title: Case T-209/99: Action brought on 17 September 1999 by P.E. Hoyer against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 352/36                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      4.12.1999
        — any rise or fall in the guaranteed price referred to in           residing at Hoeilaart (Belgium), represented by G. van der Wal,
             Article 5(4) of Protocol No 8 to the Fourth ACP-EC             of the Hague Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
             Convention, signed at Lomé on 15 December 1989;                at the Chambers of A. May.
        For the purposes of reducing or increasing the amount of            The applicant claims that the Court should:
        security to be lodged reference shall be made to the
        intervention price or the guaranteed price for 31 October           — declare the present application admissible;
        1999;
                                                                            — annul the defendant’s decision of 15 July 1999;
    — the security lodged shall be released in full, by Order of the
        Court hearing the application for interim relief, in favour of      — grant the applicant’s claim for damages and order the
        the Community, should the Court of Justice, in its forth-                 defendant to pay the applicant the sum of BEF 7 323 594,
        coming judgment in Case C-17/98, declare during the                       alternatively such sum as the Court shall consider fair and
        period between 31 October 1999 and 29 February 2000                       reasonable;
        that Article 108b is not invalid;
                                                                            — order the defendant to pay the costs.
    — for the duration of the interim measure so ordered, Emesa
        Sugar (Free Zone) NV may not submit any application for
        an import licence pursuant to Regulation No 2553/97.                Pleas in law and main arguments
3. In the event that the Court of Justice delivers its judgment in Case
    C-17/98 during the period between 31 October 1999 and                   The applicant, who was at the material time a member of
    29 February 2000:                                                       the temporary staff (interpreter) of the Commission, was
                                                                            unsuccessful in competition COM/LA/2/89 and was dismissed.
    — the present proceedings for interim relief (registered as Case
        T-44/98 R II) shall recommence should the Court of Justice          His application contesting the decision of the selection board
        hold that Article 108b of Decision 91/482 is not invalid,           was upheld (Case T-43/91). The decision dismissing him was
        and the parties shall be called upon to make known their            annulled on the ground that it was based on an unlawful
        views on the judgment of the Court of Justice; the decision of      decision of the selection board (Case T-51/91).
        the Court hearing the application for interim relief in the
        present proceedings shall be embodied in a new Order, it            The Court of First Instance did not declare the competition
        being indicated that Emesa Sugar (Free Zone) NV may                 void as such, but in paragraph 65 of its judgment in Case
        continue to import into the Community sugar which has               T-43/91 it stated that the applicant’s rights would be
        been delivered to it free on board (FOB) before the date of         adequately protected ‘if the institution seeks a just solution in
        delivery of the judgment of the Court of Justice (i) subject to     his case’.
        a ceiling of 7 500 tonnes (ii) within the period expiring on
        29 February 2000 and (iii) in conformity with the conditions
        set out in the second paragraph of the operative part of the        In consequence of the decision dismissing him, which was
        present Order;                                                      annulled by the Court of First Instance, the applicant has
                                                                            suffered material and non-material damage. By letter of 28 May
    — the present Order shall continue to produce its effects until         1998 the applicant’s lawyer pointed out that agreement had
        29 February 2000 should the Court of Justice hold that              still not been reached between the applicant and the defendant
        Article 108b of Decision 91/482 is invalid and should the           concerning, inter alia, that issue, and requested the defendant
        Court of First Instance have failed by that date to give            in that connection to adopt a decision pursuant to Article 90(1)
        judgment in the main proceedings (registered as Case                of the Staff Regulations of Officials.
        T-44/98).
                                                                            By letter of 1 October 1998 the defendant adopted the same
4. Costs are reserved.                                                      position as before. Consequently, by letter of 31 December
                                                                            1998, the applicant submitted a complaint pursuant to
                                                                            Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations. The defendant rejected
                                                                            that complaint by letter of 15 July 1999.
                                                                            As a result of the aforesaid judgments of the Court of
                                                                            First Instance of 17 March 1994, a process of negotiation
Action brought on 17 September 1999 by P.E. Hoyer                           commenced between the parties, from which the defendant
  against the Commission of the European Communities                        has unilaterally withdrawn with regard to numerous points; it
                                                                            is now purporting to describe that unilateral withdrawal as an
                          (Case T-209/99)                                   ‘act adversely affecting’ the applicant, and is seeking to rely on
                                                                            it in order to show that the claim brought in the present
                                                                            proceedings concerns a ‘new application’, so that the applicant
                          (1999/C 352/64)                                   is out of time with his claim for compensation. According to
                                                                            the applicant, the defendant is unlawfully attempting to evade
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                           its obligation to pay compensation for the damage suffered by
                                                                            him as a result of the decisions annulled in Cases T-43/91 and
                                                                            T-51/91.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 17 September 1999 by P.E. Hoyer,


title: Case C-278/10: Order of the President of the Seventh Chamber of the Court of 17 March 2011 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/27

         Order of the President of the Seventh Chamber of the Court of 17 March 2011 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-278/10) (1)

   2011/C 252/56
   Language of the case: Greek
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 31.7.2010.


title: Case F-124/06: Action brought on 31 October 2006 — Molina Solano v Europol

text:
               27.1.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 20/38

         Action brought on 31 October 2006 — Molina Solano v Europol
   (Case F-124/06)
   (2007/C 20/57)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Beatriz Molina Solano (Rijswijk, Netherlands) (represented by: D.C. Coppens, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Police Office (Europol)
   Form of order sought
   The Tribunal is asked to:

               —

               annul the decision taken on the applicant's complaint by Europol on 1 August 2006 and Europol's initial decision of 27 January 2006;

               —

               order Europol to award the applicant an incremental point with effect from 1 January 2005;

               —

               order Europol to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Following a complaint, Europol awarded the applicant one of the incremental points referred to in paragraph 2 of Article 29 of the Europol Staff Regulations with effect from 1 July 2005. In her action, the applicant asks that that incremental point should be awarded to her with effect from 1 January 2005. In support of her claims, she asserts that, according to the policy for managing incremental points which Europol was applying at the time of the facts at issue, the mark which she had obtained gave her the right to a step with effect from 1 January 2005. In denying her this benefit, which had been accorded to other agents who had received comparable marks, Europol was in breach of the principle of equal treatment. The applicant relies in addition on breach of the principles of legal certainty and impartiality, and the prohibition on acting arbitrarily.


title: Case T-531/11: Order of the General Court of 21 June 2012 — Hamas v Council (Annulment action — Restrictive measures with a view to combating terrorism — Lis pendens)

text:
               18.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 250/14

         Order of the General Court of 21 June 2012 — Hamas v Council
   (Case T-531/11) (1)

   (Annulment action - Restrictive measures with a view to combating terrorism - Lis pendens)
   2012/C 250/27
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Hamas (Damascus, Syria and Gaza, Gaza Strip) (represented by: L. Glock, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council (represented: initially by T. Szostak and G. Marhic, and subsequently by B. Driessen and G.Étienne, Agents)

      Re:

   Initially, action for annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 687/2011 of 18 July 2011 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism, and repealing Implementing Regulations No 610/2010 and (EU) No 83/2011 (OJ 2011 L 188, p. 2), and Council Decision 2011/430/CFSP of 18 July 2011 updating the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism (OJ 2011 L 188, p. 47), in so far as the applicant organisation’s name is maintained on the list of persons, groups and entities to which the freezing of funds and economic resources laid down with a view to combating terrorism.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               There is no need to give a ruling on the European Commission’s application for leave to intervene.

