title: Judgment of the Court of 21 January 2003 in Case C-512/99: Federal Republic of Germany v Commission of the European Communities (Approximation of laws — Directive 97/69/EC — Dangerous substances — More stringent national provisions — Application ratione temporis of Article 95 EC — Duty of cooperation — Conditions for the approval of new national provisions)

text:
8.3.2003                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                C 55/1
                                                                          I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                      COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       1.    Dismisses the action;
                                                                             2.    Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
                        of 28 January 2003
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 366 of 18.12.1999.
in Case C-334/99: Federal Republic of Germany v Com-
          mission of the European Communities (1)
(EC and ECSC Treaties — State aid — Composition of the
Commission — Notification to the Commission of aid and
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
planned aid — Concept and substance of notification —
Scope of the ECSC Treaty — Fifth Steel Aid Code — Powers
of the Commission ratione temporis — Article 87(2)(c) EC                                             of 21 January 2003
— Privatisation procedure — Private investor test —
               Invitation to bid — Transparency)                             in Case C-512/99: Federal Republic of Germany v Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities (1)
                          (2003/C 55/01)                                     (Approximation of laws — Directive 97/69/EC — Danger-
                                                                             ous substances — More stringent national provisions —
                                                                             Application ratione temporis of Article 95 EC — Duty of
                   (Language of the case: German)                            cooperation — Conditions for the approval of new national
                                                                                provisions)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                                                      (2003/C 55/02)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
In Case C-334/99, Federal Republic of Germany (Agent:                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
C.-D. Quassowski, assisted by J. Sedemund) v Commission of                                      in the European Court Reports)
the European Communities (Agents: D. Triantafyllou and
K.-D. Borchardt): Application for annulment of Articles 4 to 7
of Commission Decision 1999/720/EC, ECSC of 8 July 1999                      In Case C-512/99, Federal Republic of Germany (Agents:
on State aid granted by Germany to Gröditzer Stahlwerke                      W.-D. Plessing and B. Muttelsee-Schön) v Commission of the
GmbH and its subsidiary Walzwerk Burg GmbH (OJ 1999                          European Communities (Agent: G. zur Hausen) supported by
L 292, p. 27), the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias,              Republic of Finland (Agents: T. Pynnä and E. Bygglin):
President, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen and                   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 1999/
C.W.A. Timmermans (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann,                      836/EC of 26 October 1999 on the national provisions
D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, V. Skouris (Rapporteur),                       concerning mineral wool notified by Germany derogating
S. von Bahr and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo                 from Directive 97/69/EC adapting to technical progress for
Colomer, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Adminis-                     the 23rd time Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approxi-
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 January                mation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
2003, in which it:                                                           relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of
 ---pagebreak--- C 55/2                   EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                                 8.3.2003
dangerous substances (OJ 1999 L 329, p. 100), the Court,                     1979 L 33, p. 1), as amended by Directive 97/4/EC of the
composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puisso-               European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997
chet, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen and C.W.A. Timmermans                        (OJ 1997 L 43, p. 21), and under Article 28 EC, the Court
(Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La                   (Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, acting for the
Pergola, P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von                 President of the Sixth Chamber, V. Skouris, F. Macken,
Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur) and A. Rosas, Judges;                N. Colneric and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), Judges;
A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a               L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Administrator,
judgment on 21 January 2003, in which it:                                    for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 January 2003,
                                                                             in which it:
1.     Dismisses the action;
                                                                             1.     Declares that, by laying down a general prohibition of health-
2.     Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs;                     related information on the labelling of foodstuffs for general
                                                                                consumption and by subjecting the display of such information
3.     Orders the Republic of Finland to bear its own costs.                        to a prior authorisation procedure, the Republic of Austria has
                                                                                failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2(1)(b) and 15(1)
( 1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.                                                          and (2) of Council Directive 79/112/EEC of 18 December
                                                                                1978 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States
                                                                                relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of
                                                                                foodstuffs, as amended by Directive 97/4/EC of the European
                                                                                Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997;
                                                                             2.     Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs;
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                             3.     Orders the Kingdom of Denmark to bear its own costs.
                          (Sixth Chamber)
                         of 23 January 2003                                  (1 ) OJ C 211 of 22.7.2000.
in Case C-221/00: Commission of the European Communi-
                   ties v Republic of Austria ( 1)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Approximation of laws — Articles 28 EC and 30 EC —
Directive 79/112/EEC — Labelling and presentation of                                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                             foodstuffs)
                           (2003/C 55/03)                                                                of 21 January 2003
                    (Language of the case: German)                           in Case C-318/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                             the High Court of Justice (England & Wales, Queen’s
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       bench Division): Bacardi-Martini SAS, Cellier des Dau-
                    in the European Court Reports)                                phins v Newcastle United Football Company Ltd (1),
                                                                             (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom to provide
In Case C-221/00, Commission of the European Communities                     services — Refusal to display advertisements for alcoholic
(Agent: J. C. Schieferer) v Republic of Austria (Agent: H. Dossi)            drinks at a sporting event taking place in a Member State
supported by Kingdom of Denmark (Agent: C. P. Kristensen):                   whose law allows television advertising for alcoholic drinks
Application for a declaration that, by interpreting and applying             but being broadcast on television in another Member State
Paragraph 9(1) and (3) of the Bundesgesetz über den Verkehr                  whose law prohibits such advertising — Relevance of the
mit Lebensmitteln, Verzehrprodukten, Zusatzstoffen, kosme-                         questions for the outcome of the main proceedings)
tischen Mitteln und Gebrauchsgegenständen (Lebensmittelge-
setz 1975) (Federal Law on trade in foodstuffs, products                                                   (2003/C 55/04)
intended for human consumption, additives, cosmetic prod-
ucts and consumer goods) of 23 January 1975 as meaning
that health-related information on foodstuffs for general                                          (Language of the case: English)
consumption is prohibited in a general and absolute manner,
and by subjecting the affixing of such information to a prior
authorisation procedure, the Republic of Austria has failed to
fulfil its obligations under Articles 2(1)(b) and 15(1) and (2) of           In Case C-318/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
Council Directive 79/112/EEC of 18 December 1978 on the                      EC by the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to                   Bench Division, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs (OJ                pending before that court between Bacardi-Martini SAS, Cellier


title: Case T-142/08: Action brought on 2 April 2008 — Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               7.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/35

         Action brought on 2 April 2008 — Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-142/08)
   (2008/C 142/64)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities, European Personnel Selection Office
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Notice of open competitions EPSO/AD/116/08 and EPSO/AD/117/08 to constitute a reserve list comprising 30 Administrator posts (AD8) and 20 Principal Administrator posts (AD11) in the field of fraud prevention;

               —

               annul Notice of open competition EPSO/AST/45/08 to constitute a reserve list comprising 30 Assistant posts (AST4) in the field of fraud prevention.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and principal arguments are similar to those put forward in Case T-117/08 Italy v Commission
       (1).

      (1)  Not yet published in the Official Journal of the European Union.


