title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 16 October 1997 in Case C-258/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof): Julius Fillibeck Söhne GmbH & Co. KG v. Finanzamt Neustadt (Sixth VAT Directive - Supply of services for consideration - Definition - Transport of workers by the employer)

text:
22. 11 . 97            1 EN 1            Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 357/9
madura, Caceres ( High Court of Justice of the Community                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
of Extremadura, Caceres) ( Spain ), for a preliminary ruling                                 ( Second Chamber)
in the proceedings pending before that court between
Antonio Naranjo Arjona and Instituto Nacional de la                                          of 9 October 1997
Seguridad Social (INSS ), Francisco Vicente Mateos and              in Case C-291/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS ), Tesoreria        the Amtsgericht Reutlingen): Criminal proceedings against
General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS ), and Instituto                           Martino Grado and Shahid Bashir ( ')
Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS ) and Laura Garcia
Lazaro — on the interpretation of Article 47 ( 1 ) of               (Preliminary reference — Criminal proceedings — Use of
Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971               a courtesy title — Discrimination — Relevance of the
on the application of social security schemes to employed                         question — Lack of jurisdiction)
persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their
                                                                                ( 97/C 357/16 )
families moving within the Community, as amended and
updated by Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2001/83 of
2 June 1983 ( OJ L 230, 22 . 8 . 1983 , p. 6 ) and as adapted                      (Language of the case: German)
by Annex I, Part VIII, of the Act concerning the
Conditions of Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the
Portuguese Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
( OJ L 302, 15 . 11 . 1985 , p. 23 ), and subsequently                       published in the European Court Reports)
amended by Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1248/92 of
30 April 1992 ( OJ L 136 , 19 . 5 . 1992, p. 7) — the Court         In Case C-291 /96 : reference to the Court under Article 177
( Fifth Chamber), composed of: J. C. Moitinho de
Almeida, acting for the President of the Chamber, D. A. O.          of the EC Treaty from the Amtsgericht ( Local Court ),
Edward, J. -P. Puissochet ( Rapporteur ), P. Jann and L.            Reutlingen ( Germany), for a preliminary ruling in the
Sevon, Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate-General; H. von              criminal proceedings pending before that court against
Holstein, Deputy Registrar, Administrator, for the                  Martino Grado and Shahid Bashir — on the interpretation
Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 October 1997, in               of Article 6 of the EC Treaty — the Court ( Second
which it has ruled :                                                Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen ( Rapporteur),
                                                                    President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini and G. Hirsch,
                                                                    Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar,
                                                                    has given a judgment on 9 October 1997, in which it has
                                                                    ruled :
Article 47 (1 ) (e) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/
71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security            The Court has no jurisdiction to answer the question
schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons               referred by the Amtsgericht Reutlingen.
and to members of their families moving within the
Community, as amended and updated by Council
                                                                    (') OJ C 318, 26 . 10 . 1996 .
Regulation (EEC) No 2001 /83 of 2 June 1983 and as
adapted by Annex I, Part VIII, of the Act concerning the
Conditions of Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the
Portuguese Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties,
and which has become Article 47 (1 ) (g) following the
entry into force of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92
of 30 April 1992, implies that, in situations such as that at                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
issue in the main proceedings, calculation of the average
basis for contributions rests solely on the amount of                                          ( Fifth Chamber)
contributions actually paid under the legislation                                           of 16 October 1997
concerned, and the theoretical amount of the benefit thus
obtained is to be duly revalorized and increased as if the          in Case C-258/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
persons concerned had continued to work under the same              the Bundesfinanzhof): Julius Fillibeck Sohne GmbH &c Co.
conditions in the Member State in question. However,                                KG v. Finanzamt Neustadt (*)
where application of that provision so interpreted proves           (Sixth VAT Directive — Supply of services for
less advantageous, for workers who were already                     consideration — Definition — Transport of workers by
employed in another Member State before the regulation                                            the employer)
entered into force in the first Member State, than the
application of a previous convention between those two                                           ( 97/C 357/ 17 )
States, the competent court should, by way of exception,
apply the rules laid down by that convention.                                      (Language of the case: German)
(') OJ C 95 , 30 . 3 . 1996 .                                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                             published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                    In Case C-258/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                    of the EC Treaty from the Bundesfinanzhof ( Federal
 ---pagebreak--- C 357/10                  EN            Official Journal of the European Communities                                     22 . 11 . 97
Finance Court), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
pending before that court between Julius Fillibeck Söhne                                   (Fifth Chamber)
