title: Case T-572/11: Action brought on 4 November 2011 — Hassan v Council

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/54

      Action brought on 4 November 2011 — Hassan v Council
      (Case T-572/11)
      (2012/C 25/106)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Samir Hassan (Damas, Syria) (represented by: E. Morgan de Rivery and E. Lagathu, lawyers)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  Annul, on the basis of Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU):

                              —

                              Council Implementing Decision 2011/515/CFSP of 23 August 2011 implementing Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, insofar as it adds Mr Samir Hassan to the list in the annex to Council Decision 2011/273/CFSP of 9 May 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria;

                              —

                              Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 843/2011 of 23 August 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, insofar as it adds Mr Samir Hassan to the list in Annex II to Council Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 of 9 May 2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria;

                  —

                  Compensate Mr Hassan, on the basis of Articles 268 and 340 TFEU, for the loss caused to him by the adoption against him of the restrictive measures referred to above, as follows:

                              —

                              Hold that the Council of the European Union is non-contractually liable for the pecuniary harm suffered and which will be suffered in the future and for the non-pecuinary harm;

                              —

                              Award Mr Hassan the sum of EUR 250 000 per month, with effect from 1 September 2011, in order to compensate him for the pecuniary loss suffered;

                              —

                              Award Mr Hassan the symbolic sum of EUR 1 in respect of the non-pecuniary loss suffered, and

                              —

                              Order the Council of the European Union to pay compensation for future non-pecuniary loss;

                  —

                  In any event, order the Council of the European Union to pay all the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law.

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging a manifest error by the Council in its assessment of the facts and an error in law resulting therefrom.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to state reasons, of the rights of the defence and of the right to effective legal protection.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to property and the principle of proportionality.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the presumption of the applicant’s innocence.

                  5.

                  Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement by the Council of its own guidelines on the implementation and evaluation of restrictive measures in the context of common foreign and security policy.

                  6.

                  Sixth plea in law, alleging a misuse of power by the Council.

                  7.

                  Seventh plea in law, claiming compensation for the loss caused by the unlawful measures adopted by the Council.


title: Case T-221/07: Action brought on 26 June 2007 — Republic of Hungary v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/41

         Action brought on 26 June 2007 — Republic of Hungary v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-221/07)
   (2007/C 199/77)
   Language of the case: Hungarian
   Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Hungary (represented by: J. Fazekas, Agent)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Commission Decision of 16 April 2007 on the national plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by Hungary in accordance with Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (C 2007 1689 final)

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant contests the validity of Commission Decision of 16 April 2007 on the national plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by Hungary in accordance with Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (1). According to the contested decision, the national allocation plan of Hungary does not meet certain criteria laid down in Annex III to Directive 2003/87.
   The legal basis of the action brought by the applicant is that Directive 2003/87, and in particular Article 9(3), does not grant to the Commission itself the power to determine, without taking any account of either the allocation plans developed and notified by the Member States under Article 9(1) and Article 11(2) of the directive or the total quantity of emission allowances to be allocated as established by the Member States in those plans. the total quantity of emission allowances which the Member States may allocate
   In the event that the Court holds that the Directive 2003/87 does grant that power to the Commission, the applicant submits that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment in evaluating the total quantity of emission allowances to be allocated in accordance with the national allocation plan. Hungary states that the Commission, in its assessment, first, did not take into account the data and calculations presented in the allocation plan, and thus infringed the principle of proportionality, and secondly, made use of manifestly incorrect data and inappropriate calculations which led necessarily to an incorrect determination of the total quantity.
   The applicant also claims that in the course of the procedure, the Commission infringed the principle of fair cooperation, in that, first, the Commission determined the method of calculation and the data to be used to establish the total quantity of emission allowances without consulting the Member States (including Hungary) on the subject, and secondly, the Commission did not take into account the additional information which was supplied by the applicant and which the Commission itself had requested during the procedure.
   Lastly, the applicant states that the Commission did not adequately comply with its obligation to state reasons, given that, first, the Commission did not properly set out the reasons why it did not take into consideration the allocation plan notified by Hungary and the data and calculations presented in that plan; secondly, the Commission did not properly set out the reasons for the suitability of the data and calculations which it did use; and thirdly, the Commission did not state any reason why it did not take into account the additional information supplied by Hungary and which the Commission itself had requested in the course of the procedure.

      (1)  Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).


title: Case C-216/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof by order of that Court of 23 May 2002 in the action of the Österreichischer Zuchtverband für Ponys, Kleinpferde und Spezialrassen; intervener: Österreichischer Shetlandponyzuchtverband

text:
C 191/20                EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                    10.8.2002
e)    In upholding the Commission in its use of the turnover                       (a)  only the right to be heard in proceedings before the
      method of assessing rent subsidy,                                                 competent authority for the recognition of another
                                                                                breeding organisation (breeding association) but
                                                                                not the right to have recognition of that other
f)    In concluding that non-contractual benefits said to be
                                                                                organisation (association) refused where recognition
      provided by Bass plc can be off-set against the price
                                                                                would endanger the preservation of the breed or
      differentials.
                                                                                jeopardise the operation or the improvement or
                                                                                selection programme of an existing organisation or
                                                                                association, and
(1) OJ C 6, 8.1.2000, p. 29.
(2) Commission Regulation (EEC) No. 1984/83 of 22 June 1983 on
    the application of Article 85(3) of categories of exclusive purchas-           (b) no right to challenge the grant of recognition by the
    ing agreements (OJ L 173, 30.6.1983, p. 5).                                         authority in the courts (the Verwaltungsgerichtshof),
                                                                                even where the existing organisation or association
                                                                                made submissions opposing recognition?
                                                                             (1) OJ L 192, p. 63.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungs-
gerichtshof by order of that Court of 23 May 2002 in the
action of the Österreichischer Zuchtverband für Ponys,
Kleinpferde und Spezialrassen; intervener: Österrei-
             chischer Shetlandponyzuchtverband
                          (Case C-216/02)                                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d’État,
                                                                             Section d’Administration (Belgium) by judgment of that
                                                                             Court of 28 May 2002 in the case of Michel Tillieut,
                          (2002/C 191/32)                                    Association des habitants de Louvain-La-Neuve, Willy
                                                                             Gregoire and Association L’Épine Blanche against Région
                                                                             wallonne; intervener: Propreté, Assainissement, Gestion
                                                                                de l’Environnement SA (‘PAGE’)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgerichts-                                            (Case C-217/02)
hof (Administrative Court) of 23 May 2002, received at the
Court Registry on 12 June 2002, for a preliminary ruling in
the action of the Österreichischer Zuchtverband für Ponys,                                          (2002/C 191/33)
Kleinpferde und Spezialrassen; intervener: Österreichischer
Shetlandponyzuchtverband, on the following questions:
1.    Does Article 2(2), first indent, of Commission Decision
      92/353/EEC (1) of 11 June 1992 laying down the criteria                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      for the approval or recognition of organisations and                   European Communities by judgment of the Conseil d’État,
      associations which maintain or establish stud-books for                Section d’Administration (Belgium) (Council of State, Adminis-
      registered equidae (OJ 1992 L 192, p. 63) confer on                    trative Section) of 28 May 2002, received at the Court Registry
      existing breeding organisations (breeding associations) a              on 13 June 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Michel
      right to have the competent authority refuse recognition               Tillieut, Association des habitants de Louvain-La-Neuve, Willy
      of another breeding organisation (another breeding                     Gregoire and Association L’Épine Blanche against Région
      association) if recognition of that other breeding organis-            wallonne; intervener: Propreté, Assainissement, Gestion de
      ation (breeding association) would endanger the preser-                l’Environnement SA (‘PAGE’) on the following questions:
      vation of the breed or jeopardise the operation or the
      improvement or selection programme of an existing
                                                                             1.    Does the obligation imposed on Member States by
      organisation or association?
                                                                                Article 7 of Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975
                                                                                on waste (1), as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC of
2.    Does Article 2(2), first indent, of the Commission                           18 March 1991 (2), to draw up one or more waste
      Decision referred to in the first question preclude the                      management plans relating in particular to ‘suitable
      application of a provision of national law which confers                     disposal sites or installations’ mean that the States to
      on an existing breeding organisation or breeding associ-                     which the Directive is addressed are required to mark on
      ation                                                                        a geographical map the precise locations of the planned


title: Case C-208/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 10 June 2009 — Ilonka Sayn-Wittgenstein

text:
               15.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 10 June 2009 — Ilonka Sayn-Wittgenstein
   (Case C-208/09)
   2009/C 193/15
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ilonka Sayn-Wittgenstein