               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/35

         Removal from the register of Case C-381/03 (1)

   (2004/C 118/71)
   By order of 18 March 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-381/03: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

      (1)  OJ C 264 of 1.11.2003.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgericht Sigmaringen by order of 28 November 2001 in the case of Ludwig Leichtle against the Bundesanstalt für Arbeit (Case C-8/02)

text:
C 84/50                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         6.4.2002
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Sozialgericht                 1.    Are Articles 49 and 50 EC to be interpreted as precluding
Hannover by order of 12 December 2002 in the case of                          rules of national law (in this case Paragraph 13(3) of
Silke Gaumain-Cerri against Kaufmännische Krankenkas-                         the Allgemeine Verwaltungsvorschrift für Beihilfen in
se-Pflegekasse, additional party Bundesversicherungsan-                       Krankheits-, Pflege-, Geburts- und Todesfällen (General
                       stalt für Angestellte                                  Administrative Provisions concerning Assistance in the
                                                                              Event of Sickness, Treatment, Birth and Death — ‘the
                         (Case C-502/01)                                      Assistance Provisions’) which render the assumption of
                                                                              the costs of a health cure in another Member State
                                                                              conditional on the health cure being absolutely necessary
                          (2002/C 84/86)                                      outside the Federal Republic of Germany on account of
                                                                              greatly increased prospects of success, on this being
                                                                              proven by a report from a medical officer or a medical
                                                                              consultant, and on the spa concerned being listed in the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        Register of Spas?
European Communities by order of the Sozialgericht Hannover
(Social Court, Hanover) of 12 December 2001, received at the
Court Registry on 27 December 2001, for a preliminary ruling            2.    Are Articles 49 and 50 EC to be interpreted as precluding
in the case of Silke Gaumain-Cerri against Kaufmännische                      rules of national law (in this case point 3 in the first
Krankenkasse-Pflegekasse, additional party Bundesversi-                       sentence of Paragraph 13(3) of the Assistance Provisions,
cherungsanstalt für Angestellte [Federal Insurance Office for                 read in conjunction with Paragraph 8(3)(2) thereof) under
Clerical Staff], on the following questions:                                  which advance recognition of a health cure is not possible
                                                                              if the person concerned does not wait for the application
(a)  Can the expressions ‘sickness benefit’ and ‘old-age benefit’             procedure or any subsequent court proceedings to be
     within the meaning of Article 1 of Regulation                            concluded before commencing the health cure and the
     No 1408/71 (1) cover benefits paid by one insurer to                     only matter in dispute is whether the rules of national
     another if the insured derives only an abstract and indirect             law correctly rule out eligibility for assistance in the form
     advantage therefrom (payment of pension insurance                        of a health cure in a Member State of the European
     contributions by the care insurance fund on behalf of a                  Union?
     voluntary carer)? If they can, under what circumstances
     can they do so?
(b) Is there a prohibition of discrimination under primary or
     secondary Community law from which it follows that a
     benefit as described in (a) above is to be granted
     irrespective of whether the activity conferring the
     entitlement to benefit is carried on in Germany or in
     another EU Member State, and irrespective of where the             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bayerisches
     insured or the immediate beneficiary has his residence?            Oberstes Landesgericht by order of 19 December 2001 in
                                                                                criminal proceedings against Marco Grilli
(1) OJ L 149, p. 2.
                                                                                (Case C-12/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 84/88)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungs-                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
gericht Sigmaringen by order of 28 November 2001 in                     European Communities by order of the Bayerisches Oberstes
the case of Ludwig Leichtle against the Bundesanstalt für               Landesgericht (Bavarian Supreme Court) of 19 December
                               Arbeit                                   2001, received at the Court Registry on 16 Janaury 2002, for
                                                                        a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings against Marco
                           (Case C-8/02)                                Grilli on the following question:
                          (2002/C 84/87)
                                                                        Is Article 29 EC to be interpreted as precluding a national rule
                                                                        that makes it a criminal offence for an Italian national to
                                                                        obtain a transit registration mark from the competent Italian
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  authorities, affix licence plates bearing that mark to a vehicle
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht                 offered for sale in Germany, and then drive that vehicle on the
Sigmaringen (Sigmaringen Administrative Court) of 28 Nov-               public highway from Germany to Italy?
ember 2001, received at the Court Registry on 11 January
2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ludwig Leichtle
against the Bundesanstalt für Arbeit on the following questions:


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 16 September 1997 in Case C-279/94: Commission of the European Communities v. Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Obligation to give prior notification pursuant to Directive 83/189/EEC)