GmbH & Co . KG and Finanzamt Neustadt — on the
interpretation of Articles 2 ( 1 ) and 6 (2 ) of the Sixth                               of 16 October 1997
Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating            in Joined Cases C-69/96 to C-79/96 (reference for a
to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax:              preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato): Maria
uniform basis of assessment ( OJ L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p. 1 )     Antonella Garofalo and Others v. Ministero della Sanità,
— the Court ( Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann,                   Unità Sanitaria Locale ( USL ) No 58 di Palermo (')
President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet, J. C. Moitinho de           (Article 1 77 of the EC Treaty — Jurisdiction — Court of
Almeida, P. Jann and L. Sevón ( Rapporteur ), Judges;              one of the Member States ■— Extraordinary petition to the
P. Leger, Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl, Principal                  President of the Italian Republic — Compulsory opinion
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on          of the Consiglio di Stato — Directives 86/457/EEC and
16 October 1997, in which it has ruled:                            93/16/EEC — Specific training in general medical practice
                                                                              — Rights acquired before 1 January 1995)
                                                                                ( 97/C 357/18 )
1 . Article 2 (1 ) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/
     EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the                                  (Language of the case: Italian)
     laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes
     — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis
     of assessment is to be interpreted as meaning that an            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
     employer who provides transport for employees free of                    published in the European Court Reports)
     charge from their homes to the workplace where they
     are more than a specified distance apart, in the
     absence of any real connection either with the work           In Joined Cases C-69/96 to C-79/96 : reference to the
     performed or the wages received, does not effect a            Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Consi
     supply of services for consideration within the               glio di Stato ( Council of State ) ( Italy ), for a preliminary
     meaning of that provision.                                    ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
                                                                   between Maria Antonella Garofalo (C-69/96 ), Giovanni
                                                                   Pagano ( C-70/96 ), Rosa Bruna Vitale ( C-71/96 ), Francesca
                                                                   Nuccio ( C-72/96 ), Giacomo Cangialosi ( C-73/96 ), Gia
                                                                   coma D'Amico ( C-74/96 ), Giulia Lombardo ( C-75/96 ),
2 . Article 6 (2) of the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC is to          Emanuela Giovenco (C-76/96 ), Caterina Lo Gaglio ( C-77/
     be interpreted as meaning that transport provided for          96 ), Daniela Guerrera ( C-78/96 ) and Cesare Di Marco
     employees free of charge by the employer between               ( C-79/96 ) and Ministero della Sanità, Unità Sanitaria
     their homes and the workplace in a company vehicle            Locale ( USL ) No 58 di Palermo — on the interpretation of
     serves, in principle, the employees ' private purposes        Article 177 of the EC Treaty and Article 7 of Council
     and thus serves purposes other than those of the               Directive 86/457/EEC of 15 September 1986 on specific
     business. However, that provision does not apply              training in general medical practice ( OJ L 267, 19. 9 .
     when, having regard to certain circumstances, such as          1986, p. 26 ) — the. Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of:
     the difficulty of finding other suitable means of              C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet, J. C.
     transport and changes in the place of work, the                Moitinho de Almeida, D. A. O. Edward ( Rapporteur) and
     requirements of the business make it necessary for the        J. -P. Puissochet, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,
     employer to provide transport for employees, in which          Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
     case the supply of those transport services is not             judgment on 16 October 1997, in which it has ruled :
     effected for purposes other than those of the business.
                                                                    1 . When it issues an opinion in the context of an
                                                                         extraordinary petition, the Consiglio di Stato
                                                                         constitutes a court or tribunal for the purposes of
 3 . The answer to the second question also applies when                 Article 177 of the EC Treaty.
      the employer does not convey the employees in its
      own vehicles, but commissions one of its employees to
     provide the transport using his own private vehicle.           2 . Article 36 (2) of Council Directive 93/16/EEC of
                                                                         5 April 1993 to facilitate the free movement of
                                                                         doctors and the mutual recognition of their diplomas,
                                                                         certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications
 (') OJ C 268 , 14 . 10 . 1995 .                                         — which replaced Article 7 (2) of Council Directive
                                                                         86/457/EEC of 15 September 1986 on specific training
                                                                         in general medical practice — is to be interpreted as
                                                                         meaning that a Member State may determine the
                                                                         acquired right of practitioners of general medicine as
                                                                         regards situations prior to 1 January 1995, provided


