title: Case T-342/03: Action brought on 3 October 2003 by El Corte Inglés S.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM)

text:
13.12.2003            EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 304/31
Action brought on 15 September 2003 by ATOMIC                            Decision of the Board of       Dismissal of the applicant’s appeal
Austria GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in                     Appeal:
  the Internal Market (Trade marks and Designs) (OHIM)
                                                                         Pleas in law:                  —     the decision is incorrect
                                                                                because the Board of Appeal
                        (Case T-318/03)
                                                                                did not find against the
                                                                                Opposition Division for fail-
                                                                                ing to take account of all the
                        (2003/C 304/57)                                                                       evidence adduced;
                                                                                —     in the alternative, the
                  (Language of the case: German)                                                              decision is incorrect because
                                                                                the Board failed to find that
                                                                                the Opposition Division’s
                                                                                failure to draw the appli-
                                                                                cant’s attention to the miss-
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                                                ing documents contrary to
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before                                                    Rule 20(2) of Regulation
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                                                    (EC) No 2868/95 constituted
15 September 2003 by ATOMIC Austria GmbH, represented                                                         a procedural irregularity;
by G. Kucsko, lawyer. Fabricas Agrupadas de Muñecas de Onil
S.A., Alicante (Spain) was also a party to the proceedings                                              —     in the alternative, the
before the Board of Appeal.                                                                                decision      was     incorrect
                                                                                because the Board of Appeal
                                                                                failed to hold that the Oppo-
                                                                                sition Division’s failure to
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                                   point out the altered practice
                                                                                was an infringement of the
                                                                                principle of the protection of
—     annul the Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the                                                 legitimate expectations.
      Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 9 July
      2003 relating to opposition procedure No B 442 873;
—     order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Mark
      to reimburse the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Action brought on 3 October 2003 by El Corte Inglés S.A.
                                                                         against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Applicant for Com-            Fabricas Agrupadas de Muñecas
                                                                                Market (OHIM)
munity trade mark:            de Onil S.A.
Community trade mark          Word mark ‘ATOMIC BLITZ’ for
                                                                                (Case T-342/03)
sought:                       goods in Class 28 (including
                              games and playthings; gymnastic
                              and sporting articles not included
                              in other classes)                                                   (2003/C 304/58)
Proprietor of mark or         The applicant
sign cited in the oppo-                                                                     (Language of the case: Spanish)
sition proceedings:
Mark or sign cited in         Austrian word mark ‘ATOMIC’
opposition:                   for inter alia goods in Class 28
                              (including sporting and gymnastic          An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                              articles and games)                        Market (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance
                                                                         of the European Communities on 3 October 2003 by El Corte
Decision of the Oppo-         Rejection of the opposition                Inglés, with its registered office in Madrid, represented by Juan
sition Division:                                                         Luis Rivas Zurdo and Emilio López Leiva, lawyers.
 ---pagebreak--- C 304/32               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                      13.12.2003
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                Pleas in law and main arguments
—     set aside the decision of the First Board of Appeal of
      OHIM of 9 July 2003 in Case R 0576/2002-1;                           Applicant for Com-            Barilla Alimentare S.p.A.
                                                                           munity trade mark:
—     refuse to register as a Community mark No 488.940
      DAVID LLOYD in Class 25, and                                         Community trade mark          Figurative mark including the
                                                                           sought:                       words ‘SELEZIONE ORO’ and
                                                                                ‘BARILLA’ — Application No
—     order the other party or parties to pay the costs.                                                 289.405 for products in Class
                                                                                30 (pasta, flour and preparations
                                                                                made from cereals, bread, pastry
                                                                                and confectionery, yeast, baking-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                          powder, sauces).
                                                                           Proprietor of mark or         The applicant.
The pleas in law and main arguments are those already put                  sign cited in the oppo-
forward in Case T-341/03 El Corte Inglés v OHIM.                           sition proceedings:
                                                                           Mark or sign cited in         Word marks ‘ORO’ (Italian trade
The Community trade mark which is the subject of the dispute               opposition:                   mark No 307376 and inter-
is the mark ‘DAVID LLOYD’ (Application No 488.940, for                                                   national trade mark No 435773)
goods in Classes 3, 5, 25, 28, 36, 41 and 42). The applicant,                                            and ‘ORO SAIWA’ (Italian trade
the marks cited in the opposition proceedings, the proprietor                                            mark No 332.864) for products
and the decisions of the Opposition Division and the Board of                                            in Class 30.
Appeal are identical to those referred to in that case.
                                                                           Decision of the Oppo-         Opposition refused.
                                                                           sition Division:
                                                                           Decision of the Board of      Appeal dismissed.
                                                                           Appeal:
                                                                           Pleas in law:                 Incorrect application of Article
Action brought on 2 October 2003 by SAIWA S.p.A.                                                         8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                                                     94 (likelihood of confusion).
         Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
                         (Case T-344/03)
                         (2003/C 304/59)
                   (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                           Action brought on 30 October 2003 by Frischpack GmbH
                                                                           & Co KG against the Office for Harmonisation in the
                                                                                Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before                                         (Case T-360/03)
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
2 October 2003 by SAIWA S.p.A., represented by Giuseppe
Sena, Paola Tarchini, Jean-Pierre Karsenty and Martine Karsen-                                     (2003/C 304/60)
ty-Ricard, lawyers. Barilla Alimentare S.p.A. was also a party
to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of                  An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
      OHIM of 18 July 2003 in Case R 480/2002-4; order that                Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
      registration be refused in respect of Barilla’s Community            Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
      trade mark application No 289405; order the defendant                30 October 2003 by Frischpack GmbH & Co KG, Mailling
      to pay all the costs.                                                (Germany), represented by P. Bornemann, lawyer.


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 21 January 2004 in Case T-217/03 R Fédération nationale de la coopération bétail et viande (FNCBV) v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/42

      ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 21 January 2004
   in Case T-217/03 R Fédération nationale de la coopération bétail et viande (FNCBV) v Commission of the European Communities
   (Interim proceedings - Competition - Payment of a fine - Bank guarantee - Prima facie case - Urgency - Balance of interests - Partial and conditional suspension)
   (2004/C 94/120)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-217/03 R: Fédération nationale de la coopération bétail et viande (FNCBV), established in Paris (France), represented by R. Collin and M. Ponsard, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, supported by the French Republic (agents: G. de Bergues and F. Million), against Commission of the European Communities (agents: P. Oliver and O. Beynet) — application for dispensation from the obligation to provide a bank guarantee in order to avoid enforcement of the fine of EUR 480 000 imposed by Commission Decision 2003/600/EC of 2 April 2003 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/C.38.279/F3 — French beef) (OJ 2003 L 209, p. 12) — the President of the Court of First Instance, made an order on 21 January 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1)

               For a period of two months from the date of notification of this order, the obligation on the applicant to provide a bank guarantee for the Commission in order to avoid immediate recovery of the fine imposed on it by Article 3 of Commission Decision 2003/600/EC of 2 April 2003 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/C.38.279/F3 — French beef) is suspended, provided that, within a period of four weeks from the same date, the applicant pays to the Commission the sum of EUR 140 000 and provides a bank guarantee of EUR 60 000 or, alternatively, provides a bank guarantee of EUR 200 000;