text:
C 318/2                  EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    18 . 10 . 97
          of Justice or the Court of First Instance ruling on               provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
          the lawfulness of the Community act or on an                      93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures
          application for interim measures seeking similiar                 for the award of public supply contracts, the Italian
          interim relief at Community level.                                Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
                                                                            first subparagraph of Article 34 (1 ) of that directive;
4 . The second paragraph of Article 177 of the EC                      2 . dismisses the remainder of the application;
     Treaty does not preclude a national court which has
     ordered suspension of implementation of a national
     administrative decision and referred to the Court for a           3 . orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
     preliminary ruling a question on the validity of the
      Community act on which the decision is based from
                                                                       (') OJ C 131 , 26 . 4 . 1997.
     granting leave to appeal against its decision.
(') OJ C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 16 September 1997
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                              in Case C-279/94: Commission of the European
                          ( Sixth Chamber)                                           Communities v. Italian Republic ( l )
                           of 17 July 1997                             (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                       Obligation to give prior notification pursuant to Directive
        in Case C-43/97: Commission of the European                                                  83/189/EEC)
               Communities v. Italian Republic ( 1 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 318/03 )
(Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 93/36/EEC —
       Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                            ( 97/C 318/02 )
                                                                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                  (Language of the case: Italian)                                 published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                       In Case C-279/94: Commission of the European
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be        Communities ( Agents : Antonio Aresu, then Paolo
           published in the European Court Reports)                    Stancanelli ) v. Italian Republic ( Agent: Umberto Leanza,
                                                                       assisted by Pier Giorgio Ferri ) — application for a
                                                                       declaration that, in adopting Law No 257 of 27 March
In Case C-43/97: Commission of the European                            1992 laying down rules concerning the cessation of the
Communities ( Agent: Paolo Stancanelli ) v. Italian Republic           use of asbestos, without having notified the draft Law to
( Agent: Professor Umberto Leanza, assisted by Ivo                     the Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil
M. Braguglia ) — application for a declaration that, by                its obligations pursuant to the first subparagraph of
failing to adopt within the prescribed period the laws,                Article 8 ( 1 ) — or, in the alternative, Article 9(1 ) — of
regulations and administrative provisions necessary to                 Council Directive 83/189/EEC of 28 March 1983 laying
comply with Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June                     down a procedure for the provision of information in the
1993 coordinating procedures for the award of public                   field of technical standards and regulations ( OJ L 109,
supply contracts ( OJ L 199, 9 . 8 . 1993 , p. 1 ) and by              26 . 4. 1983 , p. 8 ), as amended by Directive 88/182/EEC
failing to notify those provisions, the Italian Republic has           ( OJ L 81 , 26 . 3 . 1988 , p. 75 ) — the Court ( Sixth
failed to fulfil its obligations under the first subparagraph          Chamber), composed of: G. F. Mancini, President of the
of Article 34(1 ) of that Directive — the Court ( Sixth                Chamber, J. L. Murray, G. Hirsch, H. Ragnemalm
Chamber), composed of: G. F. Mancini, President of the                 ( Rapporteur) and R. Schintgen, Judges; N. Fennelly,
Chamber, J. L. Murray, G. Hirsch, H. Ragnemalm                         Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
( Rapporteur ) and R. Schintgen, Judges; C. O. Lenz,                   Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 September 1997, in
                                                                       which it:
Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment
on 17 July 1997, in which it:
                                                                        1 . declares that, in adopting Law No 257 of 27 March
                                                                             1992 laying down rules concerning the cessation of
 1 . declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed                the use of asbestos, without having notified the draft
      period the laws, regulations and administrative                        Law to the Commission, the Italian Republic has
 ---pagebreak--- 18 . 10 . 97             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 318/3
     failed to fulfil its obligations pursuant to the first             must be construed as not precluding the maintenance of a
     subparagraph of Article 8 (1 ) of Council Directive 83/            national charge having the characteristics of a stamp duty
     189/EEC of 28 March 1983 laying down a procedure                   levied on works contracts and contracts for the supply of
     for the provision of information in the field of                   materials or any kind of consumer article, to the exclusion
     technical standards and regulations, as amended by                 of a large portion of economic transcations in the Member
     Directive 88/182/EEC;                                              State concerned.
                                                                        O OJ C 180, 22 . 6 . 1996 .
2 . orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
(') OJ C 351 , 10 . 12 . 1994 .
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                            of 10 July 1997
                           ( First Chamber)                             in Case C-234/94 Waltraud Tomberger v. Gebrüder von
                                                                                der Wettern GmbH (')
                      of 17 September 1997
                                                                                (Correction)
in Case C-130/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo ): Fazenda Pública v.                                        ( 97/C 318/05 )
Solisnor-Estaleiros Navais SA, also represented: Ministério
                                Público P )
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
(VAT — Article 33 of the sixth VAT Directive —
Maintenance of stamp duties — Stamp duty on the value
  of contracts relating to the construction of an oil tanker)           In Case C-234/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                        of the EC Treaty from the Bundesgerichtshof for a
                             ( 97/C 318/04 )                            preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
                                                                        court between Waltraud Tomberger and Gebriider von der
                                                                        Wettern GmbH on the interpretation of Articles 31 ( 1 )
              (Language of the case: Portuguese)                        and 59 of the fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of
                                                                        25 July 1978 based on Article 54 ( 3 ) (g) of the Treaty on
                                                                        the annual accounts of certain types of companies ( OJ
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be          L 222, 14 . 8 . 1978 , p. 11 ) as amended by the seventh
          published in the European Court Reports)                      Council Directive 83/349/EEC based on Article 54 ( 3 ) ( g)
                                                                        of the Treaty on consolidated accounts ( OJ L 193 , 18 . 7.
                                                                        1983 , p. 1 ), the Court ( Fifth Chamber), composed of
In Case C-130/96 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                        J. C. Moitinho de Almeida (President of the Chamber),
of the EC Treaty from the Supremo Tribunal Administra                  C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward ( Rapporteur), J. -P.
tive ( Supreme Administrative Court) Portugal, for a                    Puissochet and M. Wathelet, Judges; G. Tesauro,
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that               Advocate-General, R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order
court between Fazenda Publica and Solisnor-Estaleiros
                                                                        on 10 July 1997 correcting the judgment of 27 June
Navais SA, also represented : Ministerio Publico — on the               1996 (2 ) the operative part of which should read as
interpretation of Article 33 of the sixth Council Directive             follows :
77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the
laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —
common system of value added tax: uniform basis of                      Where
assessment ( OJ L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p. 1 ) and of
Article 378 of the Act concerning the conditions of
accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese                    — one company (the parent company) is the sole
Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties ( OJ L 302,                    shareholder in another company (the subsidiary), and
15 . 11 . 1985, p. 23 ) — the Court ( First Chamber ),                      controls it,
composed of: L. Sevon, President of the Chamber, P. Jann
and M. Wathelet ( Rapporteur), Judges; P. Leger, Advocate              — under national law, the parent company and the
General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the                         subsidiary form a group,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 September 1997, in
which it has ruled;
                                                                        — the financial years of the two companies coincide,
Article 33 of the sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of
17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the                     — the subsidiary 's general meeting approved the
Member States relating to turnover taxes — common                           appropriation of certain profits to the parent company
system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment                      in respect of the financial year concerned,


