title: Case T-128/09: Order of the General Court of 3 October 2011 — Meridiana and Meridiana fly v Commission (State aid — Action for annulment — Applicants’ failure to act — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               26.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/32

         Order of the General Court of 3 October 2011 — Meridiana and Meridiana fly v Commission
   (Case T-128/09) (1)

   (State aid - Action for annulment - Applicants’ failure to act - No need to adjudicate)
   2011/C 347/53
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Meridiana SpA (Olbia, Italy) and Meridiana fly SpA, formerly Eurofly SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: N. Green QC, K. Bacon, Barrister, C. Osti and A. Prastaro, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, D. Grespan and E. Righini, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Italian Republic (represented by G. Palmieri and P. Gentili, lawyers) and Alitalia — Compagnia Aerea Italiana SpA (Fiumicino, Italy) (represented by G.M. Roberti, G. Bellitti and I. Perego, lawyers)

      Re:

   APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 6745 final of 12 November 2008 (State Aid No 510/2008 — Italy — Sale of assets of Alitalia)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the present action.

               2.

               Meridiana SpA and Meridiana fly SpA shall bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission and by Alitalia — Compagnia Aerea Italiana SpA.

               3.

               The Italian Republic shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 141, 20.6.2009.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 July 2003 in Case T-234/01, Andreas Stihl AG & Co. KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Colours — Combination of orange and grey — Absolute ground for refusal — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
C 213/32                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         6.9.2003
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 9 July 2003
                           of 9 July 2003                                  in Case T-234/01, Andreas Stihl AG & Co. KG v Office
                                                                           for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
                                                                                and Designs) (OHIM) (1)
in Case T-162/01: Laboratorios RTB, SL v Office for
                                                                           (Community trade mark — Colours — Combination of
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                                                                           orange and grey — Absolute ground for refusal — Distinc-
                        Designs) (OHIM) ( 1)
                                                                           tive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/
                                                                                94)
(Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Earlier                                              (2003/C 213/62)
figurative and word marks containing the word GIORGI —
Application for Community word mark GIORGIO BEVER-                                           (Language of the case: German)
LY HILLS — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b)
                  of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
                                                                           In Case T-234/01, Andreas Stihl AG & Co. KG, established in
                                                                           Waiblingen (Germany), represented by S. Völker and A. Klett,
                                                                           lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
                          (2003/C 213/61)                                  the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
                                                                           Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agent: G. Schneider) — appli-
                                                                           cation for annulment of the decision of the First Board of
                                                                           Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                         (Trade Marks and Designs) of 24 July 2001 (Case R 477/2000-
                                                                           1), refusing registration of a combination of the colours orange
                                                                           and grey as a Community trade mark, the Court of First
                                                                           Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of V. Tiili, President,
                                                                           P. Mengozzi and M. Vilaras, Judges; Registrar: B. Pastor,
                                                                           Assistant Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 July 2003 in
                                                                           which it:
In Case T-162/01, Laboratorios RTB, SL, established in Bigues
i Riells (Spain), represented by A. Canela Giménez, lawyer, v              (1) Dismisses the action.
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: O. Montalto and J.F. Crespo                   (2) Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
Carrillo), the other party to the proceedings before the Board
of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) being: Giorgio Beverly Hills,             (1 ) OJ 2001 C 348.
Inc., established in Santa Monica, California (United States of
America): Action brought against the decision of the First
Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 April 2001
(Case R 122/2000-1), the Court of First Instance (Fourth
Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili, President, P. Mengozzi and                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
M. Vilaras, Judges; B. Pastor, Deputy Registrar has given a
judgment on 9 July 2003, in which it:                                                                of 8 July 2003
                                                                           in Case T-65/02: Michelle Chetaud v European Parlia-
                                                                                ment ( 1)
1.     Dismisses the application;
                                                                           (Officials — Pension — Weighting applicable — Proof of
                                                                           residence — Suspension of measure — Effect on the burden
2.     Orders the applicant to pay the costs.                                                           of proof)
                                                                                (2003/C 213/63)
( 1) OJ C 303 of 27.10.2001.                                                                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           In Case T-65/02: Michelle Chetaud, former official of the
                                                                           European Parliament, residing in Nice (France), represented by


title: Case C-72/04: Action brought on 17 February 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Finland

text:
               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/23

         Action brought on 17 February 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Finland
   (Case C-72/04)
   (2004/C 94/50)
   An action against the Republic of Finland was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 February 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by G. Zavvos and M. Huttunen, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               Declare that the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2000/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 November 2000 amending Council Directives 85/611/EEC, 92/49/EEC, 92/96/EEC and 93/22/EEC as regards exchange of information with third countries (1), since it has not brought into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the directive, or at least has not informed the Commission of them;

               2.

               Order Finland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposition of the directive expired on 17 November 2002.

      (1)  OJ 2000 L 290, p. 27.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 9 July 1997 in Case T-63/96: Augusto Fichtner v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Staff reports - Complaint - Implicit rejection - Manifest inadmissibility of the application)