               3.

               Hamas is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those by the Council of the European Union.

      (1)  OJ C 126, 28.4.2012.


title: Case T-832/14: Judgment of the General Court of 21 July 2016 — Nutria v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Refusal to extend the deadline for the withdrawal of skimmed milk powder in the context of the programme for the distribution of food aid to the most deprived persons in the European Union for the year 2010 — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals)

text:
               5.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/24

         Judgment of the General Court of 21 July 2016 — Nutria v Commission
   (Case T-832/14) (1)

   ((Non-contractual liability - Refusal to extend the deadline for the withdrawal of skimmed milk powder in the context of the programme for the distribution of food aid to the most deprived persons in the European Union for the year 2010 - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals))
   (2016/C 326/43)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Nutria AE Typopoiisis & Emporias Agrotikon Proïonton (Agios Konstantinos, Greece) (represented by: initially M.-J. Jacquot and subsequently K. Makaronas, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Guillem Carrau, D. Triantafyllou, Agents)

      Re:

   Application under Article 268 TFEU, seeking compensation for the damage which the applicant allegedly sustained on account of the Commission’s refusal to extend the deadline for the withdrawal of skimmed milk powder set in Article 3(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1111/2009 of 19 November 2009 adopting the plan allocating to the Member States resources to be charged to the 2010 budget year for the supply of food from intervention stocks for the benefit of the most deprived persons in the Community and derogating from certain provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 3149/92 (OJ 2009 L 306, p. 5).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Nutria AE Typopoiisis & Emporias Agrotikon Proïonton to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 81, 9.3.2015.


title: Case C-344/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 17 July 2014  — Kyowa Hakko Europe GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hannover

text:
               29.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 339/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 17 July 2014 — Kyowa Hakko Europe GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hannover
   (Case C-344/14)
   2014/C 339/11
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Kyowa Hakko Europe GmbH

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hannover

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do amino acid mixes such as those at issue in the present case (RM0630 and RM0789), from which (in combination with carbohydrates and fats) a foodstuff is manufactured by which a substance that is vital for health and present in normal diet but which can in individual cases trigger an allergic reaction is replaced and, as a result, allergy-induced health impairments can be avoided and existing complaints alleviated, if not cured, constitute medicaments consisting of two or more constituents which have been mixed together for therapeutic or prophylactic uses within the meaning of heading 3003 of the Combined Nomenclature (1)?
               If Question 1 is answered in the negative:

               2.

               Do the amino acid mixes constitute food preparations under heading 2106 of the Combined Nomenclature which, pursuant to note 1(a) to Chapter 30 of the Combined Nomenclature, are excluded from Chapter 30 because they have no prophylactic or therapeutic effect beyond the supply of nutrition?

      (1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1001/2013 of 4 October 2013 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2013 L 290, p. 1).


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 24 October 1996 in Case C-217/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria di Primo Grado di Bolzano): Eismann Alto Adige SRL v. Ufficio IVA di Bolzano (Value-added tax - Interpretation of Article 22 (8) of the sixth Directive (77/388/EEC) as amended by Directive 91/680/EEC - Equal treatment of domestic transactions and transactions carried out between Member States by taxable persons)

text:
 No C 9/4             LJN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     11 . 1 . 97
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           ( Sixth Chamber)                                                     ( Sixth Chamber)
                        of 24 October 1996                                                    of 24 October 1996
 in Case C-217/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from              in Case C-3 17/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
 the Commissione Tributaria di Primo Grado di Bolzano ):                the VAT and Duties Tribunal ): Elida Gibbs Ltd v.
      Eismann Alto Adige SRL v. Ufficio IVA di Bolzano ( ! )                      Commissioners of Customs and Excise ( ] )
 (Value-added tax — Interpretation of Article 22 (8) of the             (Value-added tax — Sixth Directive — Money-off and
 sixth Directive (77/388/EEC) as amended by Directive 91/                          cash-back coupons — Taxable amount)
 680/EEC — Equal treatment of domestic transactions and
 transactions carried out between Member States by                                                  ( 97/C 9/07)
                            taxable persons)
                               ( 97/C 9/06 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                  (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                        In Case C-3 17/94 : reference to the Court pursuant to
                                                                        Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the VAT and Duties
                                                                        Tribunal, London, for a preliminary ruling in the
    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                        proceedings pending before that court between Elida
           published in the European Court Reports)                     Gibbs Ltd and Commissioners of Customs and Excise —
                                                                        on the interpretation of Article 11 of the sixth Directive,
                                                                        Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
In Case C-2 17/94: reference to the Court pursuant to                   harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating
Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Commissione                       to turnover taxes — common system of value-added tax:
Tributaria di primo grado (Tax Court of First Instance ),               uniform basis of assessment (2 ) — the Court ( Sixth
Bolzano ( Italy), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings           Chamber ), composed of: G. F. Mancini, President of the
pending before that court between Eismann Alto Adige                    Chamber, C. N. Kakouris ( Rapporteur) and G. Hirsch,
SRL and Ufficio IVA di Bolzano — on the interpretation                  Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett,
of Article 22 ( 8 ) of the sixth Council Directive ( 77/388/
                                                                        Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
EEC ) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws                   24 October 1996 , in which it has ruled:
of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —
common system of value-added tax: uniform basis of
assessment (2 ), as amended by Article 28h inserted by
Council Directive 91 /680/EEC of 16 December 1991                       1 . Article 11 (A) (1 ) (a) and Article 11 (C) (1 ) of the
supplementing the common system of value-added tax and                      sixth Directive, Council Directive 77/388/EEC of
amending Directive 77/388/EEC with a view to the                            17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the
abolition of fiscal frontiers ( 3 ) — the Court ( Sixth                     Member States relating to turnover taxes — common
Chamber), composed of: G. F. Mancini, President of the                      system of value-added tax: uniform basis of
Chamber, C. N. Kakouris and G. Hirsch ( Rapporteur),                        assessment, are to be interpreted as meaning that
Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General; H. von Holstein,                     where: (a) a manufacturer issues a money-off coupon,
Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment                   which is redeemable at the amount stated on the
on 24 October 1996, in which it has ruled:                                  coupon by, or at the expense of the manufacturer in
                                                                            favour of the retailer, (b) the coupon, which is
                                                                            distributed to a potential customer in the course of a
Article 22 (8) of the sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC)                  sales promotion campaign, may be accepted by the
of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the                      retailer in payment for a specified item of goods,
Member States relating to turnover taxes — common                           (c) the manufacturer has sold the specified item at the
system of value-added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as                  'original supplier's price ' direct to the . retailer and
amended by Article 28h inserted by Council Directive 91 /                   (d) the retailer takes the coupon from the customer on
680/EEC of 16 December 1991 supplementing the                               sale of the item, presents it to the manufacturer and is
common system of value-added tax and amending                               paid the stated amount, the taxable amount is equal to
Directive 77/388/EEC with a view to the abolition of                        the selling price charged by the manufacturer, less the
fiscal frontiers, is to be interpreted as not precluding a                  amount indicated on the voucher and refunded. The
national rule requiring accompanying documents to be                        same applies if the original supply is made by the
drawn up in respect of goods transported within the                         manufacturer to a wholesaler rather than directly to a
                                                                            retailer.
confines of the Member State concerned.
(!) OJ No C 275 , 1 . 10 . 1994, p . 15 .
(2 ) OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 .                               2 . Article 11 (A) (1 ) (a) and Article 11 (C) (1 ) of the
( 3 ) OJ No L 376, 31 . 12 . 1991 , p . 1 .                                 sixth Directive are to be interpreted as meaning that
                                                                            where (a) in the course of a promotion scheme a
                                                                            manufacturer sells items of goods at the
                                                                            'manufacturer's price ' direct to a retailer, (b) a cash