      Defendant: Landeshauptmann von Wien

      Question referred

   Does Article 18 EC preclude legislation pursuant to which the competent authorities of a Member State refuse to recognise that part of the surname of a (grown up) adopted child, determined in another Member State, which contains a title which is inadmissible in the former Member State, including under constitutional law?


title: Case C-161/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Puglia (Italy) lodged on 29 March 2013 — Idrodinamica Spurgo Velox and Others v Acquedotto Pugliese SpA

text:
               29.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 189/3

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Puglia (Italy) lodged on 29 March 2013 — Idrodinamica Spurgo Velox and Others v Acquedotto Pugliese SpA
   (Case C-161/13)
   2013/C 189/04
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Puglia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Idrodinamica Spurgo Velox and Others

      Defendants: Acquedotto Pugliese SpA

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Articles 1, 2a, 2c and 2f of Directive 1992/13/EEC (1) be interpreted as meaning that time for the purposes of bringing proceedings for a declaration that there has been an infringement of the rules governing the award of public procurements contracts runs from the date on which the applicant became aware — or, through the exercise of ordinary diligence, ought to have become aware — of the existence of that infringement?

               2.

               Do Articles 1, 2a, 2c and 2f of Directive 1992/13/EEC preclude provisions of national procedural law, or interpretative practices, […] which allow the court to declare inadmissible an action for a declaration that there has been an infringement of the rules governing the award of public contracts, where, as a result of the conduct of the contracting authority, the applicant became aware of the infringement after the formal communication of the essential elements of the decision definitively awarding the contract?

      (1)  Council Directive 92/13/EEC of 25 February 1992 coordinating the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of Community rules on the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors (OJ1992 L 76, p. 14).


title: Case C-327/08: Action brought on 17 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/15

         Action brought on 17 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic
   (Case C-327/08)
   (2008/C 285/26)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Rozet and D. Kukovec, Agents)

      Defendant: French Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that:
               by adopting and maintaining in force Article 44-1 of Decree No 2005-1308 of 20 October 2005, Article 46-1 of Decree No 2005-1742 of 30 December 2005 and Article 80-1-1 of Decree No 2006-975 of 1 August 2006, in so far as those provisions provide for the possibility for contracting authorities and/or contracting entities to reduce the reasonable time-limit to be complied with between the notice of tender and the signature of the contract without any limit in time and without any objective condition laid down previously in the national legislation,
               and
               by adopting and maintaining in force Article 144-1 of the new Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by Decree No 2005-1308 of 20 October 2005, in so far as that provision provides for a time-limit of 10 days for the response from the contracting authority and/or the contracting entity concerned prohibiting any precontractual interim measures before that response and without that time period having any suspensory effect on the time-limit to be complied with between the notice of tender and the signature of the contract,
               the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 89/665/EEC (1) and Directive 92/13/EEC (2), as interpreted by the Court of Justice in Case C-81/98 Alcatel and Case C-212/02 Commission v Austria and, more specifically, Article 2(1) of Directive 89/665/EEC and Article 2(1) of Directive 92/13/EEC.

               —

               order the French Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission puts forward two pleas in law in support of its action.
   By its first plea, the Commission criticises the defendant for having allowed contracting authorities, in urgent cases, to reduce to under 10 days the minimum time-limit to be complied with between the notice of award of tender to all tenderers and the signature of the relevant contract. The urgency referred to in the French legislation is left to the discretion of the contracting authority, without any objective condition being required. However, that same legislation contains no guarantee that the number of days by which the time-limit is reduced will be brought to the attention of the tenderers, which could lead to those tenderers bringing precontractual proceedings against a decision to award a contract at a stage when the relevant contract has already been signed. Such a situation is clearly contrary to the objective pursued by Directives 89/665/EEC and 92/13/EEC, supported by the Court's case-law, consisting in putting in place effective and rapid remedies targeting unlawful decisions by contracting authorities at a stage when there is still time to correct violations.
   By its second plea, the Commission also criticises the defendant for having disregarded the practical effectiveness of those directives by providing in the French legislation for a compulsory preliminary phase of formal notice to the contracting authority, which does not have a suspensory effect on the time-limit to be complied with between the notice of award of contract and the signature of the relevant contract. Since an unsuccessful tenderer may not bring an action during the time for responding to the formal notice, equivalent to 10 days, a response given by the contracting authority upon expiry of that time-limit deprives the unsuccessful tenderer of all effective legal remedies, because by that time the contract will have already been signed.

      (1)  Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33), as amended by Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Directive 92/13/EEC of 25 February 1992 coordinating the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of Community rules on the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 14).


title: Case C-225/08P: Appeal brought on 23 May 2008 by Nuova Argricast Srl against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 12 March 2008 in Case T-443/07 Nuova Agricast Srl v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/24

         Appeal brought on 23 May 2008 by Nuova Argricast Srl against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 12 March 2008 in Case T-443/07 Nuova Agricast Srl v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-225/08P)
   2009/C 267/41
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Nuova Agricast Srl (represented by: M. A. Calabrese, avvocato)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   By order of 29 June 2009, the Court of Justice (Eighty Chamber) dismissed the the appeal application.


title: Case C-372/07: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 October 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — Nicole Hassett v South Eastern Health Board, Cheryl Doherty v North Western Health Board (Jurisdiction — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Point 2 of Article 22 — Disputes as to the validity of decisions of organs of companies — Exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the State where the company has its seat — Medical practitioners' mutual defence organisation)

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/10

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 October 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — Nicole Hassett v South Eastern Health Board, Cheryl Doherty v North Western Health Board
   (Case C-372/07) (1)

   (Jurisdiction - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Point 2 of Article 22 - Disputes as to the validity of decisions of organs of companies - Exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the State where the company has its seat - Medical practitioners' mutual defence organisation)
   (2008/C 301/19)
   Language of the case: English
   Referring court
   Supreme Court
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Nicole Hassett, Cheryl Doherty

      Defendants: South Eastern Health Board, North Western Health Board

      In the presence of: Raymond Howard, Medical Defence Union Ltd, MDU Services Ltd, Brian Davidson
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Supreme Court — Interpretation of Article 22(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Medical trade union constituted in the form of a company under the law of a Member State, which provides assistance and indemnity to its members practising in the Member State and in another Member State — Provision of the assistance/indemnity dependent on a decision taken by the board of directors of that company under an absolute discretionary power — Challenge to a decision refusing assistance or indemnity to a doctor practising in the other Member State — Exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the State in which the company has its seat on the basis of Article 22(2) of the regulation
   Operative part of the judgment
   Point 2 of Article 22 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters is to be interpreted as meaning that proceedings, such as those at issue before the referring court, in the context of which one of the parties alleges that a decision adopted by an organ of a company has infringed rights that it claims under that company's Articles of Association, do not concern the validity of the decisions of the organs of a company within the meaning of that provision.

