title: Case C-82/01 P: Appeal brought on 17 February 2001 by Aéroports de Paris against the judgment delivered on 12 December 2000 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-128/98 between Aéroports de Paris and the Commission of the European Communities, supported by Alpha Flight Services

text:
21.4.2001               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 118/15
Question 3                                                                      (aa) In such a case does the one-year time-limit in the first
                                                                                subparagraph of Article 454(3) and Article 455(1) of
                                                                                Regulation No 2454/93 in conjunction with the
Is the financial activity of a company whose annual revenue is                        first sentence of Article 11(1) of the TIR Convention
far higher than that produced by the activity which is its                            or the two-year time-limit in Article 455(2) of that
principal object, according to its statutes, to be regarded as                        regulation in conjunction with the first sentence of
‘incidental’ for the purposes of Article 19(2) of the Sixth                           Article 11(2) of the TIR Convention apply?
Directive?
                                                                                (bb) Does the time-limit for furnishing proof in the case
                                                                                set out in Question 1(a) apply in such a way that the
                                                                                guaranteeing association must submit its allegation
(1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
                                                                                under tender of evidence that the irregularity was
    harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
    turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform                        actually committed in another Member State within
    basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).                                        the time-limit and, if that is not done, is precluded
                                                                                from offering that proof?
                                                                          2.(a) Under Articles 454 and 455 of Regulation No 2454/93,
                                                                                is the Member State which finds that an irregularity has
                                                                                been committed in connection with a transport operation
                                                                                under cover of a TIR carnet obliged as against the
                                                                                guaranteeing association, in addition to the notifications
                                                                                under Article 455(1) of that regulation and an enquiry to
                                                                                the customs office of destination, to investigate where the
                                                                                irregularity was actually committed and who is the
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesge-                           customs debtor within the meaning of Article 203(3) of
richtshof by order of that court of 11 January 2001 in the                      Regulation No 2913/92, by requesting another Member
case of Bundesverband Güterkraftverkehr und Logistik                            State for administrative assistance in ascertaining the facts
(BGL) e.V., intervener: Préservatrice Foncière Tiard,                           (see Council Regulation (EEC) No 1468/81 of 19 May
Société anonyme d’assurances de droit français, v Federal                       1981 (3))?
Republic of Germany, represented by Hauptzollamt Frie-
                            drichshafen                                   (b) If the answer to Question 2(a) is in the affirmative,
                                                                                (aa) If such an investigative obligation is infringed, is the
                          (Case C-78/01)                                              irregularity not deemed under the first subparagraph
                                                                                of Article 454(3) of Regulation No 2454/93 to have
                                                                                been committed in the Member State in which it
                         (2001/C 118/24)                                              was detected?
                                                                                (bb) Must the Member State which has detected the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                irregularity, when claiming against the guaranteeing
European Communities by an order of the Bundesgerichtshof                             association, demonstrate and prove that such an
(Federal Court of Justice) of 11 January 2001, which was                              investigative obligation has been complied with?
received at the Court Registry on 15 February 2001, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Bundesverband Güterkraftver-            (1) OJ L 253, 11.10.1993, p. 1.
kehr und Logistik (BGL) e.V., intervener: Préservatrice Foncière          (2) OJ L 302, 19.10.1992, p. 1.
Tiard, Société anonyme d’assurances de droit français, v                  (3) OJ L 144, 2.6.1981, p. 1.
Federal Republic of Germany, represented by Hauptzollamt
Friedrichshafen on the following questions:
1.(a) Does the time-limit laid down in the first subparagraph
      of Article 454(3) of Commission Regulation (EEC)
      No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 (1), implementing Council                 Appeal brought on 17 February 2001 by Aéroports de
      Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992                      Paris against the judgment delivered on 12 December
      establishing the Community Customs Code (2), for fur-               2000 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance
      nishing proof of the actual place of an irregularity apply          of the European Communities in Case T-128/98 between
      also where a Member State, pursuant to Article 454(2)               Aéroports de Paris and the Commission of the European
      and the first and second subparagraphs of Article 454(3)                 Communities, supported by Alpha Flight Services
      of Regulation No 2454/93, brings proceedings against
      the guaranteeing association for the payment of duties,                                       (Case C-82/01 P)
      and the association wishes to prove in those proceedings
      that the place where the irregularity was actually commit-                                    (2001/C 118/25)
      ted is situated in another Member State?
                                                                          An appeal against the judgment delivered on 12 December
(b) If the answer to Question 1(a) is in the affirmative:                 2000 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance
 ---pagebreak--- C 118/16               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        21.4.2001
of the European Communities in Case T-128/98 between                   —     Breach by the Court of First Instance of the rights of the
Aéroports de Paris and Commission of the European Com-                       defence.
munities, supported by Alpha Flight Services, was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
17 February 2001 by Aéroports de Paris, represented by                 —     The Court of First Instance failed to respond to the plea
H. Calvet, Advocat, with an address for service in Luxembourg.               in law put forward by Aéroports de Paris in respect of
                                                                             self-handling and handling provided for third parties.
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                       —     The Court of First Instance distorted the evidence adduced
                                                                             before it when analysing the services in question.
—     set aside the judgment of 12 December 2000 dismissing
      its application;
                                                                       —     The Court of First Instance manifestly distorted national
                                                                             law in holding that the appellant’s activities did not form
—     uphold the pleas in law put forward by ADP at first                    part of the exercise of a task conferred by public law.
      instance, namely: annul the Commission Decision of
      11 June 1998 in which the Commission found that ADP
      had infringed Article 86 of the EC Treaty and ordered the        —     The Court of First Instance infringed Article 86 in
      public institution to bring the infringement to an end                 holding that the appellant is an undertaking: according to
      within two months of notification of that decision;                    Community Law, public persons whose activities depend
                                                                             on the exercise of powers conferred by public law are not
                                                                             undertakings. The use by the Court of First Instance of
—     order the Commission to pay all the costs borne by the                 the concept of ‘essential facilities’ cannot remove from
      applicant in the proceedings before the Court of First                 the administration of public assets the prerogatives
      Instance and also in the present appeal;                               conferred by public law that are attached to it. Further-
                                                                             more, the appellant had demonstrated that it was never
—     order AFS to bear its own costs in the proceedings before              necessary to have the benefit of an agreement for the
      the Court of First Instance and also, should it submit a               private occupation of publicly-owned property, in return
      statement in intervention in the present appeal, to bear               for which the fees at issue are levied, in order to provide
      its own costs in that regard and also those incurred by                groundhandling services at the Paris airports.
      ADP in connection with that intervention;
                                                                       —     The Court of First Instance infringed Article 86 as regards
                                                                             the definition of the market: since (i) the fees at issue were
In the alternative
                                                                             levied in return for the private occupation of publicly-
                                                                             owned property and (ii) the private occupation of pub-
—     set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of               licly-owned property is not necessary to the provision of
      12 December 2000 dismissing the action brought by                      groundhandling services, the Court could not hold that
      ADP and refer the case back before a Chamber of the                    the relevant market was the market ‘in management
      Court of First Instance composed of different judges                   services at the Paris airports’ covering ‘the conditions of
      from those composing the Chamber that delivered the                    access to airport installations’.
      judgment under appeal;
                                                                       —     The Court of First Instance infringed Article 86 in holding
—     reserve the decision as to costs and refer the question as             that the applicant occupied a dominant position.
      to costs to the Chamber that will adjudicate on the case.
                                                                       —     The Court of First Instance, while further distorting the
                                                                             function of the fee for the occupation of publicly-owned
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              property, infringed Article 86 in comparing the fees paid
                                                                             to the applicant by AFS and OAT.
—     Infringement of Regulations No 17/62 (1) and No
      3975/87: (2) the Court of First Instance erred in law in
      holding that the case fell within the scope of Regulation
                                                                       (1) Regulation No 17 of the Council of 6 February 1962: First
      No 17/62 and not that of Regulation No 3975/87. The                  Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty (Official
      activity of groundhandling forms an integral part of the             Journal, English Special Edition 1962, p. 87).
      air transport system. In holding that the appellant oper-        (2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3975/87 of 14 Decembre 1987
      ates on an ‘upstream market’, the Court of First Instance            laying down the procedure for the application of the rules on
      failed to appreciate the inseverable link between                    competition to undertakings in the air transport sector (OJ 1987
      groundhandling services and the airports on which those              L 374, p. 1).
      services are provided.
—     Breach by the Court of First Instance of the obligation to
      state reasons.


