title: Case C-460/07: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 April 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof, Austria) — Sandra Puffer v Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Linz (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 17(2) and (6) — Right to deduct input tax — Construction costs of a building allocated to a taxable person’s business — Article 6(2) — Private use of part of the building — Financial advantage compared to non-taxable persons — Equal treatment — State aid under Article 87 EC — Exclusion from right to deduct)

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/13

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 April 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof, Austria) — Sandra Puffer v Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Linz
   (Case C-460/07) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Article 17(2) and (6) - Right to deduct input tax - Construction costs of a building allocated to a taxable person’s business - Article 6(2) - Private use of part of the building - Financial advantage compared to non-taxable persons - Equal treatment - State aid under Article 87 EC - Exclusion from right to deduct)
   2009/C 141/20
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sandra Puffer

      Defendant: Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Linz

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 87 EC and of Article 17(6) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Deduction of the input value added tax paid in respect of the construction of a building used principally for private residential purposes and, as to the remainder, intended to be rented out subject to tax — National legislation treating private use as an exempt transaction and, in the version applicable on the date of entry into force of the Sixth Directive, excluding the right to deduct input value added tax attributable to those parts of the building used for the taxable person’s private purposes — Validity of Directive 77/388/EEC and, in particular, Article 17 thereof, in so far as it establishes a tax advantage upon the acquisition of a residential property for taxable persons who use their property, even minimally, for business purposes, compared to other taxable persons and nationals of other Member States.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 17(2)(a) and Article 6(2)(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment do not infringe the general principle of equal treatment under Community law by conferring on taxable persons, by means of a full and immediate right to deduct input value added tax on the construction of a mixed-use building and the subsequent staggered imposition of that tax on the private use of the building, a financial advantage compared to non-taxable persons and to taxable persons who use their property only as a private residence.

               2.

               Article 87(1) EC must be interpreted as not precluding a national measure which transposes Article 17(2)(a) of Sixth Directive 77/388 and which provides that the right to deduct input value added tax payable is confined to taxable persons carrying out taxable transactions, to the exclusion of those carrying out only exempt transactions, in so far as that national measure may confer a financial advantage only on taxable persons carrying out taxable transactions.

               3.

               Article 17(6) of Sixth Directive 77/388 must be interpreted as meaning that the derogation it contains does not apply to a provision of national law which amends legislation existing when that directive entered into force, which is based on an approach which differs from that of the previous legislation and which laid down new procedures. In that regard, it is irrelevant whether the national legislature amended the previous national legislation on the basis of a correct or incorrect interpretation of Community law. The question whether such an amendment of a provision of national law also affects, with regard to the applicability of the second subparagraph of Article 17(6) of the Sixth Directive, another provision of national law depends on whether those provisions of national law are interdependent or autonomous, which is a matter for the national court to determine.

      (1)  OJ C 315, 22.12.2007.


title: Case F-109/14: Action brought on 13 October 2014  — ZZ v Commission

text:
               12.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/54

         Action brought on 13 October 2014 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-109/14)
   (2015/C 007/66)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L.M. Ribolzi, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the Commission’s decision refusing a request for the survivor’s pension paid to the divorced wife of a deceased official to be increased.

      Form of order sought

   ZZ claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               order the Commission to pay ZZ 35 % of the deceased’s survivor’s pension — amounting to EUR 2  857,40 at the time of death — with effect from the date of death, together with any interest accrued on the amounts withdrawn in the meantime;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case F-22/11: Action brought on 28 February 2011 — Conticchio v Commission

text:
               7.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/31

         Action brought on 28 February 2011 — Conticchio v Commission
   (Case F-22/11)
   2011/C 139/58
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Rosella Conticchio (Rome, Italy) (represented by: R. Giuffridda and A. Tortora, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision relating to the establishment of the applicant’s pension rights in so far as she has been recognised as having a right to the retirement pension for Grade AST7/1, rather than for AST7/2.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Decision No R/489/10 issued on 18 November 2010 and notified on 24 November 2010, by which the appointing authority rejected the appeal;

               —

               Grant the applicant a transfer from Grade AST7/1 to Grade AST7/2 with retroactive effect;

               —

               Recalculate the amount of the pension payable to the applicant, increasing it by approximately EUR 170 per month;

               —

               Order the body responsible for payment of the applicant’s pension to refund the amount owing, as calculated from 1 June 2010 until the date of final settlement, together with interest, monetary indexation and statutory entitlements;

               —

               Place the European Commission under an obligation to refund the applicant the sums, not owed, which she will have paid by the time the judgment is delivered in the present case, in relation to the redemption of pension rights;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Action brought on 18 February 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against TVR-Tecnologie Vetroresina SpA (Case C-40/98)