title: Case C-506/03: Action brought on 1 December 2003 (fax 26 November 2003) by the Federal Republic of Germany against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
21.2.2004                EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 47/15
2.     If the answer to the second alternative in question 1.                          failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4, 8 and
       above is in the affirmative:                                                    9 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC (1) on waste, as
                                                                                amended by Directive 91/156/EEC. (2)
       Does the proviso ‘subject to the same proviso’ contained
       in the second subparagraph of Article 3(3) of Directive
       92/12/EEC refer, also on taxation of the supply of services         —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
       relating to products subject to excise duty as defined by
       Article 3(1) of Directive 92/12/EEC, only to the condition
       laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 3(3) of that
       directive, namely ‘provided, however, that those taxes do
       not give rise to border-crossing formalities in trade               Pleas in law and main arguments
       between Member States’, or in such a case must ‘specific
       purposes’ for the tax, as laid down in Article 3(2) of the
       directive, also exist?                                              According to the most recent records (December 2002), 1458
                                                                           unlawful and uncontrolled waste tips are operating which
                                                                           receive waste from 47 % of the country’s population.
(1) OJ L 76, p. 1.
                                                                           The Greek authorities informed the Commission that the
                                                                           programme to reduce unlawful and uncontrolled waste dis-
                                                                           posal sites and their replacement with lawful landfill sites
                                                                           meeting public health requirements will only be completed at
                                                                           the end of 2007.
Action brought on 26 November 2003 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities against the Hel-                       The Commission considers that, inasmuch as it is allowing the
                           lenic Republic                                  unlawful and uncontrolled sites to operate on its territory, the
                                                                           Hellenic Republic is in breach of its obligations under
                                                                           Articles 4, 8 and 9 of Directive 75/442/EEC on waste, as
                          (Case C-502/03)                                  amended by Directive 91/156/EEC.
                           (2004/C 47/25)                                  (1) OJ L 194 of 25.07.1975, p. 39.
                                                                           (2) OJ L 78 of 26.3.1991, p. 32.
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 Nov-
ember 2003 by the Commission of the European Communi-
ties, represented by M. Konstantinidis, of its Legal Service.
The Commission claims that the Court should:                               Action brought on 1 December 2003 (fax 26 November
                                                                           2003) by the Federal Republic of Germany against the
—      declare that, by failing to take all the measures necessary:                 Commission of the European Communities
       —     to ensure that waste is disposed of without
             endangering human health and without harming                                            (Case C-506/03)
             the environment,
                                                                                (2004/C 47/26)
       —     to prohibit the abandonment, dispοsal and uncon-
             trolled treatment of waste, to ensure that any holder
             of waste has it handled by a private or public waste
             collector or by an undertaking which carries out
             disposal, or disposes of it himself, in accordance            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
             with the measures taken under Article 4,                      ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                           Communities on 1 December 2003 (fax 26 November 2003)
       —     to ensure that the establishments or undertakings             by the Federal Republic of Germany, represented by Wolf-
             which carry out disposal operations operate under a           Dieter Plessing, Ministerialrat in the Federal Ministry of Finance,
             permit from the competent authority or under a                and Christoph von Donat, Rechtsanwalt, with an address for
             permit which meets the legal requirements, has                service at the Federal Ministry for Finance, Berlin (Germany).
 ---pagebreak--- C 47/16                EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                        21.2.2004
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Action brought on 1 December 2003 by the Commission
                                                                         of the European Communities against the United
                                                                               Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
1.    annul the decision of the Commission to set payment of
      the balance of the Community subsidy for carrying out
      the NELS Eurofix study (EU/D/99/170), granted under
      Commission Decision C(1999) 1834 final/5 of 2 July                                         (Case C-508/03)
      1999, at EUR 80 450,71 in so far as it declares the
      expenditure connected with the IPR contract between
      NODECA NELS CAO and GAUSS Research Foundation
      (NODECA/2000/040) not eligible for subsidy;                                                 (2004/C 47/27)
2.    order the Commission to pay the costs of the case.
                                                                         An action against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
                                                                         Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         the European Communities on 1 December 2003 by the
                                                                         Commission of the European Communities, represented by
                                                                         X. Lewis and F. Simonetti, acting as agents, with an address for
1. As the first ground for its action, the applicant alleges             service in Luxembourg.
substantive breach of secondary Community law and general
principles of law. The decision not to recognise the acquisition
of Eurofix as expenditure qualifying for subsidy and to fix the
amount of the balance of the aid at a correspondingly lower              The Applicant claims that the Court should:
figure is not only in breach of Council Regulation (EC)
No 2236/95 of 18 September 1995 laying down general rules
for the granting of Community financial aid in the field of              1)   declare that by failing to apply correctly Articles 2(1) and
trans-European networks (1) in conjunction with Commission                    4(2) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985
Decision C(1999) 1834 final/5 of 2 July 1999 on the grant of                  on the assessment of the effects of certain public and
a Community subsidy of up to EUR 0,7 million for study                        private projects on the environment (1) in relation to the
No EU/D/99/170. By its decision the Commission has also                       proposed urban development project at White City as a
clearly erred in its assessment and at the same time has                      project listed in Annex II, paragraph 10 (b) of the
thwarted the applicant’s legitimate expectation that Com-                     Directive, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
mission legal measures will continue to apply, has infringed                  Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under
the principle of legal certainty and has not acted in accordance              that Directive;
with the principle of proper administration.
                                                                         2)   declare that by failing to apply correctly Articles 2(1) and
2. As the second ground for its action, the applicant points                  4(2) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985
to formal breaches of Community law, since no clear basis for                 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and
the contested decision can be seen, even on an overview of the                private projects on the environment in relation to the
events, which is capable of justifying the decision. If, by its               proposed urban development project at Crystal Palace as
decision, the Commission intended a change to the eligible                    a project listed in Annex II, paragraph 10 (b) of the
expenses underlying the approval, the contested decision                      Directive, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
would moreover be formally unlawful, because it should not                    Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under
have been taken by way of delegation. The applicant raises this               that Directive;
as the third ground for its action.
                                                                         3)   declare that by failing to ensure the correct application of
                                                                              Articles 2(1), 4(2), 5(2) and 8 of Council Directive 85/
3. The fourth ground for the action concerns the breach of                    337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects
the principle of cooperation in good faith between the                        of certain public and private projects on the environment
Commission and Member States in accordance with Article 10                    as amended by Directive 97/11/EC (2) when development
EC.                                                                           consent is granted for projects in a multi-stage consent
                                                                              procedure, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
                                                                              Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                              that Directive;
(1) OJ 1995 L 228 p. 1.
                                                                         4)   order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
                                                                              Ireland to pay the costs.


title: Action brought on 2 January 1996 by Bernhard Böcker-Lensing and Ludger Schulze-Beiering Gesellschaft bürgerlichen Rechts against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-1/96)

text:
2 . 3 . 96           I EN 1              Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 64/23
Action brought on 22 December 1995 by Lando Tinelli                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                        Case T-242/95 )                             — order the defendants to pay to the applicant milk quota
                         ( 96/C 64/44                                   compensation ( SLOM-II ) for the period from 2 April
                                                                        1984 to 13 June 1991 , amounting to DM 118 436,52 ,
                                                                        together with 8 % interest from 19 May 1992, and to
                 (Language of the case: Italian)                        pay the costs of the proceedings and the applicants'
                                                                        experts ' fees in the sum of DM 1 961,90,
An action against the Commission of the European                    — stay the proceedings.
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 22 December
1995 by Lando Tinelli, a former official of the Commission          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
of the European Communities, residing in Rome,
represented by Giuseppe Marchesini, advocate with the               The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
right of audience before the Corte di Cassazione of the             in Case T-20/94 .
Italian Republic, with an address for service in Luxembourg
at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8—10 Rue Mathias
Hardt .
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                    Action brought on 3 January 1996 by Neue Maxhütte
— annul the applicant's pension statements as from
     January 1995 on the grounds set forth in the
                                                                    Stahlwerke GmbH against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
     application,
                                                                                Case T-2/96 )
— order the Commission to pay the amounts due in their                                        ( 96/C 64/46 )
     entirety, together with interest at 8 % calculated from
     the dates on which they fell due,                                             (Language of the case: German)
— order the defendant to pay the costs of the
     proceedings.                                                   An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                    Instance of the European Communities on 3 January 1996
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those          by      Neue      Maxhütte        Stahlwerke    GmbH         of
in Case T-238/95 Francesco Mongelli v. Commission .                 Sulzbach-Rosenberg ( Germany), represented by Rainer
                                                                    Bierwagen ( Rechtsanwalt ) of Brussels, with an address for
                                                                    service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger and
                                                                    Dessoy, 31 Rue d'Eich.
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
Action brought on 2 January 1996 by Bernhard
                                                                    — annul Commission Decision K(95 ) 2828 final of
Böcker-Lensing and Ludger Schulze-Beiering Gesellschaft
bürgerlichen Rechts against the Council of the European                  18 October 1995 in so far as it affects the applicant,
Union and the Commission of the European
                         Communities                                — order the Commission to pay the costs of the
                                                                        proceedings.
                          Case T-l /96 )
                          ( 96/C 64/45 )
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                (Language of the case: German)                      The applicant, Neue Maxhütte Stahlwerke GmbH of
                                                                     Sulzbach-Rosenberg, the ECSC steel producer to which
An action against the Council of the European Union and             loans described by the Commission as aids were granted,
the Commission of the European Communities was brought              maintains that the contested Decision infringes essential
 before the Court of First Instance of the European                  procedural requirements and principles.
 Communities on 2 January 1996 by Bernhard
 Böcker-Lensing and Ludger Schulze-Beiering Gesellschaft             In its submission, the Decision contained incorrect and
 bürgerlichen Rechts, Borken, represented by Bernd                   inadequate factual findings concerning the alleged aid .
 Meisterernst, Mechtild Düsing, Dietrich Manstetten and
 Dr. Frank Schulze, Rechtsanwälte, Münster, with an                  The proceedings concerning the privatization of Neue
 address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                Maxhütte and the granting of the loans have the same
 Dupong & Associés, 14a Rue des Bains .                              subject-matter, since the granting of the loans is part of the