title: Case C-300/15: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 26 May 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif — Luxembourg) — Charles Kohll, Sylvie Kohll-Schlesser v Directeur de l’administration des contributions directes (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 21 and 45 TFEU — Freedom of movement and of residence of persons and workers — Income tax — Retirement pension — Pensioners’ tax credit — Conditions for granting — Possession of a tax deduction form issued by national authorities)

text:
               18.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/12

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 26 May 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif — Luxembourg) — Charles Kohll, Sylvie Kohll-Schlesser v Directeur de l’administration des contributions directes
   (Case C-300/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 21 and 45 TFEU - Freedom of movement and of residence of persons and workers - Income tax - Retirement pension - Pensioners’ tax credit - Conditions for granting - Possession of a tax deduction form issued by national authorities))
   (2016/C 260/15)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal administratif

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Charles Kohll, Sylvie Kohll-Schlesser

      Defendant: Directeur de l’administration des contributions directes

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 21 and 45 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a national tax law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which restricts the eligibility for the pensioners’ tax credit to taxpayers in possession of a tax deduction form.

      (1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.


title: Case T-382/15: Order of the General Court of 26 September 2016 — Greenpeace Energy and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Nuclear energy — Aid in support of Hinkley Point C nuclear power station — Contract for difference, agreement of the Secretary of State and credit guarantee — Decision declaring the aid to be compatible with the internal market — Absence of any significant effect on a competitive position — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               14.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 419/46

         Order of the General Court of 26 September 2016 — Greenpeace Energy and Others v Commission
   (Case T-382/15) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - State aid - Nuclear energy - Aid in support of Hinkley Point C nuclear power station - Contract for difference, agreement of the Secretary of State and credit guarantee - Decision declaring the aid to be compatible with the internal market - Absence of any significant effect on a competitive position - Lack of individual concern - Inadmissibility))
   (2016/C 419/61)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Greenpeace Energy eG (Hamburg, Germany) and the nine other applicants whose names are set out in the annex to the order (represented by: D. Fouquet and J. Nysten, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier, T. Maxian Rusche and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Decision (EU) 2015/658 of 8 October 2014 on the aid measure SA.34947 (2013/C) (ex 2013/N) which the United Kingdom is planning to implement for support to the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station (OJ 2015 L 109, p. 44).

      Operative part of the order

   The Court orders as follows:

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               There is no need to rule on the applications for leave to intervene submitted by NNB Generation Company Limited, the Slovak Republic, Hungary, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the French Republic, the Czech Republic and the Republic of Poland.

               3.

               Greenpeace Energy eG and the other applicants whose names are set out in the annex shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission, with the exception of the costs relating to the applications for leave to intervene.

               4.

               Greenpeace Energy and the other applicants whose names are set out in the annex, the Commission, NNB Generation Company Limited, the Slovak Republic, Hungary, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the French Republic, the Czech Republic and the Republic of Poland shall bear their own respective costs relating to the applications for leave to intervene.

      (1)  OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (First Chamber) of 7 July 1998 in Case T-178/97 Albano Moncada v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Deputising for a hierarchical superior - Action manifestly inadmissible and not well founded in law)

text:
10.10.98             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 312/11
(Portugal), represented by Manuel Rodrigues, of the                    ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Lisbon Bar, v. Commission of the European Communities                                    of 16 July 1998
(Agents: Maria Teresa Figueira and Knut Simonsson) Ð
application for the annulment of Commission Decisions             in Case T-274/97: Ca'Pasta Srl v. Commission of the
C(96) 2554 and C(96) 2555 of 9 December 1996 reducing                               European Communities (1)
two Community aids granted by the European Social Fund
                                                                  (Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86 Ð Common fisheries
Ð the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: P. Lindh,
                                                                  policy Ð Community financial assistance Ð Procedure for
President, K. Lenaerts and J. D. Cooke, Judges; B. Pastor,
                                                                  cancelling the assistance Ð Action for annulment Ð
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
                                                                                Inadmissibility)
judgment on 16 July 1998, in which it:
                                                                                (98/C 312/30)
1. dismisses the action;
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
2. orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                                                                  In Case T-274/97: Ca'Pasta Srl, represented by Paolo Piva,
                                                                  of the Venice Bar, and Guy Arendt, of the Luxembourg
(1) OJ C 166, 31.5.1997.
                                                                  Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                  latter's Chambers, 7 Val Sainte-Croix v. Commission of
                                                                  the European Communities (Agents: Hubert van Vliet and
                                                                  Alberto Dal Ferro) Ð application for annulment of a
                                                                  decision allegedly contained in a letter of 4 August 1997
                                                                  sent by the Commission to the applicant Ð the Court of
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                         First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili,
                                                                  President, and C. P. BrieÈt and A. Potocki, Judges; H. Jung,
                       (First Chamber)                            Registrar, made an order on 16 July 1998, the operative
                        of 7 July 1998                            part of which is as follows:
in Case T-178/97 Albano Moncada v. Commission of the
                  European Communities (1)                        1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
(Officials Ð Deputising for a hierarchical superior Ð
Action manifestly inadmissible and not well founded in            2. The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.
                              law)
                                                                  (1) OJ C 387, 20.12.1997.
                         (98/C 312/29)
               (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-178/97: Albano Moncada, an official of the
Commission of the European Communities, residing in                    ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Luxembourg, represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis, Thierry                                      of 6 July 1998
Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of               in Case T-286/97: Anthony Goldstein v. Commission of
Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange, against the                            the European Communities (1)
Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
                                                                  (Action for failure to act Ð Obligation to act Ð None Ð
Christine Berardis-Kayser and Florence Duvieusart-
                                                                        Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Clotuche) Ð application for, first, annulment of the
Commission's decision of 12 August 1996 directing a                                       (98/C 312/31)
colleague in a lower grade than the applicant to deputise
during the absences of his hierarchical superior and,
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
second, for damages Ð the Court (First Chamber),
composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, and R. M. Moura
Ramos and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has            In Case T-286/97, Anthony Goldstein, residing in London,
made an order on 7 July 1998 in which it:                         represented by Raymond St John Murphy, Solicitor, 3
                                                                  Kings Bench Walk, Inner Temple, London, against
                                                                  Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
1. dismisses the application;
                                                                  Richard Lyal) Ð application for a finding that the
                                                                  Commission failed to act by failing to take a decision on a
2. orders the parties to bear their own costs.                    complaint (IV/34.824 Ð Goldstein/GMC) against certain
                                                                  anti-competitive practices, lodged by the applicant under
                                                                  Article 3(2) of Council Regulation No 17 of 6 February
(1) OJ C 252, 16.8.1997.
                                                                  1962, First Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of
                                                                  the Treaty (OJ, English Special Edition 1959Ð1962, p. 87)
                                                                  Ð the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 16 July 1998 in Case C-285/97: Commission of the European Communities v. Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Failure to transpose Directive 94/51/EC within the prescribed period)

