title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 19 October 1995 in Case T-562/93: Dieter Obst v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Recruitment procedure - Act adversely affecting an official - Article 45 of the Staff Regulations - Notice of vacancy - Misuse of powers - Statement of reasons - Compensation for damage)

text:
30 . 12. 95           HENI                   Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 351 / 11
        specific area related payment on a farmer whose area            from the register of Case C-98/95 : Commission of the
        actually determined is found to be less than that               European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium .
        declared in the aid application when the difference
        more than 20 % but when no false intention or serious           (') OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 .
        negligence has been found ?
(') OJ No L 391 , 31 . 12 . 1992 , p . 36 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 156 , 7 . 7. 1995 , p . 27 .
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C- 113/95 ( )
                                                                                95/C 351 /21 )
         Removal from the register of Case C-14/95 ( )                  By order of 4 October 1995 the President of the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                           ( 95/C 351 / 19                              from the register of Case C- 113/95 : Commission of the
                                                                        European Communities v. Italian Republic .
By order of 26 September 1995 the President of the Sixth
Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European                         (') OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 .
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
C-14/95 : Commission of the European Communities v.
Kingdom of Belgium .
(') O J No C 54 , 4 . 3 . 1995 .
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-125/95 ( )
                                                                                ( 95/C 351 /22 )
                                                                        By order of 24 October 1995 the President of the Court of
         Removal from the register of Case C-98/95 ( )                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                           ( 95/C 351 /20 )                             from the register of Case C-125/95 : Commission of the
                                                                        European Communities v. Portuguese Republic .
By order of 22 September 1995 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                 (') OJ No C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995 .
                                                       COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                should not be taken into consideration, and of the
                        of 19 October 1995                              defendant's decision of 22 March 1993 rejecting that
     in Case T-562/93 : Dieter Obst v. Commission of the
                                                                        application and, second, for compensation for the material
                                                                        and non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant
                    European Communities (')                            — the Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber ), composed
(Officials — Recruitment procedure — Act adversely                      of: B. Vesterdorf, President, and D. P. M. Barrington and A.
affecting an official — Article 45 of the StaffRegulations —            Saggio, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on
Notice of vacancy — Misuse of powers — Statement of                     19 October 1995 , in which it:
              reasons — Compensation for damage)
                            ( 95/C 351 /23 )                            1 . orders the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum
                                                                            of ECU 2 000 by way of damages for breach of
                 (Language of the case: German)                             duty;
In Case T-562/93 : Dieter Obst, an official of the                      2 . dismisses the remainder of the application;
Commission of the European Communities, residing at
Everberg ( Belgium ), represented initially by Heinz-Jorg
Moritz and subsequently by Lothar Mahlberg,                             3 . orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay
Rechtsanwalte, with an address for service in Luxembourg                    one quarter of the costs of the applicant, who is ordered
care of Marianne Moritz, 25a Rue de Schonfels, Bridel , v.                   to bear three quarters of his own costs.
Commission of the European Communities ( Agents : Joseph
Griesmar and Bertrand Wagenbaur ) — application, first, for             (') OJ No C 338 , 15 . 12 . 1993 .
the annulment of notice No 45/93 of the Advisory
Committee on Appointments of 18 February 1993 ,
inasmuch as it indicates that the application of the applicant


title: Case C-368/04: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 October 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Transalpine Ölleitung in Österreich GmbH, Planai-Hochwurzen-Bahnen GmbH, Gerlitzen-Kanzelbahn-Touristik GmbH & Co KG v Finanzlandesdirektion für Tirol, Finanzlandesdirektion für Steiermark, Finanzlandesdirektion für Kärnten (State aid — Last sentence of Article 88(3) EC — Partial rebate on energy taxes — Failure to give notice of the aid — Commission decision — Declaration of the compatibility of the aid with the common market in respect of a particular period in the past — Effect on rebate applications made by undertakings not benefiting from the aid — Powers of national courts and tribunals)

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/8

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 October 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Transalpine Ölleitung in Österreich GmbH, Planai-Hochwurzen-Bahnen GmbH, Gerlitzen-Kanzelbahn-Touristik GmbH & Co KG v Finanzlandesdirektion für Tirol, Finanzlandesdirektion für Steiermark, Finanzlandesdirektion für Kärnten
   (Case C-368/04) (1)

   (State aid - Last sentence of Article 88(3) EC - Partial rebate on energy taxes - Failure to give notice of the aid - Commission decision - Declaration of the compatibility of the aid with the common market in respect of a particular period in the past - Effect on rebate applications made by undertakings not benefiting from the aid - Powers of national courts and tribunals)
   (2006/C 294/13)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Verwaltungsgerichtshof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Transalpine Ölleitung in Österreich GmbH, Planai-Hochwurzen-Bahnen GmbH, Gerlitzen-Kanzelbahn-Touristik GmbH & Co KG

      Defendants: Finanzlandesdirektion für Tirol, Finanzlandesdirektion für Steiermark, Finanzlandesdirektion für Kärnten
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) — Interpretation of Article 88(3) EC — State aid granted in breach of the prohibition on implementing aid prior to the Commission's decision — Aid consisting in the partial reimbursement of energy tax solely to businesses manufacturing goods — Effects of the Commission's subsequent decision declaring the aid compatible with the common market
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The last sentence of Article 88(3) EC must be interpreted as meaning that it is for the national courts to safeguard the rights of individuals against possible disregard, by the national authorities, of the prohibition on putting aid into effect before the Commission of the European Communities has adopted a decision authorising that aid. In doing so, the national court must take the Community interest fully into consideration and must not adopt a measure which would have the sole effect of extending the circle of recipients of the aid.

               2.

               Since a decision of the Commission of the European Communities declaring aid that has not been notified compatible with the common market does not have the effect of regularising ex post facto implementing measures which, at the time of their adoption, were invalid because they had been taken in disregard of the prohibition referred to in the last sentence of Article 88(3) EC, it is of little consequence whether an application is made before or after adoption of the decision declaring the aid compatible with the common market, since that application relates to the unlawful situation resulting from the lack of notification.

      (1)  OJ C 273, 06.11.2004.


title: Case T-369/16: Action brought on 13 July 2016 — Luciad v Commission

text:
               29.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/33

         Action brought on 13 July 2016 — Luciad v Commission
   (Case T-369/16)
   (2016/C 314/45)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Luciad (Leuven, Belgium) (represented by: D. Arts, P. Smet and I. Panis, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               declare the application for annulment of the Commission Decision of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption State aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by Belgium to be admissible and well founded;

               —

               annul the Commission Decision of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption State aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by Belgium; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and infringement of Article 1(d) of Regulation 2015/1589 (1) and Article 107(1) TFEU.

                           —

                           The applicant claims that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment in asserting that the tax ‘rulings’ may not be regarded as an implementing measure and that the excess profit scheme laid down thereby must be regarded as an aid measure.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 296 TFEU by virtue of inadequate reasoning and infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU inasmuch as there is no measure that distorts or threatens to distort competition.

                           —

                           The applicant argues that the Commission fails to indicate how the excess profit scheme distort or threaten to distort competition.

                           —

                           The Commission wrongly assumed that a tax ‘ruling’ in application of the excess profit scheme automatically leads to an unburdening for the undertakings concerned and that, in not taking into account the tax levied or to be levied abroad on excess profit, the Commission wrongly concluded that the excess profit exemption scheme distorts or threatens to distort competition.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 296 TFEU by virtue of inadequate reasoning and infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU inasmuch as the contested scheme does not adversely affect trade between Member States.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU inasmuch as the contested scheme does not confer any selective advantage.