title: Notice of vacancy

text:
7.3.2001        EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 74/21
                                            COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                   NOTICE OF VACANCY
                                                        (2001/C 74/17)
         The Court of Justice of the European Communities will be publishing in the Official Journal of the European
         Communities C 74 A of 7 March 2001, the following notice of vacancy:
         CJ 01/01  DIRECTOR OF TRANSLATION (A 2)
         Closing date for application: 6 April 2001.


title: Action brought on 28 January 1998 by Albert Nardone against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-27/98)

text:
C 94/38              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     28.3.98
    procedure in the present case as well as infringement           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    of the reasonable period' rule and the principle of
    sound administration. A suspension decision may be              The applicant, a former official of the European
    validly justified only in so far as disciplinary                Parliament, seeks the annulment of a decision which, in
    proceedings are brought against the official or servant         his own view, impliedly suggests that he was responsible
    who has been suspended and pending a disciplinary               for certain financial losses.
    measure. However, in this case, the Disciplinary Board
    did not find, in its recommendation, that there had
    been serious misconduct. Moreover, an abnormally                In support of his claim he alleges, first of all, that the
    lengthy period elapsed between, on the one hand, the            disciplinary measure of 18 January 1988, on whose
    opening of the disciplinary procedure and referral to           lawfulness the Community judicature was called upon to
    the Disciplinary Board and, on the other, the opinion           rule, was based on, among other grounds, the loss of
    of the Disciplinary Board and the disciplinary decision,        supporting documents, not on the loss of cash, a
    which, five and a half months later, has still not been         disciplinary complaint which was expressly ruled out by
    adopted,                                                        the Disciplinary Board.
                                                                    The applicant considers, moreover, that the contested
Ð infringement of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations, of           decision was taken in breach of the Financial Regulation
    the right to a fair hearing and of the principle of legal       of 21 December 1977 applicable to the general budget of
    certainty. The applicant states in this regard, first, that     the European Communities. That decision is also based
    no reasons were given for the contested suspension              both on the (mis)handling of accounting concepts and on
    decision which contradicts the Disciplinary Board's             documents which are either forged or anonymous.
    finding and, secondly, that all the documents on which
    the adoption of that decision was based were not
    disclosed to him in sufficient time to allow him to             Finally, in the context of his claim for compensation, he
    make comments.                                                  also relies on the violation of a number of fundamental
                                                                    principles of law, in particular of the rights of the defence.
                                                                    In particular, the applicant criticises the defendant for
                                                                    prohibiting him from gaining access to his own file and
                                                                    for using forged or unsigned documents in the procedure
                                                                    which led to the contested decision.
Action brought on 21 January 1998 by Henri de Compte
                against European Parliament
                       (Case T-25/98)
                         (98/C 94/87)
                                                                    Action brought on 28 January 1998 by Albert Nardone
                                                                      against the Commission of the European Communities
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Case T-27/98)
                                                                                (98/C 94/88)
An action against European Parliament was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 21 January 1998 by Henri de Compte,                                 (Language of the case: French)
residing at Longeville-Les-Metz, represented by Henri
Ferretti, of the Thionville Bar, with an address for service        An action against the Commission of the European
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Guy Harles, 8Ð10 rue               Communities was brought before the Court of First
Mathias Hardt.                                                      Instance of the European Communities on 28 January
                                                                    1998 by Albert Nardone, residing at PieÂtrain (Belgium),
                                                                    represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                    the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                    Luxembourg at Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 rue de Ces-
Ð annul Decision No A4-0125/97 of 10 April 1997                     sange.
    Decision giving discharge in respect of the
    implementation of the budget for the financial year             The applicant claims that the Court should:
    1995 Ð Section I Ð European Parliament/
    Ombudsman Annex' (OJ C 132/148, 28.4.1997,
    p. 148),                                                        Ð annul the decision taken by the appointing authority
                                                                        on 29 May 1997 following the request that an
                                                                        occupational disease be recognised in accordance with
Ð find the European Parliament liable for the harm                      Article 17 of the Rules on sickness insurance for
    suffered by the applicant and, accordingly, order the               officials of the European Communities and, in so far
    European Parliament to pay to him such an amount as                 as necessary, annul the implied decision rejecting the
    the Court may consider equitable,                                   complaint lodged by the applicant against that
                                                                        decision of 29 May,
Ð order the European Parliament to pay the costs,
    including those relating to the pre-litigation procedure.       Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 28.3.98              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 94/39
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:               The applicant claims that the Court should:
On 29 May 1997 the appointing authority took the                  Ð annul the decision of 6 January 1997 determining
decision to accept that the applicant, a former official at           Brussels as the applicant's place of recruitment and, in
the Commission, who had worked in the Berlaymont                      so far as necessary, annul the decision rejecting her
building in Brussels, suffered 6 % partial permanent                  complaint,
invalidity (PPI). That decision was based on the findings
of a medical committee.                                           Ð grant the applicant, by the same token, the rights to
                                                                      which she is entitled under Article 7 of Annex VII to
                                                                      the Staff Regulations and all the other rights under the
The applicant maintains that the work of the medical                  Staff Regulations flowing from determining Stockholm
committee is vitiated by several irregularities. That                 as her place of recruitment,
committee did not complete its mission and was not given
all the relevant reports.
                                                                  Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
Moreover, the medical committee's opinion does not                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
contain a comprehensible link between the medical
considerations and its conclusions, nor does it provide an
                                                                  The applicant, an official of Swedish nationality at the
adequate statement of reasons.
                                                                  Commission since December 1996, contests the
                                                                  defendant's decision to determine Brussels as her place of
By not noting the numerous irregularities committed by            recruitment.
that committee, the appointing authority in its turn
breached the principle of good management sound                   The applicant maintains that throughout 1996 and at the
administration.                                                   time when she took up her duties, she was permanently
                                                                  employed and habitually resident in Sweden. For that
                                                                  reason, the applicant's place of recruitment was and could
                                                                  be no other than Stockholm. In taking the contested
                                                                  decision, the defendant infringed Article 7 of Annex VII to
                                                                  the Staff Regulations.
Action brought on 4 February 1998 by Jannice Kjellberg
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                       (Case T-28/98)
                         (98/C 94/89)                                   Removal from the register of Case T-240/97 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 94/90)
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                 By order of 16 January 1998 the President of the Fifth
Instance of the European Communities on 4 February                Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
1998 by Jannice Kjellberg, residing at Brussels,                  Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of            Case T-240/97: Luc Verheyden v. Commission of the
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in                  European Communities.
Luxembourg at Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 rue de Ces-
sange.                                                            (1) OJ C 331, 1.11.1997.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 July 2000 in Case C-11/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Siegen): Margrit Dietrich v Westdeutscher Rundfunk (Directive 90/270/EEC on the minimum safety and health requirements for work with display screen equipment — Scope — Meaning of display screen equipment for the purposes of Article 2 — Meaning of "drivers' cabs or control cabs for vehicles or machinery" for the purposes of Article 1)