      (1)  OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.


title: Case C-497/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 2 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sicilia — Italy) — Davide Gullotta, Farmacia di Gullotta Davide & C. Sas v Ministero della Salute, Azienda Sanitaria Provinciale di Catania (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 49 TFEU, 102 TFEU and 106 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Principle of non-discrimination — Abuse of dominant position — Article 15 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Inadmissibility)

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/2

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 2 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sicilia — Italy) — Davide Gullotta, Farmacia di Gullotta Davide & C. Sas v Ministero della Salute, Azienda Sanitaria Provinciale di Catania
   (Case C-497/12) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 49 TFEU, 102 TFEU and 106 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Principle of non-discrimination - Abuse of dominant position - Article 15 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Inadmissibility))
   (2015/C 294/02)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sicilia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Davide Gullotta, Farmacia di Gullotta Davide & C. Sas

      Defendants: Ministero della Salute, Azienda Sanitaria Provinciale di Catania

      Operative part of the judgment

   The questions referred by the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Sicilia (Italy), by decision of 9 October 2012, and maintained by that court, are inadmissible.

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 20 March 1997 in Case C-294/96: Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Failure to transpose Directive 93/42/EEC - Medical devices)

text:
10 . 5 . 97             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 142/7
of State ) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                composed of: J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, President of the
pending before that court between Bic Benelux SA and                  Chamber (Judge-Rapporteur), L. Sevón, D. A. O. Edward,
Belgian State — on the interpretation of Article 1 ( 1 ) and          J. -P. Puissochet and P. Jann, Judges; C. O. Lenz, Advocate
( 5 ) of Council Directive 83/189/EEC of 28 March 1983                General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on
laying down a procedure for the provision of information              20 March 1997, in which it:
in the field of technical standards and regulations ( OJ No
L 109, 26 . 4 . 1983 , p. 8 ), as amended by Council
Directive 88/182/EEC of 22 March 1988 ( OJ No L 81 ,                  1 . declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed
26 . 3 . 1988 , p. 75 ) — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ),                      time-limit, the laws, regulations and administrative
composed of: J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, President of the                    provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
Chamber, L. Sevón, C. Gulmann ( Rapporteur), D. A. O.                       93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical
Edward and P. Jann, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,                         devices, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
Advocate-General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal                            obligations under Article 22 thereof;
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
20 March 1997, in which it has ruled:                                 2 . orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
An obligation to affix specific distinctive signs to products         (') OJ No C 318 , 26 . 10 . 1996 .
which are subject to a tax levied on them on account of
the environmental damage which they are deemed to
cause, such as that laid down in Articles 1 1 and 18 of the
Ministerial Order of 24 December 1993 concerning the
treatment of products subject to environmental tax,
constitutes a technical specification within the meaning of
Council Directive 83/189/EEC of 28 March 1983 laying                                     ORDER OF THE COURT
down a procedure for the provision of information in the                                       (First Chamber)
field of technical standards and regulations, as amended
                                                                                of 6 March 1997
by Council Directive 88/182/EEC of 22 March 1988, and
the national enactment introducing it is a technical                  in Case C- 15 0/96 P: Roberto Galtieri v. European
regulation within the meaning of the same Directive.                                             Parliament (M
(>) OJ No C 64, 2 . 3 . 1996 .
                                                                                (Appeal manifestly unfounded)
                                                                                ( 97/C 142/ 15 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                         ( Fifth Chamber)                                        published in the European Court Reports)
                        of 20 March 1997
                                                                      In Case C-150/96 P: Roberto Galtieri, temporary agent of
in Case       C-294/96: Commission of the European                    the European Parliament, residing in Brussels, represented
            Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium (')                     by Pietro Cuomo, of the Naples Bar, with an address for
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Stef
Failure to transpose Directive 93/42/EEC — Medical                    Oostvogels, PO Box 221 , 13 Rue Aldringen, — appeal
                               devices)                               against the judgment of the Court of First Instance ( First
                                                                      Chamber ) of 27 February 1996 in Case T-235/94 Galtieri
                           ( 97/C 142/14 )                            v. Parliament [ 1996] ECR-SC 11-129 , seeking to have that
                                                                      judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings
                (Language of the case: French)                        being European Parliament ( Agent: Manfred Peter) — the
                                                                      Court ( First Chamber), composed of L. Sevón, President
                                                                      of the Chamber ( Rapporteur), D. A. O. Edward and P.
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be        Jann, Judges, G. Cosmas, Advocate-General; R. Grass,
          published in the European Court Reports)                    Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 March 1997, in
                                                                      which it:
In Case C-294/96 : Commission of the European
Communities ( Agents: Hendrik van Lier and Jean-Francois
Pasquier) v. Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: Jan Devadder)                 1 . dismisses the appeal;
— application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt,
within the prescribed time-limit, the laws, regulations and           2 . orders the appellant to bear the costs.
administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning
                                                                      (') OJ No C 197, 6 . 7. 1996 .
medical devices ( OJ No L 169, 12 . 7. 1993 , p. 1 ), the
Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
under the EC Treaty — the Court ( Fifth Chamber),


title: Case C-241/16 P: Appeal brought on 26 April 2016 by Darko Graf against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 26 February 2016 in Case T-507/14 Vedran Vidmar and Darko Graf v European Commission

text:
               11.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/14

         Appeal brought on 26 April 2016 by Darko Graf against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 26 February 2016 in Case T-507/14 Vedran Vidmar and Darko Graf v European Commission
   (Case C-241/16 P)
   (2016/C 251/16)
   Language of the case: Croatian

      Parties

      Appellant: Darko Graf (represented by: L. Duvnjak, odvjetnik)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside in its entirety the judgment of the General Court delivered on 26 February 2016 in Case T-507/14 and uphold the claims made by the appellant in his application of 1 July 2014 in the proceedings at first instance and order the European Commission to pay to the appellant all the costs of the present proceedings.

               —

               In the alternative, set aside in its entirety the judgment of the General Court delivered on 26 February 2016 in Case T-507/14 and refer the case back to the General Court for it to rule afresh and order the European Commission to pay to the appellant all the costs of the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant disputes the following parts of the judgment under appeal:

               —

               paragraph 40, in which it is stated that active illegal conduct on the part of an EU institution is only one of the elements necessary for the European Union to incur non-contractual liability for damages, inasmuch as that statement by the General Court is contrary to the second paragraph of Article 340 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 19 May 1992 in Mulder v Council and Commission, Joined Cases C-104/89 and C-37/90);

               —

               paragraph 47, in which, contrary to what is set out in Article 36 and Annex VII of the Act of Accession of the Republic of Croatia (‘RC’) to the European Union (‘EU’), the commitments that were undertaken by the RC with regard to the EU during the accession negotiations were referred to incorrectly as ‘principles’, since the present case does not involve any principles but rather the 11 specific commitments agreed by the RC with the EU and which came into force on 9 December 2011;