text:
C 137/6               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   2.5.98
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad              The applicant claims that the Court should:
der Nederlanden by order of that court of 11 February
1998 in the case of staatssecretaris van FinancieÈn against
                                                                   1. order Silena to pay ECU 15 000, together with interest
                     B. G. M. Verkooyen
                                                                       at the rate of ECU 4,17 per day from 10 May 1995 to
                        (Case C-35/98)                                 31 December 1996, totalling ECU 2 481,15, and ECU
                                                                       2,8 per day from 1 January 1997 until the day of
                         (98/C 137/11)
                                                                       actual payment;
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the             2. order Silena to pay the costs.
European Communities by order of the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
11 February 1998, received at the Court Registry on
13 February 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
staatssecretaris van FinancieÈn against B. G. M. Verkooyen         The action, brought under an arbitration clause, seeks
on the following questions.                                        payment of a sum of money owed by the defendant by
                                                                   way of transfer of the right to market the technical
                                                                   package' in the context of Agreement No 10433-94-09-
1. Must Article 1(1) of Council Directive 88/361/EEC (1)           TICRISPI. The Commission decided to terminate the
    in conjunction with point I(2) in Annex I to that              contract on the ground of the defendant's failure to
    Directive be interpreted as meaning that a restriction         perform. The effects of the termination of the contract are
    arising from a provision of the income tax legislation         governed by italian law.
    of a Member State which exempts shareholders, up to
    a certain amount, from liability to income tax on
    dividends, but restricts that exemption to dividends
    paid in respect of shares in companies established in
    that Member State, has been prohibited since 1 July
    1990 pursuant to Article 6(1) of that Directive?
                                                                   Action brought on 18 February 1998 by the Commission
                                                                   of the European Communities against TVR-Tecnologie
2. If the answer to question 1 is in the negative, must                                    Vetroresina SpA
    Articles 6 and/or 52 of the EC Treaty be interpreted as
                                                                                (Case C-40/98)
    meaning that a restriction of the kind referred to in
    that question is incompatible with one or both of                                       (98/C 137/13)
    those Articles?
                                                                   An action against TVR-Tecnologie Vetroresina SpA, whose
3. Do the answers to the questions set out above differ            registered office is in Rome, was brought before the Court
    depending on whether the person seeking the benefit            of Justice of the European Communities on 18 February
    of such an exemption is an ordinary shareholder or an          1998 by the Commission of the European Communities,
    employee (of a subsidiary company) who holds the               represented by Eugenio de March, Legal Adviser, assisted
    shares in question in the context of an employees'             by Alberto Dal Ferro, of the Vicenza Bar, with an address
    savings plan?                                                  for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez
                                                                   de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
(1) OJ L 178, 8.7.1998, p. 5.
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                   Ð order the defendant to repay ECU 211 307 together
                                                                       with interest, from 21 December 1991 until payment
                                                                       is actually made, at a rate of ECU 69,47 per day,
Action brought on 18 February 1998 by the Commission
     of the European Communities against Silena SpA
                                                                   Ð order the defendant to pay ECU 20 000 by way of
                        (Case C-39/98)                                 compensation for damage,
                         (98/C 137/12)
                                                                   Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
An action against Silena SpA, having its office in Cernusco
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
sul Naviglio (Italy), was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 18 February
1998 by the Commission of the European Communities,                The action, brought under an arbitration clause, seeks the
represented by Eugenio de March, Legal Adviser, acting as          repayment of an advance paid under contract 3440/1/0/
Agent, assisted by Alberto Dal Ferro, of the Vicenzo Bar,          187/91/6-BCR-I(30) for the completion of a project
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of         concerning the study of measuring systems for products
Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                 manufactured from composite materials. The Commission
 ---pagebreak--- 2.5.98                EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 137/7
decided to terminate the contract, governed by Italian law,        gerichtshof (Administrative Court), Vienna, of 21 January
on the ground of breach of contract by the defendant.              1998, received at the Court Registry on 19 February
                                                                   1998, for a preliminary ruling in the cases of Johann
                                                                   Seemeier and Jörg Schreiber against the Unabhängiger
                                                                   Verwaltungssenat des Landes Salzburg (Independent
                                                                   Administrative Board for the Land of Salzburg) and Jörg
                                                                   Schreiber against the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat für
Action brought on 18 February 1998 by the Commission               Kärnten     (Independent     Administrative     Board     for
of the European Communities against TVR-Tecnologie                 Carinthia),    additional    party:   Bundesminister      für
                        Vetroresina SpA                            Wissenschaft und Verkehr (Federal Minister for Science
                                                                   and Transport), on the following question:
                        (Case C-41/98)
                         (98/C 137/14)
                                                                   are Articles 30 to 36 of the EC Treaty (provisions on the
An action against TVR-Tecnologie Vetroresina SpA, whose            freedom of movement of goods) and the other provisions
registered office is in Rome, was brought before the Court         of applicable Community law to be interpreted as
of Justice of the European Communities on 18 February              preventing a Member State from restricting the transport
1998 by the Commission of the European Communities,                of animals for slaughter in that animals may be
represented by Eugenio de March, Legal Adviser, assited            transported for slaughter only as far as the nearest suitable
by Alberto Dal Ferro, of the Vicenza Bar, with an address          abattoir in that State, and may be transported for
for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez            slaughter in any event only if the provisions of law
de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                              regarding motor vehicles and traffic regulation are
                                                                   observed and a total journey time of six hours and a
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        distance of 130 kilometres are not exceeded, whereby, in
                                                                   calculating the distance, account is taken of only half of
                                                                   the kilometres actually travelled on a motorway?
Ð order the defendant to repay ECU 77 558,80 together
    with interest, from 1 February 1990 until payment is
    actually made, at a rate of ECU 24,97 per day,
Ð order the defendant to pay to the Commission ECU
    7 700, or any other amount which the Court might
    deem equitable, by way of compensation for damage,
                                                                   Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.                            Bundespatentgericht (Federal Patents Court) by order of
                                                                   that court of 29 January 1998 in the case of BASF AG v.
                                                                              President of the German Patent Office
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                (Case C-44/98)
The action, brought under an arbitration clause, seeks the
                                                                                (98/C 137/16)
repayment of an advance paid under contract BREU-
0114-I(A) for the design of structures manufactured from
composite materials using CAD-CAM techniques, and the
completion of a completely automated production                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
prototype, using the filament-winding' method. The                European      Communities      by    an    order    of    the
Commission decided to terminate the contract, governed             Bundespatentgericht (Federal Patents Court) of 29 January
by Italian law, on the ground of breach of contract by the         1998, which was received at the Court Registry on
defendant.                                                         20 February 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                   BASF AG v. President of the German Patent Office on the
                                                                   following question:
                                                                   is it compatible with the principles of the free movement
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungs-             of goods (Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty) for a
gerichtshof, Vienna, by order of that court of 21 January          patent granted by the European Patent Office with effect
1998 in the cases of Johann Seemeier and Jörg Schreiber            in a Member State which is drafted in a language other
against the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes               than the official language of that Member State to be
Salzburg and Jörg Schreiber against the Unabhängiger               deemed void ab initio if the patent-holder does not file
Verwaltungssenat für Kärnten, Additional Party: Bundes-            with the patent office of the Member State in question a
           minister für Wissenschaft und Verkehr                   translation of the patent specification in the official
                        (Case C-42/98)                             language of that Member State within three months of the
                                                                   publication in the European Patent Bulletin of the
                         (98/C 137/15)                             mention of the grant of the patent?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungs-


title: Case C-135/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 June 2012 — IFAW Internationaler Tierschutz-Fonds gGmbH v European Commission, Kingdom of Denmark, Republic of Finland, Kingdom of Sweden (Appeals — Public access to documents of the institutions — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2011 — Article 4(5) — Scope — Documents originating from a Member State — Objection by the Member State to disclosure of the documents — Extent of review by the institution and the European Union judicature of the Member State’s reasons for objecting — Production of the document to the European Union judicature)

text:
               18.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 250/6

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 June 2012 — IFAW Internationaler Tierschutz-Fonds gGmbH v European Commission, Kingdom of Denmark, Republic of Finland, Kingdom of Sweden
   (Case C-135/11 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Public access to documents of the institutions - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2011 - Article 4(5) - Scope - Documents originating from a Member State - Objection by the Member State to disclosure of the documents - Extent of review by the institution and the European Union judicature of the Member State’s reasons for objecting - Production of the document to the European Union judicature)
   2012/C 250/10
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: IFAW Internationaler Tierschutz-Fonds gGmbH (represented by: S. Crosby and S. Santoro, advocaten)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. O’Reilly and P. Costa de Oliveira, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Denmark, Republic of Finland, Kingdom of Sweden

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 January 2011 in Case T-362/08 IFAW Internationaler Tierschutz-Fonds v Commission dismissing the application for the annulment of the Commission’s decision of 19 June 2008 refusing in part to grant the applicant access to documents transmitted to the Commission by the German authorities in connection with a procedure for the declassification of a site protected under Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 13 January 2011 in Case T-362/08 IFAW Internationaler Tierschutz-Fonds v Commission;

               2.

               Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for it to give judgment on the application brought by IFAW Internationaler Tierschutz-Fonds gGmbH for the annulment of the decision of the European Commission of 19 June 2008 refusing to grant it access to a document transmitted to the European Commission by the German authorities in connection with a procedure for the declassification of a site protected under Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora;

               3.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 179, 18.6.2011.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 22 February 2000 in Case T-138/98 Armement Coopératif Artisanal Vendéen (ACAV) and Others v Council of the European Union (Fisheries — Regulation (EC) No 1239/98 — Prohibition of drift-nets — Action for annulment — Inadmissibility)

text:
29.4.2000              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 122/31
the Netherlands Hoge Raad and of the Brussels Bar, with an                2. orders the Commission to pay the costs.
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse
May, 31 Grand-Rue, v European Parliament (Agents: Manfred
Peter, João Sant’Anna, Francis Herbert and Dirk Arts) —                  (1) OJ C 234, 25.7.1998.
application for reimbursement of the Community tax deducted
from the applicants’ remuneration (Cases T-223/97 and
T-17/98) and, by way of subsidiary relief, for compensation
for the damage flowing from the double taxation of that
remuneration (Case T-17/98) — the Court of First Instance
(Second Chamber), composed of: A. Potocki, President, and
J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; G. Herzig, Administrator,                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 February 2000,
in which it:
                                                                                of 22 February 2000
1. Dismisses the applications for annulment in Cases T-223/97
     and T-17/98;                                                         in Case T-138/98 Armement Coopératif Artisanal Ven-
                                                                          déen (ACAV) and Others v Council of the European
2. Dismisses the application for compensation in Case T-17/98;                                        Union (1)
3. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.                            (Fisheries — Regulation (EC) No 1239/98 — Prohibition of
                                                                              drift-nets — Action for annulment — Inadmissibility)
(1) OJ C 318 of 18.10.1997 and OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.                                              (2000/C 122/43)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          In Case T-138/98: Armement Coopératif Artisanal Vendéen
                                                                          (ACAV), established in Sables-d’Olonne (France), and Arme-
                                                                          ment Alain André and ACAV, Armement Thierry Arnaud
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               and ACAV, Armement Alain Augereau, Armement Jean-Luc
                                                                          Bernard et Angélique Bernard, Armement Pascal Burgaud,
                      of 24 February 2000                                 Armement José Burgaud and ACAV, Armement Bruno Chiron
                                                                          et Jean Noury, Fabien Gaillard, Armement Bruno Girard,
                                                                          Armement Bruno Girard and ACAV, Armement Denis Grois-
in Case T-82/98: Frans Jacobs v Commission of the
                                                                          ard, Fabrice Groisard, Armement Islais SARL, Armement Marc
                   European Communities (1)
                                                                          Jolivet, Armement Yannick Orsonneau and ACAV, Armement
                                                                          Christian Rafin and ACAV, Armement Éric Rivalin and ACAV,
(Officials — Promotion — Absence of staff report —                        Armement Eric Taraud and ACAV, Armement Fernand Voisin
            Irregularity in the promotion procedure)                      et Alain Voisin, Patrick Voisin, Yeu Pêcheries SA, Armement
                                                                          Bernard Zereg, established in Ile-d’Yeu (France), represented by
                         (2000/C 122/42)                                  L. Funck-Brentano and S. Ponsot, of the Paris Bar, with an
                                                                          address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of J. Neuen,
                                                                          1 Place du Théâtre, supported by the French Republic (Agents:
                                                                          J.-F. Dobelle, C. Vasak and K. Rispal-Bellanger and C. Chavan-
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          ce), by the Commune de l’Ile-d’Yeu, represented by R. Houssin,
                                                                          of the Nantes Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
In Case T-82/98: Frans Jacobs, an official of the Commission of           at the Chambers of J. Neuen, 1 Place du Théâtre, by Ireland
the European Communities, resident in Walshoutem, Belgium,                (Agents M.A. Buckley and A. Collins) and by Thomas Kennedy,
represented by J.-N. Louis and F. Parmentier of the Brussels Bar          John Graham, John Flannery, Michael Hennessy and Padraig Ó
and F. Giuffrida of the Turin Bar, with an address for service in         Mathuna, residing in Dingle (Ireland), Vincent Browne, Michael
Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson S.à.r.l., 30                Murphy, John O’Donnel, residing in Tralee (Ireland), Donal
Rue de Cessange, against the Commission of the European                   O’Neill, John D. Sullivan, Niel Minihane, Kieran O’Driscoll,
Communities (Agents: C. Berardis-Kayser and F. Duvieusart-                Peter Carleton, Donal Healy, residing in Castletownbere (Ire-
Clotuche) — application for the annulment of the Com-                     land), Gerard Minihane, residing in Skibbereen (Ireland), rep-
mission’s decision not to promote the applicant to Grade B 4              resented by D. O’Donnell, SC, J. Devlin, Barrister, G. Casey,
in the 1997 promotion year — the Court of First Instance                  Solicitor, and P. McDermott, Barrister, North Main Street,
(Third Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President of the                Bandon, County Cork (Ireland) v Council of the European
Chamber, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; J. Palacio González,            Union (Agents J. Carbery and L. Railas), supported by the
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                 Kingdom of Spain (Agent: R. Silva de Lapuerta) and by the
24 February 2000, in which it:                                            Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Ber-
                                                                          scheid and T. van Rijn) — application for annulment of
1. annuls the Commission’s decision not to promote the applicant          Council Regulation (EC) No 1239/98 of 8 June 1998
     to Grade B 4 in the 1997 promotion year;                             amending Regulation (EC) No 894/97 laying down certain
 ---pagebreak--- C 122/32                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        29.4.2000
technical measures for the conservation of fishery resources                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
(OJ 1997 L 171, p. 1) — the Court of First Instance (First
Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of: B. Vesterdorf,                                         of 22 February 2000
President, K. Lenaerts, A. Potocki, A.W.H. Meij and M. Vilaras,
Judges: H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 February             in Case T-171/98: Maria Adelina Biasutto v Council of the
2000, in which it:                                                                                European Union (1)
1. Dismisses the application as inadmissible.                               (Officials — Sick leave — Irregular absence — Article 59
                                                                            of the Staff Regulations — Procedure to be followed in the
2. Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and to pay the costs                   event of absence on account of sickness)
      incurred by the Council.
                                                                                (2000/C 122/45)
3. Orders the interveners to bear their own costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(1) OJ C 340 of 7.11.98.
                                                                            In Case T-171/98: Maria Adelina Biasutto, an official of
                                                                            the Council of the European Union, residing in Brussels,
                                                                            represented by J.-N. Louis, of the Brussels Bar, with an address
                                                                            for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
                                                                            SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange, v Council of the European Union
                                                                            (Agents: P. Borges and M. Bauer) — application for annulment
                                                                            of the Council’s decision of 20 February 1998 refusing regis-
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                            tration of the applicant’s medical certificate and declaring her
                                                                            absence during the period from 9 to 22 February 1998
                        of 23 February 2000                                 inclusive to be irregular — the Court of First Instance (Fifth
                                                                            Chamber), composed of: R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas, President, and
in Case T-164/98: Giuseppe Carraro v Commission of the                      P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges; G. Herzig, Administrator, for
                     European Communities (1)                               the Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 February 2000, in
                                                                            which it:
(Officials — Staff report — Action for annulment — Action                   1. Annuls the Council’s decision of 20 February 1998 declaring
                            for damages)                                         the applicant’s absence during the period from 9 to 22 February
                                                                                1998 inclusive to be irregular;
                          (2000/C 122/44)
                                                                            2. Orders the Council to pay the costs.
                     (Language of the case: Italian)                        (1) OJ C 397 of 19.12.1998.
In Case T-164/98: Giuseppe Carraro, an official of the Com-
mission of the European Communities, assigned to the Joint
Research Centre, Ispra, and residing at Ispra (Italy), represented
by G. Marchesini, advocate with a right of audience before the
Italian Corte Suprema di Cassazione, with an address for                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of E. Arendt, 8-10 Rue
Mathias Hardt, v Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                of 9 March 2000
(Agent: G. Valsesia) — application, first, for annulment of the
decision definitively adopting the applicant’s staff report for
the period from 1 July 1993 to 30 June 1995 and, second, for                in Case T-10/99: Miguel Vicente Nuñez v Commission of
compensation for the non-material damage alleged — the                                       the European Communities (1)
Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of:
A. Potocki, President, and J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges;              (Officials — Promotion — Examination of comparative
J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given           merits — List of officials considered to be most deserving of
a judgment on 23 February 2000, in which it:                                promotion — List of officials promoted — Staff report —
                                                                                Absence of statement of reasons)
1. Dismisses the action;
                                                                                (2000/C 122/46)
2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
( 1) OJ C 378 of 5.12.1998.
                                                                            In Case T-10/99: Miguel Vicente Nuñez, an official of the
                                                                            Commission of the European Communities, residing at Kraai-
                                                                            nem (Belgium), represented by M.A. Lucas, of the Liège Bar,