text:
1 . 11 . 97               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 331/19
common market — the Court of First Instance (Fifth                          Action brought on 24 July 1997 by H & R Ecroyd
Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of: R.                             Holdings Ltd. against the Commission of the European
Garcia-Valdecasas, President, V. Tiili, J. Azizi, R. M.                                                Communities
Moura Ramos and M. Jaeger, Judges; A. Mair,                                                         ( Case T-220/97)
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
25 September 1997, in which it:                                                                       ( 97/C 331/41 )
1 . annuls the decision reproduced in Commission notice                                      (Language of the case: English)
       94/C 400/02 pursuant to Article 6 (4) of Decision
       No 3855/91 /ECSC          to   other Member States and
       interested parties concerning aid which Luxembourg                   An action against the Commission of the European
       plans to grant to ProfilARBED SA (Arbed) (State Aid                  Communities was brought before the Court of First
       C 25/94 (ex N 11 /94));                                              Instance of the European Communities on 24 July 1997
                                                                            by H & R Ecroyd Holdings Ltd., represented by William
2 . orders the Commission to pay the costs;                                 Neville, Peter Duffy and Philippa Watson, with an address
                                                                            for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger
                                                                            Hoss and Prussen, 2 Place Winston Churchill.
3 . orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and Arbed
       SA to bear their own costs.
                                                                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
H OJ C 248 , 23 . 9 . 1995 .
( 2 ) OJ C 400, 31 . 12 . 1994, p . 10 .
                                                                            — annul the Commission's decision contained in its letter
                                                                                dated 16 May 1997 addressed to the applicant's
                                                                                solicitor, and
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                            — order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs of
                                                                                the proceedings.
                            of 9 July 1997
in Case T-63/96: Augusto Fichtner v. Commission of the
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                     European Communities (')
 (Officials — Staff reports — Complaint — Implicit
     rejection — Manifest inadmissibility of the application)               The applicant refers to the preliminary ruling of the Court
                                                                            of Justice of 6 June 1996 in Case C-127/94 (The Queen v.
                             ( 97/C 331/40 )                                Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte: H
                                                                            & R Ecroyd Holdings Ltd. and John Rupert Ecroyd
                  (Language of the case: Italian)                           [ 1996] ECR 1-2731 ), hereinafter 'the judgment', holding
                                                                            that producers such as the applicant had been unlawfully
In Case T-63/96 : Augusto Fichtner, an official of the                      excluded from the award of a special reference quantity
Commission of the European Communities, residing at                         under Article 3a ( 1 ) of Regulation (EEC ) No 857/84 of
Besozzo ( Italy ), represented by Vincenzo Salvatore, of the                31 March 1984 adopting general rules for the application
Pavia Bar, v. Commission of the European Communities                        of the levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation ( EEC )
 (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and Alberto dal Ferro) —                       No 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector, as
application, first, for annulment of the Commission's                       amended by Regulation (EEC ) No 764/89 of 20 March
                                                                            1989 .
decision of 12 February 1996 expressly rejecting the
 applicant's complaint of 14 February 1995 concerning his
 staff report for the period from 1 July 1991 to 30 June                    The applicant challenges the Commission's decision of
 1993 and, second, for damages for the material and non                     16 May 1997 asserting that it has no obligation to ensure
 material loss allegedly suffered by the applicant — the                    that effect is given to the judgment. In consequence of this
 Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber ), composed of:
                                                                            refusal, the applicant remains unlawfully deprived of
 K. Lenaerts, President; P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges;                  quota since 1989 and is suffering severe and continuous
 H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 9 July 1997, the                      loss .
 operative part of which is as follows :
 I. The        application       is      dismissed    as    manifestly      The applicant pleads infringement of Articles 155 and 176
        inadmissible;                                                       of the EC Treaty and of fundamental rights. Articles 155
                                                                             and 176 impose legal obligations on the Commission to
                                                                            take the 'necessary steps to comply with' a ruling of the
 2 . The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.
                                                                             Court, and according to the Court's case-law, the
                                                                             Commission is obliged 'to review the individual situation'
 w OJ C 233 , 10. 8 . 1996 .                                                 of a person who has been the victim of unlawful
                                                                             treatment. The Commission's position displays a serious
                                                                             misunderstanding of its clear obligations .


title: Case C-533/11: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 October 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 91/271/EEC — Urban waste-water treatment — Judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil obligations — Non-compliance — Article 260 TFEU — Financial penalties — Imposition of a lump sum and a penalty payment)

text:
               14.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 367/3

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 October 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-533/11) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 91/271/EEC - Urban waste-water treatment - Judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil obligations - Non-compliance - Article 260 TFEU - Financial penalties - Imposition of a lump sum and a penalty payment)
   2013/C 367/04
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Wils, A. Marghelis and S. Pardo Quintillán, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: C. Pochet, M. Neumann and T. Materne, Agents, and A. Lepièce, E. Gillet, J. Bouckaert and H. Viaene, avocats)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: C. Murrell, Agent, and D. Anderson QC)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to comply fully with the Court’s judgment of 8 July 2004 in Case C-27/03 Commission v Belgium concerning the failure to transpose, within the period prescribed, the provisions of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment (OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40) — Infringement of Article 3(1), second subparagraph, and of Article 5(2) and (3) of that directive — Calculation of penalties: payment of a periodic penalty and a lump sum

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to take all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 8 July 2004 in Case C-27/03 Commission v Belgium, establishing the failure of the Kingdom of Belgium to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3 and 5 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC. of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment, as amended by Commission Directive 98/15/EC of 27 February 1998, that Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU.

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay to the European Commission, into the ‘European Union own resources’ account, a lump sum of EUR 10 million.

               3.

               Declares that, if the failure to fulfil obligations found in point 1 has continued until the day of delivery of the present judgment, the Kingdom of Belgium shall be ordered to pay to the European Commission, into the ‘European Union own resources’ account, a penalty payment of EUR 859 404 for each six-month period of delay in taking the measures necessary to comply with the judgment in Commission v Belgium, from the date of delivery of this judgment until the date on which the judgment in Commission v Belgium has been complied with in full, the actual amount of which is to be calculated at the end of each six-month period by reducing the total relating to such periods by a percentage corresponding to the proportion which the number of population equivalents which have been brought into compliance with the judgment in Commission v Belgium by end of such a period bears to the number of population equivalents which were not compliant with this judgment on the day of its delivery.

               4.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

               5.

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.


title: Case C-116/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Raad van State by order of 13 March 2001 in the case of Verol Recycling Limburg B.V. and Minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelĳke Ordening en Milieubeheer

text:
C 161/6                   EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                     2.6.2001
—      by maintaining in force Article 15 in Title IV of Law                  1.   Must Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 (1) on waste
       No 409 of 24 July 1985, which refers to Article 1 of Law                    (the Framework Directive) be interpreted as permitting a
       No 1398 of 14 December 1964, having the effect that                         process for processing waste in which more than one
       only dentists of Italian nationality may remain registered                  operation is performed, as described above, to be assessed
       as practitioners upon transferring their residence to                       as a whole?
       another Member State,
the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under               2.   If so, does the process concerned constitute recovery
Articles 48 and 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,                         within the meaning of R1, R3 and R5 of Annex 11 B to
Articles 39 EC and 43 EC) — the Court (Sixth Chamber),                             the Framework Directive if it results in the complete use
composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, V. Skou-                        of the waste employed therein?
ris, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and F. Macken,
Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has                  3.a. If the answer to question 1 is in the negative, is the
given a judgment on 18 January 2001, in which it:                                  extent (expressed as calorific values) to which the waste
                                                                                contributes to the incineration process or the extent
1.     Declares that:
                                                                                (expressed as the level of material re-used) to which the
       —     by allowing Legislative Decree No 233 of the Provisional              ash residues from that waste contribute to the production
             Head of State of 13 September 1946 on the reconstitution              process relevant as regards the classification of each
             of the associations of the health-care professions and the            individual operation as recovery or disposal (R1, R3 and
             regulation of the practice of those professions, despite              R5 and D10 respectively)?
             amendment by Article 9 of Law No 362 of 8 November
             1991 on the rules for the re-organisation of the pharma-         3.b. If so, on the basis of which criteria is it necessary to
             ceutical sector, to remain in force in such a way as to leave         assess whether or not the contribution is sufficient for
             dentists practising in Italy still subject to a de facto              classification as recovery? In the absence of Community
             residence requirement,                                                criteria in this respect is it possible to apply national
       —     by maintaining in force Article 15 of Law No 409 of                   criteria?
             24 July 1985 on the profession of dental surgeon and on
             the provisions concerning the right of establishment and the     4.   If one operation must be classified as recovery and
             freedom to provide services of dentists who are nationals of          another operation as disposal, how must the process be
             Member States of the European Communities, which refers               regarded as a whole?
             to Article 1 of Law No 1398 of 14 December 1964
             amending and supplementing Law No 736 of 10 July
             1960 as regards the registration of Italian members of the
                                                                              (1) OJ L 194, 1975, p. 39.
             health-care professions residing abroad, having the effect
             that only dentists of Italian nationality may remain regis-
             tered with their professional association upon transferring
             their residence to another Member State,
       the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
       Articles 48 and 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
       Articles 39 EC and 43 EQ;
2.     Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.                                                     Appeal brought on 19 March 2001 by T. Port GmbH &
                                                                              Co. KG against the judgment delivered on 1 February
                                                                              2001 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance
                                                                              of the European Communities in Case T-1/99 between
                                                                              T. Port GmbH & Co. KG and the Commission of the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Raad van State                                         European Communities
by order of 13 March 2001 in the case of Verol Recycling
Limburg B.V. and Minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimte-
                  lijke Ordening en Milieubeheer                                                      (Case C-122/01 P)
                            (Case C-116/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 161/12)
                            (2001/C 161/11)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        An appeal against the judgment delivered on 1 February 2001
European Communities by order of 13 March 2001 by the                         by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
Raad van State (Council of State), which was received at the                  European Communities in Case T-1/99 between T. Port GmbH
Court Registry on 15 March 2001, for a preliminary ruling in                  & Co. KG and the Commission of the European Communities
the case of Verol Recycling Limburg B.V. and Minister van                     was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer on                     Communities on 19 March 2001 by T. Port GmbH & Co. KG,
the following questions:                                                      represented by G. Meier, Rechtsanwalt, Cologne.