text:
C 299/10              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       26.9.98
2. Article 7(1) of Directive 89/104/EEC cannot be                        organisms, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil
     interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of a trade               its obligations under Article 2 of that Directive;
     mark is entitled, on the basis of that provision alone,
     to obtain an order restraining a third party from using
     his trade mark for products which have been put on              2. orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
     the market outside the European Economic Area
     under that mark by the proprietor or with his consent.          (1) OJ C 295, 27.9.1997.
                                                                     (2) OJ L 297, 18.11.1994, p. 29.
(1) OJ C 388, 21.12.1996.
(2) OJ L 40, 11.12.1989, p. 1.
(3) OJ L 1, 3.1.1994, p. 3.
                                                                     Action brought on 9 July 1998 by the Hellenic Republic
                                                                        against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case C-247/98)
                                                                                (98/C 299/18)
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                     An action against the Commission of the European
                         of 16 July 1998                             Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
in    Case   C-285/97: Commission of the European                    the European Communities on 9 July 1998 by the Hellenic
           Communities v. Portuguese Republic (1)                    Republic, represented by Dimitrios Papageorgopoulos,
                                                                     State Legal Adviser, and Ioannis-Konstantinos Khalkias,
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations Ð               Member of the State Legal Service, with an address for
Failure to transpose Directive 94/51/EC within the                   service in Luxembourg at the Greek Embassy, 117 Val
                       prescribed period)                            Sainte-Croix.
                          (98/C 299/17)
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
              (Language of the case: Portuguese)                     Ð hold the application admissible,
                                                                     Ð annul, or otherwise modify, Commission Decision 98/
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be           358/EC of 6 May 1998 on the clearance of the
          published in the European Court Reports)                       accounts presented by the Member States in respect of
                                                                         the expenditure for 1994 of the Guarantee Section of
                                                                         the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee
In Case C-285/97: Commission of the European                             Fund (notified under document number C(1998)
Communities (Agent: Francisco de Sousa Fialho) v.                        1124) (1).
Portuguese Republic (Agents: Luís Fernandes and Pedro
Portugal) Ð application for a declaration that, by failing
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
to adopt within the prescribed period the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Commission Directive 94/51/EC of 7 November 1994                     By its contested decision, the Commission, in clearing
adapting to technical progress Council Directive 90/219/             accounts for the 1994 financial year, did not recognise
EEC on the contained use of genetically modified micro-              various items of expenditure amounting to GRD
organisms (2) the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil           8 093 595 532 which relate to the beef and veal, fruit and
its obligations under the third paragraph of Article 189 of          vegetable, and wine sectors.
the EC Treaty and Article 2 of Directive 94/51/EC Ð the
Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: H. Ragnemalm
(Rapporteur), Presidents of Chambers, G. F. Mancini, J. L.           The Hellenic Republic maintains that that decision of the
Murray, G. Hirsch and K. M. Ioannou, Judges; A. La                   Commission should be annulled because it is based on a
Pergola, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given            misapprehension of the facts and on an incorrect, or
a judgment on 16 July 1998, in which it:                             otherwise insufficient, statement of reasons. In adopting
                                                                     that decision, the Commission exceeded the limits of its
                                                                     discretion, while, in particular in the compulsory
                                                                     distillation sector, it relied on a non-existent legal basis for
1. declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed          imposing the correction.
     period the laws, regulations and administrative
     provisions necessary to comply with Commission
     Directive 94/51/EC of 7 November 1994 adapting to               (1) OJ L 163, 6.6.1998, p. 28.
     technical progress Council Directive 90/219/EEC on
     the contained use of genetically modified micro-


title: Case C-62/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesarbeitsgericht Düsseldorf, by order of that court of 21 January 1999 in the case of Betriebsrat (Works Council) of bofrost Josef H. Boquoi Deutschland West GmbH & Co KG v. bofrost Josef H. Boquoi Deutschland West GmbH & Co KG