title: Case C-127/06: Action brought on  3 March 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               6.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/8

         Action brought on 3 March 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-127/06)
   (2006/C 108/14)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Aresu, Agent)

      Defendant: Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 concerning the distance marketing of consumer financial services and amending Council Directive 90/619/EEC and Directives 97/7/EC and 98/27/EC (1) or, in any event, by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 21(1) of that Directive;

               —

               order the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The time-limit for implementing Directive 2002/65/EC expired on 9 October 2004.

      (1)  OJ 2002 L 271, p.16


title: Case C-448/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 December 2013 — SNIA Spa, under special administration v European Commission (Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Imputation of liability in the field of competition — Economic continuity test — Infringement of the rights of defence — Duty to state reasons)

text:
               15.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/5

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 December 2013 — SNIA Spa, under special administration v European Commission
   (Case C-448/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Imputation of liability in the field of competition - Economic continuity test - Infringement of the rights of defence - Duty to state reasons)
   2014/C 45/08
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: SNIA Spa, under special administration (represented by: A. Santa Maria, C. Biscaretti di Ruffia and E. Gambaro, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, L. Malferrari and B. Gencarelli, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 16 June 2011 in Case T-194/06 SNIA v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed the action for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 1766 final of 3 May 2006 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.620 — Hydrogen peroxide and perborate), to the extent that the Commission imposed a fine jointly and severally on Caffaro Srl and on SNIA SpA — Rules relating to the imputability of anti-competitive practices in the case of a merger — Infringement of the rights of defence and of the duty to state reasons.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders SNIA SpA, under special administration, to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 311, 22.10.2011.


title: Case C-286/12: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 November 2012 — European Commission v Hungary (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Social policy — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Directive 2000/78/EC — Articles 2 and 6(1) — National scheme requiring compulsory retirement of judges, prosecutors and notaries on reaching the age of 62 — Legitimate objectives justifying a difference in treatment vis-à-vis workers under the age of 62 — Proportionality of the duration of the transitional period)

text:
               12.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/22

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 November 2012 — European Commission v Hungary
   (Case C-286/12) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Social policy - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Directive 2000/78/EC - Articles 2 and 6(1) - National scheme requiring compulsory retirement of judges, prosecutors and notaries on reaching the age of 62 - Legitimate objectives justifying a difference in treatment vis-à-vis workers under the age of 62 - Proportionality of the duration of the transitional period)
   2013/C 9/35
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Enegren and K. Talabér-Ritz, Agents)

      Defendant: Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér, Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Articles 2 and 6(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16) — National rules requiring compulsory retirement of judges, prosecutors and notaries on reaching the age of 62 — Lack of legitimate objectives justifying that difference in treatment as compared with workers under the age of 62 — Disproportionate nature of the transitional period (one year)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by adopting a national scheme requiring compulsory retirement of judges, prosecutors and notaries when they reach the age of 62 — which gives rise to a difference in treatment on grounds of age which is not proportionate as regards the objectives pursued —, Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 and 6(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation;

               2.