               —

               paragraphs 48 to 52, inasmuch as Article 36 and point 1 of Annex VII to the Act of Accession of the RC to the EU came into force on 9 December 2011 when the Judicial Reform Strategy of the Republic of Croatia for the period 2011-2015 and the Revised Action Plan of the Government of the Republic of Croatia for Judicial Reform were in force and applicable from 15 December 2010 and 20 May 2010, respectively, and, consequently, after the repeal of those legal acts by the RC — which acts had been previously expressly authorised by the Commission in section 3 of the Comprehensive Monitoring Report on the RC of 10 October 2012 in which the RC was urged to adopt new legislation on enforcement — and contrary to the general principles of law on the protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty, since with regard to the appellant the repeal of the legal acts referred to had an obvious retroactive effect in that after 9 December 2012 the RC did not adopt any new judicial reform strategy but merely a Strategy for the Development of the Judicial System for the period 2013-2018, and, therefore, the last Judicial Reform Strategy in fact adopted by the Republic of Croatia was that in force on 9 December 2011 (see judgment of the Court of Justice of 30 January 1974 in Louwage v Commission, 148/73, paragraphs 12 and 28; judgment of the General Court of 17 December 1998 in Embassy Limousines & Services v Parliament, T-203/96, paragraphs 74 to 88; and judgment of the Court of Justice of 14 May 1975 in CNTA v Commission, 74/74, paragraphs 41 to 44), it being noted that the General Court recognises, in paragraph 53 of the judgment under appeal, in stating that ‘it may not be inferred that the Croatian authorities … were entirely free to amend the Judicial Reform Strategy 2011-2015 and the Action Plan 2010. Having regard to the provisions of the Act of Accession and, in particular, Article 36 thereof and Annex VII thereto, those authorities were obliged to comply not only with Commitment No 1, but also with all the other commitments set out in that annex’, the pertinence of the claim for damages that is set out in the application;

               —

               paragraphs 54 to 57 and 59 to 63, relating to the failure by the European Commission to fulfil the obligation, under Article 36 of the Act of Accession of the RC to the EU, to ensure the fulfilment of the obligation on the RC under point 3 of Annex VII to the Act of Accession to continue to improve the efficiency of the judiciary, inasmuch as it is apparent from the annexes to the application that the Commission presented information from the Ministry of Justice of the RC that was incorrect in relation to the decrease in the number of disputes and enforcement cases pending in the municipal and commercial courts in its monitoring tables for the period between 1 September 2012 and 28 February 2013, without carrying out any technical or arithmetical checks in relation to its analysis, thereby revealing a flagrant lack of care with regard to the importance of the drawing up of those tables;

               —

               paragraph 68, in that the Commission, in failing to fulfil its obligation, derived from the first and second subparagraphs of Article 36 of the Act of Accession of the RC to the EU, to ensure the fulfilment of the commitment by the RC to establish the Croatian public enforcement officer service on 1 January 2012, also failed to fulfil its obligation, under Article 17 TEU, to ensure the application of the Treaty of Accession of the RC to the EU, which is one of the basic treaties of the EU;

               —

               paragraphs 69 to 82, inasmuch as it was in no way necessary that there be subsequent consistent and express action by the Commission in order to give rise to legitimate expectations on the part of the appellant after 9 December 2012, since the appellant’s legitimate expectations had arisen before that date.


title: Case T-41/14: Judgment of the General Court of 28 January 2015  — Argo Development and Manufacturing v OHIM — Clapbanner (Representation of advertising articles) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing an advertising article — Earlier Community designs — Grounds for invalidity — Novelty — Individual character — Informed user — Degree of freedom of the designer — Different overall impression — Articles 4, 5, 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

text:
               16.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 January 2015 — Argo Development and Manufacturing v OHIM — Clapbanner (Representation of advertising articles)
   (Case T-41/14) (1)

   ((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing an advertising article - Earlier Community designs - Grounds for invalidity - Novelty - Individual character - Informed user - Degree of freedom of the designer - Different overall impression - Articles 4, 5, 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002))
   (2015/C 089/26)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Argo Development and Manufacturing Ltd (Ra’anana, Israel) (represented by: B. Brisset, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by A. Pohlmann, and subsequently by S. Hanne, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Clapbanner Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 October 2013 (Case R 981/2012-3) in relation to invalidity proceedings between Argo Development and Manufacturing Ltd and Clapbanner Ltd.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Argo Development and Manufacturing Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 129, 28.4.2014.


title: Case C-239/16 P: Appeal brought on 25 April 2016 by Ante Šumelj and others against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 26 February 2016 in Joined Cases T-546/13, T-108/14 and T-109/14 Ante Šumelj and Others v European Commission

text:
               11.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/11

         Appeal brought on 25 April 2016 by Ante Šumelj and others against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 26 February 2016 in Joined Cases T-546/13, T-108/14 and T-109/14 Ante Šumelj and Others v European Commission
   (Case C-239/16 P)
   (2016/C 251/14)
   Language of the case: Croatian

      Parties

      Appellants: Ante Šumelj, Dubravka Bašljan, Đurđica Crnčević, Miroslav Lovreković, Drago Burazer, Nikolina Nežić, Blaženka Bošnjak, Bosiljka Grbašić, Tea Tončić, Milica Bjelić, Marijana Kruhoberec, Davor Škugor, Ivan Gerometa, Kristina Samardžić, Sandra Cindrić, Sunčica Gložinić, Tomislav Polić, Vlatka Pižeta (represented by: M. Krmek, odvjetnik)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Uphold the claims made in the application and in the appeal;

               —

               Order the other party to the proceedings to pay the appellants’ costs at first instance and on appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In their analysis of the judgment of the General Court, the appellants rely on various pleas in law:

               1.

               The appellants submit that the General Court erred in law to their detriment in not declaring that the Commission had failed to meet its obligation to monitor the application of the Treaty of Accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union as regards the establishment of the profession of public enforcement officer in the legal order of the Republic of Croatia in accordance with Article 36 of the Act of Accession, which expressly states that: ‘The Commission shall closely monitor all commitments undertaken by Croatia in the accession negotiations, including those which must be achieved before or by the date of accession.’ The Commission’s monitoring focused in particular on commitments undertaken by Croatia in the area of the judiciary and fundamental rights (Annex VII).

               2.

               The General Court erred in law in stating, in paragraph 57 of the judgment under appeal (contrary to what was set out in paragraph 52 thereof), that it could not be inferred from any of the commitments in Annex VII of the Act of Accession relied on by the appellants that the Republic of Croatia was obliged to establish the profession of public enforcement officer, nor could it be inferred, consequently, that the Commission was obliged to use the measures provided for in Article 36 of the Act of Accession for the purpose of preventing the repeal of the Law on public enforcement officers.
               The negotiations between the Republic of Croatia and the European Union were lengthy and, by contrast with the other chapters, Chapter 23 was the last and most difficult and, in accordance with the good practices of the European Union, dealt with the political criteria on which the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union was made conditional. The negotiations were concluded on 30 June 2011, after the Croatian Government submitted to the Presidency of the European Union, on 12 May 2011, a report on the fulfilment of the commitments in Chapter 23. In that report, the Republic of Croatia undertook 10 specific commitments in relation to the Treaty of Accession (Article 36 of the Act of Accession) and undertook to fulfil them. Commitment No 1 and Commitment No 3 (relating to the introduction of public enforcement officers), to the provisions of which the appellants refer in the proceedings, expressly oblige the Republic of Croatia to introduce public enforcement officers.

               3.

               Furthermore, the General Court erred in law (in breach of the principle of legal certainty) in stating, in paragraphs 47 to 51 of the judgment under appeal, that Commitment No 1 did not refer to a specific judicial reform strategy and action plan in force in the period between the finalisation of the negotiations and the repeal of the laws that had regulated the profession of public enforcement officer. The appellants claim that to refer to another judicial reform strategy to which the Commission had referred subsequently in its documents and not to the Judicial Reform Strategy 2011 and the Action Plan 2011, which obliged the Republic of Croatia to introduce the role of public enforcement officer, would create a dangerous precedent contrary to a considered legal interpretation.

               4.

               The General Court also erred in law in stating, in paragraph 55 of the judgment under appeal, that the appellants had not referred to any specific infringement, other than breach of the principle of legitimate expectations, since the appellants refer, as regards infringements, to discrimination, infringement of the right to work and breach of legal certainty throughout the proceedings. It is simply incredible that, in the judgment under appeal, the General Court completely ignored the principle of legal certainty (it makes no reference thereto), which principle, according to settled case-law, gives rise to the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.