               2)

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case C-165/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht Stuttgart by order of that Court of 7 April 2003 in the case concerning notarial costs with the following participants: (1) Notar Mathias Längst, (2) SABU Schuh & Marketing GmbH, (3) President of the Landgericht Stuttgart and (4) District Auditor of the Landgericht Stuttgart

text:
6.9.2003                 EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                                 C 213/5
2.    The Territorio Histórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de                A tax such as the tax on companies’ net assets does not constitute a
      Álava, the Territorio Histórico de Bizkaia — Diputación Foral          tax having an economic effect equivalent to capital duty and,
      de Bizkaia, the Territorio Histórico de Gipuzkoa — Diputación          accordingly, is not incompatible with Council Directive 69/335/EEC
      Foral de Gipuzkoa y Juntas Generales de Gipuzkoa and the               concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ, English Special
      Comunidad autónoma del País Vasco — Gobierno Vasco are                 Edition 1969, as amended by Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June
      ordered to pay the costs.                                              1985.
( 1) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.                                                   (1 ) OJ 2002 C 261.
                     ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht
                                                                             Stuttgart by order of that Court of 7 April 2003 in
                           (First Chamber)                                   the case concerning notarial costs with the following
                                                                             participants: (1) Notar Mathias Längst, (2) SABU Schuh
                                                                             & Marketing GmbH, (3) President of the Landgericht
                          of 27 March 2003                                   Stuttgart and (4) District Auditor of the Landgericht
                                                                                Stuttgart
in Case C-306/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Commissione Tributaria di Primo Grado di Trento,                                                   (Case C-165/03)
Sezione No 6): Petrolvilla & Bortolotti Spa and Others v
     Agenzia delle Entrate per la Provincia di Trento (1)
                                                                                (2003/C 213/09)
(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Directive 69/
      335/EEC — Indirect taxes on the raising of capital)
                           (2003/C 213/08)                                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                             European Communities by order of the Landgericht Stuttgart
                                                                             (Regional Court, Stuttgart) of 7 April 2003, received at the
                     (Language of the case: Italian)                         Court Registry on 10 April 2003, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                             in the case concerning notarial costs with the following
                                                                             participants: (1) Notar Mathias Längst, (2) SABU Schuh &
                                                                             Marketing GmbH, (3) President of the Landgericht Stuttgart
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                             and (4) District Auditor of the Landgericht Stuttgart on the
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             following questions:
                                                                             1)    In a legal system such as that of the Württemberg region
                                                                                of Baden-Württemberg, where there are both notaries
In Case C-306/02: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC                      who are self-employed and notaries who are employed as
from the Commissione Tributaria di Primo Grado di Trento                           civil servants and the notary himself is always the person
(Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending                        to whom the fees are due, but where, if the services
before that court between Petrolvilla & Bortolotti Spa and                         concerned are carried out by a notary employed as a civil
Others and Agenzia delle Entrate per la Provincia di Trento                        servant, he must remit a — fixed — portion of the fees
— on the interpretation of Council Directive 69/335/EEC                            to the State, which is his employer and which uses those
concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ, English                   proceeds to fund its activities, are the fees of the notary
Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 25), as amended by Directive 85/                     employed as a civil servant for the notarisation of a legal
303/EEC of 10 June 1985 (OJ 1985 L 156, p. 23) — the Court                         transaction covered by Directive 69/335, as amended, to
(First Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the                        be regarded as tax for the purposes of that directive, in
Chamber, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and A. Rosas, Judges; P. Léger,                      contrast to the situation that gave rise to the order in
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on                        Case C-264/00 Gründerzentrum-Betriebs-GmbH (not yet
27 March 2003, in which it has ruled:                                              published in the European Court reports)?
 ---pagebreak--- C 213/6                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         6.9.2003
2)     If so: if the State waives its claim to the portion of the          Appeal brought on 6 May 2003 by Strabag Benelux NV
       fees due to it in respect of that legal transaction, thereby        against the judgment delivered on 25 February 2003 by
       ceasing to enforce the legal provision requiring a portion          the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) in Case T-183/
       of the fees to be remitted to the State, do the fees cease to        00 Strabag Benelux NV v Council of the European Union
       constitute a tax for the purposes of Directive 69/335?
                                                                                (Case C-186/03 P)
                                                                                (2003/C 213/11)
                                                                           An appeal has been brought before the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities on 6 May 2003 by Strabag Benelux
                                                                           NV, represented by A. Delvaux and V. Bertrand, with an
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale                        address for service in Luxembourg, against the judgment
Amministrativo per la Sardegna by order of that Court of                   delivered on 25 February 2003 by the Court of First Instance
15 January 2003 and 12 February 2003 in the case of                        (Fifth Chamber) in Case T-183/00 Strabag Benelux NV v
Impresa Portuale di Cagliari s.r.l. against Tirrenia di                    Council of the European Union.
Navigazione SpA and C.T.O. Combined Terminals Oper-
                              ators s.r.l.                                 The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           —     set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance
                          (Case C-174/03)                                        inasmuch as it dismissed the applications for annulment
                                                                                and compensation on the ground that they were
                                                                                unfounded;
                          (2003/C 213/10)
                                                                           —     uphold the forms of order sought by STRABAG in respect
                                                                                of those applications and accordingly:
                                                                                —     annul the decision of 12 April 2000 by which the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                 Council awarded to the DE WAELE company the
European Communities by order of the Tribunale Amministra-                             refitting and general maintenance work contract
tivo per la Sardegna (The Administrative Court for Sardinia) of                        which was the subject of invitation to tender
15 January 2003 and 12 February 2003, received at the Court                            No 107865 published in the Official Journal of the
Registry on 14 April 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the                             European Communities S 146 of 30 July 1999, and
case of Impresa Portuale di Cagliari s.r.l. against Tirrenia di                        by which the Council implicitly rejected the tender
Navigazione SpA and C.T.O. Combined Terminals Operators                                submitted by STRABAG;
s.r.l. on the following questions:
                                                                                —     order the Council of the European Union to pay to
                                                                                STRABAG, subject to any increase, the sum of
(a)    whether, in accordance with the recitals in the preamble                        BEF 153 421 286 or EUR 3 803 214 together with
       to Directive 93/38 (1), a company in the maritime trans-                        interest thereon at the rate of 6 % as from 12 April
       port sector, which in some cases operates under a de                            2000;
       facto monopoly and in others in circumstances of free
       competition and which benefits from State aid is to be              —     order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.
       regarded as always subject to the Directive 93/98,
       and, in the event that such a company is subject to the
       rules on public notice,                                             Pleas in law and main arguments
(b)    whether the ‘technical specifications’ mentioned in                 In support of its application for annulment, the appellant puts
       Article 18 of Directive 93/38 (transposed by Article 19             forward four pleas in law.
       of Legislative Decree No 158/95) must be established
       prior to the procedure for selecting a contractor and               The first plea is divided into two limbs. The appellant first
       whether they are subject to any publicity requirements.             criticises the Court of First Instance for failing properly to
                                                                           construe the concepts of ‘contract’ and ‘decision’ in so far as it
                                                                           took the view that the contract which the Council concluded
( 1) Council Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating the          with the successful tenderer constituted the decision to award
     procurement procedures of entities operating in the water,            the contract. Second, the appellant claims that the Court of
     energy, transport and telecommunications sectors (OJ L 199 of         First Instance breached Article 8(3) of Directive 93/37/EEC
     09.08.1993, p. 84).                                                   concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of
                                                                           public works contracts in so far as the Court took the view
                                                                           that the written report required under that provision could
                                                                           consist of three documents, that is to say, the report to the