               Orders Hungary to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 217, 21.7.2012.


title: Case C-451/98: Action brought on 9 December 1998 by Antillean Rice Mills NV, supported by the Kingdom of the Netherlands, against the Council of the European Union, supported by the Commission of the European Communities, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic and the Italian Republic

text:
C 188/6                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       3.7.1999
Action brought on 9 December 1998 by Antillean Rice                     Action brought on 17 March 1999 by the Italian Republic
Mills NV, supported by the Kingdom of the Netherlands,                    against the Commission of the European Communities
against the Council of the European Union, supported
by the Commission of the European Communities, the
Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic and the Italian                                            (Case C-99/99)
                              Republic
                                                                                (1999/C 188/13)
                         (Case C-451/98)
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                         (1999/C 188/11)                                Communities on 17 March 1999 by the Italian Republic,
                                                                        represented by Umberto Leanza, acting as Agent, assisted by
                                                                        Oscar Fiumara, Avvocato dello Stato, with an address for
                                                                        service in Luxembourg at the Italian Embassy, 5 Rue Marie-
An action was brought before the Court of Justice of the                Adelaïde.
European Communities on 9 December 1998 which Antillean
Rice Mills NV had previously brought before the Court of First
Instance. That action, registered under case number T-41/97,            The applicant claims that the Court should:
resulted in a declaration of inadmissibility and the Court of
First Instance has referred the case to the Court of Justice in
order that the latter Court may rule on the application for             — Annul Commission Regulation No 2815/98 (1) or at least
annulment.                                                                   Articles 1, 2(1) and the third subparagraph of 2(2), the
                                                                             third subparagraph of Article 3(2), and Article 3(3);
The pleas in law and main arguments are set out in a communi-           — Order the Commission of the European Communities to
cation in OJ C 108 of 5 April 1997, p. 23.                                   pay the costs.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        1.     The regulation does not state the legal basis on which it
                                                                        was adopted.
                                                                        2.     The regulation provides for the protection only of extra
Action brought on 9 December 1998 by the Netherlands                    virgin and virgin olive oil. That restriction is unjustified and
Antilles against the Council of the European Union,                     unacceptable. Olive oil, too, (other than extra virgin or virgin
supported by the Commission of the European Communi-                    olive oil) possesses or may possess characteristics which
                ties and the Kingdom of Spain                           vary according to its geographical origin. Sound and proper
                                                                        protection of the product and the consumer requires that
                                                                        designation of origin of that product should be made possible.
                         (Case C-452/98)
                                                                        3.     The criterion applied to define the geographical origin of
                         (1999/C 188/12)                                the product is unacceptable. It is identified by reference to the
                                                                        place where the mill in which the olives were pressed is
                                                                        located, without taking any account of the place where the
                                                                        olives themselves were produced.
An action was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 9 December 1998 which the
Netherlands Antilles had previously brought before the Court
of First Instance. That action, registered under case number            4.     The regulation makes an exception of the names of
T-179/97, resulted in a declaration of inadmissibility and the          brands or firms whose registration was applied for before
Court of First Instance has referred the case to the Court of           1 January 1999 purportedly in accordance with the relevant
Justice in order that the latter Court may rule on the application      directive. Not only does the regulation, unlike the directive,
for annulment.                                                          make no to reference to good faith, it also makes it possible to
                                                                        apply for registration even after publication of the regulation,
                                                                        thus legitimizing out and out abuses.
The pleas in law and main arguments are set out in a communi-
cation in OJ C 228 of 26 July 1997, p. 25.
                                                                        (1) OJ 1998 L 349, p. 56.


title: Judgment of the Court of 18 June 2002 in Case C-242/00: Federal Republic of Germany v Commission of the European Communities (State aid — Proposed aid — Commission decision holding aid to be compatible with the common market — Measure not having an adverse effect — Regional aid — Definition of eligible regions)

text:
10.8.2002                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 191/5
2.    Directive 89/665, as amended by Directive 92/50, precludes              1.    Dismisses the action;
      national legislation from limiting review of the legality of the
      withdrawal of an invitation to tender to mere examination of
                                                                              2.    Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
      whether it was arbitrary.
3.    Determination of the time to be taken into consideration for
      assessing the legality of the decision by the contracting authority     (1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.
      to withdraw an invitation to tender is a matter for national
      law, provided that the relevant national rules are not less
      favourable than those governing similar domestic actions and
      that they do not make it practically impossible or excessively
      difficult to exercise rights conferred by Community law.
(1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 27 June 2002
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            of 18 June 2002                                   in Case C-258/00: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v French Republic (1)
in Case C-242/00: Federal Republic of Germany v Com-
           mission of the European Communities (1)                            (Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 91/676/EEC —
                                                                              Protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates
                                                                              from agricultural sources — Identification of waters affected
(State aid — Proposed aid — Commission decision holding                              by pollution — Designation of vulnerable zones)
aid to be compatible with the common market — Measure
not having an adverse effect — Regional aid — Definition
                           of eligible regions)                                                         (2002/C 191/08)
                            (2002/C 191/07)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                     (Language of the case: German)
                                                                              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)
                                                                              In Case C-258/00, Commission of the European Communities
In Case C-242/00, Federal Republic of Germany (Agent:                         (Agent: M. Nolin) v French Republic (Agent: J.-F. Dobelle and
W.-D. Plessing, assisted by R. M. Bierwagen) v Commission of                  D. Colas, and, subsequently, G. de Bergues and D. Colas),
the European Communities (Agents: K.-D. Borchardt and                         supported by Kingdom of Spain (Agent: S. Ortiz Vaamonde):
J. Macdonald Flett): Application for the annulment of Com-                    Application for a declaration that, by failing to take the
mission Decision 2001/272/EC of 14 March 2000 on the                          appropriate steps to identify waters affected by pollution
redefinition of assisted areas under the joint Federal Govern-                and, consequently, to designate the corresponding vulnerable
ment/Länder scheme for improving regional economic struc-                     zones, in accordance with Article 3 of and Annex I to Council
tures in Germany for the period 1 January 2000 to 31 Decem-                   Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the
ber 2003 — West Germany and Berlin (OJ 2001 L 97, p. 27),                     protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from
the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President,                  agricultural sources (OJ 1991 L 375, p. 1), the French Republic
P. Jann, F. Macken and N. Colneric (Presidents of Chambers),                  has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive, the
C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur),                     Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: F. Macken (Rapporteur),
M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen, V. Skouris and C.W.A. Timmer-                      President of the Chamber, N. Colneric, C. Gulmann,
mans, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal               R. Schintgen and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                     Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar,
18 June 2002, in which it has ruled:                                          has given a judgment on 27 June 2002, in which it:


title: Case C-576/10: Action brought on 9 December 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
               19.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/19

         Action brought on 9 December 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-576/10)
   2011/C 55/34
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. van Beek and C. Zadra, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands

      Form of order sought

               —

               rule that, by failing to comply with the law of the European Union on public contracts, in particular Directive 2004/18/EC, (1) in the context of the award of a public works concession by the municipality of Eindhoven, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 and Title III of Directive 2004/18/EC;

