title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (First Chamber) of 6 April 1995 in Case T-152/89: ILRO SpA v. Commission of the European Communities (Competition - Infringement of Article 85 of the Treaty)

text:
No C 137/20              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     3 . 6 . 95
1 . annuls Article 1 of Commission Decision 89/515/EEC                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
       of 2 August 1989 relating to a proceeding under                                          (First Chamber)
       Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (IV/3 1 . 553 — Welded steel
       mesh) as regards the findings therein that the applicant                                 of 6 April 1995
       participated in an agreement defining price and quotas           in Case T-151 /89 : Société des Treillis et Panneaux Soudés
       on the French market in the period 1981 /82, that it                 SA v. Commission of the European Communities ( l )
       participated after June 1 984 in an agreement having the         (Competition — Infringement of Article 85 of the
       same object on the French market in the period 1 983/84,                                         Treaty)
       and that it participated in an agreement with                                              ( 95/C 137/49 )
       Baustahlgewebe GmbH having as its object the
       application of quotas to its exports to the German
       market;                                                                        (Language of the Case: French)
2 . reduces the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant
       by Article 3 of that Decision to ECU 57 000;                     In Case T-151 / 89 : Societe des Treillis et Panneaux Soudes
                                                                        SA, established in Puteaux ( France ), represented by Robert
3 . dismisses the application as regards the remaining                  Collin and Richard Milchior, of the Paris Bar, with an
       claims;                                                          address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                        Ernest Arendt, 8—10 Rue Mathias Hardt, v. Commission of
4 . orders the Commission to bear its costs and to pay                  the European Communities ( Agents N. Koch, E. Traversa , J.
       one-half of the applicant's costs;                               Currall, A. Coutrelis and N. Coutrelis ) — application for
                                                                        the annulment of Commission Decision 89/515/EEC of
5 . orders the applicant to bear one-half of its costs.
                                                                        2 August 1989 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of
                                                                        the EEC Treaty ( IV/3 1.553 — Welded steel mesh, OJ 1989 L
f 1 ) OJ No C 306 , 5 . 12 . 1989 .
                                                                        260 , p. 1 ) — the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber ),
                                                                        composed of H. Kirschner, President, C. W. Bellamy, B.
                                                                        Vesterdorf, R. Garcfa-Valdecasas and K. Lenaerts, Judges,
                                                                        H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on 6 April 1995 , in
                                                                        which the Court:
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                           ( First Chamber )                            I . dismisses the application;
                           of 6 April 1995
in Case T-l 50/89 : G. B. Martinelli v. Commission of the
                                                                        2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                    European Communities ( 1 )
 (Competition — Infringement of Article 85 of the EEC                   («) OJ No C 306 , 5 . 12 . 1989 .
                                 Treaty)
                             ( 95/C 137/48 )
                  (Language of the Case: Italian)
In Case T-150/89 : G. B. Martinelli, formerly G. B.
Metallurgica SpA, established in Milan ( Italy), represented             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
by Carmelo Maccarone, of the Bergamo Bar, with an                                               (First Chamber)
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                                of 6 April 1995
Franco Colussi, 36 Rue de Wiltz, v. Commission of the
European Communities ( Agents : E. Traversa , J. Currall and            in Case T-152/89: ILRO SpA v. Commission of the
A. Dal Ferro ) — application for the annulment of                                        European Communities ( J )
Commission Decision 89/515/EEC of 2 August 1989                          (Competition — Infringement of Article 85 of the
relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty                                             Treaty)
( IV/3 1.553 — Welded steel mesh, OJ 1989 L 260, p. 1 .) —                                         ( 95 /C 137/50
the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber ), composed of H.
Kirschner, President of the Chamber, C. W. Bellamy, B.
Vesterdorf, R. Garcfa-Valdecasas and K. Lenaerts , Judges,                             (Language of the Case: French)
H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 April 1995 , in
which it:
                                                                        In Case T-152/89 : ILRO SpA, established in
 I. dismisses the application;                                          Lecco-Pescarenico ( Italy), represented by Maurice Laredo,
                                                                        of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs.                              at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8—10 Rue Mathias
                                                                        Hardt, v. Commission of the European Communities
 ( i ) OJ No C 306 , 6 . 12 . 1989 .                                     ( Agents E. Traversa, A. Dal Ferro ) — application for the
                                                                        annulment     of  Commission          Decision 89/515/EEC      of
                                                                        2 August 1989 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of
 ---pagebreak--- 3 . 6 . 95            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 137/21
the EEC Treaty ( IV/3 1.553 — Welded steel mesh, OJ 1989 L                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
260, p. 1 ) — the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber ),                                 of 8 March 1995
composed of H. Kirschner, President, C. W. Bellamy, B.
Vesterdorf, R. Garcfa-Valdecasas and K. Lenaerts, Judges,            in Case T-2/93 DEP: Société Anonyme à Participation
H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on 6 April 19 95 , in            Ouvrière Compagnie Nationale Air France v. Commission
which the Court :                                                                  of the European Communities (*)
                                                                                (Competition — Taxation of costs)
I. dismisses the application;                                                                   ( 95/C 137/52 )
2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs.                                          (Language of the Case: French)
(') OJ No C 306 , 5 . 12 . 1989 .                                    In Case T-2/93 : Societe Anonyme a Participation Ouvriere
                                                                     Compagnie Nationale Air France , established in Paris,
                                                                     represented by Eduard Marissens, of the Brussels Bar, with
                                                                     an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                     Lucy Dupong, 14a Rue des Bains, v. Commission of the
                                                                     European Communities ( Agents : F. E. Gonzalez Diaz and G.
                                                                     de Bergues ), supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             and Northern Ireland ( Agents : J. D. Colahan and C. Vajda ),
                       of 27 April 1995                              with an address for service in Luxemburg at the British
                                                                     Embassy, 14 Boulevard Roosevelt, TAT SA, established at
in Case T-443/93 : Casillo Grani snc v. Commission of the
                                                                     Tours ( France ), represented by Antoine Winckler, of the
                  European Communities ( l )                         Paris Bar, and Romano Subiotto, Solicitor, with an address
 (State aids — Applicant declared bankrupt — Interest in             for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger and
  bringing the proceedings — No need to give a decision)             Hoss, 15 Cote d'Eich, and Britisch Airways pic, established
                          (9 SIC 137/51 )                            at Hounslow (United Kingdom ), represented by William
                                                                     Allan and James E. Flynn, Solicitor, with an address for
                                                                     service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch and
                (Language of the case: Italian)                      Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe — application for taxation of the
                                                                     costs payable by the applicant to the intervener TAT SA
In Case T-443/93 : Casillo Grani snc , established in San            pursuant to the judgment of the Court of 19 May 1994 in
Giuseppe Vesuviano, Italy, represented by Mario Siragusa,            Case T-2/93 Air France v. Commission [ 1994] ECR 11-323
Maurizio D'Albora and Giuseppe Scassellati-Sforzolini,               — the Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber, extended
respectively of the Bars of Rome , Naples and Bologna, with          composition ), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, and
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of              D. P. M. Barrington, A. Saggio, H. Kirschner and A.
Ernest Arendt, 8— 10 Rue Mathias Hardt v. Commission of              Kalogeropoulos , Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order
the European Communities ( Agents : M. Nolin, D. Calleja y           on 6 March 1995 , the operative part of which is as
                                                                     follows :
Crespo and R. Lyal ), supported by Italgrani SpA,
established in Naples, Italy, represented by Aurelio
Pappalardo , of the Trapani Bar, Luigi Sico and Felice                The total costs payable by the applicant to the intervener
Casucci , of the Naples Bar, Massimo Annesi and Massimo               TAT SA are fixed in the sum of FF 220 000.
Merola, of the Rome Bar with an address for service in
                                                                      (') OJ No C 45 , 17 . 2 . 1993 .
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alain Lorang, 51 Rue
Albert l er — application for the annulment of Commission
Decision No 91/474/EEC of 16 August 1991 concerning
aids granted by the Italian Government to Italgrani SpA for
the setting up of an agri-foodstuffs complex in the
Mezzogiorno ( OJ 1991 L 254, p. 14 ) — the Court of First                           ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
Instance ( Second Chamber, extended composition ),                             OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, D. P. M. Barrington,                                 of 24 February 1995
A. Saggio, H. Kirschner and A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges, J.
Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has              in Case T-2/95 R: Industrie des Poudres Sphériques v.
given a judgment on 27 April 1995 , in which it:                                    Council of the European Union
                                                                                ( 95/C 137/53 )
 1 . ordered Case T-443/93 to be removed from the
      Register;                                                                      (Language of the case: French)
 2 . ordered the applicant to bear the costs including those         In Case T-2/95 R: Industrie des Poudres Spheriques,
      incurred by the intervener.                                    Annemasse ( France ), represented by Chantal Momege, of
                                                                     the Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
 (M OJ No C 47, 21 . 2 . 1992 .
                                                                     the Chambers of Alex Schmitt, 62 Avenue Guillaume, v.
                                                                      Council of the European Union (Agents : R. Torrent, J.
                                                                     Monteiro and P. Bentley) — application for suspension of
                                                                     the operation, in so far as concerns the applicant, of Council