text:
C 302/12                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                           21.10.2000
      employment, vocational training and promotion, and working             Siegen (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
      conditions and Article 141(4) EC preclude national legislation         pending before that court between Margrit Dietrich and
      under which a candidate for a public post who belongs to the           Westdeutscher Rundfunk — on the interpretation of
      under-represented sex and possesses sufficient qualifications for      Article 2(a) and 1(3)(a) of Council Directive 90/270/EEC of
      that post must be chosen in preference to a candidate of the           29 May 1990 on the minimum safety and health requirements
      opposite sex who would otherwise have been appointed, where            for work with display screen equipment (fifth individual
      this is necessary to secure the appointment of a candidate of the      Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive
      under-represented sex and the difference between the respective        89/391/EEC) (OJ 1990 L 156, p. 14) — the Court (Sixth
      merits of the candidates is not so great as to give rise to a          Chamber), composed of: J.C. Moitinho de Almeida (Rappor-
      breach of the requirement of objectivity in making appointments.       teur), President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen, C. Gulmann,
                                                                             J.-P. Puissochet and V. Skouris, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate
2.    Article 2(1) and (4) of Directive 76/207 and Article 141(4)            General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 July
      EC also preclude national legislation of that kind where it            2000, in which it has ruled:
      applies only to procedures for filling a predetermined number of
      posts or to posts created as part of a specific programme of a         1.     The term ‘graphic display screen’, for the purposes of Article 2(a)
      particular higher educational institution allowing the appli-                 of Council Directive 90/270/EEC of 29 May 1990 on the
      cation of positive discrimination measures.                                   minimum safety and health requirements for work with display
                                                                                screen equipment (fifth individual Directive within the meaning
3.    Article 2(1) and (4) of Directive 76/207 does not preclude a                  of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC), must be interpreted
      rule of national case-law under which a candidate belonging to                as including screens that display film recordings in analogue or
      the under-represented sex may be granted preference over a                    digital form.
      competitor of the opposite sex, provided that the candidates
      possess equivalent or substantially equivalent merits, where the       2.     Article 1(3)(a) of Directive 90/270 is to be interpreted as
      candidatures are subjected to an objective assessment which                   meaning that the term ‘control cabs for ... machinery’ does not
      takes account of the specific personal situations of all the                  extend to a job such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in
      candidates.                                                                   which analogue or digital images are processed with the aid of
                                                                                technical devices and/or computer programmes in order to
4.    The question whether national rules providing for positive                    produce television broadcasts.
      discrimination in the making of appointments in higher
      education are lawful cannot depend on the level of the post to
      be filled.                                                             (1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.
(1) OJ C 1 of 4.1.1999.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                           (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 6 July 2000
                            of 6 July 2000
                                                                             in Case C-73/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
in Case C-11/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                     the Sozialgericht Münster): Viktor Movrin v Landesver-
the Arbeitsgericht Siegen): Margrit Dietrich v                                                 sicherungsanstalt Westfalen (1)
                   Westdeutscher Rundfunk (1)
                                                                             (Social security — EC Treaty — Council Regulation (EEC)
(Directive 90/270/EEC on the minimum safety and health                       No 1408/71 — Recipient of retirement pensions — Compul-
requirements for work with display screen equipment —                        sory sickness insurance scheme in Member State of residence
Scope — Meaning of display screen equipment for the                          — Contribution — Grant under the legislation of another
purposes of Article 2 — Meaning of ‘drivers’ cabs or control                                              Member State)
cabs for vehicles or machinery’ for the purposes of Article 1)
                                                                                (2000/C 302/22)
                           (2000/C 302/21)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                    (Language of the case: German)
(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-11/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                 In Case C-73/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Arbeitsgericht                   the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Sozialgericht (Social


title: Case C-274/10: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 July 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Hungary (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Taxation — VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Right to deduct — Procedures for exercise — Article 183 — National legislation allowing the refund of VAT excess only if it exceeds the amount of input tax corresponding to transactions not yet paid for)

text:
               8.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 298/8