title: Case C-540/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 28 November 2012 — Rena Schmeel v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               16.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/14

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 28 November 2012 — Rena Schmeel v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-540/12)
   2013/C 46/26
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Rena Schmeel

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is European primary and/or secondary law, here in particular Directive 2000/78/EC, (1) to be interpreted as a comprehensive prohibition of unjustified age discrimination, such that it also covers national rules on the remuneration of Federal civil servants?

               2.

               If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: does the interpretation of this European primary and/or secondary law mean that a national provision under which the level of the basic pay of a civil servant on establishment of the status of civil servant is substantially dependent on his age and also, in particular, rises according to the duration of civil servant status constitutes direct or indirect age discrimination?

               3.

               If Question 2 is also answered in the affirmative: does the interpretation of this European primary and/or secondary law preclude the justification of such a national provision by the legislative aim of making payment for professional experience?

               4.

               If Question 3 is also answered in the affirmative: does the interpretation of European primary and/or secondary law, where a non-discriminatory right to remuneration has not been implemented, permit a legal consequence other than retrospective remuneration of those discriminated against at the highest pay step in their pay grade?
               Does the legal consequence of infringement of the prohibition of discrimination in that case follow from European primary and/or secondary law itself, here in particular Directive 2000/78/EC, or does the claim follow only from the point of view of failure to implement the rules of European law in accordance with the claim to State liability under European Union law?

               5.

               Does the interpretation of European primary and/or secondary law preclude a national measure which makes the claim to (retrospective) payment or compensation dependent on the civil servants’ having enforced that claim in good time?

      (1)  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).


title: Case F-112/07: Action brought on 16 October 2007 — Doumas v Commission

text:
               22.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/46

         Action brought on 16 October 2007 — Doumas v Commission
   (Case F-112/07)
   (2007/C 315/90)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Georgios Doumas (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decision rejecting the applicant's request of 24 November 2006;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the applicant the remuneration which he would have received from 1 November 2003 until 16 September 2007, the date of his effective reinstatement, as compensation for his material damage;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant EUR 200 000, subject to increase or diminution in the course of the proceedings, for the damage which he is suffering in terms of delay in his career and for loss of the chance of making progress in his career (promotion, step, pension …), and, in respect of non-material damage, particularly the damage to his state of health, because of the state of uncertainty as to the progress of his career for more than three years as a result of the Appointing Authority's (‘the AIPN’) wrongful acts or omissions;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, an official in step 3 of Grade A5, by e-mail of 1 August 2003, three months before the end of his leave on personal grounds (‘CCP’), taken from 1 October 2002 until 31 October 2003, stated his wish not to apply for an extension to his CCP. On 24 November 2006, he requested the AIPN, first, to reinstate him in the first vacant post corresponding to his grade and, second, compensation for the loss which he was suffering because of his non-reinstatement as a result of the Commission's wrongful acts or omissions, such reinstatement in the function group of administrator being possible only from 16 September 2007.
   In support of his action, the applicant pleads, among other things, breach of Article 40 of the Staff Regulations, of Article 4 et seq. of the Commission's decision of 5 September 1988, which applied to the end of his CCP, and of Article 8 of the Commission's new decision of 28 April 2004 on CCP which entered into force on 1 May 2004.
   The applicant pleads, in addition, that the Commission's decision not to reinstate him is vitiated by a total failure to state reasons.
   The applicant claims, in particular, that the repetition of those wrongful acts or omissions which are causing him significant damage constitutes psychological harassment within the meaning of Article 12a of the Staff Regulations.
   The applicant submits finally that the Commission has infringed Article 40(4) of the Staff Regulations and the principle of sound administration.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte Suprema di Cassazione - First Civil Division - by order of that court of 4 December 1995 in the case of Provincia Autonoma di Trento and Ufficio del Medico Provinciale di Trento against Dega di Depretto Gino Snc (Case C-83/96)