title: Appeal brought on 11 December 1998 by Eugénio Branco, Lda against the judgment delivered on 15 September 1998 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-142/97 between Eugénio Branco, Lda and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-453/98 P)

text:
13.3.1999             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 71/3
The Court manifestly lacks jurisdiction to reply to the              Appeal brought on 11 December 1998 by EugeÂnio
reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Oberlan-              Branco, Lda against the judgment delivered on
desgericht Köln by order of 8 May 1998.                              15 September 1998 by the Third Chamber of the Court
                                                                     of First Instance of the European Communities in Case
                                                                     T-142/97 between EugeÂnio Branco, Lda and the
(1) OJ C 234, 25.7.1998.
                                                                              Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case C-453/98 P)
                                                                                (1999/C 71/05)
                  ORDER OF THE COURT                                 An appeal against the judgment delivered on 15 September
                                                                     1998 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance
                        (First Chamber)
                                                                     of the European Communities in Case T-142/97 between
                     of 19 November 1998                             EugeÂnio Branco Lda and the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
in Case C-149/98 P: Anne-Marie Toller v Commission of                the European Communities on 11 December 1998 by
                 the European Communities (1)                        EugeÂnio Branco Lda, represented by Bolota Belchior, of
    (Appeal clearly inadmissible and clearly unfounded)              the Vila Nova de Gaia Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                     Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jacques Schroeder, 6 Rue
                         (1999/C 71/04)                              Heine.
                (Language of the case: French)                       The appellant claims that the Court should:
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       Ð quash the judgment of the Court of First Instance
          published in the European Court Reports)                       under appeal;
In Case C-149/98 P: Anne-Marie Toller, a former official             Ð uphold all the claims made at first instance; and
of the Commission of the European Communities, residing
in Brussels, represented by Benoît Lombart and Eric
Boigelot, both of the Brussels Bar, with an address for              Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz,
2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim Ð appeal against the judgment
of the Court of First Instance of the European                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Communities (Fourth Chamber) of 19 February 1998 in
Case T-142/96 Toller v Commission [1998] ECR-SC
II-179, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other           Ð Failure to comply with and infringement of Article 5(4)
party to the proceedings being the Commission of the                     of Regulation (EEC) No 2950/83 (1): Paragraphs 47
European Communities, represented by Julian Currall,                     and 49 of the judgment under appeal constitute an
Legal Adviser, and Christine Berardis-Kayser, of its Legal               error of assessment by the lower court. It is not
Service, acting as Agents, assisted by Denis Waelbroeck Ð                factually correct to claim that the InspeccËaÄo Geral de
the Court (First Chamber), composed of D. A. O. Edward,                  FinancËas (General Tax Inspectorate) audited the
acting for the President of the First Chamber, L. Sevón                  appellant's file at the request of the DAFSE, that, at
(Rapporteur) and M. Wathelet, Judges; Advocate General:                  the material time, it was empowered to conduct
D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer; Registrar: R. Grass, made an                     investigations into ESF projects or that it found
order on 19 November 1998, the operative part of which                   irregularities' not previously detected by the DAFSE.
is as follows:
                                                                     Ð Breach of the principles of protection of legitimate
(1) The appeal is dismissed;                                             expectations and legal certainty: The appellant
                                                                         contests the judgment under appeal inasmuch as it
                                                                         regards the period of two years (between 12 January
(2) Mrs Anne-Marie Toller's application for legal aid is                 1995 and 16 December 1996) as a reasonable period
     dismissed;                                                          for adopting the contested decision. The fact that the
                                                                         Court of First Instance did not set out its views, in
                                                                         Case T-85/94 (2), on the legality of the reduction in the
(3) Mrs Anne-Marie Toller is ordered to pay the costs.                   assistance but ruled only that the decision at issue did
                                                                         not contain a statement of reasons is not such as to
(1) OJ C 184, 13.6.1998.                                                 prevent giving rise to and reinforcing legitimate
                                                                         expectations on the part of the appellant. Indeed, since
                                                                         the final payment claim was certified by the DAFSE
                                                                         and the Commission's decision against such
 ---pagebreak--- C 71/4                 EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  13.3.1999
     certification was annulled, this could only give rise to        on 15 December 1998 by the Commission of the
     the legitimate expectation on the part of the appellant         European Communities, represented by Dimitrios
     that the Commission would endorse the DAFSE's                   Goulousis, Legal Adviser, and Antonio Aresu, of its Legal
     certification                                                   Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                     office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,
                                                                     Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Ð Misappraisal of the facts
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2950/83 of 17 October 1983 on        The Commission claims that the Court should:
    the implementation of Decision 83/516/EEC on the tasks of
    the European Social Fund (OJ L 289, 20.10.1983, p. 1).
(2) Case T-85/94 Branco v Commission [1995] ECR II-45.
                                                                     Ð declare that, by failing to bring into force and to
                                                                         communicate to the Commission within the time-limit
                                                                         laid down the laws, regulations and administrative
                                                                         provisions necessary to comply fully with Council
                                                                         Directive 96/97/EC (1) of 20 December 1996 amending
                                                                         Directive 86/378/EEC on the implementation of the
                                                                         principle of equal treatment for men and women in
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tampereen
                                                                         occupational social security schemes, the Hellenic
Käräjäoikeus by judgment of that court of 31 March 1998
                                                                         Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
in the case of Finnish State/Tullihallitus v Kaupo Salumets
                                                                         EC Treaty;
                            and Others
                        (Case C-455/98)
                         (1999/C 71/06)                              Ð order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
European Communities by a judgment of the Tampereen
Käräjäoikeus (Tampere District Court) of 31 March 1998,
which was received at the Court Registry on 14 December
                                                                     The Member States are required by the binding character
1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Finnish                of the third paragraph of Article 189 and of Article 5 of
State/Tullihallitus v Kaupo Salumets and Others on the               the EC Treaty to adopt the measures needed to transpose
following question:
                                                                     directives into national law before the expiry of the period
                                                                     laid down for that purpose and to communicate those
                                                                     measures immediately to the Commission. That period
Are the European Community tax directives Council                    expired on 1 July 1997 without the Hellenic Republic
Directive 92/12/EEC (1), Council Directive 92/83/EEC (2)             having communicated to the Commission the provisions
and Council Directive 77/388/EEC (3) and the customs                 transposing the directive at issue into national law.
code Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (4) to be
interpreted as meaning that the provisions concerning tax
liability and customs debts apply to the smuggling of                (1) OJ L 46, 17.2.1997, p. 20.
liquor?
(1) OJ  L 76, 23.3.1992, p. 1.
(2) OJ  L 316, 31.10.1992, p. 21.
(3) OJ  L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.
(4) OJ  L 302, 19.10.1992, p. 1.
                                                                     Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungs-
                                                                     gerichtshof, Vienna, by order of that court of
                                                                     26 November 1998 in the case of Sutterlüty Gesellschaft
                                                                     mbH & Co against the Vorarlberg Landesregierung,
                                                                     with the following parties joined in the proceedings: the
                                                                     town of Dornbirn, the municipality of Bludesch, the
Action brought on 15 December 1998 by the Commission                  municipality of Rankweil and the municipality of Lochau
of the European Communities against the Hellenic
                             Republic                                                       (Case C-460/98)
                        (Case C-457/98)                                                      (1999/C 71/08)
                         (1999/C 71/07)
                                                                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought                  European Communities by order of the Verwaltungs-
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities              gerichtshof, Vienna (Higher Administrative Court, Vienna)