title: Case C-21/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d'État, section d'administration (Belgium) by judgment of that Court of 27 December 2002 in the case of Fabricom SA against l'État belge

text:
C 55/16                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         8.3.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 (b) has offered them for sale in the trademark owner’s
                                                                                own shops or those of a related company within the
                                                                                common market but a sale of the goods has not
The Republic of Austria neither transposed the principle of                           taken place?
priority contained in Article 3(1) of Directive 75/439/EEC
in the version contained in Directive 87/101/EEC ( 2) not
demonstrated that such priority was precluded by technical,               2.    If goods have been put on the market under one of the
financial or organisational constraints.                                        above alternatives and exhaustion of the trademark right
                                                                                thereby occurs without there having been a sale of the
                                                                                goods, can a trademark owner interrupt exhaustion by
Priority in favour of ‘regeneration’ or (in Austrian terminology)               returning the goods to a warehouse?
‘recycling’ as opposed to ‘combustion’ or (in Austrian termin-
ology) ‘energy conversion’ cannot be inferred from the Austri-            3.    Are goods to be regarded as having been put on the
an legal provisions. Rather those provisions refer to recycling                 market by virtue of the fact that they have been sold by
and energy conversion in the same context without according                     the trademark owner to another company in the internal
priority to one of the two methods of treatment over the                        market, if, upon the sale, the trademark owner imposed a
other.                                                                          restriction on the buyer under which he was not entitled
                                                                                to resell the goods in the common market?
The arguments relied on by the Republic of Austria in order to
substantiate the existence of preclusive technical, financial and         4.    Is the answer to question 3 affected if the trademark
organisational constraints, that is to say that owing to the                    owner, upon selling the consignment to which the goods
small quantity of waste oil regeneration in Austria is unecon-                  belonged, gave the buyer permission to resell a small part
omical; that for ecological reasons no clear advantages is to be                of the goods in the common market but did not specify
gained from recycling; that there is no reprocessing plant                      the individual goods to which that permission applied?
in Austria for waste oils, are in the Commission’s view
unconvincing since they merely seek to perpetuate in Austria
the existing status quo and do not indicate that any endeavours
have been made in order to meet the directive’s requirements.
( 1) OJ 1975 L 194, p. 31.
( 2) OJ 1987 L 42, p. 43.
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d’État,
                                                                          section d’administration (Belgium) by judgment of that
                                                                          Court of 27 December 2002 in the case of Fabricom SA
                                                                                against l’État belge
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hovrätten över                                           (Case C-21/03)
Skåne och Blekinge by order of that Court of 19 December
2002 in the case of Peak Holding AB against Axolin-
Elinor AB (formerly Handelskompaniet Factory Outlet i                                              (2003/C 55/29)
                        Löddeköpinge AB)
                          (Case C-16/03)
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          European Communities by judgment of the Conseil d’État,
                          (2003/C 55/28)
                                                                          section d’administration (Council of State, administrative sec-
                                                                          tion) (Belgium) of 27 December 2002, received at the Court
                                                                          Registry on 22 January 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    case of Fabricom SA against l’État belge (Belgian State) on the
European Communities by order of the Hovrätten över Skåne                 following questions:
och Blekinge (Court of Appeal for Skåne and Blekinge) of
19 December 2002, received at the Court Registry on 15 Janu-              1.    Do Council Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993
ary 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Peak Holding                  coordinating the procurement procedures of entities
AB against Axolin-Elinor AB (formerly Handelskompaniet                          operating in the water, energy, transport and telecom-
Factory Outlet i Löddeköpinge AB) on the following questions:                   munications sectors ( 1), and in particular Article 4(2)
                                                                                thereof, and Directive 98/4/EC ( 2) of 16 February 1998 of
1.    Are goods to be regarded as having been put on the                        the European Parliament and of the Council amending
      market by virtue of the fact that the trademark owner:                    Directive 93/38/EEC, in conjunction with the principle of
                                                                                proportionality, freedom of trade and industry and
      (a)   has imported them into the common market and                        respect for the law of property guaranteed in particular
            paid import duty on them, with the intention that                   by the protocol of 20 March 1992 to the Convention for
            they be sold there?                                                 the Protection of Human rights and Fundamental
 ---pagebreak--- 8.3.2003               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 55/17
      Freedoms, preclude the barring of the submission of an                     Removal from the register of Case C-304/99 ( 1)
      application to participate in or a tender for a public
      contract for works, supplies or services by any person
      who has been responsible for research, testing, study or                                    (2003/C 55/31)
      development in respect of those works, supplies or
      services where that person has not been given an
      opportunity to prove that, in the circumstances of the
      case, the experience he has acquired could not distort             By order of 15 November 2002 the President of the Court of
      competition?                                                       Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                         from the register of Case C-304/99 (Reference for a preliminary
2.    Would the answer to the preceding question be different if         ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): F. Apollonio & C. SpA v
      the abovementioned directives, considered in conjunction           Ministero delle Finanze.
      with the same principle, freedom and law, were interpret-
      ed as covering only private undertakings or undertakings
      which had supplied gratuitous services?                            (1 ) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.
3.    Can Council Directive 92/13/EEC of 25 February 1992
      coordinating the laws, regulations and administrative
      provisions relating to the application of Community rules
      on the procurement procedures of entities operating in
      the water, energy, transport and telecommunications
      sectors (3), and in particular Articles 1 and 2 thereof, be
      interpreted as meaning that a contracting entity may
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-305/99 ( 1)
      exclude, up to the end of the process of evaluation of
      the tenders, from participation in the procedure or
      submission of a tender, an undertaking connected to any                                     (2003/C 55/32)
      person who has been responsible for the research, testing,
      study or development in respect of the works, supplies or
      services, although when questioned in that regard by the
      contracting authority that undertaking declares that it has
      gained therefrom no unfair advantage of a nature such as           By order of 15 November 2002 the President of the Court of
      to distort the normal conditions of competition?                   Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                         from the register of Case C-305/99 (Reference for a preliminary
                                                                         ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Leglerdata SpA v Ministero
                                                                         delle Finanze.
( 1) OJ L 199 of 09.08.1993, p. 84.
( 2) OJ L 101 of 01.04.1998, p. 1.
( 3) OJ L 76 of 23.03.1992, p. 14.
                                                                         (1 ) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.
        Removal from the register of Case C-303/99 ( 1)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-358/99 ( 1)
                          (2003/C 55/30)                                                          (2003/C 55/33)
By order of 15 November 2002 the President of the Court of               By order of 19 November 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-303/99 (Reference for a preliminary          from the register of Case C-358/99 (Reference for a preliminary
ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Markfactor SpA v Ministero          ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Tecnologie Meccaniche
delle Finanze.                                                           Avanzate Srl (TMA) v Ministero delle Finanze.
( 1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.                                             (1 ) OJ C 352 of 4.12.1999.