                           —

                           The applicant argues that the excess profit scheme is a general tax scheme that applies to every Belgian undertaking, and that it is an intrinsic part of the reference system of the Belgian corporate tax system that specific rules provide for cross-border situations, meaning that the Commission makes a manifest error of assessment when it stated that the excess profit scheme constitutes a derogation from the reference system, on the one hand, and from the arm’s length principle, on the other hand.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9).


title: Case C-199/05: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 October 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Bruxelles (Belgium)) — European Community v Belgian State (Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities — Article 3 — Indirect taxes — Decisions of national courts and tribunals — Registration duties)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/11

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 October 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Bruxelles (Belgium)) — European Community v Belgian State
   (Case C-199/05) (1)

   (Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities - Article 3 - Indirect taxes - Decisions of national courts and tribunals - Registration duties)
   (2006/C 326/23)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Cour d'appel de Bruxelles (Belgium)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: European Community

      Defendant: Belgian State
   Re:
   Request for a preliminary ruling — Cour d'appel de Bruxelles — Interpretation of the second and third paragraphs of Article 3 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities of 8 April 1965 — National legislation introducing a duty in respect of decisions of courts and tribunals concerning orders to pay amounts of money or securities and calculation of amounts of money or securities payable
   Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               Duties such as the registration duties which must be paid following decisions of national courts and tribunals ordering payment of money or liquidation of securities do not amount merely to charges for public utility services within the meaning of the third paragraph of Article 3 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities.

               2)

               The second paragraph of Article 3 of that Protocol is to be interpreted as meaning that duties such as the registration duties which must be paid following decisions of national courts and tribunals ordering payment of money or liquidation of securities do not fall within the scope of that provision.

      (1)  OJ C 182 of 23.7.2005.


title: Case T-243/07: Action brought on 11 July 2007 — Republic of Poland v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/45

         Action brought on 11 July 2007 — Republic of Poland v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-243/07)
   (2007/C 211/84)
   Language of the case: Polish
   Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: E. Ośniecka-Tamecka, Agent)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare invalid Commission Decision 2007/361/EC of 4 May 2007 on the determination of surplus stocks of agricultural products other than sugar and the financial consequences of their elimination in relation to the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (notified under document number C(2007)1979) (1) in so far as it relates to the Republic of Poland;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The contested decision determined the amounts of agricultural products in free circulation within Polish territory on the date of Polish accession to the European Union which, in the view of the Commission, exceeded the level of normal stocks of those products and imposed on Poland for that reason ‘the amounts to be charged … in consequence of the expense of elimination of those quantities [of surplus stocks]’.
   The applicant requests that the decision be declared invalid and bases its charge on two pleas in law: the plea that the Commission was not competent to adopt the contested decision and that it breached Point 4 of Section 4 of Annex IV to the Act of Accession (2); and the plea that the Commission infringed the principle of proportionality.
   As the basis for its first plea in law, the applicant submits that, in adopting the contested decision, the Commission exceeded the competence deriving from Point 4 of Section 4 of Annex IV to the Act of Accession inasmuch as that decision alters the agreements entered into in the Act of Accession by reason of the introduction of financial sanctions not provided for in that Act. The applicant further submits that the contested decision is at variance with the principle defined in the Act of Accession which provides that the Member States must effect the actual elimination of surplus stocks of agricultural products in free circulation within their territory at the time of accession.
   As the basis for its plea in law concerning infringement of the principle of proportionality, the applicant submits that the objectives of the contested decision are mutually incompatible and for that reason have no legal justification. Moreover, in the applicant's view, the contested decision is not an appropriate means by which to calculate the costs of eliminating surplus supplies. The applicant submits at the same time that the contested decision is critically flawed in its determination of the quantities of surplus stocks in free circulation within Polish territory and that it failed to take account of the quantities of stocks which Poland eliminated at its own expense following the date of accession. The applicant contends that the decision imposed on Poland the costs of eliminating stocks which in actual fact were not borne by the Community, and that this resulted in unjust enrichment of the Community to the detriment of Poland. The applicant also submits that the adoption of the contested decision was not a necessary act in view of the lack of disturbances on the agricultural markets following Polish accession to the European Union and in view of the lengthy period of time which has elapsed since the date of accession. According to the applicant's assertions, the contested decision, notwithstanding the fact that it was adopted on the basis of the Act of Accession, does not realise any of the objectives defined in that Act within the agricultural sector.

      (1)  OJ 2007 L 138, p. 14.

      (2)  Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded (OJ 2003 L 236, p. 33).


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 10 January 2001 in Case T-153/00: Spain Pharma S.A. v Commission of the European Communities (Action for a declaration of failure to act — Case not proceeding to judgment)

text:
C 134/22                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      5.5.2001
ed by D. Fosselard, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Messrs Arendt &                                                 INSTANCE
Medernach, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt, v Commission of the
European Communities (Agents: M.-J. Jonczy and E. Paasivirta)
– application for annulment of the Commission’s decision of                                         of 15 January 2001
23 March 2000 terminating the contract concluded with the
applicant relating to the Dionysos project — the Court of
First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: P. Mengozzi,                  in Case T-236/00 R: Gabriele Stauner and Others
President, and V. Tiili and R.M. Moura Ramos, Judges; H. Jung,              v. European Parliament and Commission of the European
Registrar, made an order on 9 January 2001, the operative                                              Communities
part of which is as follows:
1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible.                         (Interim relief proceedings — Framework agreement on
                                                                            Relations between the European Parliament and the Com-
2.    The applicant is to pay the costs, including those relating to the             mission — Article 197 CE — Admissibility)
      proceedings for interim measures.
                                                                                (2001/C 134/49)
(1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                                                                            In Case T-236/00 R: Gabriele Stauner, residing in Wolfrats-
                                                                            hausen (Germany), Freddy Blak, residing in Næstved (Den-
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 mark), Jens-Peter Bonde, residing in Bagsværd (Denmark),
                                                                            Theodorus Bouwman, residing in Eindhoven (Netherlands),
                        of 10 January 2001                                  Kathalijne Maria Buitenweg, residing in Amsterdam (Nether-
                                                                            lands), Mogens Camre, residing in Copenhagen, Rijk van Dam,
                                                                            residing in Rotterdam (Netherlands), Michl Ebner, residing
in Case T-153/00: Spain Pharma S.A. v Commission of the                     in Bolzano (Italy), Christopher Heaton-Harris, residing in
                   European Communities (1)                                 Kettering, Northamptonshire (United Kingdom), Lousewies
                                                                            van der Laan, residing in Brussels, Joost Lagendijk, residing in
(Action for a declaration of failure to act — Case not                      Rotterdam, Nelly Maes, residing in Sinaai (Belgium), Franz-
                     proceeding to judgment)                                Xaver Mayer, residing in Landau-sur-l’Isar (Germany), Franzis-
                                                                            ka Emilia Müller, residing in Bruck (Upper Palatinate) (Germ-
                          (2001/C 134/48)                                   any), Alexander Radwan, residing in Rottach-Egern (Germany),
                                                                            Alexander de Roo, residing in Amsterdam, Heide Rühle,
                                                                            residing in Stuttgart (Germany), Ursula Schleicher, residing in
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                          Munich (Germany), Inger Schöring, residing in Gävle (Sweden),
                                                                            Esko Olavi Seppänen, residing in Helsinki, Bart Staes, residing
                                                                            in Antwerp (Belgium), Claude Turmes, residing in Esch-sur-
In Case T-153/00: Spain Pharma S.A., established in Madrid,                 Alzette (Luxembourg), Members of the European Parliament,
represented by R. Gutiérrez Sánchez, of the Madrid Bar, with               represented by J. Sedemund et T. Lübbig, Rechtsanwälte,
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                     Berlin, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Messrs Molitor, Feltgen & Harpes, 55 Boulevard de la Pétrusse,              Chambers of M. di Stefano, 49 Avenue de la Gare, against
v Commission of the European Communities (Agent: E. Gip-                    European Parliament (Agents: C. Pennera et M. Berger) and
pini Fournier) — application for a declaration that the                     Commission of the European Communities (Agents: U. Wölker
Commission has improperly failed, in breach of the Treaty, to               et X. Lewis) — application for suspension of application, first,
take a decision on a complaint concerning alleged infringe-                 of paragraphs 17 and 19 of the Framework Agreement of
ments of Articles 81 and 82 EC — the Court of First Instance                5 July 2000 on Relations between the European Parliament
(Second Chamber), composed of: A.W.H. Meij, President, and                  and the Commission and, second, Annex 3 to that Framework
A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an              Agreement, the President of the Court of First Instance has
order on 10 January 2001, the operative part of which is as                 made an order on 15 January 2001, the operative part of
follows:                                                                    which is as follows:
1.    There is no need to adjudicate on the present action.
                                                                            1.    The application for interim relief is dismissed;
2.    The parties are to bear their own costs.
                                                                            2.    The decision as to costs is reserved.
( 1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 February 2000 in Case T-183/97: Carla Micheli and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Community policy for research and technological development — MAST III Programme — Decision adopting the list of project proposals eligible for a Community contribution —Exclusion of a proposal for Community financing — Interest in bringing an action — No need to adjudicate)