title: Case T-264/02: Action brought on 2 September 2002 by Erste Bank der österreichischen Sparkassen AG against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
9.11.2002              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 274/31
Action brought on 30 August 2002 by Österreichische                        European Communities on 2 September 2002 by Erste Bank
Postsparkasse Aktiengesellschaft against the Commission                    der österreichischen Sparkassen AG, established in Vienna,
                of the European Communities                                represented by W. Kirchhoff, F. Montag and G. Bauer, Lawyers.
                         (Case T-263/02)
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                         (2002/C 274/54)
                  (Language of the Case: German)                           —     annul Commission Decision C(2002)2091 final of
                                                                                11 June 2002 in Case COMP/36.571/D-1 — Austrian
                                                                                Banks, in so far as it relates to the applicant;
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 —     in the alternative, set aside the fine imposed on the
European Communities on 30 August 2002 by Österreichische                        applicant;
Postsparkasse Aktiengesellschaft, established in Vienna, rep-
resented by H.-J. Niemeyer and M. von Hinden, Lawyers, with
                                                                           —     in the alternative, reduce the amount of the fine imposed
an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                                on the applicant in the contested decision to an appropri-
                                                                                ate sum;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul Articles 1 and 2 of the defendant’s decision of                —     in any event order the defendant to pay the costs.
      11 June 2002 in Case COMP/36.571/D-1 — Austrian
      banks, in so far as it is found therein that the applicant has
      infringed Article 81 EC and must cease that infringement;
—     annul Article 3 of the decision in so far as it imposes a            Pleas in law and main arguments
      fine of EUR 7 590 000 upon the applicant;
—     in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the
      applicant in Article 3 of the decision to an appropriate             The proceeding conducted by the defendant was directed
      amount;                                                              against regular meetings of banks in Austria (‘Bankenrunden’).
                                                                           By the contested decision the Commission found that the
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                                applicant — together with seven other Austrian banking
                                                                           institutions — had infringed Article 81 EC by participating in
                                                                           agreements and concerted practices concerning prices, charges
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            and advertising measures, designed to restrict competition on
                                                                           the Austrian banking market from 1 January 1995 until
                                                                           24 June 1998. The Commission imposed fines on the banks
The pleas in law and arguments correspond to those put                     concerned.
forward in Case T-261/02 Bank für Arbeit und Wirtschaft AG
v Commission.
                                                                           The applicant submits that the decision has numerous defects.
                                                                           First, it infringes in many respects the right to a fair hearing.
                                                                           The applicant was not given the opportunity before the
                                                                           decision was adopted to state its views on the allegation that
                                                                           all independent savings banks were to be attributed to it as the
Action brought on 2 September 2002 by Erste Bank der                       leading institution. Nor is the statement of reasons for the
österreichischen Sparkassen AG against the Commission                      decision adequate. In particular, the reasons for attributing the
                of the European Communities                                savings banks to the applicant, and those for the calculation of
                                                                           the applicant’s market share, on the basis of which the amount
                                                                           of the fine was determined, do not satisfy the requirements of
                         (Case T-264/02)                                   the case-law on the duty to state reasons.
                         (2002/C 274/55)
                  (Language of the Case: German)                           The applicant further submits that the decision infringes the
                                                                           principle of good administration. The unlawful attribution of
                                                                           the conduct of all independent savings banks to the applicant/
                                                                           GiroCredit as the leading institution in the savings bank sector
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  is a particularly serious breach. The legal preconditions for
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 such attribution are manifestly not present.
 ---pagebreak--- C 274/32               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    9.11.2002
The applicant contends in addition that the infringement in              Action brought on 4 September 2002 by Deutsche Post
the present case did not appreciably affect trade between                AG against the Commission of the European Communi-
Member States. Many of the Bankenrunden had no international                                            ties
connection. Others could at any rate have no appreciable effect
on trade between States. Even if the infringement were to have
affected trade between States appreciably, there is in any                                        (Case T-266/02)
event no fault on the applicant’s part. In accordance with
Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17/62 it was therefore not
possible to fine the applicant.
                                                                                (2002/C 274/57)
Furthermore, in determining the applicant’s fine the defendant
made two errors of calculation with serious consequences.
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
Also, the seriousness of the infringement and the existence of
mitigating grounds are misappraised in the decision and no
regard was had to the applicant’s extensive cooperation.
Finally, the decision violates the prohibition on retroactivity in
Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights,
because the fine was determined on the basis of a framework              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
for fines which, as a result of two amendments to the                    ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
defendant’s decision-making practice, was not introduced until           European Communities on 4 September 2002 by Deutsche
the infringement had come to an end.                                     Post AG, Bonn (Germany), represented by J. Sedemund and
                                                                         T. Lübbig, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
Action brought on 3 September 2002 by Mr Jan Pflugradt
              against the European Central Bank                          —     declare the Commission Decision of 19 June 2002 on
                                                                               State aid No 61/99 (ex No 153/96) void;
                         (Case T-265/02)
                                                                         —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                        (2002/C 274/56)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
An action against the European Central Bank was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
on 3 September 2002 by Mr Jan Pflugradt, Frankfurt am Main
(Germany), represented by N. Pflüger, lawyer.                            The subject of the contested decision is the below-cost selling
                                                                         of parcel services for business clients, compensating for which
                                                                         gives rise to cross-subsidisation which is contrary to the law
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              on aid. In its decision the Commission found that the State aid
                                                                         of EUR 572 million, which Germany granted to the applicant,
—     annul the formal warning given by the letter of 28 Febru-          was incompatible with the common market. It found that
      ary 2002;                                                          State compensation for the net additional costs of a rebate
                                                                         policy which reduces the costs normally incurred in providing
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                              door to door parcel services which are open to competition
                                                                         favoured the undertaking within the meaning of Article 87(1)
                                                                         EC.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The case has the same basis as Case T-83/02 (Pflugradt v                 The applicant contests that decision and points out that the
ECB) ( 1), and the pleas in law and arguments correspond to              same below-cost selling was the subject of the Commission
those which were put forward in that case.                               Decision of 20 March 2000 ( 1) adopted on the basis of
                                                                         Article 82 EC and that the two decisions came to very different
                                                                         conclusions regarding the duration, the amount and the source
( 1) OJ C 118, 18.5.2002, p. 30.                                         of financing of the alleged below-cost selling. The applicant
                                                                         submits that the below-cost selling alleged in the Decision is
                                                                         based on a miscalculation.