text:
C 160/2                 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      5.6.1999
of: G. C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P. J. G. Kapteyn,             Action brought on 1 March 1999 by the Commission of
J. P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann, Presidents of Chambers,        the European Communities against the Federal Republic
G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann,                                             of Germany
J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward, H. Ragnemalm, L. Sevón
and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), Judges: G. Cosmas, Advocate
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 5 March                                       (Case C-71/99)
1999, the operative part of which is as follows:
1. The appeal is dismissed.                                                                     (1999/C 160/04)
2. Guérin Automobiles EURL is ordered to pay the costs of the
     proceedings.                                                       An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
                                                                        brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties on 1 March 1999 by the Commission of the European
(1) OJ C 258, 15.8.1998.                                                Communities, represented by Götz zur Hausen, Legal Advisor
                                                                        in the Legal Service of the European Commission and Paolo
                                                                        Stancanelli, a member of the Legal Service of the European
                                                                        Commission, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                        office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz a member of the Legal
                                                                        Service of the European Commission, Wagner Centre, Kirch-
                                                                        berg, Luxembourg.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesarbeits-
gericht Düsseldorf, by order of that court of 21 January
1999 in the case of Betriebsrat (Works Council) of                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
bofrost (1) Josef H. Boquoi Deutschland West GmbH & Co
KG v. bofrost (1) Josef H. Boquoi Deutschland West GmbH
                              & Co KG                                   — declare that the Federal Republic of Germany failed to fulfil
                                                                            its obligations under Council Directive 92/43/EEC of
                           (Case C-62/99)                                   21 May 1992 (1) on the conservation of natural habitats
                                                                            and of wild flora and fauna by failing to transmit to the
                                                                            Commission a full list of the sites referred to in the first
                          (1999/C 160/03)                                   subparagraph of Article 4 (1) together with the information
                                                                            on each site set out in the second subparagraph of Article
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      4 (1), and
European Communities by an order of the Landesarbeitsgericht
Düsseldorf (Düsseldorf Higher Labour Court), by order of that
court of 21 January 1999, which was received at the Court               — order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
Registry on 22 February 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Betriebsrat (Works Council) of bofrost (1) Josef
H. Boquoi Deutschland West GmbH & Co KG v. bofrost (1)
Josef H. Boquoi Deutschland West GmbH & Co KG on the
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
following questions:
(a) Is Article 11 (1) and (2) of Council Directive 94/45/EC of
     22 September 1994 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that            According to the Commission, the first subparagraph of
     the right to information laid down therein exists even             Article 4 (1) of the Directive requires the Member States to
     where it is not (yet) established whether or not there is a        propose in their lists sites which are most suitable for
     controlling undertaking within the meaning of Article 3 of         conservation of the relevant habitats and at the same time
     Directive 94/95/EC in a group of undertakings as defined           geographically representative of the national territory of each
     in Article 2 (1) (b) of Directive 94/45/EC?                        Member State as a whole. The Federal Republic of Germany
                                                                        therefore infringes Community law in proposing a list which
(b) If question (a) is answered in the affirmative:                     omits a whole series of habitat types. It further infringes
                                                                        Community law in not assuring geographical representativity
     Does the right to information in Article 11 (1) and (2) of         for the whole of the territory of the Federal Republic of
     Directive 94/45/EC also include the right of a works               Germany, for instance, because no sites for habitat types
     council to request from the undertaking concerned infor-           within Annex 1 or species within Annex 2 in the Federal
     mation which gives rise to the presumption referred to in          States of Brandenburg, Sachsen, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern,
     Article 3 (2) of Directive 94/45/EC?                               Baden-Württemberg, Nordrhein-Westfalen are mentioned or
                                                                        because the lists hitherto provided are incomplete.
(c) Does Article 11 (1) and (2) of Directive 94/45/EC include
     the right of a works council to request documents from an
     undertaking to clarify and explain such information?               Under Article 4 (1) of the Directive, a complete list was to be
                                                                        transmitted by 10 June 1995. Even taking into account the
(1) OJ L 254, 30.9.1994, p. 64.                                         fact that the formula which Article 4 (1) required to be used
                                                                        was not available at that time, the information could none the
                                                                        less have been entered soon after notification of the formula
                                                                        on 19 December 1996 and transmitted. But at the time of


title: Case C-467/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht München by order of that Court of 24 June 2003 in the case of Ikegami Electronics (Europe) GmbH against Oberfinanzdirektion Nürnberg

text:
24.1.2004              EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 21/13
3.   Inasmuch as in the (railway) transport sector it is                 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht
     exclusively the operation of networks that is governed by           Baden-Baden by order of that Court of 20 October 2003
     Directive 93/38/EEC (affirmation of Question 1): Does a             in the appeal brought by Albert Reiss Beteiligungsge-
     review authority have to refrain from applying a national                sellschaft mbH against Land Baden-Württemberg
     provision in which, contrary to the wording of Directive
     93/38/EEC, also the ‘provision of networks providing a                                      (Case C-466/03)
     service to the public in the field of transport by railway’
     is listed as a sectoral activity?                                                            (2004/C 21/23)
(1) OJ L 199, p. 84.
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by order of the Landgericht Baden-
                                                                         Baden (Regional Court, Baden-Baden) of 20 October 2003,
                                                                         received at the Court Registry on 6 November 2003, for a
                                                                         preliminary ruling in the appeal brought by Albert Reiss
                                                                         Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH against Land Baden-Württem-
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverga-                   berg on the following question:
beamt (Wien) by order of that Court of 27 October 2003
in the case of Kostmann GesmbH against Österreichische                   Does Article 10(c) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July
                          Bundesbahnen                                   1969 (1) concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as
                                                                         amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985 (2),
                         (Case C-463/03)                                 also encompass charges for the notarially attested transfer of
                                                                         shares in a private limited company?
                          (2004/C 21/22)
                                                                         (1) OJ L 249, p. 25.
                                                                         (2) OJ L 156, p. 23.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundesvergabeamt
(Wien) (Federal Procurement Office, Vienna) of 27 October
2003, received at the Court Registry on 4 November 2003,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Kostmann GesmbH                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht
against Österreichische Bundesbahnen on the following ques-              München by order of that Court of 24 June 2003 in
tions:                                                                   the case of Ikegami Electronics (Europe) GmbH against
                                                                                Oberfinanzdirektion Nürnberg
1.   Is Article 2(2)(c) of Directive 93/38/EEC (1) to be inter-
     preted as meaning that, contrary to the other factual
     situations covered by Article 2(2) of the Directive, in the                                 (Case C-467/03)
     area of transport ‘merely’ the operation of networks is to
     be considered a sectoral activity?                                                           (2004/C 21/24)
2.   Which activities fall within the scope of ‘the operation of
     networks providing a service to the public in the field of          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     transport by railway’ under Article 2(2)(c) of Directive            European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht Mün-
     93/38/EEC? To what extent are, in particular, measures              chen (Finance Court, Munich) of 24 June 2003, received at the
     in the field of infrastructure to be subsumed under this            Court Registry on 6 November 2003, for a preliminary ruling
     heading? To what extent are such measures in the field of           in the case of Ikegami Electronics (Europe) GmbH against
     infrastructure to be classified under the heading ‘provision        Oberfinanzdirektion Nürnberg on the following question:
     of networks’?
                                                                         Is note 5 E of the Combined Nomenclature in the version of
3.   Inasmuch as in the (railway) transport sector it is
                                                                         Annex 1 to Regulation (EC) No 2031/2001 (1) of [6 August]
     exclusively the operation of networks that is governed by
                                                                         2001, amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC)
     Directive 93/38/EEC (affirmation of Question 1): Does a
                                                                         No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on
     review authority have to refrain from applying a national
                                                                         the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2001 L 279) to be interpreted
     provision in which, contrary to the wording of Directive
                                                                         as meaning that video monitoring apparatus which stores
     93/38/EEC, also the ‘provision of networks providing a
                                                                         signals from several video cameras compressed on hard disks
     service to the public in the field of transport by railway’
                                                                         for reproduction on monitors performs a different function
     is listed as a sectoral activity?
                                                                         from that of data processing?
(1) OJ L 199, p. 84.                                                     (1) OJ L 279, p. 1.