text:
8.4.2000              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 102/19
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                     of 16 December 1999
                                                                                of 17 February 2000
in Case T-158/96: Acciaierie di Bolzano SpA v Com-
          mission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                          in Case T-183/97: Carla Micheli and Others v Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities (1)
(ECSC Treaty — Action for annulment — State aid —
Decision finding aid incompatible and ordering its repay-
ment — Unnotified aid — Steel Aid Code applicable —                       (Action for annulment — Community policy for research
Rights of the defence — Protection of legitimate expectations             and technological development — MAST III Programme —
      — Interest rate applicable — Statement of reasons)                  Decision adopting the list of project proposals eligible for a
                                                                          Community contribution —Exclusion of a proposal for
                                                                          Community financing — Interest in bringing an action —
                        (2000/C 102/37)                                                        No need to adjudicate)
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                                                (2000/C 102/38)
In Case T-158/96: Acciaierie di Bolzano SpA, established in
Bolzano (Italy), represented initially by Giulio Macrı́ and Bruno
Nascimbene, of the Milan Bar, and Massimo Condinanzi, of                                     (Language of the case: Italian)
the Biella Bar, and subsequently by Mr Nascimbene alone, with
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Franco Colussi, 36 Rue de Wiltz, supported by Falck SpA,
established in Milan (Italy), represented initially by Giulio Macrı́      In Case T-183/97: Carla Micheli, Andrea Peirano, Carlo Nike
and Franco Colussi, of the Milan Bar, and subsequently by Mr              Bianchi and Marinella Abbate, represented by Wilma Viscardini
Macrı́ and Massimo Condinanzi, of the Biella Bar, with an                 Donà, Mariano Paolin and Simonetta Donà, of the Padua Bar,
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Franco               with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Colussi, 36 Rue de Wiltz, and by the Italian Republic                     Ernest Arendt, 39 Rue Mathias Hardt, against the Commission
(Agents: Umberto Colesanti and Aiello Giacomo) against the                of the European Communities (Agents: Eugenio de March and
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Enrico                    Alberto Dal Farro) — application for the annulment of the
Traversa, Paul Nemitz, Enrico Altieri and, in the oral proceed-           Commission’s decision establishing the list of project proposals
ings, Tito Ballarino) — application for the annulment of                  eligible for a Community contribution under the specific
Commission Decision 96/617/ECSC of 17 July 1996 concern-                  programme of research and technological development,
ing aid granted by the Autonomous Province of Bolzano (Italy)             including demonstration, in the field of marine science and
to Acciaierie di Bolzano (OJ 1996 L 274, p. 30) — the Court               technology (1994 to 1998), in so far as it excludes the
of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition),                  POSIBLE project coordinated by Carla Micheli, which decision
composed of J.D. Cooke, President of the Chamber, R. Gar-                 was notified by the Commission’s letter of 26 March 1997,
cia-Valdecasas, P. Lindh, J. Pirrung and M. Vilaras, Judges;              received by fax on 17 April 1997 and by post on 20 May
J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given         1997 — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),
a judgment on 16 December 1999, in which it:                              composed of R.M. Moura Ramos, President of the Chamber,
                                                                          V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; J. Palacio González, Adminis-
                                                                          trator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 17 February
1. Dismisses the action;                                                  2000, the operative part of which is as follows:
2. Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of     1. There is no further need to adjudicate on this case;
     the Commission;
                                                                          2. The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.
3. Orders each intervener to bear its own costs.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 271 of 6.9.1997.
(1) OJ C 54, 22.2.1997.


title: Case C-332/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Treviso (Italy) lodged on 6 July 2015 — Criminal proceedings against Giuseppe Astone

text:
               28.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 320/16

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Treviso (Italy) lodged on 6 July 2015 — Criminal proceedings against Giuseppe Astone
   (Case C-332/15)
   (2015/C 320/23)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Treviso

      Defendant

   Giuseppe Astone

      Questions referred

               (1)

               Do the provisions of Directive 2006/2012/EC of 28 November 2006 (1), as interpreted by the Community case-law recalled in the grounds of this order, preclude Member State rules — such as those set out above and in force in Italy (Article 19 of Presidential Decree 633/1972) — which exclude the possibility, including for the purposes of criminal law, of exercising the right to deduct where there has been a failure to file VAT returns, in particular, the return for the second year after the year in which the right to deduct arose?

               (2)

               Do the provisions of Directive 2006/2012/EC of 28 November 2006, as interpreted by the Community case-law recalled in the grounds of this order, preclude Member State rules — such as those set out above in force in Italy (Articles 25 and 39 of Presidential Decree 633/1972) — which exclude the possibility, including for the purposes of criminal law, of taking account, for the purposes of the deduction of VAT, of purchase invoices which the taxable person has completely failed to register?

      (1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).


               28.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 125/13

         Action brought on 24 February 2011 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Norway
   (Case E-5/11)
   2011/C 125/11
   An action against Norway was brought before the EFTA Court on 24 February 2011 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Xavier Lewis and Ólafur Jóhannes Einarsson, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35, Rue Belliard, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
   The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to declare that:

               1.

               By failing to adopt the measures necessary to make:

                           (a)

                           the Act referred to at point 56oa of Chapter V of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Regulation (EC) No 1406/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2002 establishing a European Maritime Safety Agency), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto; and

                           (b)

                           the Act referred to at point 56oa of Chapter V of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Regulation (EC) No 2038/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 on multiannual funding for the action of the European Maritime Safety Agency in the field of response to pollution caused by ships and amending Regulation (EC) No 1406/2002), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, part of its internal legal order within the time prescribed, the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 EEA.