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 July 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Hungary
   (Case C-274/10) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Taxation - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Right to deduct - Procedures for exercise - Article 183 - National legislation allowing the refund of VAT excess only if it exceeds the amount of input tax corresponding to transactions not yet paid for)
   2011/C 298/14
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou, B. Simon, and by K. Talabér-Ritz, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Hungary (represented by: M. Fehér, K. Szíjjártó, G. Koós, Agents, assisted by K. Magony, szakértő)

      Re:

   Failure of a State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — National legislation allowing the refund of VAT excess only if it exceeds the amount of tax corresponding to transactions not yet paid for — Breach of the principle of tax neutrality

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The Republic of Hungary,

                           —

                           by requiring taxable persons whose tax declaration for a given tax period records an ‘excess’ within the meaning of Article 183 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax to carry forward that excess or a part of it to the following tax year where the taxable person has not paid the supplier the full amount for the purchase in question, and

                           —

                           because, as a result of that requirement, certain taxable persons whose tax declarations regularly record such an ‘excess’ may be required more than once to carry forward the excess to the following tax year,

                     has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Hungary to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 221, 14.8.2010.


title: Case C-183/02 P: Appeal brought on 15 May 2002 against the judgment delivered on 6 March 2002 by the Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-127/99, T-129/99 and T-148/99 (not yet published) between Territorio Histórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de Álava and Others and Commission of the European Communities

text:
27.7.2002              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 180/9
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-               1.    Must point 35 Germany-Austria (e)(i) of Parts A and B of
richt Braunschweig by order of that Court of 26 February                     Annex III to Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) be inter-
2002 in the administrative law proceedings brought by                        preted as requiring — in addition to entitlement to the
Schaper & Brümmer GmbH & Co KG against Bezirks-                              benefit on 1 January 1994 — also the taking up of
                    regierung Braunschweig                                   residence in Austria?
                          (Case C-84/02)
                                                                       2.    If so, are that provision and point C Germany (1) of
                        (2002/C 180/15)                                      Annex VI to Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 compatible
                                                                             with higher-ranking European law, in particular the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       requirement of freedom of movement under Article 39
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht                      EC in conjunction with Article 42 EC?
Braunschweig (Brunswick Administrative Court) of 26 Febru-
ary 2002, received at the Court Registry on 12 March 2002,
for a preliminary ruling in the administrative law proceedings         (1) OJ L 149, p. 2.
brought by Schaper & Brümmer GmbH & Co KG against
Bezirksregierung Braunschweig on the following question:
Is Council Directive 92/27/EEC (1) of 31 March 1992 on the
labelling of medicinal products for human use and on package
leaflets (OJ 1992 L 113, p. 8) in conjunction with Council
Directive 65/65/EEC (2) of 26 January 1965 on the approxi-
mation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or adminis-
trative action relating to proprietary medicinal products (OJ,         Appeal brought on 15 May 2002 against the judgment
English Special Edition, 1965-1966, p. 20) and the Second              delivered on 6 March 2002 by the Third Chamber,
Council Directive 75/319/EEC (3) of 20 May 1975 on the                 Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of
approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or            the European Communities in Joined Cases T-127/99,
administrative action relating to proprietary medicinal prod-          T-129/99 and T-148/99 (not yet published) between
ucts (OJ 1975 L 147, p. 13) or, in the alternative, the principle      Territorio Histórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de
of the free movement of goods (Article 28 EC), to be                   Álava and Others and Commission of the European
interpreted in such a way that Community law precludes                                             Communities
national legislation which requires the package leaflets —
which in other respects comply with Community law ‘of old
medicinal products’, that is to say products on the market for                                   (Case C-183/02 P)
a long time but for which the post-marketing authorisation
procedure is still pending, to include the following notice:
‘Dieses Arzneimittel ist nach den gesetzlichen Übergangs-                                        (2002/C 180/17)
vorschriften im Verkehr. Die behördliche Prüfung auf pharma-
zeutische Qualität, Wirksamkeit und Unbedenklichkeit ist
noch nicht abgeschlossen.’ (‘This medicinal product is market-
ed in accordance with the statutory transitional provisions.           An appeal against the judgment delivered on 6 March 2002
Official verification of the product’s pharmaceutical quality,         by the Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of
efficacy and safety has not yet been concluded.’)?                     First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases
                                                                       T-127/99, T-129/99 and T-148/99 between Territorio His-
(1) OJ L 113 of 30.04.1992, p. 8.                                      tórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de Álava and Others and
(2) OJ P 022 of 09.02.1965, p. 369.                                    Commission of the European Communities was brought
(3) OJ L 147 of 09.06.1975, p. 13.                                     before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                       15 May 2002 by Daewoo Electronics Manufacturing España
                                                                       SA (DEMESA), represented by Antonio Creus Carreras and
                                                                       Begoña Uriarte Valiente, Abogados, of calle Velázquez No 63,
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundessozial-                Madrid.
gericht by order of that Court of 30 January 2002 in the
case of Maria Purschke against Landesversicherungsan-
                        stalt Oberbayern
                                                                       The appellant claims that the Court should:
                         (Case C-156/02)