text:
 18 . 5 . 96            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 145/3
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches                  ( 1 ) states criteria to identify private persons or
Finanzgericht by order of that court of 7 March 1996                          organizations having a legitimate interest in protecting
in the case of Quelle Schickedanz AG and Co. v.                               consumers, and
                 Oberfinanzdirektion Frankfurt/M.
                          ( Case C-80/96 )                              ( 2 ) allows such private persons or organizations to take
                                                                              action before the courts or before competent
                             ( 96/C 145/04 )                                  administrative bodies for a decision as to whether
                                                                              contractual terms drawn up for general use are
                                                                              unfair ?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Hessisches
Finanzgericht ( Hessen Finance Court) of 7 March 1 996,                 (') OJ No L 95 , 21 . 4 . 1993 , p . 29 .
which was received at the Court Registry on 18 March
 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Quelle
Schickedanz         AG   and       Co . v.   Oberfinanzdirektion
Frankfurt/M. on the following questions :
( a ) Where goods put up in sets for retail sale, comprising a          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte Suprema di
      brassière and briefs, are classified individually pursuant        Cassazione — First Civil Division — by order of that court
      to the Annex to Commission Regulation ( EC )                      of 4 December 1995 in the case of Provincia Autonoma di
      No 1966/94 of 28 July 1994 concerning the                         Trento and Ufficio del Medico Provinciale di Trento against
      classification of certain goods in the combined                                    Dega di Depretto Gino Snc
      nomenclature ( OJ No L 198 , 30 . 7. 1994, p . 193 ), is                                    ( Case C-83/96 )
      that classification valid, inasmuch as it thereby conflicts
      with Rule 3 ( b ) of the general rules for the                                                ( 96/C 145/06 )
      interpretation of the combined nomenclature ?
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
( b ) If the answer to question ( a ) is in the negative :              European Communities by an order of the First Civil
                                                                        Division of the Corte Suprema di Cassazione of 4 December
      Is a set put up for retail sale, comprising a knitted             1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on
      brassière and knitted briefs, covered by code number              18 March 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                        Provincia Autonoma di Trento and Ufficio del Medico
      6212 10 00 because the brassière fails to be regarded, in
      accordance with Rule 3 ( b ) of the said general rules, as        Provinciale di Trento against Dega di Depretto Gino Snc on
      the component which gives the goods their essential               the following question :
      character ?
                                                                        Must Article 3 ( 1 ) ( 6 ) of Council Directive 79/112/EEC on
                                                                        the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating
                                                                        to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs
                                                                        for sale to the ultimate consumer (*) be interpreted as
                                                                        meaning that the expression 'established within the
                                                                        Community' used in it, refers only to the seller or refers, in
                                                                        the absence of a seller established within the Community,
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of                 also to the manufacturer and/or packager ? Must that
Justice, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of              provision therefore be taken to mean that, in the absence of
28 February 1996, in the case of The Queen against                      a seller established in the Community, the manufacturer
Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, ex parte:                    and/or the packager must be established in the
         ( 1 ) Consumers' Association; (2 ) Which (?) Ltd               Community ?
                          ( Case C-82/96 )
                            ( 96/C 145/05 )                             (') OJ No L 33 , 8 . 2 . 1979 , p . 1 .
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the High Court of
Justice, Queen's Bench Division, of 28 February 1 996 ,
which was received at the Court Registry on 15 March
1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of The Queen                Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerisches
against Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, ex parte:            Landessozialgericht by order of that court of 2 February
                                                                        1996 in the case of Maria Martinez Sala v. Freistaat
( 1 ) Consumers' Association; ( 2 ) Which (?) Ltd, on the
following questions :                                                                                Bayern
                                                                                ( Case C-85 /96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 145/07 )
Does Article 7 ( 2 ) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April
1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (^ impose
obligations on Member States to ensure that national                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
law :                                                                   European Communities by an order of the Ninth Senate of


23.11.2002             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 289/19
Under the first paragraph of Article 10 EC, Member States are                   Removal from the register of Case C-335/01 ( 1)
to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular,
to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty
or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the                                        (2002/C 289/35)
Community.
It is not disputed by the Hellenic Republic that it must adopt
                                                                        By order of 23 September 2002 the President of the Court of
measures to comply with the abovementioned directive.
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                        from the register of Case C-335/01: Commission of the
                                                                        European Communities v French Republic.
The Commission records that until now the Hellenic Republic
has not adopted the appropriate measures for the full incorpor-
ation of the directive into Greek law.
                                                                        (1 ) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.
( 1) OJ L 127 of 9.5.2001, p. 42.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-43/02 (1)
      Removal from the register of Case C-141/01 P        (1)
                                                                                (2002/C 289/36)
                         (2002/C 289/33)
                                                                        By order of 29 August 2002 the President of the Court of
By order of 24 July 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
of the European Communities ordered the removal from                    from the register of Case C-43/02 (Referral for a preliminary
the register of Case C-141/01 P: Confederazione Generale                ruling by the Landgericht Stuttgart): Landesbausparkasse
dell’Industria Italiana (Confindustria) and Others v Com-
                                                                        Baden-Württemberg v Elisabeth Huttenlocher.
mission of the European Communities.
( 1) OJ C 186 of 30.6.2001.                                             (1 ) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.
        Removal from the register of Case C-295/01 ( 1)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-59/02 (1)
                         (2002/C 289/34)
                                                                                (2002/C 289/37)
By order of 24 July 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
                                                                        By order of 12 July 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
register of Case C-295/01 (Referral for a preliminary ruling by         of the European Communities ordered the removal from
the Giudice di pace di Casale Monferrato): Fontaneto Industria          the register of Case C-59/02: Commission of the European
Alimentare Srl v ASL No 21 — Dipartimento di Prevenzione                Communities v Hellenic Republic.
Servizio Igiene Alimenti e Nutrizione.
( 1) OJ C 289 of 13.10.2001.                                            (1 ) OJ C 97 of 20.4.2002.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) 19 March 2002 in Case C-268/00: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Quality of bathing water — Inadequate implementation of Directive 76/160/EEC)

text:
C 118/14               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                            18.5.2002
Bench Division (Crown Office), for a preliminary ruling in the                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
proceedings pending before that court between Com-
missioners of Customs and Excise and Zoological Society
of London, on the interpretation of the second indent of                                              (Third Chamber)
Article 13A(2)(a) of the 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                                             19 March 2002
value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145,
p. 1), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann
(Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr and
C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General;                  in Case C-268/00: Commission of the European Communi-
L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a                                ties v Kingdom of the Netherlands (1)
judgment on 21 March 2002, in which it has ruled:
                                                                           (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                           Quality of bathing water — Inadequate implementation of
                                                                                Directive 76/160/EEC)
                                                                                (2002/C 118/21)
1.   On a proper construction of the second indent of
     Article 13A(2)(a) of the Sixth Council Directive (77/388/
     EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
     Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system
     of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, the condition
     requiring a body to be managed and administered on an
     essentially voluntary basis refers only to members of that body       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
     who are designated in accordance with its constitution to direct                           in the European Court Reports)
     it at the highest level, as well as other persons who, without
     being designated by the constitution, do in fact direct it in that
     they take the decisions of last resort concerning the policy of
     that body, especially in the financial area, and carry out the
     higher supervisory tasks.                                             In Case C-268/00, Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           (Agents: G. Valero Jordana and C. van der Hauwaert) v
                                                                           Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agent: M. A. Fierstra): Appli-
                                                                           cation for a declaration that, by failing to fulfil its obligations
                                                                           under Articles 4(1) and 6(1) of Council Directive 76/160/EEC
                                                                           of 8 December 1975 concerning the quality of bathing water
2.   On a proper construction of the second indent of                      (OJ 1976 L 31, p. 1) within the periods prescribed by that
     Article 13A(2)(a) of the Sixth Directive 77/388, the words            directive, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to
     ‘on an essentially voluntary basis’ refer to the members who          fulfil its obligations under Community law, the Court (Third
     compose the organs entrusted with the management and                  Chamber), composed of: F. Macken, President of the Chamber,
     administration of a body of the kind referred to in that provision    C. Gulmann (Rapporteur) and J.-P. Puissochet, Judges;
     and those persons who, without being designated by the                F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
     constitution, do in fact direct it, and refer also to the reward      judgment on 19 March 2002, in which it:
     which the latter may receive, habitually or exceptionally, from
     that body.
                                                                           1.     Declares that, by failing to fulfil its obligations as regards the
                                                                                quality of bathing water and the frequency of sampling thereof
                                                                                within the periods prescribed by Council Directive 76/160/EEC
                                                                                of 8 December 1975 concerning the quality of bathing water,
                                                                                the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its
                                                                                obligations under Articles 4(1) and 6(1) of that directive;
(1) OJ C 259 of 9.9.2000.
                                                                           2.     Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 259 of 9.9.2000.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 24 September 1996 in Case T-491/93: Richco Commodities Ltd v. Commission of the European Communities (Emergency assistance given by the Community to the States of the former Soviet Union - Invitation to tender - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Action for damages - Admissibility)