title: Action brought on 26 March 1997 by Monsanto Europe SA against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-71/97)

text:
No C 181 / 16        EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   14 . 6 . 97
Action brought on 26 March 1997 by Monsanto Europe                    The applicant claims the Commission decision should be
SA against the Commission of the European Communities                 annulled on the following grounds.
                        ( Case T-71 /97 )
                                                                      First, the Commission failed to comply with the proper
                          ( 97/C 181 /31 )                            Community procedure for setting MRLs when it rejected
                                                                      the applicant's case for inclusion of Sometribove in one of
               (Language of the case: English)                        the Annexes to Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2377/90 .
                                                                      Second, in making its decision the Commission in fact
An action against the Commission of the European                      acted in a manner inconsistent with the principles of the
Communities was brought before the Court of First                     moratorium . In particular, the decision prevents the
Instance of the European Communities on 26 March 1997                 applicant from conducting limited practical tests on the
by Monsanto Europe SA, represented by Clive Stanbrook                 effects of BST products .
QC and Robert MacLean, of Stanbrook and Hooper,
Brussels, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the            Third, in arriving at its decision the Commission acted in
offices of Arsene Kronshagen , 22, rue Marie-Adelaide .               breach of the principle of legal certainty, infringing the
                                                                      applicant's legitimate expectation that the conditions for
                                                                      the granting of an MRL would be based on a scientific
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          assessment of the product.
— annul the Commission decision of 14 January 1997                    Fourth, the Commission infringed the principle of
    concerning a definition of a position, in accordance              proportionality in adopting the present decision . The
    with Article 175 of the EC Treaty, on the referral of             interference in the applicant's commercial activities by the
     the applicant's application to the Committee for                 Commission 's decision is disproportionate to any benefit
     Adaptation to Technical Progress and on the inclusion            that might be achieved by refusing to approve the product
                                                                      under one of the Annexes mentioned above .
     of bovine somatotrophin in Annex II of Council
     Regulation ( EEC ) No 2377/90,
                                                                      Fifth, the Commission misused its powers by basing its
                                                                      decision on irrelevant considerations and motives of a
— order the Commission to pay damages, and                            political nature .
                                                                      Finally, the Commission 's decision infringes a number of
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                              agreements approved by the European Community under
                                                                      the Final Act of the Uruguay Round of multilateral
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   trade negotiations. The Commission's decision is itself
                                                                      incompatible with the terms of the GATT 1994 and
                                                                      the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and
The applicant, a Belgian company, has developed a                     Phytosanitary Measures .
veterinary medicinal product called Sometribove which is
classified as a recombinant bovine somatotrophin ( BST ).
Prior to marketing this product, the applicant was
required to obtain a marketing authorization from the EC
Committee for Veterinary Medicinal Products ( CVMP ).
Before such an authorization was obtained, Council                    Action brought on 2 April 1997 by the European Office
Regulation ( EEC ) No 2377/90 was adopted establishing a              of Consumer Unions ( BEUC ) against the Commission of
Community procedure for the setting of minimum residue                                   the European Communities
limits ( MRLs ) for veterinary medicinal products in                                           ( Case T-84/97 )
foodstuffs of animal origin .
                                                                                ( 97/C 181 /32 )
After the adoption of that Regulation, it became necessary                           (Language of the case: English)
for the applicant to obtain a listing of Sometribove under
one of the Annexes to Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2377/             An action against the Commission of the European
90 before a marketing authorization could be approved .               Communities was brought before the Court of Instance of
An application for an MRL was made by the applicant                   the European Communities on 2 April 1997 by the
through the procedure established under Council                       European Office of Consumer Unions ( BEUC ), represented
Regulation ( EEC ) No 2377/90 . By decision of 14 January             by Bernard O'Connor, member of the Law Society of
1997 the Commission rejected the applicant's request that             Ireland, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
its case should be referred to the Committee for the                  offices of Arsene Kronshagen, 22, Rue Marie Adelaide .
Adaptation to Technical Progress on the grounds that by
virtue of Council Decision 94/936/EC the marketing and                The applicant claims that the Court should :
administration of BST to dairy cows could not be
authorized and that, therefore, the applicant had no                  — declare void, pursuant to Articles 173 and 174 of the
interest in obtaining an MRL . The moratorium introduced                   EC Treaty, the decision of the Commission addressed
by Council Decision 94/936/EC was the principal ground                     to the applicant contained in a letter dated 3 February
for the Commission arriving at its decision .                              1997, refusing to consider the applicant as an