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 July 2000 in Case C-136/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État): Ministre du Budget, Ministre de l'Économie et des Finances v Société Monte Dei Paschi Di Siena (Turnover tax — Common system of value added tax — Refund of the tax to taxable persons not established in the country — Article 17 of the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC and Articles 2 and 5 of the Eighth Directive 79/1072/EEC)

text:
C 316/6                  EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                          4.11.2000
Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the                       Article 15b(8) of Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 of the Council of
coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-               18 May 1972 on the common organisation of the market in
employed commercial agents precludes national legislation which               fruit and vegetables, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC)
makes the validity of an agency contract conditional upon the                 No 3284/83 of 14 November 1983, must be interpreted as
commercial agent being entered in the appropriate register. The               meaning that, where a Member State has applied Article 15b(1) of
national court is bound, when applying provisions of domestic law             that regulation, that is to say where it has made certain rules on
predating or postdating the said Directive, to interpret those                production and marketing adopted by a producers’ organisation
provisions, so far as possible, in the light of the wording and purpose       binding on producers established in the district who do not belong to
of the Directive, so that those provisions are applied in a manner            that organisation, it is entitled to exempt certain non-member
consistent with the result pursued by the Directive.                          producers from the payment of fees, in respect of a given product, in
                                                                              so far as the goods produced by them are intended for industrial
                                                                              processing rather than for the fresh-product market.
(1) OJ C 48 of 20.2.1999.
                                                                              (1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            of 13 July 2000                                                             (Fifth Chamber)
in Case C-117/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                                of 13 July 2000
the Cour de Cassation): Union Nationale Interpro-
fessionnelle des Légumes Transformés (Unilet), Gilles Le
Bars v Association Comité Économique Régional Agricole                       in Case C-136/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
          Fruits et Légumes de Bretagne (Cerafel) (1)                         the Conseil d’État): Ministre du Budget, Ministre de
                                                                              l’Économie et des Finances v Société Monte Dei Paschi Di
                                                                                Siena (1)
(Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets —
Fruit and vegetables — Producers’ organisations — Impo-
sition of fees on non-member producers of fresh products —                    (Turnover tax — Common system of value added tax —
Exemption for non-member producers of products intended                       Refund of the tax to taxable persons not established in the
        for processing — Lawfulness of the exemption)                         country — Article 17 of the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC and
                                                                                Articles 2 and 5 of the Eighth Directive 79/1072/EEC)
                           (2000/C 316/10)
                                                                                (2000/C 316/11)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-117/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Cour de                           In Case C-136/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
Cassation, France, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Conseil d’État,
pending before that court between Union Nationale Interpro-                   France, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
fessionnelle des Légumes Transformés (Unilet), Gilles Le Bars                 before that court between Ministre du Budget, Ministre de
and Association Comité Économique Régional Agricole Fruits                   l’Économie et des Finances and Société Monte Dei Paschi Di
et Légumes de Bretagne (Cerafel) — on the interpretation of                   Siena — on the interpretation of Articles 2 and 5 of the Eighth
Article 15b(8) of Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 of the Council                  Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the
of 18 May 1972 on the common organisation of the market                       harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to
in fruit and vegetables (OJ, English Special Edition 1972(II),                turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added
p. 437), as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3284/83                    tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the
of 14 November 1983 (OJ 1983 L 325, p. 1) — the Court                         country (OJ 1979 L 331 p. 11), — the Court (Fifth Chamber)
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward, President of the                 composed of: D.A.O. Edward, President of the Chamber,
Chamber, L. Sevón, P. Jann (Rapporteur), H. Ragnemalm and                    L. Sevón, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur) and M. Wathe-
M. Wathelet, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,                   let, Judges, A. Saggio, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment              Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
on 13 July 2000, in which it has ruled:                                       13 July 2000, in which it has ruled:
 ---pagebreak--- 4.11.2000                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                               C 316/7
Articles 2 and 5 of the Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of              that regulation — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
6 December 1979 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member               D.A.O. Edward, President of the Chamber, L. Sevón, P.J.G. Kap-
States relating to turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of           teyn (Rapporteur), P. Jann and M. Wathelet, Judges; F.G. Jacobs,
value added tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of       Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
the country must be interpreted as meaning that:                             on 13 July 2000, in which it:
—     they grant taxable persons established in a Member State where         1.    Declares that, by maintaining unamended Article 257(1) of
      only part of their transactions are taxed a right to partial refund          the French Customs Code of 11 May 1977 as regards
      of the VAT which has been charged in a Member State where                    Community shipowners covered by Article 1(1) of Council
      they are not established on goods or services used for the purposes          Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying
      of their transactions in the Member State of establishment;                  the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport
                                                                                within Member States (maritime cabotage), the French Republic
—     the amount of VAT refundable is calculated, first, by determin-              has failed to fulfil its obligations under that regulation;
      ing which transactions give rise to a right to deduction in the
      Member State of establishment and, second, by taking account           2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
      solely of the transactions which would also give rise to a right
      of deduction in the Member State of refund if they were carried
                                                                             (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
      out there and of the expenses giving rise to a right to deduction
      in the latter State.
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                                   of 13 July 2000
                            (Fifth Chamber)                                  in Case C-166/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                             the Cour du travail de Bruxelles): Marthe Defreyn v
                                                                                Sabena SA (1)
                             of 13 July 2000
                                                                             (Equal pay for men and women — Additional pre-retirement
in Case C-160/99: Commission of the European Communi-                                                         payment)
                       ties v French Republic (1)
                                                                                (2000/C 316/13)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Freedom to provide services — Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92
    — Maritime cabotage — Ships flying the French flag)                                           (Language of the case: French)
                            (2000/C 316/12)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                      (Language of the case: French)
                                                                             In Case C-166/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                                                                             the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Cour du Travail,
                                                                             Brussels, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                             before that court between Marthe Defreyn and Sabena SA, on
                     in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             the interpretation of Protocol No 2 on Article 119 of the
                                                                             Treaty establishing the European Community, annexed to the
In Case C-160/99: Commission of the European Communities                     EC Treaty, and Article 5 of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of
(Agents: F. Benyon and B. Mongin) v French Republic (Agents:                 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of
K. Rispal-Bellanger and D. Colas) — application for a declar-                equal treatment for men and women as regards access to
ation that, by maintaining unamended Article 257(1) of the                   employment, vocational training and promotion, and working
French Customs Code of 11 May 1977 as regards Community                      conditions (OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40) — the Court (Fifth Chamber),
shipowners covered by Article 1(1) of Council Regulation                     composed of: D.A.O. Edward, President of the Chamber,
(EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying the principle                   L. Sevón, P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), P. Jann and M. Wathelet,
of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within                  Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; D. Louter-
Member States (maritime cabotage) (OJ 1992 L 364, p. 7), the                 man-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under                   given a judgment on 13 July 2000, in which it ruled:


title: Action brought on 29 September 1998 by RJB Mining plc against Commission of the European Communities (Case T-156/98)

text:
21.11.98             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 358/23
Instance of the European Communities on 23 September                have been reasonable and equitable for a statement of
1998 by the companies known as Asia Motor                           objections to have been sent thirteen years ago to the
France, established at Livange (Luxembourg), JMC                    members of the cartel and to their trade association. The
Automobiles, established at Livange (Luxembourg),                   cartel was already sufficiently established at that time. It
Monin Automobiles, established at Bourg-de-PeÂage                   would have been for the undertakings involved to
(France), and EAS, established at Livange (Luxembourg),             establish in the course of discussions that the so-called
represented by Jean Claude Fourgoux, of the Paris Bar,              voluntary limitation arrangement, in return for compliance
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                    with which they derived advantages including the
Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4 rue BeÂatrix de Bourbon.             exclusion of competition from Japan, did not reflect the
                                                                    exercise by them of any commercial choice but was due to
                                                                    irresistible pressure placed on them by the French State
The applicants claim that the Court should:                         involving a threat of substantial loss for them.
Ð annul unconditionally the Commission's Decision of                The applicants also claim that, with the exception of
    15/16 July 1998;                                                Article 115, the Treaty makes no provision for any
                                                                    category of lawful practices which could include a
                                                                    voluntary limitation scheme such as that in issue, since
Ð take formal note that the applicants reserve the right            France has never requested authorisation to take
    to claim compensation for the damage suffered;                  protective measures in the sphere in question. Nor was it
                                                                    open to the Commission to rely on any French rules in
                                                                    order to exempt the members of the cartel from the
                                                                    application of Community competition law, inasmuch as
Ð order the Commission to pay all the costs.
                                                                    such rules simply did not exist.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 (1) Case T-7/92 Asia Motor France and Others v. Commission
                                                                        [1993] ECR II-671.
                                                                    (2) Case T-387/94 Asia Motor France and Others v. Commission
                                                                        [1996] ECR II-965.
The applicants in the present case, importers of Suzuki,
Daihatsu, Isuzu and Subaru vehicles into France who are
currently in judicial liquidation, contest the rejection by
the Commission of the complaint lodged by them thirteen
years ago concerning a system involving the voluntary
limitation of imports into France of various other makes
of Japanese vehicles. According to the decision in issue,
                                                                    Action brought on 29 September 1998 by RJB Mining plc
quota-sharing arrangements, non-compliance with which
could lead to the imposition of administrative penalties,                against Commission of the European Communities
were exclusively a matter for the French administrative                                    (Case T-156/98)
authorities, pressure was placed on each importer
individually, and the complaint did not concern the                                         (98/C 358/42)
Community and had ceased to be relevant.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
The applicants maintain, first of all, that, by adopting the
contested decision, the defendant disregarded the                   An action against the Commission of the European
judgments delivered by the Court of First Instance on               Communities was brought before the Court of First
29 June 1993 (1) and 18 September 1996 (2) in relation to           Instance of the European Communities on 29 September
the same infringements; those judgments imposed a duty              1998 by RJB Mining plc, represented by Mark Brealey
to re-examine the matter in the light of objective, relevant        and Jonathan Lawrence, with an address for service in
and consistent evidence concerning the question whether             Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt & Medernach,
the French authorities placed irresistible pressure on the          8Ð10 rue Mathias Hardt.
undertakings concerned to adopt the behaviour impugned
in the complaint, so that the conduct of the accredited
importers and metropolitan France fell outside the ambit            The applicant claims that the Court should:
of the competition rules since those undertakings lacked
the requisite margin of autonomy.
                                                                    Ð annul the Commission Decision of 29 July 1998
                                                                         approving the acquisition of control by RAG
According to the applicants, it is extraordinary for the                 Aktiengesellschaft of Saarbergwerke AG and Preussag
defendant institution now to maintain that the fact that                 Anthrazit GmbH on the grounds set out in the
the matter goes back many years is such as to render                     application; and
the complaint no longer relevant, when it was the
Commission itself which, having failed to conduct the
administrative procedure with due diligence, was directly           Ð order the Commission to pay the costs of the action,