               2.

               The Kingdom of Norway be ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings.

      Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that the Kingdom of Norway has failed to make Regulation (EC) No 2038/2006 and Regulation (EC) No 1406/2002 part of its internal legal order, within the time prescribed by EEA Joint Committee Decisions No 52/2007 and No 81/2003, respectively.

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Norway should have incorporated Regulation (EC) No 1406/2002 and Regulation (EC) No 2038/2006 respectively more than seven and more than three and a half years ago. It therefore considers that the Norwegian Government has had more than sufficient time to adopt the measures necessary to make the Regulations part of its internal legal order, and that it has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 EEA.


title: Case T-381/11 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 15 September 2011 — Eurofer v Commission (Interim relief — Environment — Allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances free of charge in accordance with Directive 2003/87/EC — Setting of the product benchmarks the subject of the Commission’s decision — Application for interim measures — Admissibility — Urgency)

text:
               26.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/34

         Order of the President of the General Court of 15 September 2011 — Eurofer v Commission
   (Case T-381/11 R)
   (Interim relief - Environment - Allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances free of charge in accordance with Directive 2003/87/EC - Setting of the product benchmarks the subject of the Commission’s decision - Application for interim measures - Admissibility - Urgency)
   2011/C 347/60
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Europäischer Wirtschaftsverband der Eisen- und Stahlindustrie (Eurofer) ASBL (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Altenschmidt and C. Dittrich, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Wilms, K. Mifsud-Bonnici and K. Herrmann, Agents)

      Re:

   Application to suspend the operation of Commission Decision 2011/278/EU of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2011 L 130, p. 1).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 8 June 1995 in Case T-554/93, Mary Aharn and 588 Others v. Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Removal from the register)

text:
No C 208/24           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                          12 . 8 . 95
    ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            non-material damage and , in the alternative, for
                        of 8 June 1995                              reimbursement of various expenses — the Court of First
                                                                    Instance ( Fourth Chamber ), composed of R. Schintgen,
in Case T-554/93 , Mary Aharn and 588 Others v. Council             acting as President, and R. García-Valdecasas and P. Lindh,
of the European Union and Commission of the European                Judges, made an order on 14 June 1995 , the operative part
                        Communities (')                             of which is as follows :
                  (Removal from the register)
                         (9SIC 208/52 )                             1 . Cases T-462/93 , T-464/93 and T-470/93 are joined;
                                                                    2 . there is no need to give a decision on the application
               (Language of the case: English)                           objecting to a judge;
In Case T-554/93 , Mary Aharn and 588 Others ( United               3 . the actions are dismissed as inadmissible;
Kingdom and Ireland ), represented by E. H. Pijnacker
Hordijk, of the Amsterdam Bar, and H. J. Bronkhorst,                4 . the applicants are ordered to pay all the costs.
Advocaat of the Supreme Court of the Netherlands,
instructed by Burges Salmon, Solicitors , with an address for       (>) OJ No C 33 , 5 . 2 . 1993 , OJ No C 54, 25 . 2 . 1993 and OJ No
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Luc Frieden, 62                 C 139 , 18 . 5 . 1993 .
Avenue Guillaume, v. Council of the European Union
( Agents, A. Brautigam and M. Bishop ), and Commission of
the European Communities ( Agents, G. Rozet and G.
Docksey ), application for the annulment of Articles 8 ( 2 ) (a )
and 14 (4 ) of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2187/93 of
22 July 1993 providing for an offer of compensation to                   ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
certain producers of milk and milk producers temporarily                                       of 19 June 1995
prevented from carrying out their trade, the President of the
                                                                    in Cases T-43/91 DEP, T-44/91 DEP, T-51/91 DEP and
First Chamber ( extended composition ) of the Court of First
Instance made an order on 8 June 1995 whose operative               T-52/91 DEP: Paul Edwin Hoyer and Carine Smets v.
                                                                            Commission of the European Communities ( ! )
part is as follows :
                                                                                (Taxation of costs)
1 . the names of all the applicants, except A. T. E. Saint, C.                                   ( 95/C 208/54 )
    Murray and M. Craig, shall be removed from the list of
    applicants in Case T-554/93 ;
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
2 . the applicants are to pay the costs.
                                                                    In Cases T-43/91 DEP, T-44/91 DEP, T-51 /91 DEP and
(') OJ No C 338 , 15 . 12 . 1993 .                                  T-52/91 DEP: Paul Edwin Hoyer, a temporary agent of the
                                                                    Commission of the European Communities , residing at
                                                                    Hoeilaart ( Belgium ), and Carine Smets , a temporary agent
                                                                    of the Commission of the European Communities, residing
                                                                    at Overijse ( Belgium ), represented by Gerard van der Wal ,
                                                                    Advokaat with a right of audience before the Hoge Raad der
    ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                    Nederlanden ( Supreme Court of the Netherlands ), with an
                                                                    address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                        of 14 June 1995                             Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue, v. Commission of the
in Cases T-462/93 , T-464/93 and T-470/93 : Erika Lenz              European Communities ( Agents : Julian Currall and
and Volker Lenz v. Commission of the European                       Hendrik van Lier ) — application for taxation of the costs
                        Communities (')                             payable pursuant to the judgments of the Court of First
 (Officials — Action for damages — Admissibility — Time             Instance of 17 March 1994 in Cases T-43/91 , T-44/91 ,
                limit for bringing proceedings)                     T-51 /91 and T-52/91 — the Court of First Instance (Third
                                                                    Chamber ), composed of J. Biancarelli , President, and C. P.
                         ( 95/C 208/53                              Briët and C. W. Bellamy, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made
                                                                    an order on 19 June 1995 , the operative part of which is as
               (Language of the case: German)                       follows :
In Cases T-462/93 , T-464/93 and T-470/93 : Erika Lenz, a            1 . Cases T-43191 DEP, T-44/91 DEP, T-51 /91 DEP and
former official of the Commission of the European                         T-52/91 DEP are joined;
 Communities, and Volker Lenz, her son, both residing at
Osnabruck ( Germany), represented by Jürgen Schacht,                2 . the total costs recoverable by the applicants are fixed in
Rechtsanwalt, Hamburg, with an address for service in                     the sum of Fl 37 500, together with any VAT payable
                                                                          thereon .
Luxembourg care of Jean-Paul Meyer, 14 Rue Prince Jean,
Ettelbruck, v. Commission of the European Communities
 (Agents : Gianluigi Valsesia and Barbara Rapp-Jung ) —              (') OJ No C 201 , 31 . 7. 1991 and OJ No C 205 , 6 . 8 . 1991 .
application for an order requiring the Commission to pay
compensation for various instances of material and


title: Case T-261/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 3 May 2007 — Crespinet v Commission (Officials — Promotion — Promotion year 2003 — Award of promotion points)

text:
               23.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 140/20

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 3 May 2007 — Crespinet v Commission
   (Case T-261/04) (1)

   (Officials - Promotion - Promotion year 2003 - Award of promotion points)
   (2007/C 140/32)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Alain Crespinet (Rosières, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Tserepa-Lacombe and C. Berardis-Kayser, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Application for the annulment of the decision of the Commission by which promotion points were awarded to the applicant for the promotion year 2003 and the decision not to enter the applicant's name on the list of officials promoted to grade A5 for that promotion year.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

