action brought on 18 October 1999 by Sadam Casti-                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
glionese Spa against the Commission of the European                       ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on
                          Communities                                     19 October 1999 by Tirrenia di Navigazione SpA and Others,
                                                                          represented by Antonio Tizzano and Gian Michele Roberti, of
                                                                          the Naples Bar, and of 36 Place du Grand Sablon, Brussels.
                        (Case T-245/99)
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:
                         (2000/C 20/50)
                                                                          — annul the Commission decision of 6 August 1999;
                   (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                          — order the Commission to pay the costs.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 18 October 1999 by Sadam Casti-                   Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
glionese Spa, represented by Antonio Tizzano and Gian
Michele Roberti, of the Naples Bar, and Alberto Maffei Alberti,
Gualtiero Pittalis and Alessandra Franchi, of the Bologna Bar,            These proceedings seek annulment of the Commission decision
with an address for service in Brussels at 36 Place du Grand              of 6 August 1999 whereby the Commission initiated a pro-
Sablon.                                                                   cedure under Article 88(2) of the Treaty regarding State aid
                                                                          allegedly granted by Italy to the applicant companies. The aid
                                                                          objected to in the contested decision is said to derive from
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               ‘agreements between undertaking in the Tirrenia Group and
                                                                          the Italian State’ and to consist essentially of the introduction
                                                                          of public service obligations (PSOs) subsidised on certain
— annul (wholly or in part) the Commission’s decision of                  routes and of related financial mechanisms.
    11 May 1999 concerning State aid granted by Italy to the
    sugar sector (C (1999) 1363 def.);
                                                                          The applicants, which are part of the Tirrenia Group, observe
                                                                          that, under the domestic Italian rules, they are subject to
— order the Commission of the European Communities to                     specific restrictions regarding the services to be provided
    pay the costs.
                                                                          and the procedures for providing them. In particular, those
                                                                          restrictions relate to three basic parameters: the routes to be
                                                                          followed, the frequencies/timetables for each route and the
                                                                          type of vessels to be used on individual routes.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          In support of their claims, the applicants submit that:
The applicant relies on the pleas in law and arguments put
forward in Case T-244/99 Sadam Abruzzo v Commission.
                                                                          — The basis of the PSOs at issue reflects a legitimate choice
                                                                              made by the Italian authorities, covered by Article 4(3)
                                                                              of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 applying the
                                                                              principle of freedom to provide services to maritime
                                                                              transport within Member States (maritime cabotage).
 ---pagebreak--- C 20/26               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     22.1.2000
— The relevant legislation and the public service contracts              Pleas in law and main arguments
    of the Tirrenia Group companies were notified to the
    Commission and authorised by the Commission, specifi-
    cally in the case of Law No 856/86 and by implication as             This case corresponds to Case T-210/99. The applicant pleads
    regards the agreements between the State and those                   infringement of the principle of respect for the rights of the
    companies and the underlying legislation. For that reason,           defence, since it has been given no opportunity to put forward
    it is submitted that the rule in Lorenz, now embodied in             its views concerning the facts on which the decision is based.
    Article 4(6) of Regulation No 659/99, has been infringed.            For the rest, the pleas in law and main arguments correspond
                                                                         to those in Case T-242/99.
— The essential features of the PSOs and the payments
    relating to them ante-date the EC Treaty.
                                                                         (1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.
    Finally, the applicants also allege misuse of powers,
    thorough failure to examine the case properly, and breach
    of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.
                                                                         Action brought on 22 October 1999 by Texaco Nederland
                                                                         B.V., Schreurs Oliemaatschappij B.V., Salland Oliemaat-
                                                                         schappij B.V. and Nijol Oliemaatschappij B.V. against the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
Action brought on 22 October 1999 by Shell Nederland
Verkoopmaatschappij B.V. against the Commission of the
                    European Communities                                                         (Case T-251/99)
                         (Case T-250/99)
                                                                                (2000/C 20/53)
                          (2000/C 20/52)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                European Communities on 22 October 1999 by Texaco
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               Nederland B.V., Schreurs Oliemaatschappij B.V., Salland Olie-
European Communities on 22 October 1999 by Shell Neder-                  maatschappij B.V. and Nijol Oliemaatschappij B.V., respect-
land Verkoopmaatschappij B.V., of Rotterdam (Netherlands),               ively established in Rotterdam, Venlo, Hasselt and Nijmegen
represented by T.M. Snoep and B. van der Gaag, of the Hague              (Netherlands), represented by H.G. Sevenster and E.P. Jorrits-
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                    ma, of the Hague Bar, with an address for service in Luxem-
Chambers of M. Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe.                                    bourg at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              The applicants claim that the Court should:
(a) order the Commission of the European Communities to                  (a) order the Commission of the European Communities to
    give the applicant’s advisers access to its file relating to              give the applicant’s advisers access to its file relating to
    its decision of 20 July 1999 (C(1999) 2539 final) (1)                     its decision of 20 July 1999 (C(1999) 2539 final) (1)
    concerning State aid granted by the Netherlands to 633                    concerning State aid granted by the Netherlands to 633
    service stations in the region bordering Germany, and                     service stations in the region bordering Germany, and
    order the adoption of all such further measures as may be                 order the adoption of all such further measures as may be
    necessary;                                                                necessary;
(b) annul Articles 2 and 3 of the Commission’s decision of               (b) annul Articles 2 and 3 of the Commission’s decision of
    20 July 1999 [C(1999) 2539 final);                                        20 July 1999 (C(1999) 2539 final);
(c) order the Commission to pay the costs.                               (c) order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Joined Cases C-264/15 P and C-265/15 P: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 21 April 2016 — Makro autoservicio mayorista SA, Vestel Iberia SL v European Commission, Kingdom of Spain (Appeal — Rules of Procedure of the Court — Article 181 — Article 263 TFEU — Situation of a person not directly affected by the decision under appeal — Customs union — Subsequent entry in the accounts and remission of import duties — Reception apparatus for colour television sets from Turkey)

text:
               1.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/4

         Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 21 April 2016 — Makro autoservicio mayorista SA, Vestel Iberia SL v European Commission, Kingdom of Spain
   (Joined Cases C-264/15 P and C-265/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Rules of Procedure of the Court - Article 181 - Article 263 TFEU - Situation of a person not directly affected by the decision under appeal - Customs union - Subsequent entry in the accounts and remission of import duties - Reception apparatus for colour television sets from Turkey))
   (2016/C 279/06)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Makro autoservicio mayorista SA, Vestel Iberia SL (represented by: P. De Baere and P. Muñiz, avocats)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and A. Caeiros, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, acting as Agent)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Makro autoservicio mayorista SA and Vestel Iberia SL shall pay the costs.

               3.

               The Kingdom of Spain shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.