responsible for that delay. In the applicants' view, it would            including those of the applicant.
 ---pagebreak--- C 358/24              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  21.11.98
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                Action brought on 30 September 1998 by Bernard Bareyt
                                                                   and Others against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
The applicant in the present case is a public limited                                      (Case T-158/98)
company incorporated in England and Wales, engaged in
the production in the coal industry in England. Its                                         (98/C 358/43)
principal shareholders are institutional investors, private
investors, directors and the applicant's employees. By the
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
contested decision, the Commission has purported, in
accordance with Article 66(2) of the ECSC Treaty, to
authorise, subject to conditions, the acquisition of
Saarbergwerke and Preussag by RAG. These three                     An action against the Commission of the European
companies are the only three remaining German hard coal            Communities was brought before the Court of First
producers. The merging entities have apparently agreed to          Instance of the European Communities on 30 September
divest part of the coal importing business to an                   1997 by Berhard Bareyt, Ivone Benfatto, Denis Bessette,
independent third party and structurally to separate the           Giuliano Dalle Carbonare, Enrico Di Pietro, Barry John
remainder of the coal trading business into domestic and           Green, Remmelt Haange, Michel Huguet, Marcus Iseli,
importing arms.                                                    Cornelis Jong, Neil Mitchell, Pier Luigi Mondino, Alfredo
                                                                   Portone, Carlo Sborchia, Alessandro Tesini and Mike
                                                                   Michael Wykes, all residing in Naka (Japan), represented
                                                                   by Nicholas LhoeÈst, of the Brussels Bar, with an address
The applicant submits that the Commission has failed to            for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire
respect the provisions of Article 66 and Article 4(c) of the       Myson SARL, 30 rue de Cessange.
ECSC Treaty and Decision No 3632/93/ECSC (1) (the
Code) in adopting the contested decision. The annulment
of this decision is also sought on the ground of                   The applicants claim that the Court should:
infringement of essential procedural requirements,
including lack of reasoning and misapplication of the
principle of good administration.                                  Ð annul the defendant's decision of 15 May 1998
                                                                       rejecting the applicants' complaint;
According to the applicant, the Commission has failed to
appreciate that the effect of the contested decision is to         Ð annul the applicants' remuneration statements for
enable the merger to proceed, even though German state                 November 1997 and the subsequent months, which
aid forms an intrinsic part of the merger, and such state              apply the weighting adopted by Council Regulation
aid has not been, and could not be, authorised pursuant to             (EC, ECSC, Euratom) No 1785/97, including the
the Code. It is stressed in this regard that the contested             remuneration statements for the months during
decision does not even mention the state aid inherent in               which the administration proceeded to recover the
the merger structure, let alone analyse the effect of the aid          overpayment previously made;
on the market position of the parties. Thus the fact that
the purchase price to be paid by RAG for Saarbergwerke
in the context of the proposed merger is a mere DM 1 is            Ð in so far as may be necessary:
mentioned nowhere in the Decision.
                                                                       Ð declare Regulation (EC, ECSC, Euratom) No
                                                                           1785/97 adopted by the Council on the
The applicant states that the Commission has suggested in                  defendant's proposal to be inapplicable, in so far
the contested decision that it concerns only the application               as it fixes a specific weighting for Naka;
of Article 66 of the ECSC Treaty and not the application
of provisions on the control of state aids. However, the
                                                                       Ð order the defendant to repay to the applicants the
Commission was asked for an assurance by the applicant
                                                                           sums which it withheld from their salaries
that it would apply the state aid rules and would prevent
                                                                           retroactively from the month of May 1997;
the merger from proceeding without prior approval of the
state aid paid to the undertakings to be merged and of the
state aid inherent in and forming a prerequisite for the               Ð order the defendant to repay to the applicants the
merger. Since the Commission has refused to provide the                    curtailment of salary which it imposed on them
assurance requested, the applicant has no doubt, in the                    with effect from November 1997 on the basis of
present circumstances, that the merger authorised by the                   the new weighting;
contested decision can, and now will, proceed without the
Commission performing its obligations.
                                                                       Ð order the defendant to pay default interest on the
                                                                           sums which it is ordered to repay, from the date
(1) OJ L 329, 30.12.1993, p. 12.                                           when those sums were withheld;
                                                                   Ð order the defendant to pay all the costs.