                  Orders that each party is to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 273, 6.11.2004


title: Case F-13/08: Action brought on 24 January 2008 — Tomas v Parliament

text:
               7.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/39

         Action brought on 24 January 2008 — Tomas v Parliament
   (Case F-13/08)
   (2008/C 142/73)
   Language of the case: Lithuanian
   Parties

      Applicant: Stanislovas Tomas (Pavlodar, Kazakhstan) (represented by: M. Michalauskas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament
   Subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Annulment of the appointing authority's decision to dismiss the applicant and damages for the material and non-material loss suffered.
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the appointing authority's decision to dismiss the applicant;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 125 000 by way of damages for the material and non-material loss suffered;

               —

               Order the European Parliament to pay the costs.


title: Case C-402/99: Action brought on 19 October 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

text:
8.1.2000              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 6/17
Action brought on 19 October 1999 by the Commission                   Action brought on 25 October 1999 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                            of the European Communities against Ireland
                             Belgium
                                                                                (Case C-408/99)
                        (Case C-402/99)
                                                                                (2000/C 6/32)
                         (2000/C 6/31)
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                  An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities               Justice of the European Communities on 25 October 1999 by
on 19 October 1999 by the Commission of the European                  the Commission of the European Communities, represented
Communities, represented by Götz zur Hausen, Legal Adviser,           by Marie Wolfcarius, Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, with an
and Olivier Couvert-Castéra, a national civil servant seconded        address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
to its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for           Gómez de la Cruz, member of the Legal Service of the
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Carlos Gómez de             Commission, Centre Wagner.
la Cruz, a member of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
Kirchberg.
                                                                      The Applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                      — declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or
— declare that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to             administrative provisions necessary to comply with
    implement properly and in full Article 3(2) and (4) of                Council Directive 94/55/EC (1) of 21 November 1994 on
    Council Directive 90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990 on the                    the approximation of the laws of the Member States with
    freedom of access to information on the environment (1),              regard to the transport of dangerous goods by road and
    the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations           Commission Directive 96/86/EC (2) adapting to technical
    under that directive;                                                 progress Council Directive 94/55/EC on the approximation
                                                                          of the laws of the Member States with regard to the
                                                                          transport of dangerous goods by road, or in any event by
— order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                          failing to inform the Commission of those measures,
                                                                          Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under those
                                                                          Directives;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                      — order Ireland to pay the costs.
— As regards transposition of Article 3(2) of Directive
    90/313/EEC, the Commission considers that the present
    position under Belgian law does not ensure that the
    competent authorities can never justify refusing access to        Pleas in law and main arguments
    environmental information on the basis of the exceptions
    in subparagraph 6 of Article 6(1) (protection of a federal
    economic or financial interest, of the currency, or of
    public funds) or subparagraph 2 of Article 6(2) (duty of          Article 249 EC (ex Article 189 of the EC Treaty), under which
    confidentiality) of the Federal Law of 11 June 1994 on            a directive shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved,
    public notices of the administrative authorities.                 upon each Member State, carries by implication an obligation
                                                                      on the Member States to observe the period for compliance
                                                                      laid down in the directive. That period expired on 1 January
— As regards transposition of Article 3(4) of Directive               1997 without Ireland having enacted the provisions necessary
    90/313/EEC, the Commission points out that the Belgian            to comply with the directives referred to in the conclusions of
    legal system does not provide a clear guarantee that              the Commission.
    any body bearing an appeal will automatically consider
    unlawful an implied refusal where reasons are not formally
    provided.
                                                                      (1) OJ L 319 of 12.12.1994, p. 7.
                                                                      (2) OJ L 335 of 24.12.1996, p. 43.
(1) OJ L 158 of 23.6.1990, p. 56.


title: Case T-340/07: Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2010 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission (Arbitration clause — eContent programme — Contract relating to a project designed to ensure maximum effectiveness of the programme and the widest possible participation of target groups — Non-performance of the contract — Termination of the contract)

text:
               27.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2010 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission
   (Case T-340/07) (1)

   (Arbitration clause - ‘eContent’ programme - Contract relating to a project designed to ensure maximum effectiveness of the programme and the widest possible participation of target groups - Non-performance of the contract - Termination of the contract)
   2010/C 80/39
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. Manhaeve, Agent, assisted by D. Philippe and M. Gouden, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought under Articles 235 EC, 238 EC and 288 EC for an order that the Commission make good damage suffered as a result of its failure to comply with contractual obligations in the context of the performance of the EDC-53007 EEBO/27873 contract relating to the project entitled ‘e-Content Exposure and Business Opportunities’.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.


title: Case C-172/15: Action brought on 16 April 2015 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               15.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 198/26

         Action brought on 16 April 2015 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-172/15)
   (2015/C 198/34)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Nicolae and J. Rius, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

      Forms of order sought

               —

               To declare, pursuant to Article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, that having not yet approved all of the assessments and port security plans for all Spanish ports included in the scope of European Parliament and Council Directive 2005/65/EC (1) of 26 October 2005 on enhancing port security, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(3) and Articles 6 and 7 of that directive, that provide respectively, that Member States are to define the boundaries of each port, and are to approve relevant port security assessments and plans;

               —

               Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   On 5 September 2014, the Kingdom of Spain acknowledged that, out of the 67 ports affected by the legislation in question, 3 port security assessments and 18 port security plans were still awaiting approval.
   From that date until the present, the Spanish authorities have continued to send updates regularly on the progress of the practical implementation of Directive 2005/65/EC. The latest of such reports, received on 14 April 2015, shows that, out of the 67 ports affected by the legislation in question, one assessment and eight port security plans are still awaiting approval.
   Consequently, the Commission notes that on the date of the latest report received, the Kingdom of Spain had failed to fulfil its obligations to define the relevant boundaries of each port affected by Directive 2005/65/EC, or its obligations to establish and approve a security assessment for all the ports to which Directive 2005/65/EC applies, and establish and approve port security plans for these ports.

      (1)  OJ L 310, p. 28.


title: Appeal brought on 10 February 1997 by Association Internationale des Utilisateurs de Fils de Filaments Artificiels et Synthétiques et de Soie Naturelle (Aiuffass) and Apparel, Knitting & Textiles Alliance (AKT) against the judgment delivered on 12 December 1996 by the Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-380/94 between Association Internationale des Utilisateurs de Fils de Filaments Artificiels et Synthétiques et de Soie Naturelle (Aiuffass) and Apparel, Knitting & Textiles Alliance (AKT), on the one hand, and Commission of the European Communities, supported by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, on the other (Case C-55/97 P)