title: Case C-22/02: Action brought on 29 January 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
C 68/8                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        16.3.2002
Action brought on 28 January 2002 by the Commission                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                                                                        —     Declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations
                         (Case C-17/02)                                       and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                              Commission Directive 2000/71/EC to adapt the
                                                                              measuring methods as laid down in Annexes I, II, III and
                         (2002/C 68/14)                                       IV to Directive 98/70/EC of the European Parliament and
                                                                              of the Council to technical progress as foreseen in
                                                                              Article 10 of that Directive (OJ 2000 L 287, p. 46) or in
                                                                              any event by not notifying the same to the Commission,
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the                 the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 28 january                    under Article 2 of that directive;
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by L. Pignatora and S. Rating, acting as Agents.            —     Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
—     Declare that, by not having notified the laws, regulations
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      the provisions of Commission Directive 99/64/EC                   Article 249 EC, which provides that a directive is to be binding
      amending Commission Directive 90/388/EEC, or not                  as to the result to be achieved on each Member State to which
      having adopted the measures necessary to comply with              it is addressed, implies an obligation that the Member States
      the same, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its           comply with the time-limits for transposition prescribed by
      obligations under that directive;                                 directives. In the present case the prescribed period expired on
                                                                        1 January 2001 without the Italian Republic having adopted
—     Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                      the provisions necessary to comply with the directive referred
                                                                        to in the form of order sought by the Commission.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Article 249 EC, which provides that a directive is to be binding
as to the result to be achieved on each Member State to which           Action brought on 29 January 2002 by the Commission
it is addressed, implies an obligation that the Member States           of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
comply with the time-limits for transposition prescribed by
directives. In the present case the prescribed period expired on
30 April 2000 without the Italian Republic having adopted                                        (Case C-22/02)
the provisions necessary to comply with the directive referred
to in the form of order sought by the Commission.
                                                                                (2002/C 68/16)
                                                                        An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
                                                                        Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 January
                                                                        2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                        represented by G. Valero Jordana and R. Amorosi, acting as
Action brought on 29 January 2002 by the Commission                     Agents.
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                         (Case C-21/02)                                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        —     Declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations
                         (2002/C 68/15)                                       and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                              Directive 1999/94/EC of the European Parliament and of
                                                                              the Council of 13 December 1999 relating to the
                                                                              availability of consumer information on fuel economy
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the                 and CO2 emissions in respect of the marketing of new
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 January                    passenger cars (OJ 2000 L 12, p. 16) or in any event by
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,                           not notifying the same to the Commission, the Italian
represented by G. Valero Jordana and R. Amorosi, acting as                    Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12
Agents.                                                                       of that directive;
 ---pagebreak--- 16.3.2002              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 68/9
—     Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                      Action brought on 31 January 2002 by the Commission
                                                                        of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                                                                Spain
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Case C-28/02)
Article 249 EC, which provides that a directive is to be binding
as to the result to be achieved on each Member State to which
it is addressed, implies an obligation that the Member States
comply with the time-limits for transposition prescribed by                                      (2002/C 68/18)
directives. In the present case the prescribed period expired on
18 January 2001 without the Italian Republic having adopted
the provisions necessary to comply with the directive referred
to in the form of order sought by the Commission.
                                                                        An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
                                                                        the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 31 Janu-
                                                                        ary 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                        represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana, of its Legal Service,
                                                                        acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                        the office of Luis Escobar Guerrero, also of the Commission’s
Action brought on 31 January 2002 by the Kingdom of                     Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Luxembourg.
 Spain against the Council of the European Communities
                         (Case C-26/02)
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                         (2002/C 68/17)
                                                                        —     declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws,
                                                                              regulations and administrative provisions needed in order
An action against the Council of the European Communities                     to comply with Directive 1999/94/EC(1) of the European
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                       Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 1999
Communities on 31 January 2002 by the Kingdom of Spain,                       relating to the availability of consumer information on
represented by R. Silva de Lapuerta, acting as Agent, with an                 fuel economy and CO2 emissions in respect of the
address for service in Luxembourg.                                            marketing of new passenger cars, or, in any event, by
                                                                              failing to have informed the Commission of any such
                                                                              laws, regulations or administrative provisions, the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                              that Directive;
—     annul the point relating to anchovies referred to in note
      (2) to the item relating to stocks of ‘Anchovy; Zones: IX,
      X, CECAF 34.1.1’ (EC waters) contained in Annex ID to             —     order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
      Council Regulation (EC) No 2555/2001 (1) of 18 Decem-
      ber 2001 fixing for 2002 the fishing opportunities and
      associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups
      of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for
      Community vessels, in waters where limitations in catch
      are required; and                                                 Pleas in law and main arguments
—     order the defendant institution to pay the costs.
                                                                        Under Article 12 of Directive 1999/94/EC, the Kingdom of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Spain should have brought into force the measures necessary
                                                                        to comply with the Directive by 18 January 2001 and should
                                                                        have informed the Commission thereof.
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
Case C-22/01 (2).
                                                                        (1) OJ L 12, 18.1.2000, p. 16.
(1) OJ L 347 of 31.12.2001, p. 1.
(2) OJ C 79, 10.3.2001, p. 18.


title: Case C-23/05: Action brought on 25 January 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               2.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/9

         Action brought on 25 January 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-23/05)
   (2005/C 82/20)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 25 January 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by G. Rozet and N. Yerrell, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2000/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 2000 amending Council Directive 93/104/EC concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time to cover sectors and activities excluded from that directive (1) or, in any event, by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) of that directive;

               2.

               order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for transposition of the Directive into national law expired on 1 August 2003.

      (1)  OJ L 195, 01.08.2000, p. 41.


title: Case C-390/01: Action brought on 9 October 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic

text:
C 348/16               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      8.12.2001
      States or of persons who are not resident in such areas,                administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      despite fulfilling the same age requirement, the Italian                Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996 laying
      Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under                     down basic safety standards for the protection of the
      Articles 12 and 49 of the EC Treaty.                                    health of workers and the general public against the
                                                                              dangers arising from ionising radiation (1), the Portuguese
—     Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                            Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                              Articles 55(1) of that Directive,
                                                                        —     in the alternative, declare that, by failing to inform
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               the Commission immediately of such measures, the
                                                                              Portuguese Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                              that Directive,
Granting advantageous admission charges only to Italian
nationals constitutes a restriction on the right to have access
to services to which tourists visiting Italian archaeological and       —     order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
cultural sites are entitled.
The granting of advantageous admission charges to certain
categories of visitors, in this case to those aged over 60 or           Pleas in law and main arguments
65 years, on the basis of their residence within the municipality
in which the cultural site is located, constitutes indirect
discrimination on grounds of nationality since in the end it
affects mainly non-Italian Community tourists, whose                    The provisions of the third paragraph of Article 161 and the
exclusion from benefiting from the lower charges constitutes            first paragraph of Article 192 of the EAEC Treaty require
the disguised objective.                                                Member States to adopt the measures necessary to transpose
                                                                        directives addressed to them into their domestic law before the
                                                                        expiry of the period prescribed for doing so. Despite that
                                                                        period having expired (13 May 2000) the Portuguese Republic
The lower charges offered by the municipal museums thus                 has still not brought into force the provisions necessary to
infringe Articles 12 and 49 of the EC Treaty inasmuch as they           transpose Directive 96/29/Euratom into its legal system.
constitute discrimination on grounds of nationality.
                                                                        (1) OJ 1996 L 314, p. 20.
Action brought on 9 October 2001 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Portuguese
                             Republic
                          (Case C-389/01)
                                                                        Action brought on 9 October 2001 by the Commission
                                                                        of the European Communities against the Portuguese
                         (2001/C 348/29)                                                            Republic
                                                                                (Case C-390/01)
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                                         (2001/C 348/30)
on 9 October 2001 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by António Caeiros, acting as
Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
of Luis Escobar Guerrero, Wagner Centre.
                                                                        An action against the Portuguese Republic as brought before
                                                                        the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 Octo-
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             ber 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                        represented by António Catiros, acting as Agent, with an
—     declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force            address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Luis Escobar
      within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and            Guerrero, Wagner Centre.
 ---pagebreak--- 8.12.2001              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 348/17
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of
                                                                             biocidal products on the market (1) the Portuguese Repub-
—     declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force                 lic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 34(1)
      within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and                 of that Directive,
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      Council Directive 97/43/Euratom of 30 June 1997 on               —     in the alternative, declare that, by failing to inform
      health protection of individuals against the dangers of                the Commission immediately of such measures, the
      ionising radiation in relation to medical exposure, and                Portuguese Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under
      repealing Directive 84/466/Euratom (1), the Portuguese                 that Directive,
      Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      Articles 14 of that Directive,                                   —     order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
—     in the alternative, declare that, by failing to inform
      the Commission immediately of such measures, the
      Portuguese Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under       Pleas in law and main arguments
      that Directive,
—     order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.                  The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third paragraph
                                                                       of Article 249 and the first paragraph of Article 10 of the EC
                                                                       Treaty requires Member States to adopt the measures necessary
                                                                       to transpose directives addressed to them into their domestic
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        law before the expiry of the period prescribed for doing so.
                                                                       That period expired on 14 May 2000 without the Portuguese
                                                                       Republic having brought into force the necessary provisions
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put           to transpose Directive 98/8/EC into its domestic law.
forward in Case C-389/01.
                                                                       (1) OJ L 123, 24.4.1998, p. 1.
( 1) OJ L 180, 9.7.1997, p. 22.
                                                                       Action brought on 8 October 2001 by the French Repub-
Action brought on 9 October 2001 by the Commission                     lic against the Commission of the European Communities
of the European Communities against the Portuguese
                              Republic                                                          (Case C-393/01)
                         (Case C-391/01)                                                        (2001/C 348/32)
                         (2001/C 348/31)
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                       ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought                  Communities on 8 October 2001 by the French Republic,
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                represented by G. de Bergues and R. Loosli-Surrans, acting as
on 9 October 2001 by the Commission of the European                    agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
Communities, represented by António Caeiros, acting as
Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
of Luis Escobar Guerrero, Wagner Centre.                               The French Republic claims that the Court should:
                                                                       —     annul Commission Decision 2001/577/EC of 25 July
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  2001 setting the date on which dispatch from Portugal
                                                                             of bovine products under the date-based export scheme
—     declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force                 may commence by virtue of Article 22(2) of Decision
      within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and                 2001/376/EC (1),
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the          —     order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-27/13: Order of the General Court of 22 October 2015 — Elan v Commission

text:
               21.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 429/29

         Order of the General Court of 22 October 2015 — Elan v Commission
   (Case T-27/13) (1)

   (2015/C 429/37)
   Language of the case: Slovene
   The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 86, 23.3.2013.


title: Action brought on 27 July 1995 by Raymond Kaps against the Court of Justice of the European Communities (Case T-153/95)

text:
No C 248/ 18           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     23 . 9 . 95
Action brought on 27 July 1995 by Raymond Kaps against                The applicant maintains, lastly, that the selection board
    the Court of Justice of the European Communities                  committed     a  manifest error of assessment when              it
                        ( Case T-153/95 )                             considered, on the basis of his reply to a single question, that
                                                                      the applicant's knowledge of English was virtually
                          ( 95/C 248/38 )                             non-existent and that he deserved a mark of 4/ 10 for his
                                                                      linguistic knowledge; he considers that a selection board
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                      cannot validly assess the linguistic knowledge of a candidate
                                                                      on such a basis .
An action against the Court of Justice of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance on 27 July 1995 by Raymond Kaps, resident in
Schifflange ( Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg ) represented by
Jean-Noel Louis and Ariane Tornel , of the Brussels Bar, with
an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
Fiduciaire Myson, Rue Glesener 1 .                                    Action brought on 17 August 1995 by Harald Meuser
                                                                      against the Council of the European Union and the
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                  Commission of the European Communities
— annul the decision of the selection board in competition                                  ( Case T- 160/95 )
    CJ 5 1 /93 allotting the applicant, for the written and oral                              ( 95/C 248/39 )
    tests, marks which did not enable him to be included
    amongst the successful candidates on the reserve list,
                                                                                Language of the case: German
— annul the defendant's decision not to include the
    applicant on the reserve list from competition CJ 51/93           An action against the Council of the European Union and
    and the decision of 15 May 1995 rejecting the                     the Commission of the European Communities was brought
    applicant's complaint,                                            before the Court of First Instance on 17 August 1995 by
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                              Harald Meuser, Edertal-Giflitz, represented by Bernd
                                                                      Meisterernst, Mechtild Düsing, Dietrich Manstetten, Dr.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   Frank Schulze and Dr. Winfried Haneklaus, Rechtsanwälte,
                                                                      Münster, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
The applicant claims, first, that the selection board had the         Chambers of Dupong & Associés, 14a Rue des Bains,
test papers of the candidates who had used a language of              Luxembourg.
which the members of the selection board did not have
sufficient knowledge translated and typed; since one of the
criteria for marking the first written test was the 'quality of       The applicant claims that the Court should :
language used', the result of that procedure is that the
selection board compared the quality of the language used             — order the defendants to pay to the applicant SLOM-III
by professional translators with that used by the candidates              compensation for the period for 30 September 1985 to
who had chosen a language of which the members of the                     29 July 1993 in the amount of DM 123 307,50 together
selection board did have sufficient knowledge . The                       with interest at the rate of 8 % for the period from
candidates whose test papers were translated and ,                        19 May 1992 and order the defendants jointly to pay the
moreover, typed, thus benefited from a considerable                       legal costs,
advantage over the others, in breach of the principle of equal
treatment of candidates .                                             — join the present application to the cases already pending
                                                                          before it, Hülserberg and Others, Case T-77/93 , and
The applicant claims , furthermore, that the competition                  also to stay the proceedings .
notice was infringed, inasmuch as the selection board
admitted that it had asked the candidates questions with a
view to assessing their capacity for careful thought, which is        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
a criterion that does not appear amongst those indicated in
the competition notice .                                              The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
                                                                      of Case T-20/94 .