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 April 2003 in Case C-437/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht München): Giulia Pugliese v Finmeccanica SpA, Alenia Aerospazio Division (Brussels Convention — Article 5(1) — Court for the place of performance of the contractual obligation — Contract of employment — Place where the employee habitually carries out his work — First contract fixing the place of performance of the work in one Contracting State — Second contract concluded with reference to the first contract and under which the employee carries out his work in another Contracting State — First contract suspended during the performance of the second)

text:
7.6.2003                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                               C 135/3
(Rapporteur) and A. Rosas, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,                   the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the
Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the                Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters by
Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 April 2003, in which it                the Landesarbeitsgericht München (Germany) for a preliminary
has ruled:                                                                   ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
                                                                             Giulia Pugliese and Finmeccanica SpA, Alenia Aerospazio
                                                                             Division, on the interpretation of Article 5(1) of the abovemen-
The provisions of the sixth indent of Article 14(3) of Council               tioned Convention of 27 September 1968 (OJ 1978 L 304,
Regulation (EC) No 2100/94, of 27 July 1994, on Community
                                                                             p. 36), as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on
plant variety rights in conjunction with Article 8 of Commission             the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the
Regulation (EC) No 1768/95 of 24 July 1995 implementing rules
                                                                             United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (OJ
on the agricultural exemption provided for in Article 14(3) of
                                                                             1978 L 304, p. 1 and — amended version — p. 77), by the
Regulation No 2100/94 cannot be construed as meaning that the                Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the
holder of a Community plant variety right can require a farmer to
                                                                             Hellenic Republic (OJ 1982 L 388, p. 1) and by the Convention
provide the information specified in those provisions where there is no      of 26 May 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain
indication that the farmer has used or will use, for propagating             and the Portuguese Republic (OJ 1989 L 285, p. 1), the Court,
purposes in the field, on his own holding, the product of the harvest
                                                                             composed of: D.A.O. Edward acting as President of the Fifth
obtained by planting, on his own holding, propagating material of a          Chamber, A. La Pergola, P. Jann (Rapporteur), S. von Bahr and
variety other than a hybrid or synthetic variety which is covered by
                                                                             A. Rosas, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,
that right and belongs to one of the agricultural plant species listed       Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
in Article 14(2) of Regulation No 2100/94.                                   on 10 April 2003, in which it has ruled:
( 1) OJ C 302 of 21.10.2000.
                                                                             1.    Article 5(1) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on
                                                                                Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and
                                                                                Commercial Matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 Octo-
                                                                                ber 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark,
                                                                                Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                             Ireland, by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the
                                                                                Accession of the Hellenic Republic and by the Convention of
                                                                                26 May 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                          the Portuguese Republic, must be interpreted as meaning that,
                                                                                in a dispute between an employee and a first employer, the place
                         of 10 April 2003                                          where the employee performs his obligations to a second
                                                                                employer can be regarded as the place where he habitually
                                                                                carries out his work when the first employer, with respect to
in Case C-437/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                          whom the employee’s contractual obligations are suspended,
the Landesarbeitsgericht München): Giulia Pugliese v                               has, at the time of the conclusion of the second contract of
      Finmeccanica SpA, Alenia Aerospazio Division (1)                             employment, an interest in the performance of the service by the
                                                                                employee to the second employer in a place decided on by the
                                                                                latter. The existence of such an interest must be determined on
(Brussels Convention — Article 5(1) — Court for the place
                                                                                a comprehensive basis, taking into consideration all the
of performance of the contractual obligation — Contract of
                                                                                circumstances of the case.
employment — Place where the employee habitually carries
out his work — First contract fixing the place of performance
of the work in one Contracting State — Second contract
concluded with reference to the first contract and under
which the employee carries out his work in another Con-                      2.    Article 5(1) of the Brussels Convention must be interpreted as
tracting State — First contract suspended during the per-                          meaning that, in matters relating to contracts of employment,
                      formance of the second)                                      the place where the employee carries out his work is the only
                                                                                place of performance of an obligation which can be taken into
                                                                                consideration in order to determine which court has jurisdiction.
                          (2003/C 135/04)
                   (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       (1 ) OJ C 61 of 24.2.2001.
                   in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-437/00: Reference to the Court under the Protocol
of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 November 2003 in Case T-98/02, Maddalena Lebedef-Caponi v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Staff report — Performance of staff representative's and trade union activities — Action for annulment)

text:
C 21/32                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                            24.1.2004
on-Main (Germany), represented by T. Raab-Rhein, C. Roth                  Mollerussa (Spain): Action brought against the decision of the
and B. Karthaus, lawyers, with an address for service in                  Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in
Luxembourg, against European Central Bank (Agents: V. Sain-               the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of
tot, T. Gilliams and B. Wägenbaur), application for, first,               16 January 2002 (Case R 40/2000-3) concerning the oppo-
annulment of the pay slips sent on 13 July 2001 to the                    sition filed by the owner of the national trade mark EL
applicants, staff of the European Central Bank (ECB), for the             CASTILLO, the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),
month of July 2001, insofar as they are based on an increase              composed of: N. J. Forwood, President, J. Pirrung and
in basic pay of 2.2 % and, secondly, orders that the ECB send             A. W. H. Meij, Judges; B. Pastor, Deputy Registrar, has given a
the applicants pay slips for the month of July 2001 based on              judgment on 4 November 2003, in which it:
an increase in basic pay of at least 2.7 %, or, in the alternative,
on an increase corresponding to that upheld in the Court’s
                                                                          1.    Dismisses the application;
judgment in this case, and pay them the difference between
those amounts, the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber),
composed of J. Azizi, President, M. Jaeger and N. J. Forwood,             2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
given a judgment on 20 November 2003, the operative part
                                                                          (1) OJ C 144 of 15.6.2002.
of which is as follows:
1.    The pay slips sent on 13 July 2001 to the applicants, staff of
      the European Central Bank (ECB), for the month of July 2001
      are annulled in so far as the ECB failed to consult the staff
      committee in adopting the salaries adjustment for the year
      2001;
                                                                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
2.    The remainder of the action is dismissed;
                                                                                of 5 November 2003
3.    The European Central Bank shall pay the costs.
                                                                          in Case T-98/02, Maddalena Lebedef-Caponi v Com-
(1) OJ C 131 of 1.6.2002.                                                           mission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                          (Officials — Staff report — Performance of staff representa-
                                                                            tive’s and trade union activities — Action for annulment)
                                                                                (2004/C 21/68)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                      of 4 November 2003
in Case T-85/02: Pedro Díaz, SA v Office for Harmonis-
ation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)                    In Case T-98/02, Maddalena Lebedef-Caponi, an official of
                            (OHIM) (1)                                    the Commission of the European Communities, residing in
                                                                          Senningerberg (Luxembourg), represented by G. Bouneou and
(Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Appli-                     F. Frabetti, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
cation for Community word mark CASTILLO — Earlier                         against Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
national figurative mark EL CASTILLO — Likelihood of                      D. Martin and C. Berardis-Kayser), application for annulment
 confusion — Similar marks already on the relevant market)                of the decision to adopt the applicant’s final staff report for
                                                                          the period from 1 July 1995 to 30 June 1997, the Court of First
                                                                          Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of V. Tiili, President,
                          (2004/C 21/67)                                  P. Mengozzi and M. Vilaras, Judges; I. Natsinas, Administrator,
                                                                          for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 5 November 2003,
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)                         the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                          1.    The decision to adopt the applicant’s final staff report for the
In Case T-85/02, Pedro Díaz, SA, established in Cartagena                       period from 1 July 1995 to 30 June 1997 is annulled.
(Spain), represented initially by P. Koch Moreno and sub-
sequently by M. Aznar Alonso, lawyers, v Office for Harmonis-             2.    The Commission is ordered to pay the costs.
ation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
(Agents: O. Montalto and J. Crespo Carrillo), the other party to
the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office for              (1) OJ C 144 of 15.6.2002.
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Designs)(OHIM) being Granjas Castelló, SA, established in