text:
No C 336/26           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                  9 . 11 .
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                Patrick Chabrier, of the Paris Bar, with an address for
                    of 24 September 1996                               service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt,
                                                                       8— 10 Rue Mathias Hardt, v. Commission of the European
in Case T-491 /93 : Richco Commodities Ltd v. Commission
                                                                       Communities ( Agents : Marie-Jose Jonczy and Nicholas
              of the European Communities ( ! )                        Khan ) — application for, first, annulment of the decision of
(Emergency assistance given by the Community to the States             the Commission of 1 April 1993 addressed to the
of the former Soviet Union — In vitation to tender — Action            Vnesheconombank and, second, restoration of its rights
for annulment — Admissibility — Action for damages —                   against Credit Lyonnais — the Court of First Instance
                          Admissibility)                               ( Third Chamber ), composed of: C. P. Briët, President, and
                          ( 96/C 336/54 )                              B. Vesterdorf and A. Potocki, Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez,
                                                                       Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                       24 September 1996 , in which it:
                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                       1 . dismisses the action as inadmissible;
In Case T-491 /93 : Richco Commodities Ltd , established at
Hamilton ( Bermuda ), represented by P. V. F. Bos and J. G.
A. van Zuuren, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an address for               2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs.
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Loesch, 1 1
Rue Goethe, v. Commission of the European Communities
                                                                       (') OJ No C 231 , 27 . 8 . 1993 .
( Agents : Berend Jan Drijber, Nicholas Khan and, at the
hearing, Marie-Jose Jonczy ) — application for, first,
annulment of the decision of the Commission of 1 April
1993 addressed to the Vnesheconombank and , second ,
damages for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant by
reason of the contested decision — the Court of First
Instance ( Third Chamber ), composed of: C. P. Briët,
President, and B. Vesterdorf and A. Potocki , Judges ; J.
Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
given a judgment on 24 September 1996 , in which it:                                       of 24 September 1996
                                                                       in Case T-5 09/93 : Richco Commodities Ltd v. Commission
 1 . dismisses    the     application     for    annulment     as
     inadmissible ;                                                                  of the European Communities f 1 )
                                                                       (Emergency assistance given by the Community to the States
2 . dismisses the objection of inadmissibility inasmuch as it          of the former Soviet Union — Invitation to tender — Action
     concerns the claim for compensation for the damage                               for annulment — Admissiblity)
     allegedly suffered by the applicant;                                                        ( 96/C 336/56 )
3 . orders the procedure relating to that claim for
     compensation to be continued in relation to the                                   (Language of the case: Dutch)
     substance:
4.   reserves the costs .                                              In Case T-509/93 : Richco Commodities Ltd, established at
                                                                       Hamilton ( Bermuda ), represented by P. V. F. Bos and J. G.
(') OJ No C 231 , 27 . 8 . 1993 .                                      A. van Zuuren, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an address for
                                                                       service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Loesch , 1 1
                                                                       Rue Goethe, v. Commission of the European Communities
                                                                       ( Agents : Berend Jan Drijber, Nicholas Khan and, at the
                                                                       hearing, Marie-Jose Jonczy ) — application for annulment of
                                                                       the decision of the Commission of 12 July 1993 addressed to
                                                                       the State Export-Import Bank of Ukraine — the Court of
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               First Instance ( Third Chamber ), composed of: C. P. Briët,
                    of 24 September 1996                               President, and B. Vesterdorf and A. Potocki , Judges ; J.
                                                                       Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
in Case T-494/93 : Compagnie Continentale ( France ) v.
                                                                       given a judgment on 24 September 1996 , in which it:
        Commission of the European Communities ( ! )
 (Emergency assistance given by the Community to the States
 of the former Soviet Union — Invitation to tender — Action             1 . dismisses the action as inadmissible;
               for annulment — Admissiblity)
                          ( 96/C 336/55 )                              2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                (Language of the case: French)                          (!) OJ No C 282 , 20 . 10 . 1993 .
In Case T-494/93 : Compagnie Continentale ( France ),
established at Levallois-Perret ( France ), represented by


title: Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 December 2000 in Case C-89/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato): Questore di Catanzaro v Patrizia Caffarelli (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Question identical to one on which the Court has already ruled)

text:
C 200/28                   EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                                14.7.2001
                       ORDER OF THE COURT                                                              ORDER OF THE COURT
                            (Third Chamber)                                                                 (Third Chamber)
                         of 15 December 2000                                                             of 15 December 2000
in Case C-88/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                        in Case C-89/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Consiglio di Stato): Questore di Genova v Umberto                           the Consiglio di Stato): Questore di Catanzaro v Patrizia
                                  Merlo (1)                                                                     Caffarelli (1)
(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Question                            (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Question
     identical to one on which the Court has already ruled)                          identical to one on which the Court has already ruled)
                             (2001/C 200/49)                                                                 (2001/C 200/50)
                       (Language of the case: Italian)                                                 (Language of the case: Italian)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                      in the European Court Reports)                                                  in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-88/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                    In Case C-89/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Consiglio di Stato                  the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Consiglio di Stato
(Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending                     (Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Questore di Genova and Umberto                        before that court between Questore di Catanzaro and Patrizia
Merlo on the interpretation of the provisions of the EC Treaty                  Caffarelli on the interpretation of the provisions of the EC
on freedom to provide services — the Court (Third Chamber),                     Treaty on freedom to provide services — the Court (Third
composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, J.-                          Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamb-
P. Puissochet (Rapporteur) and F. Macken, Judges; C. Stix-                      er, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur) and F. Macken, Judges; C. Stix-
Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an                       Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an
order on 15 December 2000, the operative part of which is as                    order on 15 December 2000, the operative part of which is as
follows:                                                                        follows:
The EC Treaty provisions on freedom to provide services do not                  The EC Treaty provisions on freedom to provide services do not
preclude national legislation, such as the Italian legislation, which           preclude national legislation, such as the Italian legislation, which
reserves unto certain bodies the right to take bets on sporting events,         reserves unto certain bodies the right to take bets on sporting events,
if that legislation is in fact justified by social-policy objectives designed   if that legislation is in fact justified by social-policy objectives designed
to limit the harmful effects of such activities and if the restrictions         to limit the harmful effects of such activities and if the restrictions
which it imposes are not disproportionate in relation to those                  which it imposes are not disproportionate in relation to those
objectives.                                                                     objectives.
(1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.                                                       (1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 2 May 1996 in Case C-133/94: Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium (Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment - Council Directive 85/337/EEC)