1.11.2003              EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 264/39
Action brought on 12 September 2003 by Wassen Inter-                    Proprietor of mark or         Stroschein Gesundkost GmbH
national Limited against the Office for Harmonisation in                sign cited in the oppo-
                      the Internal Market                               sition proceedings:
                                                                        Mark or sign cited in         The national figurative mark Sel-
                         (Case T-312/03)                                opposition:                   enium Spezial A-C-E and device
                                                                                for goods in class 5 and 30 (Non-
                                                                                medical and non-pharmaceutical
                         (2003/C 264/68)                                                              preparations on the basis of
                                                                                starch, calcium salts, magnesium
                                                                                stearate and yeast as nutritional
(Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)                                     additives)
of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was
                        submitted: English)                             Decision of the Oppo-         Rejection of the Community trade
                                                                        sition Division:              mark application and upholding
                                                                                of the opposition
                                                                        Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of the appeal lodged by
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal          Appeal:                       the applicant for the community
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                                          trade mark, Wassen International
European Communities on 12 September 2003 by Wassen
                                                                                Limited
International Limited, Leatherhead (United Kingdom), rep-
resented by M. Edenborough, Barrister. Stroschein Gesundkost
GmbH was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of            Pleas in law:                 The applicant invokes an infringe-
Appeal.                                                                                ment of regulation No 40/94 (1)
                                                                                in that the contested decision
                                                                                determined that there existed a
                                                                                likelihood of confusion between
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                           the marks.
—     allow the appeal by the applicant to the Court of First
      Instance;                                                         (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
                                                                            Community trade mark (OJ L 11, p. 1).
—     remit the Community trade mark application
      No 1083567 to the Office so as to allow it to proceed to
      registration;
—     annul the decision of the Opposition Division No 2920/
      2001;
—     annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal No                      Removal from the register of Case T-250/99 (1)
      R 0121/2002-4;
                                                                                (2003/C 264/69)
—     order the opponent to pay to the applicant the costs
      incurred by the applicant in connection with this appeal
      and the appeal before the Board of Appeal and the                                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
      opposition before the Opposition Division.
                                                                        By order of 2 September 2003 the President of the Second
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                        Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                        T-250/99: Shell Nederland Verkoopmaatschappij B.V. v Com-
Applicant for the Com-        Wassen International Limited              mission of the European Communities.
munity trade mark:
The Community trade           The word mark ‘SELENIUM-ACE’              (1) OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.
mark sought:                  for goods in class 3 and 5 (cos-
                              metics, soaps, lotions, nutritional
                              supplements, vitamins, ...)


title: Action brought on 14 April 1997 by Monsanto Company against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-112/97)

text:
28 . 6 . 97               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 199/27
The applicant claims that the Court should :                           with the wording of the Treaty, rescue aids are
                                                                       incompatible with the common market.
— annul Commission Decision 97/8 1/EC of 30 July
     1996 ,                                                            The applicant further maintains that the Commission has
                                                                       misused its powers, since no sufficient reduction in
                                                                       capacity was required and the inadequate restructuring
                                                                       programme was being financed de facto by means of the
— order the Commission to pay the costs .
                                                                       aid. A private shareholder as seller would have required
                                                                       the purchaser to assume a significantly greater degree of
                                                                       risk and a significantly higher degree of performance on
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    the purchaser's part.
In     the   contested        decision ('), subsidies   of   OS        Finally, the applicant argues that none of the conditions
1 590 000 000 ( ECU 118 000 000 ) in the form of capital               for exemption under Article 92 ( 3 ) (c ) of the EC Treaty
injections from the wholly state-owned company Austria                 have been fulfilled . The aid to HTM facilitates the
Tabakwerke ('AT') to the Austrian company Head Tyrolia                 development not of an economic activity but only of a
Mares ('HTM ') were described as State aid within the                  single undertaking; there is no question of facilitating the
meaning of Article 92 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty, and yet                  development of a certain economic area, since HTM 's
regarded as compatible with the common market within                   production sites are located in various regions, and the
the meaning of Article 92 ( 3 ) ( c ), subject to the fulfilment       necessary common interest is lacking.
of certain requirements by the Austrian Government.
                                                                       (') OJ No L 25 , 28 . 1 . 1997, p . 26 .
                                                                       ( 2 ) OJ No C 368 , 23 . 12 . 1994 , p . 12 .
The applicant, which is one of HTM's fiercest
competitors, argues that the subsidy leads to an unjustified
improvement in HTM's position, distorts competition, and
is incompatible which the common market for violation of
Article 92 ( 3 ) ( c ) of the EC Treaty.
                                                                       Action brought on 14 April 1997 by Monsanto Company
Its first argument is that the Commission has infringed its                 against the Commission of the European Communities
own Guidelines on State Aid for Rescuing and                                                     ( Case T-l 12/97)
Restructuring Firms in Difficulty ( 2 ), in that it:
                                                                                ( 97/C 199/73 )
— ignored a shareholder contribution which should be
     regarded as a subsidy and other payments made by AT                                (Language of the case: English)
     to HTM as early as 1993 (which could in themselves
     also be regarded as an existing aid scheme for the
     purposes of Article 93 of the EC Treaty ), even though            An action against the Commission of the European
     the combined amount of the aids thereby exceeded the              Communities was brought before the Court of First
     bounds of what was appropriate . Furthermore, those               Instance of the European Communities on 14 April 1997
     payments infringed both the GATT and the free trade               by Monsanto Company, represented by Clive Stanbrook
     agreement between the EEC and Austria in force at                 QC, of the Inner Temple, and Dr. Robert MacLean ,
     the time,                                                         Scotland, both of Stanbook and Hooper, Brussels, with an
                                                                       address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Arsene
                                                                       Kronshagen, Rue Marie-Adelaide 22, Luxembourg.
— tolerated the bringing forward of losses for tax
     purposes into 1994, despite receipt of the aid in 1993 ,
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
— wrongly assumed that the insolvency of HTM would
     contribute to the formation of a narrow oligopoly,                — annul the Commission Decision of 14 January 1997
                                                                              concerning a definition of a position, in accordance
                                                                              with Article 175 of the EC Treaty, on the referral of
                                                                              the applicant's application to the Committee for
— failed sufficiently to consider the question of an                          Adaptation to Technical Progress and on the inclusion
     appropriate minimum rate of interest.                                    of bovine somatotrophin in Annex II to Council
                                                                              Regulation ( EEC ) No 2377/90, and
Furthermore, the above guidelines themselves infringed
Article 92 ( 3 ) ( c ) of the EC Treaty, since, in accordance          — order the Commission to pay the costs .
 ---pagebreak--- No C 199/28          EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  28 . 6 . 97
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                Fifth, the Commission misused its powers by basing its
                                                                   decision on irrelevant considerations and motives of a
                                                                   political nature .
The applicant, a company incorporated under the laws of
Delaware, USA, has developed a veterinary medicinal
product called Sometribove which is classified as a                Finally, the Commission's decision infringed a number of
Recombinant Bovine Somatotrophin ( BST). Prior to                  agreements approved by the European Community under
marketing this product, the applicant was required to              the Final Act of the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade
obtain a marketing authorization from the EC Committee             negotiations . The Commission's decision is capable of
for Veterinary Medicinal Products ( CVMP). Before such             being reviewed against these standards and such a review
an authorization was obtained, Council Regulation ( EEC )          indicates that the decision itself is incompatible with the
No 2377/90 was adopted, establishing a Community                   terms of the GATT 1994 and the Agreement on the
procedure for the setting of minimum residue limits                Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures .
( MRLs ) for veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of
animal origin.
After the adoption of this Regulation, it became necessary
for the applicant to obtain a listing of Sometribove under
one of the Annexes to Council Regulation No 2377/90                Action brought on 15 April 1997 by Pierre Tomarchio
before a marketing authorization could be approved. An             against the Court of Auditors of the European
application for an MRL was made by the applicant                                                Communities
through the procedure established under that regulation .
By decision of 14 January 1997, the Commission rejected                                      ( Case T-l 13/97
the applicant's request that its case should be referred to                                    ( 97/C 199/74 )
the Committee for the Adaptation to Technical Progress
on the grounds that, by virtue of Council Decision 94/936/
EC, the marketing and administration of BST to dairy                               (Language of the case: French)
cows could not be authorized and that, therefore, the
applicant had no interest in obtaining an MRL. The
moratorium introduced by Council Decision 94/936/EC                An action against the Court of Auditors of the European
was the principal ground for the Commission 's arriving at         Communities was brought before the Court of First
its decision .
                                                                   Instance of the European Communities on 15 April 1997
                                                                   by Pierre Tomarchio, residing in Luxembourg, represented
                                                                   by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
The applicant claims the Commission decision should be             service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
annulled on the following grounds:                                 Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .
First, the Commission infringed the proper Community               The applicant claims that the Court should:
procedure for setting MRLs when it rejected the
applicant's case for inclusion of Sometribove in one of the
Annexes to Council Regulation No 2377/90 .                         — annul the decision of 21 June 1996 rejecting the
                                                                        applicant's request that consideration be given to the
                                                                        possible application of Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff
Second, in so deciding, the Commission in fact acted in a
                                                                        Regulations,
manner inconsistent with the principles of the
moratorium . In particular, the decision prevents the
applicant from conducting limited practical tests on the
                                                                   — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision of
effects of BST products .
                                                                        27 December 1996 rejecting the applicant's complaint,
Third, the applicant maintains that, in arriving at its
decision, the Commission infringed the principle of legal          — order the defendant to pay all the costs .
certainty, which in turn infringed the applicant's legitimate
expectation that the conditions for the granting of an
MRL would be based on a scientific assessment of the                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
product .
                                                                   The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
Fourth, the Commission infringed the principle of                   Case T-l 6/97 ( M.
 proportionality when adopting the present decision . The
 interference with the applicant's commercial activities as a       (') OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
 result of the Commission's decision is disproportionate to
 any benefit that might be achieved by refusing to approve
the product under one of the Annexes referred to above .