               —

               order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission has concluded that the coooperation agreement which the municipality of Eindhoven entered into on 11 June 2007 with the company Hurks Bouw en Vastgoed B.V. is a public works concession within the terms of Article 1(3) of Directive 2004/18/EC.
   In view of the fact that the public works concession has an estimated value which is greater than the applicable threshold value, it ought to have been the subject of a call for tenders in accordance with Directive 2004/18/EC, in particular Article 2 and Title III thereof. In addition, the public contracts awarded by Hurks Bouw en Vastgoed B.V. for works to an estimated value in excess of the applicable threshold value must be publicised in accordance with Articles 63 to 65 of Directive 2004/18/EC.
   The fact that the municipality of Eindhoven did not apply Directive 2004/18/EC, and in particular Article 2 and Title III thereof, when awarding the public works concession in question to Hurks Bouw en Vastgoed B.V. leads the Commission to the conclusion that there has been a breach of that directive.
   The Commission further concludes that, in the context of the award of a public works concession by the municipality of Eindhoven, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to comply with its obligations under the European Union law on public contracts, and in particular those imposed by Article 2 and Title III of Directive 2004/18/EC.

      (1)  Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114).


C 109/40              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                4.5.2002
       Removal from the register of Case C-234/00 (1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-31/01 (1)
                        (2002/C 109/72)                                                      (2002/C 109/75)
By order of 22 January 2002 the President of the Court of             By order of 15 January 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-234/00 (Reference for a preliminary       from the register of Case C-31/01: Commission of the
ruling by the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s        European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain
Bench Division (Crown Office)): The Queen v Minister of               and Northern Ireland.
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte: F. Machin & Sons
Ltd.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 79 of 10.3.2001.
(1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-41/01 (1)
      Removal from the register of Case C-239/00 P (1)
                                                                                (2002/C 109/76)
                        (2002/C 109/73)
                                                                      By order of 23 November 2001 the President of the Court of
                                                                      Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
By order of 7 February 2002 the President of the Court of             from the register of Case C-41/01: Commission of the
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal               European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
from the register of Case C-239/00 P: Aldo Kuijer v Council of
the European Union.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 79 of 10.3.2001.
(1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-85/01 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case C-449/00 (1)
                                                                                (2002/C 109/77)
                        (2002/C 109/74)
                                                                      By order of 5 February 2002 the President of the Court of
By order of 7 December 2001 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-85/01: Commission of the
from the register of Case C-449/00: Commission of the                 European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain
European Communities v French Republic.                               and Northern Ireland.
(1) OJ C 45 of 10.2.2001.                                             (1) OJ C 134 of 5.5.2001.


title: Case C-24/10: Action brought on 14 January 2010 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

text:
               13.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/41

         Action brought on 14 January 2010 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-24/10)
   2010/C 63/64
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Karanasou Apostolopoulou and G. Braun)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/46/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC on the annual accounts of certain types of companies, 83/349/EEC on consolidated accounts, 86/635/EEC on the annual accounts and consolidated accounts of banks and other financial institutions and 91/674/EEC on the annual accounts and consolidated accounts of insurance undertakings, or in any event by not notifying those provisions to the Commission, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The time-limit for transposition of Directive 2006/46 into domestic law expired on 5 September 2008.

      (1)  OJ No L 224 of 16.8.2006, p. 1.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 April 2005 in Case T-273/02 Krüger GmbH & Co. KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark CALPICO — Earlier national mark CALYPSO — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Right to be heard)

text:
               25.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/12

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 20 April 2005
   in Case T-273/02 Krüger GmbH & Co. KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark CALPICO - Earlier national mark CALYPSO - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Right to be heard)
   (2005/C 155/24)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case T-273/02: Krüger GmbH & Co. KG, established in Bergisch Gladbach (Germany), represented by S. von Petersdorff-Campen, lawyer, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agent: G. Schneider), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court of First Instance, being Calpis Co. Ltd, established in Tokyo (Japan), represented by O. Jüngst and M. Schork, lawyers — action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 June 2002 (Case R 484/2000-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Calpis Co. Ltd and Krüger GmbH & Co. KG — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of H. Legal, President, P. Mengozzi and I. Wiszniewska-Białecka, Judges; I. Natsinas, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 20 April 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 274 of 9.11.2002.


title: Case C-267/02: Action brought on 19 July 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
14.9.2002               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 219/7
6.     What types of use can be considered, and in particular is        Pleas in law and main arguments
       it necessary to show that the mark has been used in the
       course of trade in the Member State concerned and in
       further particular would importation by a single customer        Article 249 EC, which provides that a directive is to be binding
       into that Member State be sufficient?                            as to the result to be achieved upon each Member State,
                                                                        implies the obligation upon each Member State to observe the
                                                                        time-limits for implementation laid down in directives. That
7.     Is it necessary to disregard use occurring after the filing      time-limit expired on 24 October 1998 without the Italian
       of the application for revocation even for the purpose of        Republic having issued the provisions necessary to comply
       testing whether use during the relevant period was               with Article 5 of the directive referred to in the Commission’s
       genuine?                                                         claims.
                                                                        (1 ) OJ 1998 L 24, p. 1.
( 1) To approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade
     marks (OJ L 40, 11.2.1989, p. 1).
                                                                        Action brought on 23 July 2002 by the Commission of
                                                                        the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
                                                                                Luxembourg
                                                                                (Case C-268/02)
Action brought on 19 July 2002 by the Commission of                                              (2002/C 219/12)
   the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                                                                        An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                          (Case C-267/02)                               brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties on 23 July 2002 by the Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities, represented by D. Martin, acting as Agent.
                          (2002/C 219/11)
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        —     Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
                                                                              within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
                                                                              administrative provisions necessary to comply with
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the                 Council Directive 98/24/EC of 7 April 1998 on the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 July                       protection of the health and safety of workers from the
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,                           risks related to chemical agents at work (fourteenth
represented by M. Shotter and C. Loggi, acting as Agents.                     individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1)
                                                                              of Directive 89/391/EEC) ( 1), the Grand Duchy of Luxem-
                                                                              bourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
                                                                              directive; and
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        —     Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
1.     Declare that, by not adopting within the prescribed time-
       limit, or in any event not notifying the laws, regulations
       and administrative provisions necessary to comply with           Pleas in law and main arguments
       Article 5 of Directive 97/66/EC ( 1) of the European
       Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997
       concerning the processing of personal data and the               The period prescribed for transposition expired on 5 May
       protection of privacy in the telecommunications sector,          2001.
       the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
       under Articles 5 and 15 of that directive;
                                                                        (1 ) OJ 1998 L 131, p. 11.
2.     Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.