title: Case T-320/13: Order of the General Court of 10 November 2014  — DelSolar (Wujiang) v Commission (Dumping — Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells and wafers) originating from China — Provisional anti-dumping duty — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               26.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/33

         Order of the General Court of 10 November 2014 — DelSolar (Wujiang) v Commission
   (Case T-320/13) (1)

   ((Dumping - Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells and wafers) originating from China - Provisional anti-dumping duty - No need to adjudicate))
   (2015/C 026/41)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: DelSolar (Wujiang) Ltd (Wujiang City, China) (represented by: initially L. Catrain González, lawyer, E. Wright and H. Zhu, Barristers, then L. Catrain González and E. Wright)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Regulation (EU) No 513/2013 of 4 June 2013 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells and wafers) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China and amending Regulation (EU) No 182/2013 making these imports originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China subject to registration (OJ 2013 L 152, p. 5)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               Each party shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 215, 27.7.2013.


title: Case T-11/02: Action brought on 24 January 2002 by Spyridon de Athanassios Pappas against Commission of the European Communities

text:
16.3.2002             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 68/21
Action brought on 24 January 2002 by Spyridon de                         Action brought on 24 January 2002 by Abraham Dekker
Athanassios Pappas against Commission of the European                                             against Europol
                          Communities
                                                                                (Case T-12/02)
                         (Case T-11/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 68/37)
                        (2002/C 68/36)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                   (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                An action against Europol was brought before the Court of
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               First Instance of the European Communities on 24 January
European Communities on 24 January 2002 by Spyridon de                   2002 by Abraham Dekker, residing in Dordrecht (Nether-
Athanassios Pappas, residing in Kraainem (Belgium), represent-           lands), represented by Gerrit Pieter Jongeneel and Serge
ed by Konstantinos Adamantopoulos, lawyer.                               Alexsander Ray, lawyers.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the appointing authority of 26 Octo-         —     annul the decision of the Director of Europol of 15 June
      ber 2001 in response to his complaint (R/277/01) of                      2001;
      5 June 2001;
                                                                         —     order that the applicant be compensated for the damage
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                                   suffered by him, to be specified in greater detail (relating
                                                                               to remuneration, invalidity and harm to his reputation);
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          —     order Europol to pay the costs.
The applicant, formerly a Director-General at the Commission,
contests the decision fixing the duration of the monthly                 Pleas in law and main arguments
allowance paid to him following his retirement in the interests
of the service, decided on the basis of Article 50 of the Staff          The contested decision prejudices the applicant, inasmuch as
Regulations, on the ground that it does not take into account,           his contract was extended for only six months instead of one
in the computation, of the applicant’s period of service in              year, as should normally be the case. According to the
the national administrative authorities of Greece and the                applicant, that extension of the contract was wrongly used as
Netherlands prior to his taking up his duties with the                   a means of assessing his performance. However, such an
Communities.                                                             assessment must be carried out on the basis of Articles 2, 23
                                                                         to 29 and 88 of the Staff Regulations applicable to Europol
He argues that where an official takes up duties with the                employees (1). According to the applicant, however, there has
Communities after having worked for a national adminis-                  never been a negative evaluation of his skills on the basis of
tration and such administration has paid to the Communities              those articles.
the actuarial equivalent of his prior pension entitlement or, as
in his case, the sums repaid from the pension fund, the period
of former service of such official is, pursuant to Articles 11           The applicant further pleads the absence of an adequate
and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations (General                   statement of reasons for the contested decision, inasmuch as
Provisions), deemed to be actual service, that is to say service         the reasons given are not supported in any way, or are even
provided within the Communities, with all the attendant legal            clearly incorrect. Moreover, according to the applicant, a
effects. The applicant therefore takes the view that the                 period of six months for the extension of his contract is
Commission ought to have taken into account his period of                contrary to Article 6 of the Staff Regulations. Given that the
service in the national administrations and that, by failing to          length of the applicant’s initial contract was one year, it should
do so, has acted unlawfully.                                             likewise have been extended for a minimum of one year.
                                                                         Lastly, the applicant pleads violation of the principle of non-
                                                                         discrimination, inasmuch as he is the only official whose
The applicant also claims that the contested decision disregards         contract has not been extended for a minimum of one year.
the principle of non-discrimination and the Community rules
on freedom of movement of persons.
                                                                         (1) Council Act of 3 December 1998 laying down the staff regulations
                                                                             applicable to Europol employees (OJ C 26, 30.1.1999, p. 23).


title: Case T-319/11: Action brought on 14 June 2011 — ABN AMRO Group v Commission

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/35

         Action brought on 14 June 2011 — ABN AMRO Group v Commission
   (Case T-319/11)
   2011/C 252/80
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ABN AMRO Group NV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: W. Knibbeler and P. van den Berg, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul article 5 of the Commission Decision of 5 April 2011 on the measures No C 11/2009 (ex NN 53b/2008, NN 2/2010 and N 19/2010) implemented by Dutch State for ABN AMRO Group NV; and

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the contested Decision’s findings in relation to the scope of the acquisition ban contained in article 5, are vitiated by the following errors of law and must therefore be annulled:

                           —

                           Infringement of article 107(3)(b) TFEU and misapplication of the principles and guidelines set out in the Commission’s Communications (1);

                           —

                           Infringement of the principle of proportionality by making the approval of the aid measures conditional upon an acquisition ban which is not adequate, necessary or proportionate;

                           —

                           Infringement of the principle of equal treatment by imposing an acquisition ban which is significantly stricter compared to acquisition bans imposed by the Commission in other cases;

                           —

                           Infringement of the principle of sound administration as a result of not examining carefully and individually all relevant aspects of the individual case, including the need for and consequences of the acquisition ban as imposed through the Decision, and infringement of article 296 TFEU resulting from a failure to provide adequate reasoning for the said Decision.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the contested Decision’s findings in relation to the duration of the acquisition ban contained in article 5, are vitiated by the following errors of law and of assessment and must therefore be annulled:

                           —

                           Infringement of article 345 TFEU by making the duration of the acquisition ban dependent upon State ownership;

                           —

                           Infringement of article 107(3)(b) TFEU and misapplication of the principles and guidelines set out in the Commission’s Communications (2);

                           —

                           Infringement of the principle of equal treatment by imposing an acquisition ban which has a significant longer duration compared to acquisition bans imposed by the Commission in other cases;

                           —

                           Infringement of the principles of proportionality and sound administration.