title: Case T-205/14: Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2015 — Schroeder v Council and Commission (Non-contractual liability — Dumping — Imports of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits originating in China — Regulation (EC) No 1355/2008 declared by the Court of Justice to be invalid — Loss allegedly suffered by the applicant following the adoption of the regulation — Action for compensation — Exhaustion of domestic remedies — Admissibility — Sufficiently serious infringement of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals — Article 2(7)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (now Article 2(7)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009) — Duty of care — Causal link)

text:
               23.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 389/46

         Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2015 — Schroeder v Council and Commission
   (Case T-205/14) (1)

   ((Non-contractual liability - Dumping - Imports of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits originating in China - Regulation (EC) No 1355/2008 declared by the Court of Justice to be invalid - Loss allegedly suffered by the applicant following the adoption of the regulation - Action for compensation - Exhaustion of domestic remedies - Admissibility - Sufficiently serious infringement of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals - Article 2(7)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (now Article 2(7)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009) - Duty of care - Causal link))
   (2015/C 389/49)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: I. Schroeder KG (GmbH & Co.) (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: K. Landry, lawyer)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, acting as Agent, and initially D. Geradin and N. Tuominen, and subsequently N. Tuominen, lawyers) and European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for compensation for the harm which the applicant claims to have suffered following the adoption of Council Regulation (EC) No 1355/2008 of 18 December 2008 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits (namely mandarins, etc.) originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2008 L 350, p. 35), declared invalid by the judgment of 22 March 2012 in GLS (C-338/10, ECR, EU:C:2012:158)..

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders I. Schroeder KG (GmbH & Co.) to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 212, 7.7.2014.


title: Case T-147/03: Action brought on 30 April 2003 by Devinlec Developpement Innovation Leclerc against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
19.7.2003              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 171/35
The applicants assert, in particular, that there is no special tax         Pleas in law and main arguments
system applying specifically to agricultural cooperatives and
giving rise to certain tax obligations which the contested
measures are specifically intended to offset. However, the fact
that the measures do not consist in the grant ex novo of a tax             Applicant for Com-             T.I.M.E.ART      ULUSLARARASI
advantage but entail an exemption from obligations with                    munity trade mark:             SAAT TICARETI VE DI– TICAR-
which cooperatives have hitherto had to comply when selling                                               ET A.–.
fuel to third parties or members, an exemption which allows
them not to lose their pre-existing preferential tax treatment,
does not negate the existence of a new advantage within the
                                                                           Community trade mark           figurative mark QUANTUM —
meaning of Article 87(1) EC.
                                                                           sought:                        Application No 625 913 for
                                                                                goods in Class 14 (watches and
                                                                                jewellery)
( 1) OJ C 112, 10.5.2003, p. 43.
                                                                           Proprietor of mark or          the applicant
                                                                           sign cited in the oppo-
                                                                           sition proceedings:
                                                                           Mark or sign cited in          French figurative mark QUANTI-
                                                                           opposition:                    EME, No 1555274, registered for
Action brought on 30 April 2003 by Devinlec Developpe-                                                    goods in Classes 14 and 18
ment Innovation Leclerc against the Office for Harmonis-                                                  (including watches, clocks and
ation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)                                                    watchstraps)
                              (OHIM)
                                                                           Decision of the Oppo-          Registration refused
                         (Case T-147/03)                                   sition Division:
                         (2003/C 171/59)                                   Decision of the Board of       annulment of the decision of the
                                                                           Appeal:                        Opposition Division and dis-
                                                                                missal of the opposition
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           Pleas in law:                  Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b)
                                                                                of Regulation (EC) No 40/
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                                            94 (1) (likelihood of confusion)
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before                                                and disregard for Rule 50 of the
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                                                Regulation (EC) No 2868/
30 April 2003 by Devinlec Developpement Innovation Leclerc,                                               95 (2) implementing the Com-
established in Toulouse (France), represented by Jean-Pierre                                              munity trade mark
Simon, lawyer.
T.I.M.E.ART ULUSLARARASI SAAT TICARETI VE DI– TICAR-
ET A.–. was also a party to the proceedings before the Board
of Appeal.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           (1 ) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
—     annul the contested decision, delivered by the Third                      Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1)
                                                                           (2 ) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December
      Board of the defendant on 30 January 2003 in Case R
                                                                                1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the
      109/2002-3, and the refusal to register the Community                     Community trade mark (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1).
      figurative trade mark ‘QUANTUM’;
—     order the defendant to pay the costs and the applicant for
      the Community trade mark to pay the costs incurred in
      proceedings before the OHIM.


title: Appeal brought on 20 November 1995 by TWD Textilwerke Deggendorf GmbH against the judgment delivered on 13 September 1995 by the Third Chamber, extended composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-244/93 and T-486/93 between TWD Textilwerke Deggendorf GmbH and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-355/95 P)