text:
5 . 4 . 97               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 108/ 11
6 February 1997 by the Commission of the European                            References to the Court for preliminary rulings by the
Communities, represented by Richard Wainwright,                              Pretura Circondariale di Trento by orders of 3 February
Principal Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, and J. J. Evrard,                   1997 in the proceedings pending before that court
of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in                          between 1 . Epifanio Viscido, 2. Mauro Scandella and
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,                         Others, and 3 . Massimiliano Terragnolo and Others and
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                                                             Ente Poste Italiane
                                                                                (Case C-52/97, C-53/97 and C-54/97)
                                                                                ( 97/C 108/19 )
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                             European Communities by orders of the Pretura Circonda
                                                                             riale di Trento (Magistrate's Court for the District of
— declare that by maintaining in force two circulars                         Trento ), which was received at the Court Registry on
       allowing the maximum levels for nitrates and                          7 February 1997, for preliminary rulings in the cases of
       pesticides prescribed by Article 7 of Council Directive               1 . Epifanio Viscido, 2 . Mauro Scandella and Others, and
       80/778/EEC of 15 July 1980 relating to the quality of                 3 . Massimiliano Terragnolo and Others and Ente Poste
       water intended for human consumption ( l ) to be                      Italiane, on the following question:
       exceeded, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
       obligations under that Directive,                                     ( a ) whether a legal provision which relieves a particular
                                                                                public economic entity from the obligation of
                                                                                complying with the generally applicable legislation
                                                                                concerning fixed-term employment contracts falls
— order the French Republic to pay the costs .                                     within the scope of ' aid granted by a Member State or
                                                                                through State resources in any form whatsoever';
                                                                             ( b ) whether, if question ( a ) is answered in the affirmative,
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                an aid of that kind should be subject to the
                                                                                preliminary examination procedure under Article 93
                                                                                ( 3 ) of the Treaty;
Council Directive 80/778/EEC is implemented in French                        (c ) whether, where that procedure has not been followed,
law by, inter alia, Decree No 89-3 of 3 January 1989 on                            the prohibition of an aid of that kind can be regarded
water intended for human consumption other than natural                            as directly applicable within the domestic law of the
mineral waters, as amended by Decrees No 90-330 and                                Italian State;
No 91-257 ( 2). That statutory system is complemented by
two circulars from the Minister for Health and Social                        ( d ) whether, in the event of question (c ) being answered in
Security (Ministre de la solidarité, de la santé et la protec                     the affirmative, such a prohibition may be relied on in
tion sociale ), addressed to all regional and departmental                         a dispute between the public economic entity and an
prefects ( 3 ). Those circulars are incompatible with the                          individual who complains of failure to apply to him
Directive in that, first, they permit levels of nitrates,                          the general legislation concerning fixed-term
atrazine and simazine which significantly exceed the                               employment in order to secure conversion of his
maximum permissible concentrations laid down by the                                employment relationship into one of indeterminate
Directive. Secondly, the circulars create a situation of legal                     duration and/or compensation for damage .
uncertainty in the conditions for applying Directive 80/
778/EEC in French territory; they imply that the result
required by the Directive has not been and cannot be
achieved, and that neither consumers, nor operators                          Appeal brought on 10 February 1997 by Association Inter
entrusted with the production or distribution of water for                   nationale des Utilisateurs de Fils de Filaments Artificiels et
human consumption, nor the authorities in charge of                          Synthetiques et de Soie Naturelle (Aiuffass ) and Apparel,
ensuring water quality are able to ascertain the precise                     Knitting & Textiles Alliance (AKT) against the judgment
extent of their respective rights and obligations. Finally,                  delivered on 12 December 1996 by the Fifth Chamber,
the French Government's arguments calling into question                      Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of
the policy foundation of the Directive in relation to the                    the European Communities in Case T-3 80/94 between
requirements of public health are both irrelevant as                         Association Internationale des Utilisateurs de Fils de Fila
regards the obligations imposed by Article 189 of the EC                     ments Artificiels et Synthetiques et de Soie Naturelle ( Aiuf
Treaty and unfounded in fact.                                                fass ) and Apparel, Knitting & Textiles Alliance (AKT), on
                                                                             the one hand, and Commission of the European
                                                                             Communities, supported by the United Kingdom of Great
(') OJ No L 229 , 30 . 8 . 1980, p. 11 .
                                                                                Britain and Northern Ireland, on the other
( 2 ) JORF, 4. 1 . 1989, 13 . 4. 1990 and 8 . 3 . 1991 .
(') DSG/PGE/ 1.D. No 717 — triazine content of water intended                                           ( Case C-55/97 P)
      for human consumption; DGS/PGE/1.D. No 1325 — nitrate
                                                                                ( 97/C 108/20 )
      content of water intended for human consumption.
                                                                             An appeal against the judgment delivered on 12 December
                                                                              1996 by the Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition, of the
 ---pagebreak--- No C 108/ 12          EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      5 . 4 . 97
Court of First Instance of the European Communities in                 The applicant claims that the Court should :
Case T-3 80/94 between Association Internationale des Uti
lisateurs de Fils de Filaments Artificiels et Synthetiques et
de Soie Naturelle (Aiuffass ) and Apparel, Knitting &                  1 . declare that, by failing to bring into force within the
Textiles Alliance (AKT), on the one hand, and                                 prescribed period the laws, regulations or
Commission of the European Communities, supported by                          administrative provisions comprising any penalties
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern                              necessary to comply with Council Directive 93/119/
Ireland, on the other, was brought before the Court of                        EC (') of 22 December 1993 on the protection of
Justice of the European Communities on 10 February                            animals at the time of slaughter or killing, the French
1997 by Association Internationale des Utilisateurs de Fils                   Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
de Filaments Artificiels et Synthetiques et de Soie Naturelle                 Article 18 of Directive 93/119/EC and the EC Treaty;
( Aiuffass ) and Apparel, Knitting & Textiles Alliance
( AKT), represented by M. Waelbroeck, J. Stuyck and O.
                                                                       2 . order the French Republic to pay the costs .
Speltdoorn, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of E. Arendt, 8—10 Rue
Mathias Hardt .
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The appellant claims that:
                                                                       The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third
                                                                       paragraph of Article 189 and the first paragraph of
— the judgment of the Fifth Chamber, Extended                          Article 5 of the EC Treaty requires Member States to
      Composition, of the Court of First Instance of                   adopt the measures necessary to transpose directives
      12 December 1996 in Case T-3 80/94 should be set                 addressed to them into their domestic law before the
      aside,                                                           expiry of the period prescribed for doing so. That period
                                                                       expired on 1 January 1995 without the French Republic
— consequently, the Commission Decision of 31 May                      having brought into force the necessary provisions .
       1994, reproduced in Commission Notice 94/C 271/06,
      authorizing the Government of the United Kingdom                 (') OJ No L 340, 31 . 12 . 1993 , p . 21 .
      under Article 92 ( 3 ) ( a ) and (c ) of the EC Treaty to
      grant aid of £ 61 million in favour of Hualon
       Corporation for the setting up of a textile producing
       plant in Northern Ireland should be annulled,
 — the Commission should be ordered to pay the costs of
       the appeal proceedings and of the proceedings before            Action brought on 10 February 1997 by the Commission
       the Court of First Instance in Case T-380/94 .                   of the European Communities against the French Republic
                                                                                Case C-57/97)
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                               97/C 108/22 )
 The appellants maintain that the Commission failed to
  take account of the effects of the investment at issue in the         An action against the French Republic was brought before
  high-range product sector. They consider that, in assessing           the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
  that aspect of the application, the contested judgment                10 February 1997 by the Commission of the European
  misinterpreted the Commission Decision and failed to                  Communities, represented by A. X. Lewis, acting as
  respond sufficiently to their arguments .                             Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                        office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,
                                                                        Kirchberg.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
  Action brought on 10 February 1997 by the Commission
   of the European Communities against the French Republic               ( a ) declare that, by failing to bring into force within the
                           Case C-56/97)                                       prescribed period the laws, regulations or
                                                                               administrative provisions necessary to comply with:
                           ( 97/C 108/21 )
                                                                               1 . Council Directive 93/53/EEC ( 1 ) of 24 June 1993
   An action against the French Republic was brought before                        introducing minimum Community measures for
   the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                             the control of certain fish diseases;
   10 February 1997 by the Commission of the European
   Communities, represented by A. X. Lewis, acting as                          2 . Council Directive 93/113/EC (2 ) of 14 December
   Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                          1993 concerning the use and marketing of
   office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,                                enzymes, micro-organisms and their preparations
   Kirchberg.                                                                       in animal nutrition;


title: Case C-285/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 24 July 2009 — Criminal proceedings against R

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/31

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 24 July 2009 — Criminal proceedings against R
   (Case C-285/09)
   2009/C 267/55
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Party to the main proceedings

   R

      Question referred

               1.