               5.

               The General Court erred in law in considering Article 13 of the Treaty on European Union to be irrelevant to these proceedings. However, that the proceedings were unlawful does not exclusively mean that positive rules of the European Union have been infringed, that is to say, written rules, but may also presuppose the breach of general principles of law (principle of certainty) and the infringement of Article 13 TEU. The European Union has an institutional framework that aims to promote its values, advance its objectives, serve its interests, those of its citizens and those of the Member States, and ensure the consistency, effectiveness and continuity of its policies and actions. The general principles of law form part of the legal order of the European Union.

               6.

               The General Court erred in law when, contrary to Article 17 of the Treaty on European Union, it did not find that the appellants had been nominated, that is to say, appointed to occupy posts of public enforcement officers at the time Chapter 23 was closed, namely, when the reform of the judiciary, of which public enforcement officers form part, was agreed. Indeed, once the accession negotiations between the Republic of Croatia and the European Union were concluded, in particular, with the adoption of specific measures, and taking into consideration Article 26 of the Vienna Convention, the appellants had legal certainty that they would exercise their chosen profession.

               7.

               The General Court erred in law in not concluding, having regard to the mandatory provisions of Article 36 of the Act of Accession, that the Commission had to ensure its application and adopt all the measures necessary so that the Republic of Croatia fulfilled its commitments. Given that the Commission did not act in accordance with Article 17 of the Treaty on European Union, this entails an infringement of that same article, which adversely affects the appellants.

               8.

               The General Court erred in law in not considering the Treaty of Accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union to be the result of the negotiations and as such to impose obligations and produce legal effects under the rules and legal order of the European Union. In the present case, the Treaty of Accession guarantees the appellants the right to work and the establishment of a new profession for which they have been chosen. Under the provisions of the Treaty, the appellants expected, with good reason, to begin carrying out the tasks for which they had been appointed, since they had previously satisfied all the conditions required (passed the exams, left their previous jobs and equipped their offices) in accordance with the Law.


title: Case T-346/15: Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2017 — Bank Tejarat v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Re-listing of the applicant — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Res judicata — Misuse of powers — Fundamental rights)

text:
               24.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2017 — Bank Tejarat v Council
   (Case T-346/15) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Re-listing of the applicant - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Res judicata - Misuse of powers - Fundamental rights))
   (2017/C 129/28)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Bank Tejarat (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: S. Zaiwalla, P. Reddy, A. Meskarian, Solicitors, M. Brindle QC, and R. Blakeley, Barrister)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and A. Vitro, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/556 of 7 April 2015 amending Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2015 L 92, p. 101), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/549 of 7 April 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2015 L 92, p. 12), in so far as they concern the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Bank Tejarat to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 302, 14.9.2015.


title: Case C-385/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 30 July 2010 — Elenca srl v Ministero dell’Interno

text:
               9.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 30 July 2010 — Elenca srl v Ministero dell’Interno
   (Case C-385/10)
   ()
   2010/C 274/21
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Elenca srl

      Defendant: Ministero dell’Interno

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are the circular contested at first instance and the national rules referred to therein [namely, Circular No 4853 of the Ministry of the Interior of 18 May 2009 and, in particular, Legislative Decree No 152 of 2 April 2006] compatible with Community law and with the rules specifically referred to [in the order]? In particular, do the circular and the national rules infringe the principles and rules laid down by Directive 89/106/EEC (1) relating to construction products, which does not in any way make EC marking mandatory, but, on the contrary, provides (at Article 6(1) and (2)) that Member States ‘shall not impede the free movement, placing on the market or use in their territory of products which satisfy the provisions’ of that directive, and are to ensure ‘that the use of such products’, for the purpose for which they were intended, shall not be impeded by rules or conditions imposed by public bodies or private bodies acting as a public undertaking or acting as a public body on the basis of a monopoly position ‘and are to allow products not covered by Article 4(2) to be placed on the market in their territory if they satisfy national provisions consistent with the Treaty until the European technical specifications referred to in Chapters II and III provide otherwise’?

               2.

               Do the contested circular and the national rules referred to therein infringe Articles 28 to 31 of the EC Treaty in particular, which prohibit restrictions on imports and measures having equivalent effect, in so far as making the marketing of a product originating in another Member State of the Community subject, as in the present case, to a technical requirement, namely affixing the EC mark — which would be possible and lawful only if there were a corresponding harmonised standard — in fact prevents the import and distribution of the product in question in Italy, in breach of the principles laid down by the provisions of the EC Treaty referred to and Community law, which ensure freedom of competition, requiring principles capable of ensuring equal non-discriminatory treatment, as well as transparency, proportionality and respect for the rights of individual undertakings?

               3.

               Under Community rules on workable competition in the sector involving the present dispute, ought the national legislature and administrative authorities to have avoided adopting the legislative measures referred to in the circular and in Legislative Decree No 152/2006?

               4.

               Lastly, is pluralism and competition in the sector in question, which is guaranteed by European law, secured by national rules — such as Legislative Decree No 152/2006 (in particular Article 285 and paragraphs 2.7 and 3.4 of Annex IX to part [V]) — which introduce and impose the restrictions referred to?

      (1)  OJ 1989 L 40, p. 12.


title: Case F-100/05: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 14 November 2006 — Chatziioannidou v Commission (Officials — Pensions — Pension rights acquired before entry into the service of the Communities — Transfer to the Community scheme — Calculation of years of pensionable service — Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Failure to apply, because of the introduction of the euro, the provisions relating to the monetary conversion of the sum transferred)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/83

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 14 November 2006 — Chatziioannidou v Commission
   (Case F-100/05) (1)

   (Officials - Pensions - Pension rights acquired before entry into the service of the Communities - Transfer to the Community scheme - Calculation of years of pensionable service - Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Failure to apply, because of the introduction of the euro, the provisions relating to the monetary conversion of the sum transferred)
   (2006/C 326/167)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Eleni Chatziioannidou (Auderghem, Belgium) (represented by: S. A. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Martin and K. Herrmann, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of the Commission's decision concerning the transfer of pension rights acquired in Greece to the Community scheme.
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The decisions of the Commission of the European Communities of 30 November 2004 and 20 February 2005 calculating the applicant's years of pensionable service following the transfer to the Community scheme of the actuarial equivalent of the pension rights she had acquired in Greece are annulled.

               2.

               The Commission of the European Communities is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 10, 14.01.2006, p. 25 (case initially registered before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under number T-387/05 and transferred to the European Union Civil Service Tribunal by order of 15.12.2005).


title: Case C-334/08: Action brought on 18 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/39

         Action brought on 18 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-334/08)
   (2008/C 223/65)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Aresu and A. Caeiros, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 10 EC, Article 8 of Council Decision 2000/597/EC, Euratom of 29 September 2000 on the system of the European Communities' own resources (1), and Articles 2, 6, 10, 11 and 17 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities' own resources (2) by refusing to make available to the Commission the own resources corresponding to the customs obligation deriving from the issue, from 27 February 1997, by the departmental head office of customs of the Regions of Apulia and Basilicata, located in Bari, of irregular authorisations to create and operate Type C customs bonded warehouses in Taranto, followed by consecutive authorisations for processing under customs control and to use the inward processing procedure, until their revocation on 4 December 2002;

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the present action the Commission of the European Communities complains that the Italian Government has refused to make available to the European Communities the own resources — quantified at approximately EUR 23 million — corresponding to certain irregular customs authorisations issued in Taranto in the period from February 1997 to December 2002 inclusive.
   The contested subject-matter concerns, essentially, liability for the amounts relating to the resources not collected owing to the irregular transactions in question. The Italian Government submits that it is not liable for the missing revenue caused by those irregularities, since the latter were solely attributable to the officials who caused the loss, whereas the Commission takes the view that the Community legislation in force requires the Italian State to make itself responsible for all the financial consequences deriving from the action — including irregular action — of officials who act in its name and on its behalf.