text:
3 . 2 . 96              EN I                Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 31 /9
3 . order the Commission to pay the costs of Tierce                    Member State must, whether by primary legislation or
       Ladbroke both in the proceedings before the Court of            otherwise, not grant advantageous treatment to particular
       First Instance and before this Court .                          forms of economic activity subject to that Member State 's
                                                                       jurisdiction . Thus, the fact that Article 15 ( III ) constitutes
                                                                       primary legislation and provides that the statutory and fiscal
                                                                       retentions on bets placed in France on Belgian races are to be
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                       the same as if those bets were taken in Belgium — but
                                                                       different from when bets are taken on French races — does
                                                                       not mean that the difference in treatment falls outside the
The Court of First Instance 's finding that the opening of the
French market to the Belgian PMU is not in itselfcontrary to           scope of Article 92 . National law must conform to
Article 92 ( I ) of the Treaty solely because it has the effect of     Community law .
increasing the revenue of the Belgian PMU
                                                                       The Court of First Instance 's finding that the treatment of
                                                                       French bets on Belgian races pursuant to Article 75 (III) is
Where a Member State opens up its market to a foreign                  not a State aid because it does not involve a derogation from
undertaking it is necessary to examine whether the revenue             the general system
received by that foreign undertaking comes either directly
from the Member State or as a result of a State-directed
                                                                       Prior to the commencement of the Two PMUs Agreement
transfer of funds . If that is the case there is State aid unless it
                                                                       and Decret No 91-118 the only bets permitted in France
can be shown that the revenue received is a normal payment             were those placed on French races . That was 'the general
for services rendered by that foreign undertaking to either            system '. Article 15 ( III ) was not applied . The introduction,
the State or the transferor of the funds .
                                                                       in 1991 , of a new and different regime does not mean that
                                                                       the different regime becomes the 'general system',
                                                                       particularly when only one undertaking, namely the Belgian
The error of the Court of First Instance was to fail to
                                                                       PMU, can take advantage of the new regime . Article 92 does
analyse :                                                              not permit a Member State to treat foreign trade subject to
                                                                       its jurisdiction in a different way from domestic trade .
                                                                       Equally, measures which are only of benefit to one
  ( i ) whether the revenue obtained by the Belgian PMU
                                                                       particular undertaking cannot be considered to be part of a
        arose as a result of a compulsory levy and transfer
                                                                       general system.
        payment system; and
( ii ) if so, what amount, if any, of that revenue, could be said      ( 1 ) OJ No C 286 , 28 . 10 . 1995 , p . 12 .
        to be for payment for services rendered by the Belgian
        PMU to the PMU .
The Court of First Instance 's finding that the Commission
committed no manifest error in its findings of fact or in its
assessment of the evidence that the Belgian PMU drew no                Appeal brought on 20 November 1995 by TWD
real advantage from the application of the two PMUs                    Textilwerke Deggendorf GmbH against the judgment
Agreement                                                               delivered on 13 September 1995 by the Third Chamber,
                                                                        extended composition, of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities in Joined Cases T-244/93 and
 It is common ground that the Belgian PMU receives between
                                                                        T-486/93 between TWD Textilwerke Deggendorf GmbH
 25 and 28 % of the bets placed in Belgium on Belgian races
                                                                             and the Commission of the European Communities
 and 23,1 % of bets placed in France on Belgian races . The
 issue is whether on those agreed facts there is a State aid .                                  ( Case C-355/95 P)
 There is either an aid pursuant to Article 92 ( 1 ) of the Treaty                                  ( 96/C 31 / 18 )
 or there is not . There is no margin of appreciation on this
 issue . Accordingly the Court of First Instance fell into error
 in considering that the Commission had a margin of                     An appeal against the judgment delivered on 13 September
 appreciation in assessing whether the admitted facts                   1995 by the Third Chamber, extended composition, of the
 disclosed a State aid .                                                Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
                                                                        Joined Cases T-244/93 and T-486/93 between TWD
                                                                        Textilwerke Deggendorf GmbH and the Commission of the
 The Court of First Instance 's finding that, in considering            European Communities was brought before the Court of
 whether there was any real advantage to the Belgian PMU                Justice of the European Communities on 20 November
 the Commission was entitled to have regard to                           1995 by TWD Textilwerke Deggendorf GmbH,
 Article 15 (III) of the Law of 23 December 1964                        Deggendorf ( Federal Republic of Germany ), represented by
                                                                        Walter Forstner, Lutz Radtke and Karl-Heinz Schupp,
                                                                        Rechtsanwalte , assisted by Professor Michael Schweitzer,
 The question of whether a measure adopted in favour of a               Passau, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
  particular undertaking is a State aid is to be decided by              office of Mr Stein, Bayerische Landesbank International SA,
  Community law not national law. The basic role is that a               7-9, Boulevard Royal .
 ---pagebreak--- No C 31 / 10            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    3 . 2 . 96
The appellant claims that the Court should:                              1995 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                         represented by Francisco Enrique Gonzalez-Diaz and
1 . set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of             Richard Lyal, members of the Legal Service, acting as agents,
      13 September 1995 in Joined Cases T-244/93 and                     with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
     T-486/93 TWD Textilwerke Deggendorf GmbH v.                         Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, Centre Wagner, Kirchberg.
     Commission ( ! );
                                                                         The appellant claims that the Court should :
2.   declare     void   Article    2  of   Commission       Decision
     91/391 /EEC of 26 March 1991 on aid granted by the                  — quash the judgment of the Court of First Instance ( First
     German Government to TWD Textilwerke Deggendorf                          Chamber, extended composition ) of 18 September 1995
     GmbH ( OJ 1991 No L 215 , p. 16 ) and Article 2 of                       in Case T-548/93 , Ladbroke Racing Limited v.
     Commission Decision 92/330/EEC of 18 December                            Commission of the European Communities in so far
      1991 on aid by Germany to that undertaking ( OJ 1992                    as it annuls the Commission's decision contained in the
     No L 183 , p. 36 );                                                      letter dated 29 July 1993 rejecting the Ladbroke
                                                                              Racing Limited complaint of 24 November 1989
3 . order the Commission to pay the costs .                                   ( IV/33.374 ),
                                                                         — dismiss       the   application      under Article 173     as
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                           unfounded,
Infringement of Community law: the appellant repeats the                 — order the applicant to pay the costs in both levels of
pleas advanced by it in the proceedings at first instance (2 )                jurisdiction.
and further complains that the Court of First Instance
reinterpreted the contested decisions in an inadmissible
manner as meaning that the Commission had declared the                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
new aid incompatible with the common market until such
time as the old aid was repaid . The Court of First Instance             The Commission submits that the judgment of the Court of
                                                                         First Instance is vitiated by errors of law and should be set
should in that regard have disregarded the wording and
scheme of the Commission decisions, and was entitled to                  aside . First, the judgment erred in law in formulating a
rely only on the considerations set out in the Commission's              general principle according to which the Commission must
statement of reasons; however, such considerations are                   examine the compatibility with the Treaty of legislation
                                                                         imposing obligations previously included in private
subordinate to the operative part of a decision . Moreover,
the reinterpretation applied to Article 1 of the decisions is in
                                                                         agreements before examining the applicability of Articles 85
                                                                         and 86 to these agreements . Second, the judgment ignores
any event inadmissible since it is only Article 2 thereof which
is being contested.                                                      the fact that, irrespective of the compatibility of French
                                                                         legislation with the Treaty, the Commission found that
                                                                         there were no infringements of Articles 85 and 86 of the
(') OJ No C 286 , 28 . 10 . 1995 , p . 8 .                               Treaty. That is to say, the Commission had sufficient
(2 ) As to those advanced in Case T-244/93 ( previously Case             grounds to reject the Applicant's complaint relating to the
     C-161 /91 ), see OJ No C 212 , 14 . 8 . 1991 , p. 10; as to those   alleged infringement of Articles 85 and 86 by the
     advanced in Case T-486/93 ( previously Case C-220/92 ), see
     OJ No C 167, 4 . 7 . 1992 , p. 8 .
                                                                         undertakings without having to determine whether or not
                                                                         the French legislation was incompatible with the Treaty.
                                                                         Third, the judgment is not adequately reasoned .
                                                                         (') OJ No C 286 , 28 . 10 . 1995 , p . 12 .
Appeal brought on 22 November 1995 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the judgment
delivered on 18 September 1995 by the First Chamber
( extended composition ) of the Court of First Instance of the           Reference for a preliminary ruling by order of the Tribunale
European Communities in Case T-548/93 ( J ) between                      di Salerno of 12 October 1995 in the proceedings brought
Ladbroke Racing Ltd and the Commission of the European                   before that court by Somalfruit SpA and Camar SpA against
       Communities, supported by the French Republic                     the Ministero delle Finanze and Ministero del Commercio
                         ( Case C-359/95 P)                                                         con l'Estero
                             ( 96/C 31/19 )                                                      ( Case C-369/95 )
                                                                                96/C 31 /20 )
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 18 September
 1995 by the First Chamber ( extended composition ) of the                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
 Court of First Instance of the European Communities in                   European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Salerno
 Case T-548/93 between Ladbroke Racing Ltd and the                        ( Regional Court, Salerno ) of 12 October 1995 , which was
 Commission of the European Communities, supported by                     received at the Court Registry on 28 November 1995 , for a
the French Republic, was brought before the Court of                      preliminary ruling in the proceedings brought before that
Justice of the European Communities on 22 November                        court by Somalfruit SpA and Camar SpA against the