                        (2002/C 180/16)                                1.    declare the present appeal admissible and consequently:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 2.    set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
European Communities by order of the Bundessozialgericht                     6 March 2002;
(Federal Social Court) of 30 January 2002, received at the
Court Registry on 29 April 2002, for a preliminary ruling in           3.    itself give final judgment in the matter on the basis of the
the case of Maria Purschke against Landesversicherungsanstalt                appellant’s pleadings at first instance and, in particular,
Oberbayern (Regional Insurance Office for Oberbayern) on the                 annul Article 1(d) and Article 2 of the decision of the
following questions:                                                         Commission of 24 February 1999;
 ---pagebreak--- C 180/10                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        27.7.2002
4.    in the alternative, refer the case back to the Court of First       —     Error in law, when applying Articles 87 and 88 EC and
      Instance for judgment, if the Court of Justice should deem                Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of
      that appropriate;                                                         22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the
                                                                                application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (1), for consider-
                                                                                ing that the tax credit is not existing aid, and lack of
                                                                                statement of reasons: in the event that the Court should
5.    order the Commission to pay the costs in both sets of                     take the view that the Commission’s criteria regarding tax
      proceedings.                                                              measures have changed, the tax credit constitutes existing
                                                                                aid.
                                                                          —     Error in law for not considering applicable the principle
                                                                                of legitimate expectations: when Demesa applied for and
                                                                                was granted the tax credit, it was evident that the
                                                                                Commission’s criteria for deciding whether tax measures
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 constituted State aid were very different from the present
                                                                                criteria. Since that was the situation at the material time,
                                                                                it seems excessive for the Court of First Instance to require
                                                                                Demesa to take the step of verifying whether the tax
—     Error in law in applying Article 87 EC to the 45 % tax                    measure under the legislation applicable to it fulfilled
      credit on investment and lack of statement of reasons in                  the requirements laid down in Article 87 and should,
      the judgment with regard to that aspect:                                  therefore, be notified to the Commission. Not even the
                                                                                Commission was certain in that respect, given its failure
                                                                                to act with regard to the measure concerned.
      —     Discretion of the public authorities: at issue in the
            proceedings before the Court of First Instance was
                                                                          (1) OJ 1999 L 83.
            Norma Foral No 22/1994 specifically as applied to
            the undertaking Demesa rather than in general,
            which is the subject of another decision of the
            Commission on State aid and of another action for
            annulment. As may be inferred from the decision
            granting application of the tax credit to Demesa,
            which constituted the subject-matter of proceedings
            before the Court of First Instance, the Diputación
            Foral de Alava merely applies the provision as
            it stands, without imposing any conditions. The               Action brought on 17 May 2002 by Commission of the
            existence of prior authorisation of the public auth-              European Communities against Portuguese Republic
            orities is entirely logical and sought by the undertak-
            ings themselves. In fact, such prior oversight gives
            ample legal certainty to the undertakings covered by                                    (Case C-185/02)
            that provision, since it implies that Hacienda Foral
            (regional finance ministry) has approved the
            amounts invested, including assets, etc, instead of                                     (2002/C 180/18)
            the uncertainty which would be entailed by the
            automatic application of the tax incentive and the
            possible subsequent inspection.
                                                                          An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before
                                                                          the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 May
      —     requirement to invest ESP 2 500 million: this                 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
            requirement does not make the measure selective,              represented by António Caeiros, acting as Agents, with an
            since it is applied objectively to all undertakings in        address for service in Luxembourg.
            all sectors which invest that amount and is not
            restricted to undertakings with considerable finan-
            cial resources.                                               The applicant claims that the Court should:
      Even if it were selective, the tax credit would still be            —     Declare that, by failing to notify the plans and projects
      justified by the nature or scheme of the system in that it                provided for in Article 11 of Council Directive 96/
      is not an exceptional measure but a provision of general                  59/EC (1) of 16 September 1996 on the disposal of
      scope which applies to any undertaking making an initial                  polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated terphen-
      investment in Alava which fulfils the requisite conditions                yls (PCB/PCT) and the summary of inventories provided
      laid down in the legislation in issue; such conditions                    for in Article 4(1) of the directive, the Portuguese Republic
      cannot in any event be described as extraordinary or                      has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions;
      discriminatory.                                                           and