               Must Article 28cA(a) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1) be interpreted as meaning that a supply of goods within the meaning of that provision is to be refused exemption from value added tax if the supply has actually been effected, but it is established on the basis of objective factors that the vendor, a taxable person,

                           (a)

                           knew that, by his supply, he was participating in a transaction aimed at evading VAT, or

                           (b)

                           took actions aimed at concealing the true identity of the person to whom the goods were supplied in order to enable the latter person or a third person to evade VAT?

      (1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment; OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.


title: Case C-10/01: Action brought on 21 March 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
C 150/16               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     19.5.2001
Action brought on 21 March 2001 by the Commission of                     French Republic, or implementation deadlines. The ‘local
 the European Communities against the French Republic                    recycling programmes for eliminating the main types of
                                                                         industrial waste’ communicated at the same time are, even
                                                                         taking into account subsequent exchanges of correspondence,
                         (Case C-10/01)                                  very imprecise, contain no schedule or timetable, and do not
                                                                         cover the whole of France.
                        (2001/C 150/30)
                                                                         In relation to the laws and regulations communicated, which
                                                                         relate to the conditions for being granted prior authorisation
An action against the French Republic was brought before the             with emission standards, the Commission considers that a
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 21 March                 system of prior authorisation in relation to the discharge
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,                      of dangerous substances cannot, however indispensable, be
represented by G. Valero Jordana and J. Adda, acting as Agents,          considered to render the programmes referred to in Article 7
with an address for service in Luxembourg.                               of the Directive superfluous.
                                                                         As regards the quality objectives for water into which the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              substances in List II are discharged, throughout their corre-
                                                                         spondence the authorities in the French Republic manifested
                                                                         an increasing reluctance to implement such objectives. As for
—     find that, by failing to adopt pollution reduction pro-
                                                                         the measures communicated, the only quality objectives
      grammes including quality objectives for the 99 danger-
                                                                         referred to in the correspondence from the French Government
      ous substances listed in the Annex and failing to com-
                                                                         relate to water-courses, not to inland water, sea water or near-
      municate to the Commission summaries of those pro-
                                                                         shore waters. Furthermore the objectives referred to are too
      grammes and the results of their implementation, con-
                                                                         imprecise to comply with the requirements of Article 7 of the
      trary to Article 7 of Directive 76/464/EEC, (1) the French
                                                                         Directive.
      Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
      Treaty;
                                                                         (1) Council Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution cause
—     order the French Republic to pay the costs.                            by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic
                                                                             environment of the Community (OJ 1976 L 129 p. 23).
Pleas in law and main arguments
Although the French Republic has communicated a certain
number of measures supposedly constituting a national pro-
gramme as referred to in Article 7(1) of the Directive, it
                                                                         Action brought on 21 March 2001 by the Commission of
challenges, in a manner that becomes more marked as its
                                                                           the European Communities against the Italian Republic
correspondence progresses, the duty to implement reduction
programmes under Article 7 of the Directive including quality
objectives for the substances in List II of the Directive.                                        (Case C-131/01)
Although the French Republic has implemented certain
measures intended to combat pollution by dangerous sub-
stances, those measures do not amount to proper implemen-                                         (2001/C 150/31)
tation of Article 7 of Directive 76/464/EEC as regards the
implementation of programmes to reduce pollution caused by               An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
the relevant substances in List II including quality objectives          Court of Justice on 21 March 2001 by the Commission of the
for water into which those substances are discharged.                    European Communities, represented by Bernard Mongin and
                                                                         Roberto Amorosi, acting as Agents
As regards the establishment of programmes, in 1991 the
French Republic communicated a ‘national programme’ com-                 The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:
prising a series of uncoordinated measures with no objectives
or overall schedule. The ‘sectoral programmes’ contained                 —     Declare that, by keeping in force rules requiring patent
therein are in fact no more than a description of the legal                    consultants residing in other Member States to be entered
framework applicable (or even just contemplated), resulting                    on the Italian register of patent consultants and to have a
from national legislation relating to facilities classified as being           residence or professional address in Italy in order to
for the protection of the environment, and do not contain any                  provide services involving dealings with the Patent Office,
specific plans or concrete objectives to reduce pollution by the               the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
dangerous substances referred to in List II or for those of the                under Articles 49 to 55 of the EC Treaty regarding the
99 priority substances relevant in the national context for the                freedom to provide services;


title: Case C-266/12 P: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 February 2013 — Jarosław Majtczak v Feng Shen Technology Co. Ltd, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeals — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 51(1)(b) — Applicant’s bad faith when filing the Community trade mark — Figurative mark ‘FS’ — Application for a declaration of invalidity)

text:
               4.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/4

         Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 February 2013 — Jarosław Majtczak v Feng Shen Technology Co. Ltd, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-266/12 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 51(1)(b) - Applicant’s bad faith when filing the Community trade mark - Figurative mark ‘FS’ - Application for a declaration of invalidity)
   2013/C 129/08
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Jarosław Majtczak (represented by: J. Radłowski, radca prawny)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Feng Shen Technology Co. Ltd (represented by P. Rath, Rechtsanwalt), Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent,)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 March 2012 in Case T-227/09 Feng Shen Technology v OHIM — Majtczak (FS), by which the General Court annulled Decision R 529/2008-4 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 1 April 2009 dismissing the appeal brought against the decision of the Cancellation Division which had rejected the application for a declaration of invalidity brought by the applicant against the figurative mark ‘FS’ for goods in Class 26

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Jarosław Majtczak shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 258, 25.8.2012.


title: Case T-428/14: Action brought on 12 June 2014  — Gasiber 2000 v Commission

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/57

         Action brought on 12 June 2014 — Gasiber 2000 v Commission
   (Case T-428/14)
   2014/C 253/76
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Gasiber 2000, SL (Alcorcón, Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. García Muñoz, J. Jiménez-Blanco Carrillo de Albornoz and J. Corral García, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay all the costs incurred in the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are those raised in Case T-392/14 Gutser v Commission.


title: Case T-68/16: Action brought on 15 February 2016 — Deichmann v EUIPO — Munich (Representation of a cross on the side of a sports shoe)

text:
               29.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 111/40

         Action brought on 15 February 2016 — Deichmann v EUIPO — Munich (Representation of a cross on the side of a sports shoe)
   (Case T-68/16)
   (2016/C 111/49)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Deichmann SE (Essen, Germany) (represented by: C. Onken, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Munich, SL (Capellades, Spain)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark (Representation of a cross on the side of a sports shoe — EU trade mark No 2 923 852

      Procedure before EUIPO: Revocation proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 December 2015 in Case R 2345/2014-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before EUIPO to bear the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-384/16 P: Appeal brought on 11 July 2016 by European Union Copper Task Force against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 27 April 2016 in Case T-310/15: European Union Copper Task Force v European Commission

text:
               29.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/15

         Appeal brought on 11 July 2016 by European Union Copper Task Force against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 27 April 2016 in Case T-310/15: European Union Copper Task Force v European Commission
   (Case C-384/16 P)
   (2016/C 314/21)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: European Union Copper Task Force (represented by: C. Fernández Vicién, I. Moreno-Tapia Rivas, C. Vila Gisbert, abogadas)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the Order of the Third Chamber of the General Court of the European Union of 27 April 2016 in Case T-310/15, European Union Copper Task Force v. European Commission.