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 26 February 2003 in Case T-59/01: Albert Nardone v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Former official - Request for invalidity pension)

text:
10.5.2003               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 112/29
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               unlawful suspension of the aid allocated to the joint enterprise
                                                                           fisheries project SM/ESP/18/93, the Court of First Instance
                       of 26 February 2003                                 (Third Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President, and
                                                                           J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; Registrar: J. Palacio González,
                                                                           Principal Administrator, gave the following judgment on
in Case T-59/01: Albert Nardone v Commission of the                        27 February 2003:
                   European Communities ( 1)
                                                                           1.     The application is dismissed;
(Action for annulment — Former official - Request for
                         invalidity pension)
                                                                           2.     The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.
                           (2003/C 112/54)
                                                                           (1 ) OJ C 150 of 19.5.01.
                    (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-59/01: Albert Nardone, a former official of the
Commission of the European Communities, residing in Piétrain
(Belgium), represented by J. R. Iturriagagoitia Bassas and                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
K. Delvolvé, lawyers, against the Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: J. Currall) — application, principally, for
the annulment of the Commission decision of 20 March 2000                                            of 6 March 2003
refusing to grant the applicant an invalidity pension, —
the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of:                  in Case T-128/01: DaimlerChrysler Corporation v Office
B. Vesterdorf, President, N.J. Forwood and H. Legal, Judges;               for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a                                    and Designs) (OHIM) (1)
judgment on 26 February 2003, in which it:
                                                                           (Community trade mark — Figurative mark — Represen-
1.     Dismisses the application;                                          tation of a vehicle grille — Absolute ground for refusal —
                                                                           Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Mark devoid
2.     Orders the parties to bear their own costs.                                             of any distinctive character)
( 1) OJ C 173 of 16.6.01.                                                                             (2003/C 112/56)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                           In Case T-128/01, DaimlerChrystler Corporation, established
     JUDGMENT BY THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               in Auburn Hills, Michigan (United States), represented by
                                                                           T. Cohen Jehoram, lawyer, with an address for service in
                       of 27 February 2003                                 Luxembourg, v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                           Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: A. von
                                                                           Mühlendahl and O. Waelbroeck): Action brought against the
in Case T-61/01 Vendedurías de Armadores Reunidos, SA                      decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for
       v Commission of the European Communities ( 1)                       Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                                                                           Designs) of 21 March 2001 (Case R 309/1999-2), the Court
(Fisheries — Community financial aid — Suspension of aid                   of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: M. Vilaras,
                      — Action for damages)                                President, V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; J. Palacio González,
                                                                           Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
                           (2003/C 112/55)                                 on 6 March 2003, in which it:
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                         1.     Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office
                                                                                for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                                                                                Designs) of 21 March 2001 (Case R 309/1999-2);
In Case T-61/01, Vendedurías de Armadores Reunidos, SA,                    2.     Orders the defendant to pay the costs.
established in Huelva (Spain), represented by represented by J.-
R. García-Gallardo Gil-Fournier and D. Domínguez Pérez,
lawyers, v the Commission of the European Communities                      (1 ) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.
(agents: S. Pardo Quintillán and J. Guerra Fernández), an
application for compensation for the damages caused by the


title: Case C-507/03: Action brought on 1 December 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland

text:
C 35/4                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          7.2.2004
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d’arbitrage                      (a)   in the relevant circumstances, was the Appellant a
by judgment of that Court of 29 October 2003 in the case                              ‘taxable person acting as such’ within Art.2(1) of the
       brought by H. Clerens against Walloon Region                                   Sixth Directive when, in the 26 transactions, it
                                                                                acquired the CPUs from the UK vendors and sold
                                                                                them to the non-UK purchasers?
                         (Case C-480/03)
                                                                                (b) in the relevant circumstances, was the Appellant
                          (2004/C 35/05)                                              carrying on an ‘economic activity’ within Art.4 of
                                                                                the Sixth Directive when, in the 26 transactions, it
                                                                                acquired the CPUs from the UK vendors and sold
                                                                                them to the non-UK purchasers?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Cour d’arbitrage
                                                                                (c)   in the relevant circumstances, was the acquisition by
of 29 October 2003, received at the Court Registry on
                                                                                the Appellant, in the 26 transactions, of the CPUs
18 November 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case
                                                                                from the UK vendors a ‘supply of goods’ to the
brought by H. Clerens against Walloon Region on the follow-
                                                                                Appellant within Art.5(1) of the Sixth Directive?
ing questions:
1.    Must Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April on the                       (d) in the relevant circumstances, was the sale by the
      conservation of wild birds (1) be interpreted as not                            Appellant, in the 26 transactions, of the CPUs to the
      authorising Member States to introduce rules which also                         non-UK purchasers a ‘supply of goods’ by the
      apply to birds mentioned in Annex I to the Directive that                       Appellant within Art.5(1) of the Sixth Directive?
      are born and reared in captivity?
                                                                          2.    Do the answers to Question l(a)-(d) above give rise to any
2.    Must that directive be interpreted as authorising Member                  breach of the general principles of Community law (in
      States to lay down rules to protect birds born and reared                 particular, the principles of proportionality and legal
      in captivity only to the extent that those rules apply solely             certainty)?
      to trade in those birds, or may those rules apply to all the
      operations which trade in birds may entail?
(1) OJ L 103 of 25.04.1979, p. 1.
                                                                          Action brought on 1 December 2003 by the Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities against Ireland
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
                                                                                (Case C-507/03)
Justice (England & Wales) Chancery Division by order of
that court dated 27 October 2003, in the case of Bond
House Systems Ltd against Commissioners of Customs                                                  (2004/C 35/07)
                            and Excise
                         (Case C-484/03)
                                                                          An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
                          (2004/C 35/06)                                  Justice of the European Communities on 1 December 2003 by
                                                                          the Commission of the European Communities, represented
                                                                          by K. Wiedner, acting as agent, assisted by J. E. Flynn QC,
                                                                          Barrister, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the High Court of
Justice (England & Wales) Chancery Division dated 27 October              The Applicant claims that the Court should:
2003, which was received at the Court Registry on 19 Novem-
ber 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Bond House
Systems Ltd and Commissioners of Customs and Excise on the                1.    declare that, in deciding to entrust the provision of
following questions:                                                            services to An Post without undertaking any prior
                                                                                advertising, Ireland has failed to comply with its obli-
1.    Having regard to the general principles of EC law (in                     gations under the Treaty; and
      particular, the principles of proportionality and legal
      certainty) and to Article 28 of the EC Treaty:                      2.    order Ireland to pay the Commission’s costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 7.2.2004                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                             C 35/5
Pleas in law and main arguments                                             Communities, represented by D. Martin, acting as Agent, with
                                                                            an address for service in Luxembourg.
The Commission considers that the fact that the contract at
issue in this case falls within the scope of Council Directive              The Commission of the European Communities claims that
92/50/EEC (1) as amended by European Parliament and Council                 the Court should:
Directive 97/52/EC (2) does not preclude the application of
the principle enunciated in Telaustria (3) deriving from the                1.    declare that, by adopting Article 7(2) and the fifth
fundamental freedoms laid down in the Treaty and the                              subparagraph of Article 19 of the Law of 12 February
application of general principles which are given specific                        1999 setting up parental leave and leave for family
expression in those fundamental freedoms. The obligation on                       reasons, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to
Member States to comply with general principles is confirmed,                     fulfil its obligations under Clause 2(1) of Part II of the
within the Directive itself by Article 3(2) (see above), a                        Annex to Council Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 on
general obligation on contracting authorities to avoid all                        the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by
discrimination between service providers. That obligation is                      UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC (1), as regards:
incumbent on the Irish authorities in respect of Annex 1B
services just as much as in respect of Annex 1A services.                         —     the substitution of maternity leave for parental leave,
                                                                                and
It is submitted that the Commission’s analysis is the only one
which can be regarded as consistent with the internal market                      —     the date from which individual rights to parental
logic of the Treaty. The Court’s case-law clearly holds that the                        leave are granted;
Treaty provisions on the freedoms of establishment and service              2.    order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
provision impose obligations on Member States in respect of
the award of public contracts outside the scope of the
directives. This applies to types of contracts (such as service
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
concessions) that are not specifically covered and also to
contracts of types which are covered but where the value falls
below the thresholds set in the various directives.                         1. Maternity leave has a completely different purpose from
                                                                            that of parental leave. Moreover, Clause 2(1) of the framework
That being so, the Commission submits that it would run                     agreement expressly provides that parental leave is an individ-
directly counter to the logic of the internal market if, whereas            ual right to leave of at least three months’ duration. The
Community law requires an appropriate level of advertising in               obligatory termination of parental leave when maternity leave
such situations even if the contract falls outside the scope of             begins is therefore not compatible with that provision of the
the directives because of its structure or value, it were                   Annex to Directive 96/34. The woman whose maternity leave
nevertheless open to Member States not to advertise in any                  begins during her parental leave must, in the light of the
way contracts (whose value is above the financial thresholds)               individual right to parental leave of at least three months
solely on the grounds that the services to which they relate fall           conferred on her by Clause 2(1) of the framework agreement,
within the scope of Annex 1B of the Directive.                              be able to defer the portion of her parental leave which she
                                                                            has not been able to take because of her maternity leave.
                                                                            2. By limiting its application to children born or adopted
(1) Directive of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of               after 31 December 1998, the Luxembourg authorities have
    procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ L 209,         added a condition which is not authorised by the Directive.
    24.07.1992, p. 1).
(2) Directive of 13 October 1997 amending Directives 92/50/
    EEC, 93/36/EEC and 93/37/EEC concerning the coordination of             (1) OJ L 145 of 19.06.1996, p. 4.
    procedures for the award of public service contracts, public supply
    contracts and public works contracts respectively (OJ L 328,
    28.11.1997, p. 1).
(3) Case C-324/98, Telaustria Verlags GmbH v Telekom Austria AG,
    ECR[2000], p.I-10745.
                                                                            Action brought on 28 January 2004 by the Commission
                                                                            of the European Communities against the Council of the
                                                                                European Union
Action brought on 12 December 2003 by the Commission                                                  (Case C-27/04)
of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy
                         of Luxembourg                                                                (2004/C 35/09)
                         (Case C-519/03)
                          (2004/C 35/08)                                    An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                            brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                            ties on 28 January 2004 by the Commission of the European
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was                         Communities, represented by M. Petite, A. van Solinge and
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-                P. Aalto, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
ties on 12 December 2003 by the Commission of the European                  Luxembourg.