title: Case C-24/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Dioikitiko Protodikeio Athinon by order of 30 September 2003 in the case of SPHAKIANAKIS AEBE v Greek State

text:
20.3.2004              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 71/11
2.   Is Article 32 of Protocol 4 mentioned above to be                    Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Dioikitiko
     construed as meaning that the customs authorities of the             Protodikeio Athinon by order of 30 September 2003 in
     importing Member State are required to take into account                  the case of SPHAKIANAKIS AEBE v Greek State
     the decisions of the courts of the exporting State over-
     turning the outcome of investigations ordered and carried
     out by the Hungarian authorities after the export oper-                                       (Case C-24/04)
     ation, regard being had to the fact that
                                                                                (2004/C 71/16)
     (a)   the authorities of the importing State were duly
           informed both of the fact that proceedings were
           pending before the Hungarian courts and of the
           outcome of the relevant procedures and                         By order of 30 September 2003, which was received at the
                                                                          registry of the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                          on 26 January 2004, the Dioikitiko Protodikeio Athinon seeks
     (b) those authorities never asked for any investigation              from the Court, in the context of the dispute pending before
           to be carried out;                                             it between SPHAKIANAKIS AEBE and the Greek State, a
                                                                          preliminary ruling on the following questions:
3.   If the answer to the above questions is affirmative are the
     abovementioned provisions of Community law to be                     The questions in the present case are identical to the questions
     construed as not permitting the adoption of administrat-             in Case C-23/04.
     ive acts imposing additional duties charges and taxes
     issued by the national authorities of the importing State
     after notification by the Hungarian authorities of the
     outcome of the investigation conducted by them but
     before publication of the court decisions overturning the
     results of the investigation for the purpose of elucidating
     the due result of the prohibition of the imposition of
     duties by the association agreement between the EU and               Action brought on 27 January 2004 by the Commission
     Hungary, in light also of the fact finally that the EUR.1            of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
     certificates issued were correct;                                                                   Spain
4.   In that connection are the above questions affected by                                        (Case C-26/04)
     the fact that neither the Greek nor the Hungarian
     authorities sought convocation of the association com-
     mittee mentioned in Article 33 of Protocol 4 for the                                          (2004/C 71/17)
     purpose of reaching a determination in that connection,
     a situation which demonstrates that neither of the two
     authorities considered that adoption of the decisions of
     the Hungarian courts constituted a dispute between them              An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
     which ought to have been brought before that committee               the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 Janu-
     for a determination?                                                 ary 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                          represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana, of the Commission’s
                                                                          Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
5.   In the alternative, if the answer to the foregoing questions
     is in the negative, if therefore the Greek customs auth-
     orities did not infringe the abovementioned provisions of            The applicant claims that the Court should:
     Community law by the imposition of additional duty,
     VAT and a penalty is it then possible to take the view that          —     declare that, by failing to officially designate the beaches
     the ex post determination of duties as against the importer                ‘A Videira’, ‘Niño de Corvo’ and ‘Canabal’ in Moaña, Ría
     is not permitted under Article 220(2) of the Common                        de Vigo, Comunidad Autónoma de Galicia, the Kingdom
     customs code on the ground of error by the customs                         of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under
     authorities of either the importing or exporting State,                    Article 4(1) of Council Directive 76/160/EEC (1) of
     regard being had in particular to the fact that the customs                8 December 1975 concerning the quality of bathing
     authorities of the exporting State had available to then all               water;
     the factual elements in connection with the manufacture
     of the vehicles intended for export as the basis for issue
                                                                          —     declare that, by failing to adopt a pollution-reduction
     of the EUR.1 certificate, with the result that the authorities
                                                                                programme for the Ría de Vigo, the Kingdom of Spain
     of the importing State might be in a position to ascertain
                                                                                has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5 of
     ex officio the duty lawfully payable?
                                                                                Council Directive 79/923/EEC (2) of 30 October 1979 on
                                                                                the quality required of shellfish waters;
                                                                          —     order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.


title: Case C-34/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Alicante (Spain) lodged on 21 January 2016 — Manuel González Poyato and Ana Belén Tovar García v Banco Popular Español, S.A.

text:
               18.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 136/12

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Alicante (Spain) lodged on 21 January 2016 — Manuel González Poyato and Ana Belén Tovar García v Banco Popular Español, S.A.
   (Case C-34/16)
   (2016/C 136/17)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Alicante

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Manuel González Poyato and Ana Belén Tovar García

      Defendant: Banco Popular Español, S.A.

      Questions referred

               1.