text:
No C 197/4           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                            6 . 7 . 96
             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                      ( Sixth Chamber)                                                        ( Sixth Chamber )
                        of 2 May 1996                                                          of 2 May 1996
in Case C-133/94 : Commission of the European                       in Case C-231/94 (reference to the Court for a preliminary
          Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium                         ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof): Faaborg-Gelting Linien
(Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the                               A/S v. Finanzamt Flensburg ( 1 )
      environment — Council Directive 85/337/EEC)                   (Reference for a preliminary ruling — VAT — Restaurant
                         96/C 197/07                                transactions on board ship — Place of taxable
                                                                                transactions)
                                                                                ( 96/C 197/08 )
               (Language of the case: Dutch)                                       (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-231 /94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                    of the EC Treaty by the Bundesfinanzhof for a preliminary
                                                                    ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
                                                                    Faaborg-Gelting Linien A/S and Finanzamt Flensburg on the
In Case C-133/94 : Commission of the European                       interpretation of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of
Communities (Agents : Rolf Wägenbauer and Marc H. van               17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the
der Woude ) v. Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: Jan Devadder ),           Member States relating to turnover taxes — common
supported by the Federal Republic of Germany (Agent:                system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment ( OJ
Ernst Rôder ) — application for a declaration that, by not          L 145 , 1977, p . 1 ), in particular Articles 5 , 6 , 8 and 9 thereof
completely and correctly transposing into Belgian Law               — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ) composed of C. N. Kakouris,
Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the                 President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch, G. F. Mancini
assessment of the effects of certain public and private             ( Rapporteur ), F. A. Schockweiler and P. J. G. Kapteyn,
projects on the environment ( OJ L 175 , 1985 , p . 40 ), the       Judges, Advocate-General : G. Cosmas, Registrar: H. von
Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under       Holstein, Deputy Registrar, gave a judgment on 2 May
that Directive and Articles 5 and 1 89 of the EC Treaty — the       1996 , the operative part of which is as follows :
Court ( Sixth Chamber), composed of C. N. Kakouris
( Rapporteur ), President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch, G. F.          restaurant transactions are to be regarded as supplies of
Mancini, F. A. Schockweiler and P. J. G. Kapteyn, Judges; P.        services within the meaning of Article 6 (1 ) of the Sixth
Léger, Advocate-General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal             Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 2 May          harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
1996, the operative part of which is as follows :                   turnover taxes — common system of value added tax:
                                                                    uniform basis of assessment, which, under Article 9 (1 ) of
                                                                    the Directive, are deemed to be carried out at the place
                                                                    where the supplier has established his business.
1 . by not completely and correctly transposing into Belgian
                                                                    (!) OJ No C 288 , 15 . 10 . 1994 .
    Law Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on
    the assessment ofthe effects ofcertain public and private
    projects on the environment, the Kingdom of Belgium
    has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive
    and under Article 189 of the EC Treaty;                                           ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 3 May 1996
2 , the Kingdom of Belgium is ordered to pay the costs;             in Case C-399/95 R: Federal Republic of Germany,
                                                                    supported by Neue Maxhütte Stahlwerke GmbH, v.
                                                                            Commission of the European Communities ( 1 )
3 , the Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to bear its           (Interim measures — Suspension of the operation of a
    own costs .                                                                measure — State aids — ECSC Treaty)
                                                                                ( 96/C 197/09 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
(M OJ No C 174, 25 . 6 . 1994 .
                                                                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                             published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                    In Case C-399/95 R: Federal Republic of Germany (Agents:
                                                                    Ernst Roder and Bernd Kloke ) supported by Neue


title: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 April 1999 in Case C-436/97 P: Deutsche Bahn AG v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal - Admissibility - Competition - Carriage by rail of maritime containers - Dominant Position - Abuse - Fines)

text:
7.8.1999                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 226/9
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                  1. annul the decision of the Commission of the European
                                                                               Communities of 3 February 1999 on the clearance of the
                         of 27 April 1999                                      accounts presented by the Member States in respect of the
                                                                               expenditure for 1995 of the Guarantee Section of the
in Case C-436/97 P: Deutsche Bahn AG v Commission of                           European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund
                 the European Communities (1)                                  (Decision 1999/187/EC); (1)
(Appeal — Admissibility — Competition — Carriage by rail                   2. order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.
of maritime containers — Dominant Position — Abuse —
                                Fines)
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
                          (1999/C 226/14)
                                                                           — Breach of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70 of the Council of
                   (Language of the case: German)                              29 June 1970 on the common organisation of the market
                                                                               in flax and hemp (2): the reduction of 50% for failure to
                                                                               harvest ripe hemp seed lacks any basis. Nothing in
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published         Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70 or in the measures
                   in the European Court Reports)                              implementing or applying it, as laid clown in Regulation
                                                                               (EEC) No 619/71 (3) and Regulation (EEC) No 1164/89 (4),
In Case C-436/97 P, Deutsche Bahn AG, established in                           provides that a grower is entitled to the full amount of aid
Frankfurt, Germany, represented by Jochim Sedemund,                            only if both fibres and seeds are harvested. Nor is it
Rechtsanwalt, Berlin, with an address for service in Luxem-                    anywhere provided that, where fibres alone are harvested,
bourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue —                            only half of the amount of production aid is payable;
appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First
Chamber, Extended Composition) of 21 October 1997 in Case                  — Breach of Article 8 of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70: in
T-229/94 Deutsche Bahn v Commission [1997] ECR II-1689,                        view of the fact that all hemp in the Netherlands which is
seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other party to the                eligible for aid is grown with certified seed controlled in
proceedings being: Commission of the European Communities                      accordance with Community rules, the Commission’s
(Agent: Klaus Wiedner, assisted by Heinze-Joachim Freund) —                    contention that there is inadequate control in the Nether-
the Court (Fifth Chamber) composed of: J.-P. Puissochet,                       lands of imports of hemp seed from non-member countries
President, P. Jann (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward                     is irrelevant, quite apart from the question whether this
and L. Sevón, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate Gen-                   contention is correct. With regard to the expenditure which
eral; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 27 April                    it declared for the 1995 financial year, the Netherlands
1999, in which it held:                                                        complied with the provisions;
1. The appeal is dismissed.
                                                                           — Failure to take account of the Dutch text of Article 4 of
2. Deutsche Bahn AG is to pay the costs.                                       Regulation (EEC) No 1164/89: the Dutch text of Article
                                                                               4(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 1164/89, as worded prior to
                                                                               the 1994 hemp harvest, limited the scope of that provision
(1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.                                                      to flax. There was therefore no obligation to harvest
                                                                               hemp only once the seeds had formed. The Netherlands
                                                                               authorities had no reason to doubt the accuracy of the
                                                                               Dutch translation. In taking the view that the Netherlands
                                                                               authorities acted contrary to Article 4 of Regulation (EEC)
                                                                               No 1164/89, the Commission fails to appreciate the
                                                                               significance of the principle that it must be possible to rely
                                                                               on a directly applicable provision of Community law in an
Action brought on 17 April 1999 by the Kingdom of the                          authentic language;
Netherlands against the Commission of the European
                           Communities
                                                                           — Misconstruction of the term ‘seed formation’ in Article
                          (Case C-132/99)                                      4(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1164/89: since the seeds are
                                                                               formed at the time of blossoming and are harvested after
                                                                               blossoming, the Netherlands Government takes the view
                          (1999/C 226/15)                                      that, so far as the 1994 hemp harvest is concerned, the
                                                                               requirements of Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1164/89
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                      were complied with in so far as they applied to the
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                   1994 hemp harvest. The Commission proceeds on a
Communities on 17 April 1999 by the Kingdom of the                             misconstruction of Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No
Netherlands, represented by Marc Fierstra and Jantine van                      1164/89, as it applied at the time of the 1994 harvest,
Bakel, Assistant Legal Advisers in the Ministry of Foreign                     when it claims that the Netherlands acted contrary to that
Affairs in The Hague, acting as Agents.                                        article;