      (1)  OJ L 253 of 7.10.2000, p. 42.

      (2)  OJ L 130 of 31.5.2000, p. 1.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 10 February 1999 in Case T-35/98: André Hecq and Syndicat des Fonctionnaires Internationaux et Européens (SFIE) v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Bureau of the local Staff Committee - Elections - Duties of the institution - Admissibility)

text:
27.3.1999             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 86/17
4. Orders the parties, including the intervener, to bear               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     their own costs.                                                                     of 28 January 1999
                                                                      in Case T-264/97: D v. Council of the European Union (1)
(1) OJ C 54, 22.2.1997.
                                                                     (Officials Ð Refusal to grant the applicant the household
                                                                                allowance in respect of his partner)
                                                                                (1999/C 86/35)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                     of 11 February 1999
                                                                     In Case T-264/97: D, an official of the Council of the
in Case T-200/97: Carmen JimeÂnez v. Office for                      European Union, residing in Brussels, represented by
Harmonisation in the Intenal Market (trade marks and                 Jean-NoeÈl Louis, Thierry Demaseure and FrancËoise
                     designs) (OHIM) (1)                             Parmentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
                                                                     in Luxembourg at the Offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL,
(Officials Ð Competitions Ð Inclusion on the list of                 30 Rue de Cessange, supported by the Kingdom of
suitable candidates Ð Procedural irregularity Ð Principle            Sweden (Agent: Lotti Nordling), v. Council of the
   of non-discrimination Ð Manifest error of assessment)             European Union (Agents: TheÂreÁse Blanchet and Eva
                        (1999/C 86/34)                               Karlsson) Ð application for annulment of the Council's
                                                                     decision refusing to grant the applicant the household
                                                                     allowance in respect of his partner Ð the Court of First
                (Language of the case: French)                       Instance (Second Chamber), composed of: A. Potocki,
                                                                     President, and C. W. Bellamy and A. W. H. Meij, Judges;
                                                                     B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
In Case T-200/97: Carmen JimeÂnez, an official of the                given a judgment on 28 January 1999, in which it:
Commission of the European Communities, residing at
Alicante (Spain), represented by Georges Vandersanden, of
                                                                     1. Dismisses the action.
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30
Rue de Cessange, v. Office for Harmonisation in the                  2. Orders the parties, including the intervener, to bear
Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)                         their own costs.
(Agents: Fernando López de Rego and Antonio Grilli) Ð
application for annulment of the decision of the selection
board of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                (1) OJ C 357, 22.11.1997.
Market (trade marks and designs) of 30 October 1996 not
to include the applicant's name on the list drawn up in the
context of the Competition for the drawing-up of a list of
suitable candidates of either sex to fill category C posts as
members of the temporary staff (reference AT/C)' Ð the
Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: M.
                                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Jaeger, President, and K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi, Judges; A.
Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a                                       of 10 February 1999
judgment on 11 February 1999, in which it:
                                                                     in Case T-35/98: AndreÂ Hecq and Syndicat des Fonction-
                                                                     naires Internationaux et EuropeÂens (SFIE) v. Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities (1)
1. Annuls the decision of the selection board of the
     Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market                 (Officials Ð Bureau of the local Staff Committee Ð
     (trade marks and designs) of 30 October 1996 not to                Elections Ð Duties of the institution Ð Admissibility)
     include the applicant's name on the list drawn up in
     the context of the Compettion for the drawing-up of                                    (1999/C 86/36)
     a list of suitable candidates of either sex to fill
     category C posts as members of the temporary staff                              (Language of the case: French)
     (reference AT/C)'.
                                                                     In Case T-35/98: AndreÂ Hecq, an official of the
2. Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal               Commission of the European Communities, residing in
     Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) to pay the              Brussels, and Syndicat des Fonctionnaires Internationaux
     costs.                                                          et EuropeÂens (SFIE), established in Brussels, represented
                                                                     by Lucas Vogel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
(1) OJ C 7, 10.1.1998.                                               service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Christian
                                                                     Kremer, 8Ð10 Rue Mathias Hardt, v. Commission of the
                                                                     European Communities (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and
                                                                     Julian Currall) Ð application for annulment of the
 ---pagebreak--- C 86/18              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                27.3.1999
Commission's decision of 20 March 1997 refusing to take            Chamber), composed of: J.     D. Cooke, President, and R.
the measures requested by the applicant in order to ensure         García-Valdecasas and P.        Lindh, Judges; H. Jung,
collective and proportional representation in the                  Registrar, made an order       on 15 January 1999, the
membership of the Bureau of the local Staff Committee in           operative part of which is as follows:
Brussels Ð the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),
composed of: A. Potocki, President, and C. W. Bellamy
and A. W. H. Meij, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal                    1. There is no need to adjudicate on the present action.
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
10 February 1999, in which it:
                                                                   2. The parties are to bear their own costs.
1. Orders the removal of the Syndicat des Fontionnaires            (1) OJ C 318, 26.10.1996.
    Interntionaux et EuropeÂens from the list of applicants.
2. Dismisses the action brought by Mr Hecq.
                                                                        ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
3. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.                                          of 15 January 1999
                                                                   in Case T-243/97: Catherine Metdepenningen and Others
(1) OJ C 113, 11.4.1998.                                                 v. Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                   (Member of the temporary staff Ð Contract for a limited
                                                                   period Ð Possibility of its being extended Ð Action for
                                                                              annulment Ð Manifest inadmissibility)
                                                                                (1999/C 86/38)
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                         (Language of the case: French)
                     of 15 January 1999
in Case T-131/96: RWE Energie Aktiengesellschaft v.                In Case T-243/97: Catherine Metdepenningen, JeÂrôme
       Commission of the European Communities (1)                  Poussielgue and Jürgen Wettig, members of the temporary
                                                                   staff of the Commission of the European Communities,
             (Case not proceeding to judgment)                     residing in Brussels, represented by Nicolas LhoeÈst, of the
                                                                   Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                       (1999/C 86/37)                              the Office of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de
                                                                   Cessange, v. Commission of the European Communities
                                                                   (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and Florence Duvieusart-
                                                                   Clotuche) Ð application, first, for annulment of the
               (Language of the case: German)                      Commission's decisions of 26 August 1996 expressly
                                                                   rejecting the requests of the applicants Metdepenningen
                                                                   and Poussielgue for an extension of their contracts as
In Case T-131/96: RWE Energie Aktiengesellschaft,                  members of the temporary staff and, second, for
established at Essen (Germany), represented by Gerhard             annulment of the Commission's decisions of 23 and
Wiedemann and Jens Fleischhauer, Rechtsanwälte,                    28 May 1997 expressly rejecting their complaints Ð the
Düsseldorf, with an address for service in Luxembourg at           Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of:
the Chambers of Luc Frieden, 62 Avenue Guillaume, v.               A. Potocki, President, and C. W. Bellamy and A. W. H.
Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                    Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
Giuliano Marenco and Klaus Wiedner), supported by                  15 January 1999, the operative part of which is as
French Republic (Agents: Kareen Rispal-Bellanger and               follows:
Jean-Marc Belorgey) Ð application, first, for a declaration
of failure to act on the part of the Commission, in that it
unlawfully failed to adopt a decision concerning the               1. The application is dismissed.
applicant's requests for negative clearance and exemption
in respect of an electricity supply agreement concluded
between the applicant and the City of Nordhorn, and,               2. The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.
secondly and in the alternative, for annulment of the
Commission's letter of 18 June 1996 informing the                  (1) OJ C 331, 1.11.1997.
applicant that it did not intend to consider its requests
pending the conclusion of national proceedings before the
German courts Ð the Court of First Instance (Fifth


title: Case C-43/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 28 January 2013 — Hauptzollamt Köln v Kronos Titan GmbH

text:
               27.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 123/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 28 January 2013 — Hauptzollamt Köln v Kronos Titan GmbH
   (Case C-43/13)
   2013/C 123/14
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Hauptzollamt Köln