               —

               Declare the admissibility of the action for annulment lodged by the European Copper Task Force against the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/408.

               —

               Refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union for judgment.

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the costs generated by these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               The General Court committed an error of law by considering that Implementing Regulation 2015/408 (1) is a regulatory act that entails implementing measures within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU.

               2.

               The General Court committed an error of law by considering that the dismissal of the EUCuTF’s action would not impair its right and its members’ right to effective judicial protection.

               3.

               The General Court committed an error of law by considering that the EUCuTF and its members were not individually affected by Implementing Regulation 2015/408.

      (1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/408 of 11 March 2015 on implementing Article 80(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and establishing a list of candidates for substitution. OJ L 67, p. 18


title: Case C-127/09: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 June 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Nürnberg (Germany)) — Coty Prestige Lancaster Group GmbH v Simex Trading AG (Trade-mark law — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 13(1) — Directive 89/104/EEC — Article 7(1) — Exhaustion of the trade mark proprietor’s rights — Concept of ‘goods put on the market’ — Consent of the proprietor — Bottles of perfume known as ‘testers’ , made available by the trade mark proprietor to an authorised specialist dealer belonging to a selective distribution network)

text:
               31.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/8

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 June 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Nürnberg (Germany)) — Coty Prestige Lancaster Group GmbH v Simex Trading AG
   (Case C-127/09) (1)

   (Trade-mark law - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 13(1) - Directive 89/104/EEC - Article 7(1) - Exhaustion of the trade mark proprietor’s rights - Concept of ‘goods put on the market’ - Consent of the proprietor - Bottles of perfume known as ‘testers’, made available by the trade mark proprietor to an authorised specialist dealer belonging to a selective distribution network)
   2010/C 209/11
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht Nürnberg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Coty Prestige Lancaster Group GmbH

      Defendant: Simex Trading AG

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht Nürnberg — Interpretation of Article 13(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1) and Article 7 of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1) — Exhaustion of the right conferred by the trade mark — Interpretation of the expression ‘product put on the market’ — Perfume testers the packaging of which bears the information that the product is intended for advertising purposes and not for sale, which are made available to contracted distributors on an interim basis and without a transfer of ownership

      Operative part of the judgment

   In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, Article 13(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark and Article 7(1) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, as amended by the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992, are to be interpreted as meaning that the rights conferred by the trade mark are exhausted only if, according to an assessment which it is for the national court to make, it may be concluded that the proprietor of the mark expressly or impliedly consented to a putting on the market, either in the European Community or in the European Economic Area, of the goods in respect of which that exhaustion is claimed to exist.
   In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, where ‘perfume testers’ are made available, without transfer of ownership and with a prohibition on sale, to intermediaries who are contractually bound to the trade mark proprietor for the purpose of allowing their customers to test the contents, where the trade mark proprietor may at any time recall those goods and where the presentation of the goods is clearly distinguishable from that of the bottles of perfume normally made available to the intermediaries by the trade mark proprietor, the fact that those testers are bottles of perfume which bear not only the word ‘Demonstration’ but also the statement ‘Not for Sale’ precludes, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, which it is for the national court to assess, a finding that the trade mark proprietor impliedly consented to putting them on the market.

      (1)  OJ C 141, 20.6.2009.


title: Case C-294/07: Action brought on 19 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/18

         Action brought on 19 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-294/07)
   (2007/C 211/35)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Maidani, Agent, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (1), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 40 of that directive;

               —

               order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for the transposition of Directive 2004/38/EC into domestic law expired on 29 April 2006.

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77 and corrigenda — OJ 2004 L 229, p. 35 and OJ 2005 L 197, p. 34.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 March 1999 in Case C-2/98 P: Henri de Compte v European Parliament (Officials - Application for revision of a judgment of the Court of First Instance - Appeal to the Court of Justice)

text:
3.7.1999                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 188/5
1. Declares that, by failing to classify as a special protection area a      2. Annuls the decision of 21 February 1995 appointing Mr X as
    sufficiently large area of the Seine estuary and by failing to adopt         head of division in the Directorate-General for Information and
    measures to provide the classified special protection area with an           Public Relations of the European Parliament and assigning him
    adequate legal regime, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its          to the Parliament Information Office for Spain in Madrid;
    obligations under Article 4(1) and (2) of Council Directive
    79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds;            3. Orders the European Parliament to pay in their entirety the costs
                                                                                of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance and the
2. Dismisses the remainder of the application;                                   Court of Justice.
3. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                             (1) OJ No C 318 of 18.10.1997.
(1) OJ No C 212 of 12.7.1997.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 18 March 1999
                          (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                             in Case C-2/98 P: Henri de Compte v European Parlia-
                          of 18 March 1999                                                                 ment (1)
in Case C-304/97 P: Fernando Carbajo Ferrero v European                      (Officials — Application for revision of a judgment of the
                             Parliament (1)                                     Court of First Instance — Appeal to the Court of Justice)
(Officials — Internal competition — Appointment to a post                                              (1999/C 188/10)
                         of head of division)
                           (1999/C 188/09)                                                       (Language of the case: French)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       In Case C-2/98 P: Henri de Compte, formerly an official of the
                    in the European Court Reports)                           European Parliament, represented by Henri Ferretti, of the
                                                                             Thionville Bar, 39 Boulevard Jeanne d’Arc, F - 57100 Thionville
                                                                             — appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance
In Case C-304/97 P: Fernando Carbajo Ferrero, an official of                 of the European Communities (First Chamber) of 5 November
the European Parliament, residing in Madrid, represented by                  1997 in Case T-26/89 (125) De Compte v Parliament [1997]
Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of the Brussels Bar,                    ECR-SC I-A-305 and II-847, seeking to have that judgment set
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of                  aside, the other party to the proceedings being: European
Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange — appeal against                   Parliament (Agents: Evelyn Waldherr and Anders Neergaard)
the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European                  — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of P.J.G. Kapteyn,
Communities (First Chamber) of 12 June 1997 in Case                          President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch, G.F. Mancini, H. Ragnem-
T-237/95 Carbajo Ferrero v Parliament [1997] ECR-SC                          alm (Rapporteur) and K.M. Ioannou, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate
I-A-141 and II-429, seeking to have that judgment set aside,                 General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 March
the other party to the proceedings being: European Parliament                1999, in which it:
(Agent: Norbert Lorenz, assisted by Francis Herbert and Daniel
M. Tomasevic) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of                       1. Dismisses the appeal;
P.J.G Kapteyn, President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch, G.F. Man-
cini, H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur) and K.M. Ioannou, Judges;                    2. Orders Mr de Compte to pay the costs.
N. Fennelly, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 18 March 1999 in which it:
                                                                             (1) OJ No C 113 of 11.4.1998.
1. Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
    European Communities of 12 June 1997 in Case T-237/95
    Carbajo Ferrero v Parliament;