               In the context of a loan agreement concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer, containing a standard clause, not individually negotiated, limiting a fall in the ordinary interest rate agreed (‘floor clause’), included in that contract insufficiently clearly and comprehensibly for the consumer, to the point of being held unfair by a court, is it compatible with Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) on unfair terms in consumer contracts for the phrase ‘shall … not be binding’ to be interpreted to the effect that the result of a declaration by a court that that clause is unfair may be that the consumer is not reimbursed the payments he has previously made to the seller or supplier as a result of the application of that clause?

               2.

               If that interpretation should be held to be compatible with Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13, is an interpretation like that set out above, concerning the effects that must flow from a declaration that a clause of the kind described is unfair, compatible with the concept of ‘adequate and effective means … to prevent the continued use of unfair terms’ in Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13?

               3.

               If those interpretations should be held to be incompatible with Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Directive 93/13, is it always and at all events contrary to the ‘requirement of good faith’ to include in a contract concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer clauses that define the main object of the contract and are worded in insufficiently clearly and comprehensibly, or must that breach of the principle of good faith be examined in the light of other circumstances? In the latter case, what circumstances must the national court take into consideration in order to be able to find that there has been no breach of the principle of good faith when it identifies the existence of a clause defining the main object of the contract that is worded unclearly and incomprehensibly? In particular, may such circumstances include the existence of national legislation with the status of a law or regulation which provides, in abstracto, for the validity of that type of ‘floor clause’?

               4.

               In the context of proceedings such as those in the instant case, in which an individual action has been brought seeking a declaration of the nullity of a ‘floor clause’ considered untransparent, is an interpretation based on the risk of serious difficulties for the economic public order that limits the reimbursement of amounts paid by the consumer to the seller or supplier under such a clause, which has been declared unfair by a court, compatible with the phrase ‘shall … not be binding on the consumer’ in Article 6(1) of Directive 93/13, if the judgment given by the court does not have the force of res judicata for other consumers in the same situation?

      (1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.


C 19/44                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                  25.1.2003
Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-160/01 and                     Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                           T-264/01 ( 1)                                   T-331/01: Huntstown Air Park Limited and Omega Aviation
                                                                           Services Limited v Commission of the European Communities.
                         (2003/C 19/81)
                                                                           (1 ) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.
                    (Language of the case: French)
By order of 5 November 2002 the President of the Third
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Joined
Cases T-160/01 and T-264/01: Léon Rappe v Commission of                            Removal from the register of Case T-172/02 (1)
the European Communities.
                                                                                (2003/C 19/84)
( 1) OJ C 289 of 13.10.2001 and C 369 of 22.12.2001.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           By order of 4 November 2002 the President of the Fourth
        Removal from the register of Case T-294/01 (1)                     Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                           Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                         (2003/C 19/82)                                    T-172/02: Laurent Druet v Commission of the European
                                                                           Communities.
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                           (1 ) OJ C 180 of 27.7.2002.
By order of 24 October 2002 the President of the Third
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
T-294/01: Lucía Aparicio Chofré v Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-199/02 (1)
( 1) OJ C 44 of 16.2.2002.
                                                                                (2003/C 19/85)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
        Removal from the register of Case T-331/01 (1)
                                                                           By order of 22 October 2002 the President of the Fourth
                         (2003/C 19/83)                                    Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                           Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                   (Language of the case: English)                         T-199/02: Michel van Beek v Commission of the European
                                                                           Communities.
By order of 14 November 2002 the President of the First
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                     (1 ) OJ C 202 of 24.8.2002.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 19 February 1998 in Case T-196/97: Donato Continolo v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Thermal cure - Article 59 of the Staff Regulations - Sick leave - Special leave)

text:
C 113/14              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  11.4.98
the decision of the Central Staff Committee of the                  2. orders the parties to bear their own costs.
Commission rejecting the proposals of Mr Chambellant
concerning appointments to organs set up under the Staff            (1) OJ C 74, 8.3.1997.
Regulations and to administrative bodies, and, in so far as
may be necessary, annulment of the decision of the
Commission expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint
Ð the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),
composed of: P. Lindh, President, and K. Lenaerts and
J. D. Cooke, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the
                                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 February 1998, in
which it:                                                                                of 19 February 1998
                                                                    in Case T-196/97: Donato Continolo v. Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
1. declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the
     present case,                                                  (Officials Ð Thermal cure Ð Article 59 of the Staff
                                                                             Regulations Ð Sick leave Ð Special leave)
                                                                                (98/C 113/35)
2. orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to
     pay half of the applicant's costs, and the applicant to
     bear the other half of his own costs.                                          (Language of the case: French)
                                                                    In Case T-196/97: Donato Continolo, an official of the
(1) OJ C 388, 21.12.1996.
                                                                    Commission of the European Communities, represented
                                                                    by Jean-NoeÈl Louis, Thierry Demaseure, Ariane Tornel
                                                                    and FrancËoise Parmentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an
                                                                    address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
                                                                    Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 rue de Cessange, v.
                                                                    Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
                                                                    Christine Berardis-Kayser and Florence Duvieusart-
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                    Clotuche) Ð application for annulment of the decision of
                     of 19 February 1998                            the Commission of 24 June 1996 not to grant the
                                                                    applicant additional leave for the purposes of undergoing
in Case T-3/97: Anna Maria Campogrande v. Commission
                                                                    a thermal cure, as confirmed by the decision of 30 January
              of the European Communities (1)
                                                                    1997 rejecting the applicant's complaint Ð the Court of
(Officials Ð Vacancy notice Ð Level of the post to be               First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: P. Lindh,
filled Ð Appointment to a grade A 4/A 5 post of head of             President, and K. Lenaerts and J. D. Cooke, Judges; A.
unit Ð Illegality of the decision of the Commission of              Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
      19 July 1988 Ð Rejection of application for post)             judgment on 19 February 1998, in which it:
                        (98/C 113/34)
                                                                    1. dismisses the application,
               (Language of the case: French)                       2. orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 7, 10.1.1998.
In Case T-3/97: Anna Maria Campogrande, an official
of the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Marc-Albert Lucas, of the LieÁge Bar, with
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Evelyne Korn, 21 avenue de Nassau, v. Commission of the
European Communities (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and
Denis Waelbroeck) Ð application for annulment of the                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
decision of the Commission appointing Mr Cesare De                                         of 4 March 1998
Montis to the post of Head of Unit 2 (Andean Pact) of
                                                                    in Case T-146/96: Maria da GracËa De Abreu v. Court of
Directorate A (Latin America) of Directorate-General IB
                                                                              Justice of the European Communities (1)
(External relations: Southern Mediterranean, Middle and
Near East, Latin America, South and South-East Asia and             (Probationary officials Ð Appointment of a former
North-South Cooperation) and of the Commission's                    member of the temporary staff Ð Maintenance of
decision rejecting the applicant's application for that post        seniority in step Ð Principle of equality of treatment Ð
Ð the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),                                         Objection of illegality)
composed of: P. Lindh, President, and K. Lenaerts and                                       (98/C 113/36)
J. D. Cooke, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 February 1998, in
which it:                                                                           (Language of the case: French)
                                                                    In Case T-146/96: Maria da GracËa De Abreu, an official
1. dismisses the action,                                            of the Court of Justice of the European Communities,