title: Action brought on 30 July 1998 by André Hecq against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-119/98)

text:
10.10.98             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 312/17
Action brought on 30 July 1998 by AndreÂ Hecq against             Action brought on 31 July 1998 by Taurus Beteiligungs-
      the Commission of the European Communities                  GmbH against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
                      (Case T-119/98)
                                                                                (Case T-121/98)
                       (98/C 312/42)
                                                                                (98/C 312/43)
               (Language of the case: French)                                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                  An action against the Commission of the European
An action against the Commission of European
                                                                  Communities was brought before the Court of First
Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                  Instance of the European Communities on 31 July 1998
Instance of the European Communities on 30 July 1998
                                                                  by Taurus Beteiligungs-GmbH & Co. KG, whose
by AndreÂ Hecq, residing at Bonlez (Belgium), represented
                                                                  registered office is in Ismaning (Germany), represented by
by Lucas Vogel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
                                                                  Hermanns and Ritvay, Rechtsanwälte, Berlin, with an
service at the Chambers of Christian Kremer, 6 Rue
                                                                  address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Heinrich Heine.
                                                                  Loesch and Wolters, 11 Rue Goethe.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                  Ð annul Commission Decision C(1998) 1439 final of
Ð annul the implicit decision, deemed to have been made               27 May 1998, as amended by Commission Decision
    on 6 May 1998, rejecting the complaint submitted by               C(1998) 1518 final of 2 June 1998, concerning a
    the applicant on 5 January 1998 by which he                       procedure applying Council Regulation (EEC)
    contested the decision of 17 October 1997 calculating             No 4064/89 (the Merger Control Regulation') in Case
    the expenses granted to him in respect of the mission             IV/M.993 Bertelsmann/Kirch/Premiere,
    to Ispra undertaken by him between 16 September and
    20 September 1997,
                                                                  Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs, pursuant to               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, together with
    the expenses necessarily incurred for the purposes of         By the contested decision of 27 May 1998 (in the version
    the proceedings, including, in particular, the cost of        notified on 2 June 1998) the notified concentration
    having an address for service, travel and subsistence         through the acquisition by CLT-UFA SA and Taurus Betei-
    expenses and lawyers' fees, in accordance with                ligungs-GmbH & Co. KG of joint control over the
    Article 73(b) of those Rules.                                 undertakings of Premiere Medien GmbH & Co. KG, Beta-
                                                                  Digital Gesellschaft für digitale Fernsehdienste mbH and
                                                                  BetaResearch Gesellschaft für Entwicklung und Vermark-
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:               tung digitaler Infrastrukturen mbH was declared
                                                                  incompatible with the common market and the
                                                                  functioning of the EEA Agreement pursuant to Article 8(3)
The applicant, a grade B 1 official, is currently on              of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December
secondment in his capacity as the political secretary of a        1989 (as amended). In the Commission's view, that
trade-union/staff association. Upon the occasion of a             concentration would lead to the creation or strengthening
plenary meeting in Ispra of the Central Staff Committee,          of dominant market positions, whereby effective
he received a travel order covering a period of five days.        competition in a substantial part of the Community would
Having completed that mission, the applicant submitted a          be significantly impaired.
request for reimbursement of the mission expenses.
However, the department dealing with missions within
DG IX of the Commission drew up a calculation of                  In its action, the applicant first complains of the
mission expenses which granted the applicant a daily              infringement of essential procedural requirements. It
subsistence allowance in respect of only four and a half          maintains that the Commission infringed the principle of
days.                                                             objective investigation in that it had already determined
                                                                  upon a negative decision before the actual proceeding
                                                                  began, without obtaining adequate knowledge of the
The sole plea advanced in the present action alleges              subject matter. The applicant's right of access to the files
infringement of the provisions of Articles 12 and 13 of           was also infringed, as only partial access was granted and
Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, in that the                   the time allowed was too short. In many respects,
administration granted to the applicant, in respect of the        moreover, the subject matter was insufficiently explained.
mission undertaken by him, a daily subsistence allowance          With its demand for a particular technical solution in the
for only four and a half days instead of five days.               area of digital television, the Commission had exceeded its
                                                                  powers and attempted to impose changes in market
                                                                  structure that went far beyond the subject matter of the
                                                                  concentration proceeding.