      Defendant: Kronos Titan GmbH

      Question referred

   Does Article 2(3) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity, (1) in relation to the taxation of energy products other than those for which a level of taxation is specified in the Directive, require the application of a rate of tax which national law specifies for the use of an energy product as heating fuel, provided that that other energy product is also used as heating fuel? Or, in cases where the other energy product — in circumstances where it is used as heating fuel — is equivalent to a particular energy product, can the rate of tax specified by national law for this energy product be applied, even in the case where the rate of tax is the same irrespective of whether it is being used as motor fuel or as heating fuel?

      (1)  OJ L 283, p. 51.


title: ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT of 28 August 1996 in Case T-112/96 R: Jean-Claude Séché v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Rejection of application for a post and appointment of another candidate - Application for interim measures - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Urgency - None)

text:
No C 354/26            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      23 . 11 . 96
and     Walter      Klosterfelde   and    Karsten     Metzlaff,      the Court of First Instance made an order on 28 August
Rechtsanwälte, Hamburg, with an address for service in               1996 , the operative part of which is as follows :
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Philippe Dupont, 8— 10
Rue Mathias Hardt, v. Commission of the European                     1 . The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Communities ( Agents : initially Nicholas Khan and
Jean-Paul Keppenne, then Nicholas Khan and Paul Nemitz ),
                                                                     2.   The costs are reserved.
supported by Frima BV, established in The Hague
( Netherlands ), represented initially by Tom Ottervanger, of
the Rotterdam Bar, and Harold Nyssens, of the Brussels Bar,
and then by Tom Ottervanger only, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Carlos Zeyen , 67
Rue Ermesinde, application for annulment of the decision
contained in a letter of 5 August 1994 in which the                      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Commission stated that it had found no reason to propose                                   of 4 October 1996
' appropriate measures ' pursuant to Article 93 ( 1 ) of the EC
Treaty with regard to the Netherlands regional aid scheme            in Case T-197/95 : Sveriges Betodlares Centralförening and
Subsidieregeling regionale investeringsprojecten 1991 —              Sven Ake Henrikson v. Commission of the European
the Court of First Instance ( Third Chamber, Extended                                        Communities (')
Composition ), composed of C. P. Briët, President, B.                (Common agricultural policy — Sugar beet — Regulation
Vesterdorf, P. Lindh, A. Potocki and J. D. Cooke, Judges, J.         (EC) No 1 734/95 — Specific agricultural conversion rate —
Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has              No conversion rate for Sweden — Action for annulment —:
given a judgment on 22 October 1996 in which it :                                             Inadmissibility)
                                                                                96/C 354/53 )
1 . dismisses the application as inadmissible;
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
2 . orders Salt Union to pay the costs, including those
     incurred by Frima BV;                                           In Case T-197/95 : Sveriges Betodlares Centralförening,
                                                                     having its registered office in Malmö ( Sweden ), and Sven
3 . orders Verein Deutsche Salzindustrie eV to bear its own          Ake Henrikson, residing in Lund ( Sweden), represented by
     costs .                                                         Otfried      Lieberknecht        and      Wolfgang      Kirchhoff,
                                                                     Rechtsanwälte , Düsseldorf, and Michael Schütte ,
                                                                     Rechtsanwalt, Berlin, with an address for service in
(') OJ No C 380 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .                                   Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alex Bonn, 62 Avenue
                                                                     Guillaume,      against    Commission         of   the  European
                                                                     Communities ( Agents : Eugenio de March and James
                                                                     Macdonald Flett ) — application for the annulment, under
                                                                     Article 173 of the EC Treaty, of Commission Regulation
                                                                     ( EC ) No 1734/95 of 14 July 1995 fixing, for the 1994/95
    ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT
                                                                     marketing year, the specific agricultural conversion rate
                                                                     applicable to the minimum sugar beet prices and the
                      of 28 August 1996                              production levy and additional levy in the sugar sector ( OJ
in Case T-112/96 R: Jean-Claude Séché v. Commission of               No 165 , 15 . 7. 1995 , p. 12 ), in so far as that Regulation does
                  the European Communities                           not fix any rate applicable to Sweden — the Court of First
(Officials — Rejection of application for a post and                 Instance ( First Chamber ), composed of: A. Saggio ,
appointment of another candidate — Application for                   President, V. Tiili and R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges; H.
interim measures — Application for suspension of                     Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 4 October 1996 , the
                                                                     operative part of which is as follows :
        operation of a measure — Urgency — None)
                         ( 96/C 354/52 )
                                                                     1 . The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
               (Language of the case: French)                        2 . There is no need to rule on the application for leave to
                                                                         intervene brought by the Kingdom of Sweden .
In Case T-l 12/96 R: Jean-Claude Séché, an official of the
Commission of the European Communities , represented by              3 . The applicants shall bear their own costs and shall also
Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service           bear, jointly and severally, those incurred by the
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du                  Commission . The Kingdom of Sweden shall bear the
Fort Rheinsheim, v. Commission of the European                            costs which it has incurred in bringing its application for
Communities ( Agents : Gianluigi Valsesia and Julian                      leave to intervene.
Currall ) — application for suspension of operation of the
decisions of the Commission of 22 May 1996 rejecting the
                                                                     (') OJ No C 351 , 30 . 12 . 1995 .
applicant's application for, and appointing another
candidate to, the post of Principal Legal Adviser, declared
vacant by vacancy notice COM/2Q/96 — the President of


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 March 2001 in Case C-278/98: Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities (EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — 1994 — Cereals, beef and veal)