title: Removal from the register of C-302/96

text:
C 184/8               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                       13.6.98
Commission of the European Communities, was brought                     (b) was entitled to substitute its own reasoning for
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                       one of the two reasons stated in the contested
on 27 April 1998 by D.I.R. International Film S.r.l.                          decision, the Court of First Instance's reasoning
(D.I.R.'), of Via Leonardo Fibonacci 43, 00166 Rome,                         was in any event irreconcilable with Article 85 of
Italy, Nostradamus Enterprises Limited (Nostradamus                          the EC Treaty, read in conjunction with Council
Enterprises'), of The Glassworks, 3Ð4 Ashland Place,                          Regulation 17/62.
London W1M 3JH, United Kingdom, Union P.N. S.r.l.
(Union'), of Via Margutta 33, 00187 Rome, Italy, United           (1) OJ C 137, 3.6.1995, p. 32.
International Pictures B.V. (UIP'), of Rijswijkstraat 175,        (2) Council Regulation 17/62 of 6 February 1962, First
1062 EV Amsterdam, Netherlands, United International                   Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty (OJ
Pictures AB (UIP AB'), of Hornsbruksgatan 19, 10274                   13, 21.2.1962, p. 204 [SE SER1 (59Ð62) p. 87]).
                                                                   (3) Council Decision 90/685/EEC of 21 December 1990
Stockholm, Sweden, United International Pictures APS
                                                                       concerning the implementation of an action programme to
(UIP APS'), of Hauchsvej 13, 1825 Frederiksberg C,                    promote the development of the European audiovisual
Copenhagen, Denmark, United International Pictures A/S                 industry (Media) (1991 to 1995) (OJ L 380, 31.12.1990,
(UIP A/S'), of Hegdehaugsveien 27, 0352 Oslo 3,                       p. 37).
Norway, United International Pictures EPE (UIP EPE'), of
4 Gambetta Street, Athens Gr. 106 78, Greece, United
International Pictures OY (UIP OY'), of Kaisaniemenkatu
1 C, 00100 Helsinki, Finland and United International
Pictures y Cia SRC (UIP y Cia SRC'), of Plaza del Callao
4Ð6o, Madrid 28013, Spain, represented by Alexandre                          Removal from the register of C-331/97 (1)
Vandencasteele and Olivier Speltdoorn, of the Brussels                                      (98/C 184/11)
Bar, of Liedekerke SimeÂon Wessing Houthoff, Brussels,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8Ð10 Rue Mathias Hardt.                 By order of 25 March 1998 the President of the Court of
                                                                   Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                   removal from the register of Case C-331/97: Commission
The Appellant claims that the Court should:                        of the European Communities v. Federal Republic of
                                                                   Germany.
Set aside the contested judgment and accordingly
                                                                   (1) OJ C 331, 1.11.1997.
Ð give final judgment on the case, grant the Appellants
     the order sought before the Court of First Instance and
     order the Commission to pay the costs of the
     proceedings both before the Court of First Instance
     and the Court of Justice;
                                                                             Removal from the register of C-393/97 (1)
Ð or, in the alternative, refer the case back to the Court                                  (98/C 184/12)
     of First Instance for judgment and reserve the costs.
                                                                   By order of 25 March 1998 the President of the Court of
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                   removal from the register of Case C-393/97 (reference
The Appellants rely on three grounds of appeal based on            for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht
an infringement of Community law by the Court of First             Halle): Lidl-Fleischwerk Handelshof GmbH & Co. KG v.
Instance, in particular of Articles 85, 173 and 190 of the         Landkreis Burgenlandkreis.
EC Treaty, of Council Regulation 17/62 (2), of Council
Decision 90/685/EEC (3), of the EFDO Guidelines and of             (1) OJ C 41, 7.2.1998.
the general principles of legal certainty and legitimate
expectations.
The Court of First Instance:
                                                                             Removal from the register of C-302/96 (1)
1) wrongly considered that the Commission enjoyed                                           (98/C 184/13)
     discretionary power to assess the eligibility of EFDO
     funding applications;
                                                                   By order of 26 March 1998 the President of the Court of
                                                                   Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
2) illegally substituted its own reasoning for one of the          removal from the register of Case C-302/96: Commission
     two reasons stated in the contested decision, and;            of the European Communities, supported by Kingdom of
                                                                   Great Britain and Northern Ireland, v. Federal Republic of
3) even if the Court of First Instance                             Germany.
     (a) rightly considered that the Commission enjoyed            (1) OJ C 336, 9.11.1996.
          discretionary power to assess the eligibility of
          EFDO funding applications and


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 May 2003 in Case T-140/03: Forum 187 ASBL v Commission of the European Communities (Declining of jurisdiction)