title: Case C-225/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Centrale Raad van Beroep by order of 24 March 1999 in the case of Soziale Verzekeringsbank v Y. Moughit

text:
C 246/12                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                    28.8.1999
retroactively lays down the single charge of ITL 500 000 for               Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
registration of the instrument constituting a company and                  Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — 3rd Sec-
various flat-rate charges for the registration of other company            tion — by order of that court of 26 November 1998 in
documents (varying from ITL 750 000 to ITL 90 000                          the case of Agorà s.r.l against Ente Autonomo Fiera
depending on the kind of company) be considered compatible                                    Internazionale di Milano
with the principles of Community law and with the interpret-
ation of the said directive given by the Court of Justice in its
judgment in Joined Cases C-71/91 and C-178/91?                                                      (Case C-223/99)
                                                                                (1999/C 246/24)
The foregoing question is asked in the light of the fact that the          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
abovementioned provision (Article 11 of Law No 448 of                      European Communities by order of the Tribunale Amministra-
1998), although, because the amounts concerned are objec-                  tivo Regionale per la Lombardia (Lombardy Regional Adminis-
tively modest and the reference ex novo to the registration of             trative Court) — 3rd Section — of 26 November 1998,
company documents was, it seems, intended to refer to flat-rate            received at the Court Registry on 10 June 1999, for a
figures apparently commensurate with the cost of the service               preliminary ruling in the case of Agorà s.r.l v Ente Autonomo
(being duties paid by way of fees or dues: Article 12(1)(e) of             Fiera Internazionale di Milano on the following question:
Directive 335/69), was in fact adopted without any previous
determination or calculation of the costs of the service rendered
to the companies (costs which are easily determinable, because             May the definition of a body governed by public law contained
they relate to past years, on the basis of the number and                  in Article 1(b) of Council Directive 92/50/EEC (1) of 18 June
qualification of the officials, the time they take and the various         1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award
material costs necessary for carrying out the transaction),                of public service contracts be deemed applicable to the Ente
without there being any significant link between the amounts               Autonomo Fiera Internazionale di Milano?
levied and the service actually received by the companies
which had in fact paid a charge for registration and for annual
renewal thereof and not for the registration of company                    (1) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 1.
documents on a flat-rate basis).
Regardless of whether the amounts levied by the Italian State
under Article 11(1) of Law No 448 of 1998 rank as duties
paid by way of fees or dues, is the legally prescribed interest
payable by the State — in addition to the reimbursements to                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Centrale Raad
the companies — with effect, as specifically indicated in Article          van Beroep by order of 24 March 1999 in the case of
11(3), from the date of submission of the application for                             Soziale Verzekeringsbank v Y. Moughit
reimbursement and at an annual rate of 2.5%, which is lower
than the annual rates laid down generally for tax paid but not
                                                                                (Case C-225/99)
due by Articles 1 and 5 of Law No 29 of 19 January 1961
(and successive provisions) or, for other sums paid but not
due, by Article 2033 of the Civil Code, compatible with the                                        (1999/C 246/25)
principle of equivalence between the two systems (domestic
and Community) of law as regards the protection of individ-
uals’ rights and/or with the principle of effective exercise of            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
the rights conferred by Community law — both principles                    European Communities by order of 24 March 1999 from the
having been upheld repeatedly by the Court of Justice in its               Centrale Raad van Beroep (Higher Social Security Court),
judgments of 15 September 1998 in Case C-260/96 Spac,                      which was received at the Court Registry on 11 June 1999, for
Case C-231/96 Edis and Joined Cases C-279/96, C-280/96                     a preliminary ruling in the case of Soziale Verzekeringsbank v
and C-281/96(3) Ansaldo?                                                   Y. Moughit on the following question:
                                                                           Must ‘members of [Moroccan workers’] families’ within the
                                                                           meaning of Article 41(1) of the Cooperation Agreement of 27
                                                                           April 1976 between the EC and Morocco (1) be understood as
(1) OJ, English special edition 1969(II), p. 412.                          including the single mother of a Moroccan worker who joined
(2) (1993) ECR I-1915.                                                     him for the purpose of residing with him after he had, as an
(3) (1998) ECR I-5025.                                                     adult, established himself in the territory of a Community
                                                                           Member State?
                                                                           (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2211/78 of 26.9.1978, OJ 1978 L
                                                                               264, p. 1.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 February 2001 in Joined Cases T-7/98, T-208/98 and T-109/99; Carlo De Nicola v European Investment Bank (European Investment Bank — Staff — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Time-limit for initiating action — Substance — Anual performance appraisal — Promotion — Consideration of comparative merits — Principle of equal treatment — Misuse of powers — Mental harassment — Resignation — Conditions of validity — Form — Capacity — Refusal of administration to accept withdrawal of resignation — Request to remove documents from the file — Action for damages)