title: Case C-384/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio (Italy) lodged on 27 August 2008 — Attanasio Group Srl v Comune di Carbognano

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/17

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio (Italy) lodged on 27 August 2008 — Attanasio Group Srl v Comune di Carbognano
   (Case C-384/08)
   (2008/C 301/31)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Attanasio Group Srl

      Defendant: Comune di Carbognano
   Question referred
   Are the Italian regional and national provisions laying down mandatory minimum distances between roadside petrol stations and, in particular, Article 13 of the Regional Law of Latium, which applies to the case before this Court and is material for the decision in those proceedings, as well as the national framework legislation (Legislative Decree No 32/1998, as subsequently amended and supplemented, Law No 57/2001 and Ministerial Decree of 31 October 2001), in so far as they allow, or in any event have not prevented provision being made, in the exercise of the regulatory powers of the Italian State, for minimum distances between petrol stations under Article 13, compatible with Community law, in particular Articles 43, 48, 49 and 56 of the EC Treaty and the principles of freedom of competition and non-discrimination enshrined in that treaty, as stated in the grounds?


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by Juzgado de lo Social No 2, Santiago de Compostela, by order of that court of 9 March 1995 in the case of Bernardina Martínez Losada v. Instituto Nacional de Empleo and Instituto Nacional de Seguridad Social (Case C-88/95)

text:
No C 137/ 12            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     3 . 6 . 95
2 . Does the term 'hold ' within the meaning of                             ( persons having such an entitlement in any other
     Article 18 ( 1 ) ( a ) of the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC               Member State being precluded from receiving such
     signify that the taxable person must at all times be in a              allowance ) contrary to Articles 48 ( 2 ) and 51 of the EC
     position to present the invoice to the tax authorities ?               Treaty ?
3 . Is the exercise of the right to deduct input tax precluded
     by virtue of Article 18 ( 1 ) ( a ) of the Sixth Directive
     77/388/EEC where the taxable person no longer ' holds'
     an invoice ?
( ) OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p. 1 .                                 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di
                                                                        Genova, Sezione Prima Civile, by order of that court of
                                                                        13 March 1995 in the case of: Nuova Castelli SpA
                                                                                v. Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato
                                                                                ( Case C-92/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 137/24 )
Reference for a preliminary ruling by Juzgado de lo Social
No 2 , Santiago de Compostela, by order of that court of                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
9 March 1995 in the case of Bernardina Martinez Losada                  European Communities by order of the Tribunale di
                                                                        Genova, Sezione Prima Civile ( District Court, Genoa , First
v. Instituto Nacional de Empleo and Instituto Nacional de
                          Seguridad Social                              Civil Section) of 13 March 1995 , which was received at the
                                                                        Court Registry on 24 March 1995 , for a preliminary ruling
                           ( Case C-88/95 )                             on the same questions as in Cases C-47/95 , C-48/95 ,
                             ( 95/C 137/23 )                            C-49/95 , C-50/95 , C-60/95 and C-81 /95 (*).
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  (!) OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 .
European Communities by an order of Juzgado de lo Social
( Social Court ) No 2, Santiago de Compostela, of 9 March
 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on
23 March 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Bernardina Martinez Losada against Instituto Nacional de
Empleo ( National Employment Institute ) and Instituto
Nacional de Seguridad Social (National Social Security
Institute ) on the following questions :                                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der
                                                                        Nederlanden by decision of that court of 24 March 1995 in
                                                                        the case of Saueressig GmbH 8c Co. v. Forbo-Krommenie
 1 . Must Article 67 ( 1 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 ( in                                        BV
     its present version ) be interpreted , as regards the
     particular facts to which it is to be applied , as meaning                                 ( Case C-99/95 )
     that periods of insurance or of employment completed                                         ( 95/C 137/25
     under the legislation of any other Member State must be
     taken into account for the purposes of obtaining the
     unemployment allowance for persons over 52 years of                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     age, provided for by Article 215 ( 3 ) of Real Decreto             European Communities by decision of the Hoge Raad der
     Legislativo ( Royal Legislative Decree ) 1 /1994 of 20 June        Nederlanden ( Supreme Court of the Netherlands ) of
     1994, which approves the consolidated version of the               24 March 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry
     Ley General de la Seguridad Social ( General Law on                on 30 March 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
     Social Security ), to the extent to which the right to a           Saueressig GmbH & Co . v. Forbo-Krommenie BV on the
     retirement pension may be obtained on the basis of such            following questions :
     contributions, subject to age requirements , in a Member
     State other than that of the competent institution ?               1 . Does the procedure of 'preliminary examination of
                                                                            witnesses prior to the institution of proceedings' set out
2 . Can that be the case even though the worker has not                     in Article 214 et seq. of the Netherlands Code of Civil
     paid contributions in Spain or has paid contributions for              Procedure come within the scope of the Brussels
     less than one year, provided that he is entitled to a                  Convention ?
     retirement pension in any Member State ?
                                                                        2 . If the answer to Question 1 is yes : can that procedure
3 . Is the requirement that, for migrant workers to receive                 also constitute a measure within the meaning of
     the unemployment allowance available for persons of                    Article 24 of the Brussels Convention ?
     more than 52 years of age, it must be shown that, subject
     to age requirements, they are entitled to a retirement
     pension payable by the Spanish social security scheme


title: Case C-447/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Bíróság lodged on 2 November 2006 — Vodafone Magyarország Mobil Távközlési Zártkörűen Működő Részvénytársaság, Innomed Medical Orvostechnikai Részvénytársaság v Hungarian State, Budapest Főváros Képviselő-testülete, Esztergom Város Önkormányzat Képviselő-testülete