text:
20.9.2003              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 226/17
annulment of the implied decision of the Court of Auditors                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
rejecting the applicant's request for reinstatement following                                         INSTANCE
leave on personal grounds of 22 January 2001, and the Court
of Auditors" decision of 12 December 2001 rejecting the com-                                       of 15 May 2003
plaint lodged by the applicant on 14 August 2001 and, second,
compensation for material and non-material loss allegedly suf-            in Case T-47/03 R: Jose Maria Sison v Council of the
fered by the applicant, — the Court of First Instance (R. García-                                  European Union
Valdecasas, single Judge); J. Plingers, Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 July 2003, in which it:             (Interlocutory proceedings — Restrictive measures with a
                                                                          view to combating terrorism — Freezing of funds —
                                                                          Disallowance of benefits — Partial inadmissibility of the
1.   Dismisses the application;                                                       orders sought — Urgency — Absence)
                                                                                (2003/C 226/36)
2.   Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                          In Case T-47/03 R, Jose Maria Sison, resident in Utrecht (the
(1) OJ No C 131 of 1 June 2002.                                           Netherlands), represented by J. Fermon, A. Comte, H.E. Schultz,
                                                                          D. Gurses, T. Olsson and J. Lamchek, lawyers, against Council
                                                                          of the European Union (Agents: M. Vitsentzatos and
                                                                          M. Bishop): Application for, first, an order suspending the
                                                                          operation of Decision 2002/974/EC implementing Article 2
                                                                          (3) of Regulation No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive mea-
                                                                          sures directed against certain persons and entities with a view
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                          to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2002/848/EC
                                                                          (OJ 2002 L 337, p. 85) in so far as it mentions the name of the
                         of 25 June 2003                                  applicant, second, an order requesting the Council not to
                                                                          include the applicant in any new decision implementing
in Case T-287/02 Asian Institute of Technology v                          Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001 and, third, an order
       Commission of the European Communities (1)                         requesting the Council to inform all Member States that the
                                                                          restrictive measures adopted in relation to the applicant have
(Action for annulment — Decision to conclude a research                   no legal basis, the President of the Court of First Instance made
            contract — Time-limit — Inadmissible)                         an order on 15 May 2003, the operative part of which is as
                                                                          follows:
                         (2003/C 226/35)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          1.   The application for interim relief is dismissed;
In Case T-287/02: Asian Institute of Technology (AIT), whose              2.   Costs are reserved.
registered office is at Pathumthani (Thailand), represented by
H. Teissier du Cros, lawyer, with an address for service in
Luxembourg, against Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: P. Kuijper and B. Schöfer) — application
for annulment of the decision of the Commission of 4 July
2000 to conclude a research contract under the ‘Asia-Invest’
programme with the Center for Energy-Environment Research
and Development — the Court of First Instance (Fifth
Chamber), composed of R. Garcia-Valdecasas, President,                          ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given
a judgment on 25 June 2003, in which it:                                                           of 16 May 2003
                                                                          in Case T-140/03: Forum 187 ASBL v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
1.   Dismisses the application as inadmissible.
                                                                                (Declining of jurisdiction)
2.   Orders the applicant to pay its own costs and those incurred by
     the Commission.                                                                               (2003/C 226/37)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
(1) OJ C 289, 23.11.2002.                                                 In Case T-140/03, Forum 187 ASBL, represented by A. Sutton
                                                                          and J. Killick, Barristers, v Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities (Agents: V. Di Bucci, R. Lyal and G. Rozet):
 ---pagebreak--- C 226/18                EN                             Official Journal of the European Union                                            20.9.2003
Application for annulment of decision C(2003) 564 final of                     lawyer, against Commission of the European Communities —
17 February 2003 concerning the system of State aid imple-                     application for suspension of enforcement of the Commission
mented by Belgium in favour of coordination centres estab-                     Decision of 18 June 2003 terminating the applicant's assign-
lished in Belgium, the Court of First Instance (First Chamber,                 ment to a post in the delegation of that institution in Nairobi
Extended Composition), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President,                  (Kenya) with effect from 15 July 2003, the President of the
J. Azizi, M. Jaeger, H. Legal and E. Martins Ribeiro, Judges;                  Court of First Instance made an order of 3 July 2003, the
H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 16 May 2003, the                      operative part of which is as follows:
operative part of which is as follows:
1.   The Court of First Instance declines jurisdiction in Case T-140/03        1.   Enforcement of the Commission Decision of 18 June 2003 termi-
     Forum 187 ASBL v Commission in favour of the Court of Justice                  nating the applicant's assignment to a post in the delegation of
     in order to enable the latter to rule on the application for                   that institution in Nairobi (Kenya) is suspended with effect from
     annulment.                                                                     15 July 2003 until the end of the present interim proceedings.
2.   The costs are reserved.
                                                                               2.   Costs are reserved.
(1) OJ C 158 of 5.7.2003.
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                              INSTANCE
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-78/03 (1)
                           of 3 July 2003
                                                                                (2003/C 226/39)
in Case T-249/03 R: Y v Commission of the European
                            Communities                                                            (Language of the Case: French)
(Interim measures — Official — Article 105(2) of the Rules                     By order of 26 June 2003 the President of the Fifth Chamber of
                             of Procedure)                                     the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                               ordered the removal from the register of Case T-78/03:
                          (2003/C 226/38)                                      Haladjian Frères v Commission of the European Communities.
                    (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-249/03 R Y, an official of the Commission of the
European Communities, represented by S. Papanikolaou,                          (1) OJ C 112 of 10.5.2003.


title: Case C-201/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj — Romania) — Smaranda Bara and Others v Președintele Casei Naționale de Asigurări de Sănătate, Casa Naţională de Asigurări de Sănătate, Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală (ANAF) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 95/46/EC — Processing of personal data — Articles 10 and 11 — Data subjects’ information — Article 13 — Exceptions and limitations — Transfer by a public administrative body of a Member State of personal tax data for processing by another public administrative body)

text:
               16.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/5

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj — Romania) — Smaranda Bara and Others v Președintele Casei Naționale de Asigurări de Sănătate, Casa Naţională de Asigurări de Sănătate, Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală (ANAF)
   (Case C-201/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 95/46/EC - Processing of personal data - Articles 10 and 11 - Data subjects’ information - Article 13 - Exceptions and limitations - Transfer by a public administrative body of a Member State of personal tax data for processing by another public administrative body))
   (2015/C 381/05)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Cluj

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Smaranda Bara and Others

      Defendants: Casa Naţională de Asigurări de Sănătate, Președintele Casei Naționale de Asigurări de Sănătate, Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală (ANAF)

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 10, 11 and 13 of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995, on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, must be interpreted as precluding national measures, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which allow a public administrative body of a Member State to transfer personal data to another public administrative body and their subsequent processing, without the data subjects having been informed of that transfer or processing.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.


title: Case T-217/08: Action brought on 11 June 2008 — Bundesverband Deutscher Milchviehhalter and Others v Council

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/57

         Action brought on 11 June 2008 — Bundesverband Deutscher Milchviehhalter and Others v Council
   (Case T-217/08)
   (2008/C 209/102)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicants: Bundesverband Deutscher Milchviehhalter eV (Bonn Germany), Romuald Schaber (Petersthal, Germany), Stefan Mann (Eberdorfergrund, Germany) and Walter Peters (Körchow, Germany) (represented by: W. Renner and O. Schniewind, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that Council Regulation (EC) No 248/2008 of 17 March 2008 amending Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards the national quotas for milk (OJ 2008 L 76, p. 6) is invalid;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant brings an action against Regulation (EC) No 248/2008 (1) by which the national quotas for milk laid down in Annex IX to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 (2) until 1 August 2008 to facilitate greater milk production in the Community and to meet the new requirements of the market in milk were increased by 2 %.
   In support of its action the applicant claims, first, that the increase in the national quotas for milk is a misuse of discretionary powers since it pursues grounds other than those indicated in the recitals.
   In addition the regulation being challenged infringes the EC Treaty, as Article 37(2) EC is applied erroneously as a provision authorising disregard of the objectives set out in Article 33(1)(a) and (b) EC, the environmental protection requirements within the meaning of Article 6 EC has been unlawfully disregarded and the duty of conservation and safeguarding of cultural heritage in the Community under Article 151 EC has been infringed.
   Furthermore, there is an infringement of the applicant's freedom to choose a profession and to own property and of the principle of non-discrimination.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 248/2008 of 17 March 2008 amending Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards the national quotas for milk (OJ 2008 L 76, p. 6).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (OJ 2007 L 299, p. 1).