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 October 2000 in Case C-380/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division (Divisional Court)): The Queen v H.M. Treasury (Public contracts — Procedure for the award of public contracts for services, supplies and works — Contracting authority — Body governed by public law)

text:
25.11.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 335/17
de Justicia de la Comunidad Valenciana (High Court of                       6.    In the absence of national provisions transposing Article 16(2)
Justice of the Valencia Autonomous Community), Spain for a                        of Directive 93/104 or, as the case may be, expressly adopting
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                         one of the derogations provided for in Article 17(2), (3) and
court between Sindicato de Médicos de Asistencia Pública                         (4) thereof, those provisions may be interpreted as having direct
(Simap) and Conselleria de Sanidad y Consumo de la Generali-                      effect, and therefore they confer on individuals a right whereby
dad Valenciana — on the interpretation of Council Directive                       the reference period for the implementation of the maximum
89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures                        duration of their weekly working time must not exceed 12
to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers                     months.
at work (OJ 1989 L 183, p. 1) and Council Directive 93/104/EC
of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the
organisation of working time (OJ 1993 L 307, p. 18) —                       7.    The consent given by trade-union representatives in the context
the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President,                      of a collective or other agreement is not equivalent to that given
J.C. Moitinho de Almeida (Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward,                             by the worker himself, as provided for in the first indent of
L. Sevón and R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers), P.J.G. Kap-                  Article 18(1)(b)(i) of Directive 93/104.
teyn, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and
M. Wathelet, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate General; D. Louter-
man-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has                 (1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.
given a judgment on 3 October 2000, in which it has ruled:
1.    An activity such as that of doctors in primary health care teams
      falls within the scope of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of
      12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage
      improvements in the safety and health of workers at work
      and Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993
      concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
2.    The national court may, in the absence of express measures                                       (Fifth Chamber)
      transposing Directive 93/104, apply its domestic law to the
      extent to which, having regard to the characteristics of the
                                                                                of 3 October 2000
      activity of doctors in primary health care teams, that law meets
      the conditions laid down in Article 17 of that directive.
                                                                            in Case C-380/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                            the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s
                                                                            Bench Division (Divisional Court)): The Queen v H.M.
3.    Time spent on call by doctors in primary health care teams                                          Treasury (1)
      must be regarded in its entirety as working time, and where
      appropriate as overtime, within the meaning of Directive
      93/104 if they are required to be at the health centre. If they       (Public contracts — Procedure for the award of public
      must merely be contactable at all times when on call, only time       contracts for services, supplies and works — Contracting
      linked to the actual provision of primary health care services                   authority — Body governed by public law)
      must be regarded as working time.
                                                                                (2000/C 335/32)
4.    Doctors in primary health care teams who are regularly on call
      at night may not be regarded as night workers by virtue of                                 (Language of the case: English)
      Article 2 (4) (b) of Directive 93/104 alone. Whether national
      legislation on night work by workers whose employment is
      governed by private law may be applied to doctors in primary          In Case C-380/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
      health care teams, whose employment is governed by public             the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the High Court of
      law, is a question to be resolved by the national court in            Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Div-
      accordance with its domestic law.                                     isional Court), United Kingdom, for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                            proceedings pending before that court between The Queen
                                                                            and H.M. Treasury, ex parte: University of Cambridge — on
                                                                            the interpretation of Article 1 of Council Directive 92/50/EEC
5.    Work performed by doctors in primary health care teams whilst         of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for
      on call constitutes shift work and such doctors are shift workers     the award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1),
      within the meaning of Article 2(5) and (6) of Directive               Article 1 of Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993
      93/104.                                                               coordinating procedures for the award of public supply
 ---pagebreak--- C 335/18                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        25.11.2000
contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 1) and Article 1 of Council                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordi-
nation of procedures for the award of public works contracts
(OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54) — the Court (Fifth Chamber),
composed of: D.A.O. Edward, President of the Chamber,                                               of 3 October 2000
P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), A. La Pergola, P. Jann and
H. Ragnemalm, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
on 3 October 2000, in which it has ruled:                                   in Case C-411/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                            the Tribunal d’Arrondissement, Luxembourg): Angelo
                                                                                Ferlini v Centre Hospitalier de Luxembourg (1)
1.    The expression ‘financed… by [one or more contracting
      authorities]’ in Article 1(b), second subparagraph, third indent,
      of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to            (Workers — Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 — Equal treat-
      the coordination of procedures for the award of public service        ment — Persons not affiliated to the national social security
      contracts, Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993                scheme — Officials of the European Communities —
      coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts      Application of scales of fees for medical and hospital
      and Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning                           expenses connected with childbirth)
      the coordination of procedures for the award of public works
      contracts, properly construed, includes awards or grants paid by
      one or more contracting authorities for the support of research
      work and student grants paid by local education authorities to                                  (2000/C 335/33)
      universities in respect of tuition for named students. Payments
      made by one or more contracting authorities either in the
      context of a contract for services comprising research work or as
      consideration for other services such as consultancy or the
      organisation of conferences do not, by contrast, constitute public                        (Language of the case: French)
      financing within the meaning of those directives.
2.    On a proper construction, the term ‘for the most part’ in Article
      1(b), second subparagraph, third indent, of Directives 92/50,         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
      93/36 and 93/37 means ‘more than half’.                                                  in the European Court Reports)
3.    In order to determine correctly the percentage of public financing
      of a particular body account must be taken of all of its income,      In Case C-411/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
      including that which results from a commercial activity.              the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunal
                                                                            d’Arrondissement (District Court), Luxembourg, for a prelimi-
                                                                            nary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
                                                                            between Angelo Ferlini and Centre Hospitalier de Luxembourg
4.    The decision as to whether a body such as the University of
                                                                            — on the interpretation, first, of the first paragraph of Article
      Cambridge is a ‘contracting authority’ must be made annually
                                                                            6 and Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, the
      and the budgetary year in which the procurement procedure
                                                                            first paragraph of Article 12 EC and Article 39 EC), of
      commences must be regarded as the most appropriate period for
                                                                            Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October
      calculating the way in which that body is financed, so that the
                                                                            1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the
      calculation must be made on the basis of the figures available
                                                                            Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475), as
      at the beginning of the budgetary year, even if they are
                                                                            amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 312/76 of 9 Februa-
      provisional. A body which constitutes a ‘contracting authority’
                                                                            ry 1976 amending the provisions relating to the trade union
      for the purposes of Directives 92/50, 93/36 and 93/37 when
                                                                            rights of workers contained in Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68
      a procurement procedure commences remains, as far as that
                                                                            (OJ 1976 L 39, p. 2), and of Council Regulation (EEC) No
      procurement is concerned, subject to the requirements of those
                                                                            1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security
      directives until such time as the relevant procedure has been
                                                                            schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and
      completed.
                                                                            to members of their families moving within the Community,
                                                                            as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No
                                                                            2001/83 of 2 June 1983 (OJ 1983 L 230, p. 6), and, second,
                                                                            of Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) —
(1) OJ C 397 of 19.12.1998.                                                 the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President,
                                                                            J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, D.A.O. Edward, L. Sevón and
                                                                            R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers), P.J.G. Kapteyn, C. Gul-
                                                                            mann, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur), M. Wathelet and
                                                                            V. Skouris, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General; R. Grass,
                                                                            Registrar, has given a judgment on 3 October 2000, in which
                                                                            it has ruled:


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 25 November 1998 in Case T-222/97: Alfons Steffens v. Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Action for damages - Non-contractual liability - Milk - Additional levy - Reference quantity - Producers having entered into non-marketing or conversion undertakings - Compensation - Regulation (EEC) No 2187/93 - Limitation period) (1999/C 1/24)

text:
C 1/12               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 4.1.1999
                                                   COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                    of 19 November 1998                                                 of 25 November 1998
in Case T-147/97 Champion Stationery Mfg Co. Ltd and                in Case T-222/97: Alfons Steffens v. Council of the
        Others v. Council of the European Union (1)                 European Union and Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities (1)
(Anti-dumping duties Ð Administrative procedure Ð
Final disclosure Ð Modification of anti-dumping duties Ð            (Action for damages Ð Non-contractual liability Ð Milk
                      Rights of defence)                            Ð Additional levy Ð Reference quantity Ð Producers
                                                                    having entered into non-marketing or conversion
                        (1999/C 1/23)                               undertakings Ð Compensation Ð Regulation (EEC)
                                                                                No 2187/93 Ð Limitation period)
                                                                                (1999/C 1/24)
               (Language of the case: English)
In Case T-147/97: Champion Stationery Mfg Co. Ltd, a                              (Language of the case: German)
company established in Hong Kong, People's Republic of
China, Sun Kwong Metal Manufacturer Co. Ltd, a
company established in Hong Kong, People's Republic of
China, and US Ring Binder Corporation, a company                    In Case T-222/97: Alfons Steffens, residing af Aschendorf
established in New Bedford, Massachussetts, United States           (Germany), represented by Walter Remmers, Willy Meyer
of America, represented by Richard Luff, of the Brussels            and Angelika Kleymann, Rechtsanwälte, Papenburg, with
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the               an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Chambers of Loesch and Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe, against               Turk and Prum, 13a Avenue Guillaume, against Council
Council of the European Union (Agents: Antonio Tanca                of the European Union (Agent: Jan-Peter Hix, assisted by
and Eva Karlsson, assisted by Hans-Jürgen Rabe and                  Hans-Jürgen      Rabe     and   Marco     NuÂnÄez   Müller,
Georg M. Berrisch, Rechtsanwälte, Hamburg and                       Rechtsanwälte, Hamburg and Brussels) and Commission
Brussels), supported by Commission of the European                  of the European Communities (Agent: Dierk Booû,
Communities (Agents: Viktor Kreuschitz and Nicholas                 assisted by Hans-Jürgen Rabe and Marco NuÂnÄez Müller,
Khan), Koloman Handler GesmbH, established in Vienna                Rechtsanwälte, Hamburg and Brussels) Ð application for
(Austria), and Robert Krause GmbH & Co. KG,                         compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the
established in Espelkamp, Germany, represented by Rainer            applicant as a result of his having been prevented from
M. Bierwagen, Rechtsanwalt, Berlin and Brussels,                    marketing milk pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC)
interveners Ð application for annulment of Council                  No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for
Regulation (EC) No 119/97 of 20 January 1997 imposing               the application of the levy referred to in Article 5(c) of
definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain ring           Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk
binder mechanisms originating in Malaysia and the                   products sector (OJ L 90, 1.4.1984, p. 13), as
People's Republic of China and collecting definitively the          supplemented      by Commission        Regulation (EEC)
provisional duties imposed (OJ L 22, 24.1.1997, p. 1) in            No 1371/84 (OJ L 132, 18.5.1984, p. 11) Ð the Court of
so far as it concerns the applicants Ð the Court of First           First Instance (First Chamber), composed of: B.
Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition),                    Vesterdorf, President, R. M. Moura Ramos and P.
composed of: P. Lindh, President, R. García-Valdecasas, K.          Mengozzi, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the
Lenaerts, J. D. Cooke, and M. Jaeger, Judges; J. Palacio            Registrar, has given a judgment on 25 November 1998, in
GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a            which it:
judgment on 19 November 1998, in which it:
                                                                    1. Dismisses the application;
1. Dismisses the application;
                                                                    2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
2. Orders each of the parties to bear their own costs.
(1) OJ C 199, 28.6.1997.                                            (1) OJ C 318, 18.10.1997.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 October 2003 in Case C-423/02: Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Environment — Landfill of waste — Directive 1999/31/EC)