text:
C 150/20                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           19.5.2001
                                                          COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 2.    Orders the defendant to pay the applicant the arrears of
                                                                                remuneration not received since the withdrawal of his resig-
                                                                                nation, together with default interest at the rate of 6,75%;
                       of 23 February 2001
                                                                           3.    Orders the defendant to pay the applicant the token sum of one
                                                                                euro by way of compensation for non-pecuniary damage;
in Joined Cases T-7/98, T-208/98 and T-109/99; Carlo De                    4.    Orders the defendant to pay all the costs;
            Nicola v European Investment Bank (1)
                                                                           5.    Dismisses the remainder of the application.
(European Investment Bank — Staff — Action for annul-
ment — Admissibility — Time-limit for initiating action —                  (1) OJ C 94, (28.3.1998), and C 71, (13.3.1999).
Substance — Anual performance appraisal — Promotion —
Consideration of comparative merits — Principle of equal
treatment — Misuse of powers — Mental harassment —
Resignation — Conditions of validity — Form — Capacity
— Refusal of administration to accept withdrawal of resig-
nation — Request to remove documents from the file —
                        Action for damages)
                                                                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                          (2001/C 150/36)
                                                                                of 15 March 2001
                                                                           in Case T-73/98: Société Chimique Prayon-Rupel SA v
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                                Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                           (State aid — Failure to open the procedure under Article
In Joined Cases T-7/98 and T-208/98; Carlo De Nicola, an                   93(2) of the EC Treaty (now Article 88(2) EC) — Serious
employee of the European Investment Bank, residing in                                                    difficulty)
Strassen (Luxembourg), represented by L. Isola, avocat, and
also, in Case T-7/98, by F. Randolph, Barrister, against
European Investment Bank (Agents: initially, in Case                                                 (2001/C 150/37)
T-78/98, G. Marchegiani and then, and also in Case T-208/98,
P. Koskelo, E. Uhlmann and C. Camilli) — application for
annulment of the applicant’s annual performance appraisals                                     (Language of the case: French)
for 1996 and 1997 in so far as they do not contain a proposal
for promotion and also of the promotion decisions taken
by the European Investment Bank following those annual                     In Case T-73/98: Société Chimique Prayon-Rupel SA, estab-
appraisals, in so far as they relate to promotions from Function           lished in Engis (Belgium), represented by B. van de Walle de
E to Function D and fail to promote the applicant to                       Ghelcke, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
Function D, and T-109; Carlo De Nicola, a former servant of                against Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
the European Investment Bank, residing in Rome, represented                D. Triantafyllou), supported by the Federal Republic of Germ-
by L. Isola, avocat, against European Investment Bank (Agents:             any (Agents: B. Muttelsee-Schön and C. von Donat) —
P. Koskelo, E. Uhlmann and C. Camilli) — application for a                 application for annulment of the decision of the Commission
declaration that the applicant’s resignation is void and for               of 16 December 1997 to raise no objection to the grant of aid
annulment of the European Investment Bank’s letter of 2 Febru-             by the Federal Republic of Germany to Chemische Werke
ary 1999 refusing to accept the withdrawal of that resignation             Piesteritz GmbH — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber,
and the letter of 25 February 1999 purporting to dismiss the               Extended Composition), composed of R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas,
applicant — the Court of First Instance, composed of K. Lena-              President, and P. Lindh, J.D. Cooke, M. Vilaras and N.J. For-
erts, President, and J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; B. Pastor,            wood, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment           Registrar; has given a judgment on 15 March 2001, in which
on 23 February 2001, in which it:                                          it:
                                                                           1.    Annuls the decision of the Commission of 16 December 1997
1.    Annuls the defendant’s decision of 2 February 1999 refusing                to raise no objection to the grant of aid by the Federal Republic
      to accept the withdrawal of the applicant’s resignation;                   of Germany to Chemische Werke Piesteritz GmbH;


title: Joined Cases T-200/03 and T-313/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  21 February 2006  — V v Commission (Officials — Dismissal for incompetence — Article 51 of the Staff Regulations — Manifest error of assessment — Misuse of power — Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials — Rights of the defence — Proportionality — Equality of treatment — Statement of reasons — Staff report — Admissibility — Legal interest in bringing proceedings)

text:
               22.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/11

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 21 February 2006 — V v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-200/03 and T-313/03) (1)

   (Officials - Dismissal for incompetence - Article 51 of the Staff Regulations - Manifest error of assessment - Misuse of power - Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials - Rights of the defence - Proportionality - Equality of treatment - Statement of reasons - Staff report - Admissibility - Legal interest in bringing proceedings)
   (2006/C 96/20)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: V (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall, Agent)
   Application for
   Firstly, annulment of the appointing authority's decision to dismiss the applicant for incompetence and, secondly, annulment of the applicant's staff report for the 1999/2001 period
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses actions T-200/03 and T-313/03;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear the costs it incurred during these proceedings and during the interlocutory proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 200, 23.8.2003.


title: Case T-22/11: Action brought on 19 January 2011 — Westfälisch-Lippischer Sparkassen- und Giroverband v Commission

text:
               5.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/28

         Action brought on 19 January 2011 — Westfälisch-Lippischer Sparkassen- und Giroverband v Commission
   (Case T-22/11)
   2011/C 72/45
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Westfälisch-Lippischer Sparkassen- und Giroverband (Münster, Germany) (represented by: I. Liebach and A. Rosenfeld, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               partially annul the Commission’s decision of 21 December 2010, C(2010) 9525 final, State aid, MC 8/2009 and C-43/2009 — Germany — WestLB, in so far as it rejected the application made by Germany on 28 October 2010 seeking to extend beyond 15 February 2011 the time-limit for the sale and disposal of the new operations of Westdeutsche Immobilienbank AG;

               —

               in the alternative, partially annul the Commission’s decision of 21 December 2010, C(2010) 9525 final, State aid, MC 8/2009 and C-43/2009 — Germany — West LB, in so far the Commission thereby implicitly decided that Germany had lodged only one single application seeking to extend up to 15 February 2011 the time-limit for the sale and disposal of the new operations of Westdeutsche Immobilienbank AG and, accordingly, that no decision on a further extension beyond that date was required;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant puts forward five pleas in law in support of its action.
   1.   First plea in law: breach of the obligation to give reasons under the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU
   The applicant submits in this respect that the Commission has not explained why it combined two applications submitted by Germany for an extension of the time-limit into one single application.
   The Commission has also not explained why the conditions for an extension of the time-limit under Article 2(2) of Commission Decision C(2009) 3900 final, corrected on 12 May 2009, on State aid which Germany seeks to grant in favour of restructuring WestLB AG (C-43/2008 [N 390/2008] (‘the decision of 12 May 2009’), are not met.
   2.   Second plea in law: errors of assessment and appraisal
   The applicant submits in this connection that, in relation to the grant of an extension of the time-limit, the Commission based its discretionary decision on an incorrect finding of fact. In the applicant’s opinion, the contested decision wrongly presupposes that the extension of the time-limit was requested only up to 15 February 2011, or implicitly finds that it was no longer necessary to decide on a further application for a longer period.
   The applicant also argues that the Commission made no use of the option to extend the time-limit expressly provided for in Article 2(2) of the decision of 12 May 2009, notwithstanding the fact that the conditions for so doing were met. Instead, the Commission relied on an unwritten sui generis right of extension which has no legal basis and the specific conditions of which are utterly vague.
   3.   Third plea in law: infringement of the principle of proportionality
   In this respect the applicant contends, inter alia, that the Commission’s decision on the cessation of the new operations of Westdeutsche Immobilienbank AG after 15 February 2011 is disproportionate to the disadvantages resulting from such cessation.
   4.   Fourth plea in law: infringement of the principle of equal treatment
   In this context the applicant maintains that, in other cases linked to the financial crisis, in which financial institutions were granted much greater aid, the Commission granted significantly longer time-limits for the sale of holdings and also property financing companies.
   5.   Fifth plea in law: breach of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of the principle of sound administration
   In the context of the fifth plea in law, the applicant claims that the Commission does not have the right to interpret and take a decision on applications made by a Member State in a manner which is at variance with their express wording, meaning and purpose.