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/37

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Bíróság lodged on 2 November 2006 — Vodafone Magyarország Mobil Távközlési Zártkörűen Működő Részvénytársaság, Innomed Medical Orvostechnikai Részvénytársaság v Hungarian State, Budapest Főváros Képviselő-testülete, Esztergom Város Önkormányzat Képviselő-testülete
   (Case C-447/06)
   (2006/C 326/79)
   Language of the case: Hungarian
   Referring court
   Fővárosi Bíróság
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Vodafone Magyarország Mobil Távközlési Zártkörűen Működő Részvénytársaság, Innomed Medical Orvostechnikai Részvénytársaság

      Defendants: Hungarian State, Budapest Főváros Képviselő-testülete, Esztergom Város Önkormányzat Képviselő-testülete
   Questions referred

               1.

               Must the agreement set out in point 3(a) of part 4 of Annex X to the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded (‘the Act of Accession’) (1), which is applicable pursuant to Article 24 of the Act of Accession, and which provides that, notwithstanding Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty, Hungary may apply, up to and including 31 December 2007, local business tax reductions of up to 2 % of the net receipts of undertakings, granted by local government for a limited period of time on the basis of Articles 6 and 7 of the Helyi Adókról Szóló 1990. Évi C. Törvény (Act C of 1990 on local taxes), be interpreted as meaning that it concerns a temporary derogation which allows Hungary to maintain the business tax until that time?

               2.

               In the light thereof, must Article 33 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (‘the Sixth Directive’) (2) be interpreted as meaning that thereunder a Member State may not maintain or introduce a tax on profit-making business activities the basis is of assessment of which is made up of net receipts, after deduction of the cost of acquisition of the goods sold and the services supplied by third parties and the cost of raw materials?

               3.

               Depending on the answer given to the two questions above, and having regard to the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, must the present practice of Hungary's first and second-level tax authorities, which consists in avoiding any examination of the compatibility with Community law of the local business tax, by suggesting to taxpayers that they amend their tax returns by means of self-revision, thus making difficult or impossible the practical application of Community law and requiring taxpayers to initiate tax proceedings with uncertain consequences, be interpreted as impeding the exercise of their rights and therefore as meaning that Hungary is failing to comply with Article 10 of the EC Treaty?

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 236, p. 846.

      (2)  OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.


title: Case C-106/03 P: Appeal brought on 27 February 2003 by fax, confirmed by original lodged on 7 March 2003, by Védial SA against the judgment delivered on 12 December 2002 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-110/01 between Védial SA and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), the other party being France Distribution

text:
24.5.2003               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 124/5
Appeal brought on 27 February 2003 by fax, confirmed                            attribute the same commercial origin to the goods in
by original lodged on 7 March 2003, by Védial SA against                        question’. However, a likelihood of confusion also exists
the judgment delivered on 12 December 2002 by the                               where the public may believe that the goods come from
Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                            undertakings which are connected only economi-
European Communities in Case T-110/01 between Védial                            cally. Moreover, the Court of First Instance rejected any
SA and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                             likelihood of confusion on the ground that ‘even though
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), the other                              there is identity and similarity between the goods covered
                 party being France Distribution                                by the conflicting marks, the visual, aural and conceptual
                                                                                differences between the signs’ mean that there is no
                         (Case C-106/03 P)                                      likelihood of confusion, whereas the question is not
                                                                                whether there are differences between the conflicting
                          (2003/C 124/08)                                       marks, but whether there is identity or similarity between
                                                                                them and whether, considered as a whole with the
                                                                                identity or similarity of the goods, the degrees of those
                                                                                similarities are such that there is a likelihood of confusion.
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 12 December
2002 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of                    In addition, the Court of First Instance did not apply the
the European Communities in Case T-110/01 between Védial                        interdependence rule clearly. The Court of First Instance
SA and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market                      did not raise the point that the claimed low degree of
(Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), the other party being                         similarity between the marks was not offset by the high
France Distribution, was brought before the Court of Justice of                 degree of similarity between the goods and the strongly
the European Communities on 27 February 2003 by fax,                            distinctive character of the applicant’s trade mark.
confirmed by original lodged on 7 March 2003, by Védial SA.
                                                                                Finally, the Court of First Instance infringed the concept
                                                                                of ‘likelihood of confusion’ by limiting the public con-
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                     cerned to the ‘targeted public’, the latter comprising only
                                                                                consumers likely to acquire the marked goods, whereas
—     set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of                  the public concerned consists of all persons likely to be
      12 December 2002 in Case T-110/01 and accordingly
                                                                                confronted with the mark, which is very different.
      —     acting pursuant to Article 54 of the Statute of the
            Court of Justice, give final judgment in the matter,
                                                                          (1 ) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
            granting the forms of order sought by the applicant                Community trade mark (OJ L 11, 14.1.1994, p. 1).
            before the Court of First Instance;
      —     .in the alternative: refer the case back to the Court
            of First Instance for judgment;
—     in any case: order OHIM to pay the costs.
                                                                          Appeal brought on 27 February 2003 by fax, confirmed
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           by the original lodged on 7 March 2003, by The Procter
                                                                          & Gamble Company against the judgment delivered on
—     Plea alleging breach of the ‘principle of party disposition’        12 December 2002 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court
      The ‘principle of party disposition’ is a general principle         of First Instance of the European Communities in Case
      of law under which the parties exercise, in principle, sole         T-63/01 between The Procter & Gamble Company and
      control over legal proceedings. It is they who delimit the          the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
      subject-matter of the dispute. The Court of First Instance                        (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
      certainly acted in breach of the ‘principle of party
      disposition’ by holding, contrary to the agreement of the                                    (Case C-107/03 P)
      parties on this point, that there was no similarity between
      the conflicting trade marks.
                                                                                (2003/C 124/09)
—     Plea alleging breach of the right to a fair hearing
      The Court of First Instance also acted in breach of the
      right to a fair hearing since it undermined the applicant’s
                                                                          An appeal against the judgment delivered on 12 December
      legitimate expectation as to the delimitation of the
                                                                          2002 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
      dispute.
                                                                          the European Communities in Case T-63/01 between The
—     Plea alleging infringements of the concept of ‘likelihood           Procter & Gamble Company and the Office for Harmonisation
      of confusion’ and the concept of ‘public’ within the                in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
      meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (1)               was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                          Communities on 27 February 2003 by fax, confirmed by the
      The contested judgment rules out the likelihood of                  original lodged on 7 March 2003, by The Procter & Gamble
      confusion on the ground that the public ‘will not                   Company.