text:
29.11.2003              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                                  C 289/9
1.    Declares that by transposing only part of Article 1 of Directive      1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
      98/81/EC of 26 October 1998 amending Directive 90/219/                      administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive
      EEC on the contained use of genetically modified micro-                     1999/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
      organisms and Annexes IV and V to Council Directive 90/                     of 7 June 1999 establishing a mechanism for the recognition
      219/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the contained use of genetically                of qualifications in respect of the professional activities covered
      modified micro-organisms in the version in Directive 98/81,                 by the Directives on liberalisation and transitional measures
      the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its                      and supplementing the general systems for the recognition of
      obligations under Article 2 of Directive 98/81;                             qualifications, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                                that directive;
2.    Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
                                                                            2.    Orders Ireland to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 261 of 26.10.2002.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 7 of 11.1.2003.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        (Second Chamber)
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
                       of 16 October 2003
                                                                                of 16 October 2003
in Case C-388/02: Commission of the European Communi-
                          ties v Ireland (1)                                in Case C-423/02: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                            ties v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
                                                                                Ireland (1)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure
               to transpose Directive 1999/42/EC)
                                                                            (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                            Environment — Landfill of waste — Directive 1999/31/EC)
                         (2003/C 289/16)
                                                                                (2003/C 289/17)
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
In Case C-388/02, Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: M. Patakia and K. Banks) v Ireland (Agent: D. O’Hagan,
assisted by A. Colins): Application for a declaration that, by              In Case C-423/02, Commission of the European Communities
failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative                   (Agents: X. Lewis and M. Konstantinidis) v United Kingdom of
provisions necessary to comply with Directive 1999/42/EC of                 Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: P. Ormond):
the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 June 1999                   Application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt all the
establishing a mechanism for the recognition of qualifications              laws, regulations or administrative provisions necessary to
in respect of the professional activities covered by the Direc-             comply with Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999
tives on liberalisation and transitional measures and sup-                  on the landfill of waste (OJ 1999 L 182, p. 1) or, in any event,
plementing the general systems for the recognition of qualifi-              by failing to notify such provisions to the Commission, the
cations (OJ 1999 L 201, p. 77), or in any event by failing to               United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has
notify those provisions to the Commission, Ireland has failed               failed to fulfil fully its obligations under Article 18 of
to fulfil its obligations under that directive, the Court (Second           that directive, the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: J.-
Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen, President of the                       P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, F. Macken (Rapporte-
Chamber, V. Skouris and N. Colneric (Rapporteur), Judges;                   ur) and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate
A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a              General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 Octo-
judgment on 16 October 2003, in which it:                                   ber 2003, in which it:
 ---pagebreak--- C 289/10                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                            29.11.2003
1.   Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and        2.   Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
     administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council
     Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of
     waste, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern                 (1) OJ C 19 of 25.1.2003.
     Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 18 of
     the Directive;
2.   Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
     Ireland to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 19 of 25.1.2003.                                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
                                                                                of 16 October 2003
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       in Case C-29/03: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                             ties v Instituto Tecnológico para a Europa Comunitária
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                                                   (ITEC) (1)
                       of 16 October 2003                                    (Arbitration clause — Non-performance of contract —
                                                                                Recovery of moneys advanced — Procedure in default)
in Case C-433/02: Commission of the European Communi-
                 ties v Kingdom of Belgium (1)                                                          (2003/C 289/19)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                                         (Language of the case: Portuguese)
Directive 92/100/EEC — Copyright — Remuneration of
authors in the event of public lending of their literary or
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                           artistic works)
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                         (2003/C 289/18)
                    (Language of the case: French)                           In Case C-29/03, Commission of the European Communities
                                                                             (Agents: G. Braga da Cruz and C. Giolito) v Instituto Tecnoló-
                                                                             gico para a Europa Comunitária (ITEC), a private establishment
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       established in Lisbon (Portugal): Application by the Com-
                   in the European Court Reports)                            mission under Article 238 EC to recover EUR 62 236,65
                                                                             advanced by it to the defendant in relation to performance of
                                                                             Contract No IN10278I 20364/0, together with default interest,
In Case C-433/02, Commission of the European Communities                     the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet,
(Agent: K. Banks) v Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: A. Snoecx):                   President of the Chamber, F. Macken and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues
Application for a declaration that, by failing to apply the                  (Rapporteur), Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass,
provisions on the public lending right provided for in Council               Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 October 2003, in which
Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental right                     it:
and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in
the field of intellectual property (OJ 1992 L 346, p. 61), the               1.   Orders Instituto Tecnológico para a Europa Comunitária (ITEC)
Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under                     to repay to the Commission of the European Communities the
Articles 1 and 5 of that directive, the Court (Sixth Chamber),                    sum of EUR 62 236,65, together with default interest at the
composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,                          rate prescribed by Portuguese law, calculated in accordance with
R. Schintgen, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), V. Skouris and                             the provisions of Portaria No 263/99 of 12 April 1999 until
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General;                         30 April 2003 and Portaria No 291/2003 of 8 April 2003
R. Grass, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 October                   as from 1 May 2003, until the debt is paid in full;
2003, in which it:
                                                                             2.   Orders Instituto Tecnológico para a Europa Comunitária (ITEC)
1.   Declares that, by failing to apply the provisions on the public              to pay the costs.
     lending right provided for in Council Directive 92/100/EEC of
     19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on
     certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual        (1) OJ C 70 of 22.3.2003.
     property, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
     obligations under Articles 1 and 5 of that directive;


title: Action brought on 13 June 1996 by Automobiles Peugeot SA against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-90/96)

text:
No C 233/20           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      10 . 8 . 96
    — the contested Decision purports to regularize ex post           various letters dated 3 and 22 April 1996 the defendant
        facto aid which was granted without prior                      institution informed the applicant that it was disposed to
        notification or authorization , thus enabling the             communicate to the complainants the whole of the replies
        recipient of the aid to benefit from early payment in         given by it, save for two exceptions . The present action has
        contravention of the case-law of the Court of                 been brought against the decisions contained in those
        Justice ,                                                     letters .
— the Commission infringed              essential  procurement
    requirements . In particular:
    — the contested Decision is inadequately reasoned ,
    — the Commission failed to initiate the contentious
        procedure as required by Decision 3855/91 /ECSC,              Action brought on 13 June 1996 by Nicole Hankart against
                                                                                the Council of the European Union
    — the Commission failed to consult the Consultative                                         ( Case T-91 /96 )
        Committee as required by Articles 19 and 95 of the                                        ( 96/C 233 /35 )
        ECSC Treaty .
                                                                                (Language of tbe case: French)
                                                                      An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                      brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                      Communities on 13 June 1996 by Nicole Hankart, residing
                                                                      at Rhode-Saint-Genèse ( Belgium ), represented by Jean-Noël
Action brought on 13 June 1996 by Automobiles Peugeot
                                                                      Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel , of the
SA against the Commission of the European
                           Communities
                                                                      Brussels Bar , with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                      the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sàrl , 1 Rue Glesener .
                        ( Case T-90/96 )
                          ( 96/C 233 /34 )
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should :
                (Language of tbe case: French)                        — annul the decision of the selection board in competition
                                                                           Conseil/C/360 of 3 October 1995 refusing to admit her
                                                                           to the second part of the written tests in the
An action against the Commission of the European                          competition ,
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 13 June 1996 by
Automobiles Peugeot SA, established in Paris ( France ),              — order the defendant to pay the costs .
represented by Xavier De Roux , of the Paris Bar , with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Jacques Loesch , 1 1 Rue Goethe .
                                                                      The applicant states that she was admitted to the written
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          tests in open competition Conseil/C/360 for the constitution
                                                                      of a reserve for future recruitment of French-language
                                                                      secretaries , and that she did in fact take part in the
— annul the four decisions of the Commission of the
                                                                      compulsory written tests held on 17 November 1995 . On
    European Communities of 3 and 22 April 1996 ,                      12 January 1996 she was informed of the decision of the
                                                                      selection board not to admit her to the second part of the
— order the Commission to pay all the costs .                         written tests , on the ground that she had not participated in
                                                                      all the compulsory written tests . In consequence of the
                                                                      complaint lodged by the applicant, the selection board
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   replied that it appeared , following a detailed investigation,
                                                                      that one of the written tests had not been handed in to the
The applicant, a company marketing Peugeot vehicles in                organizers of the competition who were present and that she
Europe , is the object of four complaints by various                  could not therefore be admitted to the practical tests on a
distributors calling in question the compliance with                  PC . It is the latter decision which is contested in the present
                                                                      case .
Community law of the exclusive and selective standard form
contract for the distribution of Peugeot motor vehicles . In
consequence of those complaints , it provided all the                 The applicant observes that it is for the administration to lay
information requested by the Commission , pointing out                down and implement the detailed practical arrangements
that the information in question was covered in its entirety          for the organization of recruitment competitions . Those
by the obligation of professional secrecy . However, in               arrangements must be laid down in compliance with the