      (1)  Communication from the Commission on the application of State aid rules to measures taken in relation to financial institutions in the context of the current global financial crisis (OJ 2008 C 270, p. 8); Communication from the Commission on the recapitalization of financial institutions in the current financial crisis: limitation of aid to the minimum necessary and safeguards against undue distortions of competition (OJ 2009 C 10, p. 2); Communication from the Commission on the treatment of impaired assets in the community banking sector (OJ 2009 C 72, p. 1); Communication from the Commission on the return to viability and the assessment of restructuring measures in the financial sector in the current crisis under the state aid rules (OJ 2009 C 195 p. 9).

      (2)  See footnote 1


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 19 November 1998 in Case C-210/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Köln): Haydar Akman v. Oberkreisdirektor des Rheinisch-Bergischen Kreises, joined party: Vertreter des öffentlichen Interesses beim Verwaltungsgericht Köln (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Freedom of movement for workers - Article 7, second paragraph, of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council - Right of a child of a Turkish worker to respond to any offer of employment in the host Member State in which he has completed vocational training - Situation of a child whose father, having been legally employed in the host Member State for more than three years, has returned to Turkey at the time when the child's training is completed) (1999/C 1/08)

text:
4.1.1999              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 1/5
for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings before                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
that court against Gunnar Nilsson, Per Olov Hagelgren,
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
Solweig Arrborn Ð on the interpretation of Article 30 of
the EC Treaty and Article 2 of Council Directive                                        of 19 November 1998
87/328/EEC of 18 June 1987 on the acceptance for
breeding purposes of pure-bred breeding animals of the              in Case C-210/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
bovine species (OJ L 167, 26.6.1987, p. 54) Ð the Court             the Verwaltungsgericht Köln): Haydar Akman v.
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, acting as President          Oberkreisdirektor des Rheinisch-Bergischen Kreises, joined
of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann,              party: Vertreter des öffentlichen Interesses beim
L. Sevón (Rapporteur) and M. Wathelet, Judges; J.                                     Verwaltungsgericht Köln (1)
Mischo, Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy
Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 November 1998, in             (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement Ð Freedom of
which it has ruled:                                                 movement for workers Ð Article 7, second paragraph, of
                                                                    Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council Ð Right of
                                                                    a child of a Turkish worker to respond to any offer of
                                                                    employment in the host Member State in which he has
1. Article 30 of the EC Treaty and Article 2(1) of                  completed vocational training Ð Situation of a child
     Council Directive 87/328/EEC of 18 June 1987 on the            whose father, having been legally employed in the host
     acceptance for breeding purposes of pure-bred                  Member State for more than three years, has returned to
     breeding animals of the bovine species do not preclude          Turkey at the time when the child's training is completed)
     national rules under which authorisation is required
     for the distribution of and insemination with semen of                                 (1999/C 1/08)
     pure-bred breeding animals of the bovine species from
     another Member State, provided that the sole purpose
     of that authorisation is to ensure that the person                            (Language of the case: German)
     authorised possesses the necessary qualifications for
     the operation intended.
                                                                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
2. The second indent of Article 2(1) of Directive                            published in the European Court Reports)
     87/328/EEC precludes national rules which prohibit or
     subject to authorisation the use in the territory of that
     Member State of semen from bulls of the Belgian Blue
                                                                    In Case C-210/97: reference to the Court under Article 177
     breed, where they have been accepted for artificial
                                                                    of the EC Treaty from the Verwaltungsgericht Köln
     insemination in another Member State on the basis of
                                                                    (Administrative Court, Cologne) for a preliminary ruling
     tests carried out in accordance with Commission
                                                                    in the proceedings pending before that court between
     Decision 86/130/EEC of 11 March 1986 laying down
                                                                    Haydar        Akman        and     Oberkreisdirektor       des
     performance monitoring methods and methods for
                                                                    Rheinisch-Bergischen Kreises, joined party: Vertreter des
     assessing cattle's genetic value for pure-bred breeding
                                                                    öffentlichen Interesses beim Verwaltungsgericht Köln Ð
     animals of the bovine species. The national authorities
                                                                    on the interpretation of the second paragraph of Article 7
     of the Member State of import are not entitled to
                                                                    of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the
     reject the use of semen of that breed on the ground
                                                                    development of the Association, adopted by the
     that it carries the muscular hypertrophy gene, or that
                                                                    Association Council established by the Association
     use of the semen would be likely to entail suffering for
                                                                    Agreement between the European Economic Community
     the animals or affect their natural behaviour, or that
                                                                    and Turkey Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
     the breed is regarded by those national authorities as
                                                                    P. J. G. Kapteyn, President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini,
     carrying genetic defects.
                                                                    H. Ragnemalm, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and K. M.
                                                                    Ioannou, Judges; P. LeÂger, Advocate-General; H. Rühl,
                                                                    Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment
3. The preamble to Directive 87/328/EEC does not                    on 19 November 1998, the operative part of which is as