title: Action brought on 23 July 1998 by Peter Clausen against the Council of the European Union (Case T-113/98)

text:
C 312/16              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  10.10.98
The applicant submits that, in accordance with the                       rights transferred to the Community pension scheme
judgment in Orkem (3), it is not obliged to answer                       which was not taken into consideration in the
questions which could lead to self-incrimination. It further             calculation of the pensionable service to be taken into
maintains that in accordance with Article 6(1) of the                    account pursuant to Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the
European Convention on Human Rights, the guarantees                      Staff Regulations,
contained in which are fundamental principles of
Community law and thus take precedence over the merely
legislative provisions of Regulation 17, it is legally entitled      Ð order the Council to pay the costs.
to refuse to take any action whereby it would be
compelled directly to incriminate itself in the investigation.
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Self-incrimination has, it adds, also been held to be an
infringement of the presumption of innocence under
Article 6(2) of the European Convention on Human                     The pleas in law and main arguments are those already
Rights and of the negative freedom of expression                     raised in Case T-103/98 Kristensen v. Council (1).
protected by Article 10 of the Convention. The applicant's
right not to be compelled to incriminate itself by its own
actions arises not merely from Community law, but also,              (1) OJ C 299, 26.9.1998, p. 36.
the applicant submits, arises at the same time and in
parallel from German domestic law in so far as it is not
superseded by Community law.
By directly fixing a coercive fine, the Commission
disregarded the two-stage procedure laid down for that               Action brought on 29 July 1998 by Ivar Langer Andersen
purpose, and failed in particular to communicate the                          against the Council of the European Union
points of complaint, as required before fixing the amount
of daily coercive penalties, to allow the applicant a proper                               (Case T-118/98)
hearing and to comply with the other procedural                                              (98/C 312/41)
requirements. Moreover, the Commission's fixing of the
daily penalty at the maximum amount of ECU 1 000 was
disproportionate and thus an abuse of its discretion. The                           (Language of the case: French)
applicant comprehensively answered seven of the eleven
questions put to it in the context of the Commission's
enquiry. It was not obliged to answer the four remaining             An action against the Council of the European Union was
questions, as in that respect it could rely on its right not         brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
to be compelled to incriminate itself.                               Communities on 29 July 1998 by Ivar Langer Andersen
                                                                     resident in Rungsted Kyst, Denmark, represented by Jean-
(1) Case T-30/91 Solvay v. Commission [1995] ECR II-1821.            NoeÈl Louis, VeÂronique Leclercq, Ariane Tornel and
(2) Case T-36/91 ICI v. Commission [1995] ECR II-1847.               FrancËoise Parmentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an address
(3) Case 374/87 Orkem v. Commission [1989] ECR 3282.                 for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire
                                                                     Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange.
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
Action brought on 23 July 1998 by Peter Clausen against              Ð annul the Council decision of 6 October 1997 refusing
             the Council of the European Union                           the request for refund of that part of the pension
                        (Case T-113/98)                                  rights transferred to the Community pension scheme
                                                                         which was not taken into consideration in the
                         (98/C 312/40)
                                                                         calculation of the pensionable service to be taken into
                                                                         account pursuant to Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the
               (Language of the case: French)                            Staff Regulations,
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European           Ð order the Council to pay the costs.
Communities on 23 July 1998 by Peter Clausen, resident
in La Hulpe, Belgium, represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis,
VeÂronique Leclercq, Ariane Tornel and FrancËoise                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Parmentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL,
                                                                     The pleas in law and main arguments are those already
30 Rue de Cessange.
                                                                     raised in Case T-103/98 Kristensen v. Council (1).
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                     (1) OJ C 299, 26.9.1998, p. 36.
Ð annul the Council decision of 6 October 1997 refusing
     the request for refund of that part of the pension


title: Case C-69/06: Action brought on  6 February 2006  by the Commission of the European Communities against the Slovak Republic

text:
               25.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 74/12

         Action brought on 6 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Slovak Republic
   (Case C-69/06)
   (2006/C 74/22)
   Language of the case: Slovak
   An action against the Slovak Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 6 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by N. Yerrell and Tomáš Kukal, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 76/914/EEC of 16 December 1976 on the minimum level of training for some road transport drivers, (1) or by failing to notify those measures to the Commission, the Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               order the Slovak Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for adopting the measures to transpose the directive expired on 1 May 2004.

      (1)  OJ L 357 of 29.12.1976, p. 36.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 31 January 2001 in Case T-193/99: Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Term DOUBLEMINT — Absolute ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
5.5.2001                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 134/19
1.    Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office       selection board of 21 June 1999 confirming that initial
      for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and            decision following a re-examination thereof and, second, of all
      Designs) of 19 March 1999 (Case R 97/98-3) in so far as it           subsequent steps taken and measures adopted in the said
      concerns the following services:                                     competition — the Court of First Instance (Single Judge:
                                                                           A.W.H. Meij); J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the
      —    allocation and transfer of rights of access for users of        Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 January 2001, in which
           various communication networks, falling under Class 38;         it:
      —    cultural activities; organisation and conducting of shows,      1.    Dismisses the application;
           quizzes and musical events and conducting competitions
           in the entertainment field, with a view to their broadcast-     2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
           ing either at a subsequent time or live on radio or
           television; production of television and radio advertising
           broadcasts including associated prize game broadcasts;          (1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.
           organising competitions in the entertainment field; organ-
           ising concerts, theatre events and variety shows, all falling
           under Class 41;
      —    management and exploitation of copyright and industrial
           property rights for others; technical consultancy in the
           field of multimedia, interactive television and Pay TV (in
                                                                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
           so far as included in Class 42); computer programming,
           including video and computer games, all falling under
           Class 42;                                                                              of 31 January 2001
2.    Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;                            in Case T-193/99: Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company v Office for
                                                                           Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
3.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.                                                 Designs) (OHIM) (1)
(1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.99.                                                   (Community trade mark — Term DOUBLEMINT — Absol-
                                                                           ute ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC)
                                                                                No 40/94)
                                                                                (2001/C 134/41)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                   (Language of the case: English)
                        of 17 January 2001                                 In Case T-193/99: Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company, established in
                                                                           Chicago, Illinois, United States of America, represented by
                                                                           M. Kinkeldey, Rechtsanwalt, Munich, 58 Maximilianstraße,
in Case T-189/99: Ioannis Gerochristos v Commission of                     Munich, Germany, against Office for Harmonisation in the
                 the European Communities (1)                              Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents:
                                                                           V. Melgar and S. Laitinen) — application for annulment of the
(Competition COM/A/12/98 — Action for annulment —                          decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for
Pre-selection tests — Retroactive cancellation of certain                  Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
multiple-choice questions — Principle of equal treatment of                Designs) of 16 June 1999 (Case R 216/1998-1) concerning
candidates — Obligation to provide a statement of reasons)                 the registration of the term DOUBLEMINT as a Community
                                                                           trade mark — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),
                          (2001/C 134/40)                                  composed of: J. Pirrung, President, A. Potocki and A.W.H. Meij,
                                                                           Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
                                                                           has given a judgment on 31 January 2001, in which it:
                    (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                           1.    Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office
                                                                                for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and
In Case T-189/99: Ioannis Gerochristos, residing in Thessaloni-
                                                                                Designs) of 16 June 1999 (Case R 216/1998-1);
ki (Greece), represented by N. Korogiannakis, of the Athens
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices
                                                                           2.    Orders the defendant to pay the costs.
of Brown Holding SA, 310 Route d’Esch, v Commission of the
European Communities (Agents: G. Valsesia and M. Condou
Durande) — application for annulment, first, of the decision               (1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.99.
of 30 April 1999 of the selection board in competition
COM/A/12/98 excluding the applicant from the tests sub-
sequent to the pre-selection test and of the decision of that