text:
C 173/12                  EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                          16.6.2001
Tribunal Administrativo (Supreme Administrative Court) (Por-                  Communities (Agent: H. van Vliet) — application for partial
tugal) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending                    annulment of Commission Decision 98/358/EC of 6 May
before that court between Fazenda Pública and Fábrica de                    1998 on the clearance of the accounts presented by the
Queijo Eru Portuguesa Lda, intervener Ministério Público — on                Member States in respect of the expenditure for 1994 of the
the interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1999/85 of                  Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and
16 July 1985 on inward processing relief arrangements                         Guarantee Fund (OJ 1998 L 163, p. 28), in so far as it disallows
(OJ 1985 L 188, p. 1) and, in particular, Article 11 thereof —                expenditure of NLG 16 378 716,63 incurred by the applicant
the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, Presi-                   in connection with the prefinancing of export refunds — the
dent of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and N. Colne-                  Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President
ric, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,               of the Chamber, V. Skouris, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and
has given a judgment on 22 February 2001, in which it has                     F. Macken (Rapporteur), Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General;
ruled:                                                                        H.A. Rühl, Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 March 2001,
                                                                              in which it:
1.    Article 11 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1999/85 of
      16 July 1985 on inward processing relief arrangements is to             1.    Dismisses the application;
      be interpreted as applying not only to the conditions or
      requirements for the issue of an authorisation under the inward
      processing relief arrangements but also to the conditions               2.    Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
      imposed by the authorisation on its holder for the use or
      functioning of those arrangements and, consequently, the
      customs authority may unilaterally alter the rate of yield fixed        (1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.
      by it at the time when the authorisation was issued where, while
      the arrangements are being used, the rate of yield proves to be
      higher than the rate fixed in the authorisation.
2.    Neither Regulation No 1999/85 nor the principle of legal
      certainty precludes the customs authority from altering unilat-
      erally a rate of yield fixed by it in the authorisation even if it is
      proved that the customs authority was supervising and con-
      trolling the activities of the holder of the authorisation before it
      was issued.                                                                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.                                                                             of 6 March 2001
                                                                              in Case C-273/99 P: Bernard Connolly v Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
                                                                              (Appeal — Officials — Disciplinary proceedings — Suspen-
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      sion — Statement of reasons — Alleged misconduct —
                                                                              Articles 11, 12 and 17 of the Staff Regulations — Equal
                           (Sixth Chamber)                                                                 treatment)
                           of 6 March 2001
                                                                                (2001/C 173/20)
in Case C-278/98: Kingdom of the Netherlands v Com-
           mission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — 1994 — Cereals, beef
                                 and veal)
                                                                              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                            (2001/C 173/19)                                                      in the European Court Reports)
                      (Language of the case: Dutch)                           In Case C-273/99 P: Bernard Connolly, a former official of
                                                                              the Commission of the European Communities, residing in
                                                                              London, United Kingdom, represented by J. Sambon and
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published        P.-P. van Gehuchten, avocats, with an address for service in
                     in the European Court Reports)                           Luxembourg, appeal against the judgment of the Court of First
                                                                              Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber) of
In Case C-278/98: Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents:                         19 May 1999 in Case T-203/95 Connolly v Commission
M.A. Fierstra and N. Wijmenga) v Commission of the European                   [1999] ECR-SC I-A-83 and II-443, seeking to have that


30.5.98               EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                               C 166/13
       Removal from the register of Case C-56/97 (1)                    Removal from the register of Case C-352/97 (1)
                        (98/C 166/28)                                                     (98/C 166/32)
By order of 6 March 1998 the President of the Sixth
Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European                   By order of 23 March 1998 the President of the Court of
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of          Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Case C-56/97: Commission of the European Communities              removal from the register of Case C-352/97: Commission
v French Republic.                                                of the European Communities v Ireland.
(1) OJ C 108 of 5.4.1997.                                         (1) OJ C 357 of 22.11.1997.
      Removal from the register of Case C-339/95 (1)
                        (98/C 166/29)                                   Removal from the register of Case C-353/97 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 166/33)
By order of 11 March 1998 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-339/95 (reference for         By order of 23 March 1998 the President of the Court of
a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice,              Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Queen's Bench Divison, Commercial Court): Compagnia               removal from the register of Case C-353/97: Commission
di Navigazione Marittima and Others v Compagnie                   of the European Communities v Ireland.
Maritime Belge and Others.
                                                                  (1) OJ C 357 of 22.11.1997.
(1) OJ C 351 of 30.12.1995.
      Removal from the register of Case C-310/96 (1)                    Removal from the register of Case C-101/97 (1)
                        (98/C 166/30)
                                                                                (98/C 166/34)
By order of 11 March 1998 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the               By order of 26 March 1998 the President of the Court of
removal from the register of Case C-310/96: Commission            Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
of the European Communities v Kingdom of the                      removal from the register of Case C-101/97: Commission
Netherlands.                                                      of the European Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 354 of 23.11.1996.
                                                                  (1) OJ C 142 of 10.5.1997.
      Removal from the register of Case C-264/97 (1)
                        (98/C 166/31)                                   Removal from the register of Case C-286/96 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 166/35)
By order of 20 March 1998 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-264/97 (reference for         By order of 30 March 1998 the President of the Fifth
a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo            Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European
per la Sardegna): SocietaÁ Appia Srl v Comune di Cagliari         Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
and SocietaÁ Cagliari Calcio SpA.                                 Case     C-286/96:     Commission     of the    European
                                                                  Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 271 of 6.9.1997.
                                                                  (1) OJ C 294 of 5.10.1996.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 October 1999 in Case T-48/96: Acme Industry Co. Ltd v Council of the European Union (Dumping - Articles 2(3)(b)(ii) and 2(10)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 - Retroactive application of Regulation (EC) No 3283/94 - Constructed normal value - Establishing sales, general and administrative expenses and profit margin - Reliability of data - Treatment of import duties and indirect taxes)

text:
4.12.1999             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 352/31
                                                        COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                      of 12 October 1999                                                         of 14 October 1999
in Case T-48/96: Acme Industry Co. Ltd v Council of the
                      European Union (1)                                 in Joined Cases T-191/96 and T-106/97: CAS Succhi di
                                                                         Frutta SpA v Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties (1)
(Dumping — Articles 2(3)(b)(ii) and 2(10)(b) of Regulation
(EEC) No 2423/88 — Retroactive application of Regulation
(EC) No 3283/94 — Constructed normal value — Estab-                      (Common agricultural policy — Food aid — Tendering
lishing sales, general and administrative expenses and profit            procedure — Payment of successful tenderers in fruit other
margin — Reliability of data — Treatment of import duties                   than those specified in the notice of invitation to tender)
                       and indirect taxes)
                                                                                (1999/C 352/55)
                        (1999/C 352/54)
                  (Language of the case: English)                                            (Language of the case: Italian)
In Case T-48/96 Acme Industry Co. Ltd, established in                    In Joined Cases T-191/96 and T-106/97: CAS Succhi di Frutta
Bangkok, represented by Jacques Bourgeois, of the Brussels               SpA, established in Castagnaro, Italy, represented by Alberto
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                    Miele, of the Padua Bar, Antonio Tizzano and Gian Michele
Chambers of Marc Loesch, 8 Rue Zithe v Council of the                    Roberti, of the Naples Bar, and Carlo Scarpa, of the Venice Bar
European Union (Agents: Antonio Tanca, Hans-Jürgen Rabe                  against Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
and Georg M. Berrisch), supported by Commission of the                   Paolo Ziotti and Alberto Dal Ferro) — application for annul-
European Communities (Agent: Nicholas Khan) and French                   ment of Commission Decisions C (96) 2208 of 6 September
Republic (Agents: Kareen Rispal-Bellanger and Sujiro Seam) —             1996 (Case T-191/96) amending its decision of 14 June 1996,
application for the annulment of Council Regulation (EC)                 and C (96) 1916 of 22 July 1996 (Case T-106/97) on the
No 5/96 of 22 December 1995 imposing definitive anti-                    supply of fruit juice and fruit jams intended for the people of
dumping duties on imports of microwave ovens originating in              Armenia and Azerbaijan provided for in Regulation (EC)
the People’s Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, Malaysia          No 228/96 — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),
and Thailand and collecting definitively the provisional duty            composed of A. Potocki, President, C.W. Bellamy and
imposed (OJ 1996 L 2, p. 1) — the Court (Fifth Chamber,                  A.W.H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment
Extended Composition), composed of: J.D. Cooke, President,               on 14 October 1999, in which it:
R. Garcia-Valdecasas, P. Lindh, J. Pirrung and M. Vilaras, Judg-
es; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 October
1999, in which it:                                                       1. Annuls Commission Decision C (96) 2208 of 6 September
                                                                              1996;
1. Dismisses the action;
                                                                         2. Dismisses the application in Case T-106/97 as inadmissible;
2. Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay those of the
     Council;
                                                                         3. Orders the Commission to pay the costs in Case T-191/96,
                                                                              orders each party to bear its own costs in Case T-191/96 R, and
3. Orders the Commission and the French Republic to bear their                orders the applicant to pay the costs relating to Case T-106/97.
     own costs.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 94 of 22.3.1997 and C 199 of 28.6.1997.
(1) OJ C 180 of 22.6.1996.