title: Case C-105/10 PPU: Order of the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of 3 April 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland)) — Virallinen syyttäjä v Malik Gataev, Khadizhat Gataeva

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/27

         Order of the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of 3 April 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland)) — Virallinen syyttäjä v Malik Gataev, Khadizhat Gataeva
   (Case C-105/10 PPU) (1)

   2010/C 179/45

      Language of the case: Finnish

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

      (1)  OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.


title: Appeal brought on 26 January 1995 by San Marco Impex Italiana SRL against the judgment delivered on 16 November 1994 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-451/93 between San Marco Impex Italiana SRL and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-19/95 P)

text:
25 . 3 . 95              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 74/5
          contributions is lower for immigrants and emigrants          Reconsider the claim of the Appellant and:
          in the year in which they move than for persons who,
          in otherwise similar circumstances, retain the same          1 . order the Commission to pay to the Appellant a total
          residence throughout the whole year ?                             amount of ECU 4 389 498,40,
5 . (a ) If a heavier contributions burden, as referred to in               interest at the rate of 8 % as of 6 July 1992,
           question 3 , is incompatible with Article 7 or
           Article 48 ( 2 ) of the EEC Treaty, or with any other            legal costs and expenses including legal fees,
           rule of Community law, should there be taken into
           account, in determining whether in any specific case        2 . SUBSIDIARILY,
           a heavier burden is actually involved, only income
           from employment or, in addition, other income                    order the Commission to pay to the Appellant the
           received by the person concerned, such as profits                amount of ECU 2 504 280,07 representing:
           from real property ?
                                                                             (a ) the balance of ECU 148 192,09 for incorrect
     ( b ) If other income apart from earnings from                                processing of invoices;
           employment is to be left out of consideration, how
            is it to be determined whether, and to what extent,              ( b ) the undisputed balance of ECU 483 830,65 for
           the levying of contributions on income from                             pending invoices;
           employment places the migrant worker concerned
            at a disadvantage ?                                              (c) the compensatory costs arising out of cancellation
                                                                                of the Contract i.e. ECU 1 922 258 ;
6 . ( a ) If in the present case there was an infringement of
            any rule of Community law, is the national court                 interests at the rate of 8 % as of 6 July 1992;
            obliged to nullify that infringement even if to do so
            would require a choice between different                         legal costs and expenses including legal fees.
            alternatives each of which entails advantages and
            disadvantages ?                                            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     ( b) If the national court in this case does nullify an
            infringement of EC law, does Community law                 First bead of claim — non-payment of certain invoices
            provide any directions as to the choice which the
            national court should make between different               In finding that the Commission delegate was entitled to
            conceivable solutions ?                                    refuse to endorse certain invoices relating to price increases
                                                                       for materials and to the increased unit-price of the sub-base
                                                                       for the access roads to the bridges whose construction was
                                                                       the subject of the contract, the Court of First Instance
                                                                       incorrectly interpreted the facts at its disposal and this led to
                                                                       an improper application of the law.
Appeal brought on 26 January 1995 by San Marco Impex
Italians SRL against the judgment delivered on                         The Court of First Instance misapplied the rules governing
16 November 1994 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of                  the contract for the Juba and Shebelli bridges when it held
First Instance of the European Communities in case                     that the Appellant was not contractually obliged to comply
T-451/93 between San Marco Impex Italiana SRL and the                  with and adhere strictly to the instructions given by
           Commission of the European Communities                      Consulint, the consulting engineers hired by the Somali
                           Case C- 19/95 P)                            government to supervise the works .
                             ( 95/C 74/07)
                                                                       The Commission misapplied the rules governing the
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 16 November                contract in its processing of the invoices and should have
1994 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of            been held liable by the Court of First Instance for this
the European Communities in case T-451/93 between San                  obviously wrongful act.
Marco Impex Italiana SRL and the Commission of the
European Communities, was brought before the Court of                  The Appellant's legitimate expectations were breached:
Justice of the European Communities on 26 January 1995
by San Marco Impex Italiana SRL, represented by Lucette                ( a) by the delegate in refusing to endorse the invoices and
Defalque, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in                  by the Commission and its delegate in refusing payment
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alex Schmitt, 62 Avenue                          of endorsed invoices;
Guillaume .
                                                                       ( b ) by the Commission in refusing to sign Addendum No 1 ,
The Appellant claims that the Court should:                                    which it had prepared after having announced the grant
                                                                               of the funds;
Review the Decision of 16 November 1994 of the Court of
First Instance in Case T-451/93 ;                                              and
 ---pagebreak---  No C 74/6           1 EN |               Official Journal of the European Communities                                   25 . 3 . 95
 (c) by the Commission delegate in not paying the Somalian           Action brought on 2 February 1995 by the Federal Republic
      part of the invoices for which the Italian part had been       of Germany against the Commission of the European
      paid.                                                                                Communities
                                                                                (Case C-23/95 )
 The Appellant submits that the Court of First Instance's
 assessment of its claim was wrong and that its dismissal of                                  ( 95/C 74/09 ) •
 the claim was unfounded .
 The Appellant also submits that the Court of First Instance         An action against the Commission of the European
 was wrong in considering that the Appellant had not                 Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
 produced evidence that the Commission's administration              European Communities on 2 February 1995 by the Federal
 failed to operate correctly.                                        Republic of Germany, represented by Ernst Roder
                                                                     (Ministerialrat), Bundesministerium fur Wirtschaft, Bonn,
 Second head of claim — the failure of the Commission to             D-53107.
pay compensation following termination of the contract
The Commission did not give adequate reasoning for its
 decisions and thus infringed the general principle of law laid      The applicant claims that the Court should :
 down in Article 190 of the Treaty.
The Appellant submits that Article 60 of the Financial              — declare void Articles 1 ( 2) and 2 of Commission
 Regulation applicable to the Fifth European Development                 Regulation (EEC ) No 2791/94 of 16 November 1994 on
 Fund and Article 93 ( 1 ) of the General Conditions were                the exceptional allocation of a quantity additional to the
incorrectly interpreted and applied and that there was an                tariff quota for imports of bananas in 1994 as a result of
incorrect appreciation of the Commission's duty to meet the              tropical storm Debbie (*);
Appellant's claims.
The Appellant also submits that Article 60 of the                   — order the defendant to pay the costs.
abovementioned Financial Regulation imposes on the
Commission a general duty to safeguard the interests of
Community enterprises working in unfavourable financial
environments and that the Commission failed to discharge             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
this duty.
Finally, the Appellant contends that the Court of First              Lack of a legal basis for the way in which the additional
Instance incorrectly assessed the fault committed by the            quantities have been allocated: Article 16 ( 3 ) of Council
Commission which led to the damage existing at the time of
termination of the contract.
                                                                    Regulation (EEC ) No 404/93 may support the increase in
                                                                    the import tariff quotas, but not a departure from the
                                                                    method of calculation laid down in Article 19 ( 1 ) of Council
                                                                    Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/93 on the common organization
                                                                    of the market in bananas; precisely in the event of an
                                                                    increase in the tariff quota in 'exceptional circumstances',
Reference for a preliminary ruling by order of the Juzgado          Article 19 (4) of the Council Regulation provides that the
Central de lo Penal de la Audiencia Nacional of 18 January          allocation should be made by the method laid down in
      1995 in criminal proceedings against Oscar Weg                Article 19 ( 1 ). If the Commission considers that it is not
                          (Case C-20/95 )                           adequate to compensate for the damage done by the storm,
                           ( 95/C 74/08 )                           it could ask the Council to alter the Regulation. Since the
                                                                    Commission is derogating from a Regulation expressly
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the              adopted by the Council, the measures cannot be regarded as
European Communities by order of the Juzgado Central de             implementing measures within the meaning of Article 20 of
lo Penal de la Audiencia Nacional ( Central Criminal Court,         the Council Regulation, either. Article 30 of the Council
National High Court) of 18 January 1955 , which was                 Regulation contemplates transitional measures only in
received at the Court Registry on 30 January 1995 , for a           order to overcome difficulties experienced in adapting the
preliminary ruling in criminal proceedings against Oscar            existing national market organization to the new EC banana
Weg.                                                                market rules . Storm damage is not confined to the period of
                                                                    adaptation or transition from one market organization to
                                                                    another.
The questions referred by the Juzgado Central del lo Penal
de la Audiencia Nacional to the Court of Justice for a
preliminary ruling are identical with those in Joined Cases
C-163/94 and C-165/94 I 1 ).                                        (In the alternative) Insufficient grounds (Article 190 of the
                                                                    EC Treaty). There is no indication of the extent of the
(!) OJ No C 218 , 6 . 8 . 1994, p . 14 .                            damage. If the damage is lost production in the amount of
                                                                    the additional quota the compensation is more than is
                                                                    necessary, because importers obtain more profit from


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 June 2000 in Case C-13/99 P: TEAM Srl v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — PHARE programme — Decision to annul an invitation to tender and to issue a new invitation to tender — Action for damages — Categorisation of reparable damage — Causal link — Measures of organisation of procedure — Measures of inquiry)