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht of Land Brandenburg by order of that court of 21 February 1995 in the case of Konservenfabrik Lubella Friedrich Büker GmbH & Co KG v. Hauptzollamt Cottbus (Case C-64/95)

text:
22 . 4 . 95             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      No C 101 /5
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht of            how is the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by
Land Brandenburg by order of that court of 21 February                  Regulation ( EEC ) No 2587/91 , to be interpreted for the
1995 in the case of Konservenfabrik Lubella Friedrich                   purposes of the tariff classification of the Xerox 3010 and
      Biiker GmbH &c Co KG v. Hauptzollamt Cottbus                      Xerox 3010 Editor machines described in the body of the
                          ( Case C-64/95 )                              present reference ? ( J )
                            ( 95/C 101 /11 )
                                                                        f 1 ) The Xerox 3010 and Xerox 3010 Editor machines can transmit
                                                                              fax messages and copy at the same time , while the Xerox 3010
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        Editor can also edit the images received ( enlargement or
European Communities by an order of the Fourth Senate of                      reduction of the full image or part of it). Photocopying takes
the Finanzgericht ( Finance Court ) of Land Brandenburg of                    place by means of a scanner which scans the information in a
21 February 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry                   document and stores it in the form of digital units in the
on 10 March 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of                    machine's memory, from where it can be retrieved for printing
Konservenfabrik Lubella Friedrich Biiker GmbFl & Co KG                        in legible form on paper.
v. Flauptzollamt ( Principal Customs Office ) Cottbus on the
following questions :
1 . has Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 1932/93 of
      16 July 1993 as rectified by the corrigendum published
      in the Official Journal of the European Communities (' )
      come into being with legal effect ?                                       Removal from the register of Case C-181/94 (')
                                                                                ( 95/C 101 /13 )
2 . If so, are the provisions of Regulation ( EEC )
      No 1932/93 also applicable to imports of sour cherries            By order of 13 February 1 995 the President of the Court of
      effected up until 20 July 1993 ?                                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                        from the register of Case C-181/94 : Commission of the
3 . If the answer to question 2 is in the affirmative :                 European Communities v. Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
      (a ) were the preconditions present in 1993 for a
                                                                        (!) OJ No C 218 , 6 . 8 . 1994 .
            measure for the organization of the market for sour
            cherries in 1993 ?
      ( b ) Is the minimum price system a permissible,
            appropriate measure for eliminating the
            disturbance to the market ?
      (c ) Is the minimum price system compatible with the                      Removal from the register of Case C-223/94 ( J )
            Interim Agreements of 25 February 1992 between
                                                                                ( 95/C 101/14 )
            the European Community and the Republic of
            Poland, the Republic of Hungary and the Czech and
            Slovak Federal Republic ?                                   By order of 20 February 1995 the President of the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
t 1 ) OJ No L 176 , 20 . 7. 1993 , p. 29 .                              from the register of Case C-223/94 : Commission of the
                                                                        European Communities v . Ireland .
                                                                        (!) OJ No C 275 , 1 . 10 . 1994 .
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tariefcommissie
by decision of that court of 3 March 1995 in the case of
Rank Xerox Manufacturing (Nederland ) BV v. Inspecteur
              der Invoerrechten en Acciinzen, Venlo
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-265/94 ( l )
                            Case C-67/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 101 / 15
                            ( 95/C 101/12 )
                                                                        By order of 15 February 1995 the President of the Court of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of                      Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
the European Communities by a decision of the                           from the register of Case C-265/94 : Commission of the
Tariefcommissie (Administrative Court for Customs and                   European Communities v. Kingdom of Spain .
Excise ) of 3 March 1995 , which was received at the Court
Registry on 13 March 1995, for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                        (!) OJ No C 304, 29 . 10 . 1994 .
case of Rank Xerox Manufacturing (Nederland ) BV v.
Inspecteur der Invoerrechten en Accijnzen (Inspector of
Customs and Excise ), Venlo, on the following question:


title: Removal from the register of C-183/96

text:
C 7/12                EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                10. 1. 98
          Removal from the register of C-88/96 (1)                          Removal from the register of C-183/96 (1)
                          (98/C 7/32)                                                        (98/C 7/36)
By order of 10 October 1997, the President of the Court            By order of 10 October 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the             of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-88/96 (reference for a         removal from the register of Case C-183/96 (Reference for
preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova, Sezione           a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova,
Prima Civile): Igino Mazzola Srl v. Amministrazione delle          Sezione prima civile (District Court, Genoa, First Civil
Finanze dello Stato.                                               Section)): Icat Food Srl v. Amministrazione delle Finanze
                                                                   dello Stato.
(1) OJ C 133, 4. 5. 1996.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 210, 20. 7. 1996.
         Removal from the register of C-121/96 (1)
                          (98/C 7/33)                                       Removal from the register of C-204/96 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 7/37)
By order of 23 September 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the             By order of 23 September 1997, the President of the Court
removal from the register of Case C-121/96 (reference for          of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht                 removal from the register of Case C-204/96 (reference for
Hamburg): Sultan Bulut v. Deutsche Bundespost.                     a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht): E. F.
                                                                   Liebelt GmbH & Co. KG v. Marianne Seidel.
(1) OJ C 158, 1. 6. 1996.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 247, 24. 8. 1996.
         Removal from the register of C-128/96 (1)
                          (98/C 7/34)                                       Removal from the register of C-278/96 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 7/38)
By order of 10 October 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-128/96 (Reference for          By order of 10 October 1997, the President of the Court
a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova,                 of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
Sezione prima civile (District Court, Genoa, First Civil           removal from the register of Case C-278/96 (Reference for
Section)): Trinity Alimentari Italia SpA v. Amministrazione        a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova,
delle Finanze dello Stato.                                         Sezione prima civile (District Court, Genoa, First Civil
                                                                   Section)): Vezza SpA v. Amministrazione delle Finanze
                                                                   dello Stato.
(1) OJ C 158, 1. 6. 1996.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 318, 26. 10. 1996.
         Removal from the register of C-155/96 (1)
                          (98/C 7/35)
                                                                            Removal from the register of C-354/96 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 7/39)
By order of 10 October 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-155/96 (Reference for          By order of 23 October 1997, the President of the Sixth
a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova,                 Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European
Sezione prima civile (District Court, Genoa, First Civil           Communities has ordered the removal from the register
Section)): Icat Food Srl v. Amministrazione delle Finanze          of Case C-354/96: Commission of the European
dello Stato.                                                       Communities v. Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 180, 22. 6. 1996.                                         (1) OJ C 388, 21. 12. 1996.