text:
C 259/4                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         9.9.2000
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     Action brought on 7 June 2000 by the Commission of the
                                                                           European Communities against the Federal Republic of
                                                                                Germany
                          (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                (Case C-228/00)
                          of 15 June 2000
                                                                                (2000/C 259/07)
in Case C-13/99 P: TEAM Srl v Commission of the
                   European Communities (1)                                An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
                                                                           brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties on 7 June 2000 by the Commission of the European
(Appeal — PHARE programme — Decision to annul an                           Communities, represented by Götz zur Hausen, Legal Adviser,
invitation to tender and to issue a new invitation to tender               with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
— Action for damages — Categorisation of reparable                         Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, a Member of the Commission’s
damage — Causal link — Measures of organisation of                         Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
               procedure — Measures of inquiry)
                                                                           The Commission claims that the Court should:
                          (2000/C 259/06)
                                                                           1.    Declare the Federal Republic of Germany in breach of
                                                                                its obligations under Article 7(2) and (4) of Council
                                                                                Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                              supervision and control of shipments of waste within,
                                                                                into and out of the European Community (1) for raising
                                                                                unwarranted objections to certain waste shipments to
                                                                                other Member States for use principally as fuel;
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           2.    order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
In Case C-13/99 P: TEAM Srl, established in Rome, represented
initially by A. Tizzano and G.M. Roberti, of the Naples Bar,
and, subsequently, by F. Caruso, also of the Naples Bar, 39 Via            Pleas in law and main arguments
Santa Teresa a Chiaia, Naples — appeal against the judgment
of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 29 October
1998 in Case T-13/96 TEAM v Commission [1998] ECR                          The Commission objects to the administrative practice of
II-4073, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other                the competent authorities in Nordrhein-Westfalen, Baden-
party to the proceedings being Commission of the European                  Württemberg, Niedersachsen and Rheinland-Pfalz as incom-
Communities (Agents: M.-J. Jonczy and L. Gussetti) — the                   patible with the Treaty. The practice manifests itself in decrees
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: L. Sevón, President of the            of the relevant ministries and individual decisions of the
First Chamber, acting as President of the Fifth Chamber,                   competent authorities, whereby, partly on the basis of the
P.J.G. Kapteyn, P. Jann (Rapporteur), H. Ragnemalm and                     decrees, objections under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC)
M. Wathelet, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,            No 259/93 were made against certain planned waste ship-
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                  ments. In the cases in question, it was planned to ship a
15 June 2000, in which it:                                                 mixture of waste for use as fuel in the Belgian cement industry.
                                                                           The Commission argues that such use is to be classified as a
                                                                           recovery operation falling within the procedure referred to in
1.    Dismisses the appeal;                                                Point R 9 of Annex II B to Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July
                                                                           1975 on waste, namely ‘use principally as a fuel or other
                                                                           means to generate energy’. The description of the recovery
2.    Orders TEAM Srl to pay the costs.                                    operation in Point R 9 of Annex II B to the directive contains
                                                                           no quantitative criteria for determining whether or not a waste
                                                                           serves as fuel, but merely refers to the principal use. There is, the
                                                                           Commission argues, nothing in Article 3(1)(b)(i) of Directi-
                                                                           ve 75/442/EEC (2) to support the conclusion that burning of
(1) OJ No C 71 of 13.3.1999.                                               wastes constitutes a recovery operation only if its main
                                                                           purpose is the generation of energy or the waste has a certain
                                                                           minimum heating value. Nor can a requirement be inferred
                                                                           from the directive that energy recovery may be regarded as
                                                                           present only if a benefit equivalent in value to the recycling of
                                                                           materials is derived from the burning.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 12 October 1994 in the case of John Reisdorf v. Finanzamt Köln-West (Case C-85/95)

text:
3 . 6 . 95            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 137/ 11
After that period had expired with no communication from              requisite measures, the Commission decided to bring these
the Greek Government concerning the adoption of the                   proceedings under Article 169 of the Treaty .
requisite measures, the Commission decided to bring these
proceedings under Article 169 of the Treaty.                          H OJ No L 110 , 28 . 4 . 1992 , p . 52 .
(') OJ No L 166 , 28 . 6 . 1991 , p . 77 .
                                                                      Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supreme Court,
                                                                      Dublin, by order of that court of 12 February 1995 , in the
                                                                      case of Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm ve Ticaret AS
                                                                      against Minister for Transport, Energy and
                                                                          Communications, Ireland and the Attorney General
Action brought on 20 March 1995 by the Commission of                                           ( Case C-84/95 )
the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic                                           ( 95/C 137/21 )
                         ( Case C-83/95 )
                           ( 95/C 137/20 )                            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                      European Communities by an order of the Supreme Court,
                                                                      Dublin, of 12 February 1995 , which was received at the
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before            Court Registry on 20 March 1995 , for a preliminary ruling
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                   in the case of Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm ve Ticaret AS
20 March 1995 by the Commission of the European                       against     Minister         for    Transport, Energy       and
Communities, represented by Dimitrios Gouloussis, Legal               Communications , Ireland and the Attorney General, on the
Adviser of the Commission, with an address for service in             following question:
Luxembourg at the office of Georgios Kremlis, of the
Commission's Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg .                Is Article 8 of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 990/93 of
                                                                      26 April 1993 concerning trade between the European
                                                                      Economic Community and the Federal Republic of
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          Yugoslavia ( Serbia and Montenegro ) (') to be construed as
                                                                      applying to an aircraft which is owned by an undertaking
1 . declare that the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its       the majority or controlling interest in which is held by an
     obligations under the EEC Treaty because it omitted to           undertaking in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia ( Serbia
     bring into force and to communicate to the Commission            and Montenegro ) where such aircraft has been leased by the
     within the requisite time limit the laws, regulations and        owner for a term of four years from the 22 April 1992 to an
     administrative provisions necessary to comply with               undertaking the majority or controlling interest in which is
     Council Directive 92/30/EEC of 6 April 1992 on the               not held by a person or undertaking in or operating from the
     supervision of credit institutions on a consolidated             said Federal Republic of Yugoslavia ( Serbia and
     basis ( ! );                                                     Montenegro )?
2 . order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs .                    (') OJ No L 102 , 28 . 4 . 1993 , p . 14 .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Article 9 of Directive 92/30/EEC provides that the Member             Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
States are to bring into force the laws, regulations and              Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 12 October 1994
administrative decisions necessary to comply with the                    in the case of John Reisdorf v. Finanzamt Koln-West
Directive before 1 January 1993 and that they are forthwith                                      Case C-85/95 )
to notify the Commission thereof.
                                                                                ( 95 /C 137/22 )
Having received no communication from the Greek
                                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Government concerning measures adopted in order to
                                                                      European Communities by*an order of the Bundesfinanzhof
incorporate the abovementioned Directive into the Greek               ( Federal Finance Court) of 12 October 1994 , which was
legal order, the Commission on 12 March 1993 addressed
                                                                      received at the Court Registry on 20 March 1995 , for a
to the Government in question a formal letter before action .
Since the Greek Government did not reply to that letter, the
                                                                      preliminary ruling in the case of John Reisdorf v. Finanzamt
                                                                      Koln-West, on the following questions:
Commission on 4 July 1994 issued a reasoned opinion
giving the Greek Government a period of two months                    1 . Is an invoice within the meaning of Article 18 ( 1 ) ( a ) of
within which to comply with the Directive .                                the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC ( ! ) only the original,
                                                                           that is to say, the original copy of the statement of
After that period had expired with no communication from                   account, or are carbon copies, duplicates or photocopies
the Greek Government concerning the adoption of the                        also to be regarded as being invoices in that sense ?
 ---pagebreak--- 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