     authorise a Member State to prohibit or subject to             follows:
     authorisation the use in its territory of semen from
     pure-bred bulls which have been accepted for artificial
     insemination in another Member State on the basis of           The second paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80
     tests carried out in accordance with Decision                  of 19 September 1980, on the development of
     86/130/EEC but are regarded by the national                    the Association, adopted by the Association Council
     authorities of the Member State of import as having            established by the Agreement creating an Association
     an undesirable pedigree.                                       between the European Economic Community and Turkey
                                                                    must be interpreted as follows: a Turkish national such as
                                                                    the plaintiff in the main proceedings is entitled to respond
(1) OJ C 181, 14.6.1997.
                                                                    to any offer of employment in the host Member State after
                                                                    having completed a course of vocational training there,
                                                                    and consequently to be issued with a residence permit,
                                                                    when one of his parents has in the past been legally
 ---pagebreak--- C 1/6                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 4.1.1999
employed in that State for at least three years; however, it       on 1 November 1998 by the Commission of the European
is not required that the parent in question should still           Communities, represented by R. B. Wainwright, Principal
work or be resident in the Member State in question at the         Legal Adviser, and O. Couvert-CasteÂra, a national civil
time when his child wishes to gain access to the                   servant on secondment to its Legal Service, acting as
employment market there.                                           Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                   Office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,
(1) OJ C 228, 26.7.1997.                                           Kirchberg.
                                                                   The Commission of the European Communities claims
                                                                   that the Court should:
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad              Ð declare that, by failing to adopt or, in any event, by
der Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 30 October                failing to communicate to the Commission the laws,
1998 in the case of 1. Assco Gerüste GmbH and                          regulations and administrative measures necessary in
2. R. Van Dijk, trading as Assco Holland Steigers Plettac              order to comply with Commission Directive 95/12/EC
Nederland, against 1. Wilhelm Layher GmbH & Co and                     of 23 May 1995 implementing Council Directive
                         2. Layher BV                                  92/75/EEC with regard to energy labelling of
                                                                       household washing machines (1), the Kingdom of
                      (Case C-392/98)
                                                                       Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
                        (1999/C 1/09)                                  directive;
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the             Ð order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad
der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of
30 October 1998, received at the Court Registry on                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
5 November 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
1. Assco Gerüste GmbH and 2. R. Van Dijk, trading as               Under the third paragraph of Article 189 and the first
Assco Holland Steigers Plettac Nederland, against 1.               paragraph of Article 5 of the EC Treaty, Member States
Wilhelm Layher GmbH & Co and 2. Layher BV on the                   are required to adopt the necessary measures in order to
following questions:                                               implement directives addressed to them prior to the expiry
                                                                   of the time-limit prescribed for doing so. The time-limit in
1. Does the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice to                question expired on 1 March 1996 but the Kingdom of
    interpret Article 50 of the TRIPs Agreement also               Belgium has not adopted the necessary measures.
    extend to the provisions of that article which do not
    concern provisional measures to prevent infringement           (1) OJ L 136, 21.6.1995, p. 1.
    of trade-mark rights?
2. Does Article 50 of the TRIPs Agreement, in particular
    Article 50(6), have direct effect?
3. Where an action lies under national civil law against           Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
    the copying of an industrial design, on the basis of the       Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court) by order of
    general rules concerning wrongful acts, and in                 that court of 27 August 1998 in the case of
    particular those relating to unlawful competition, must        Grundstückgemeinschaft Schloûstraûe GbR v. Finanzamt
    the protection thus afforded to the holder of the right                                   Paderborn
    be regarded as an intellectual property right' within
    the meaning of Article 50(1) of the TRIPs Agreement?                                  (Case C-396/98)
                                                                                (1999/C 1/11)
                                                                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of
                                                                   the European Communities by an order of the
Action brought on 5 November 1998 by the Commission                Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court) of 27 August
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                 1998, which was received at the Court Registry on
                            Belgium                                6 November 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                   Grundstückgemeinschaft Schloûstraûe GbR v. Finanzamt
                      (Case C-394/98)
                                                                   Paderborn on the following questions:
                        (1999/C 1/10)
                                                                   According to the case-law of the Court of Justice (Case
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought               C-37/95 (1) Ghent Coal Terminal NV, in which reference is
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities            made to Case C-110/94 (2) INZO), a taxable person can


title: Case C-106/04: Action brought on 1 March 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/31

         Action brought on 1 March 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-106/04)
   (2004/C 94/69)
   An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 1 March 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by G. Valero Jordana and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/80/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2001 on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants (1) or, in any event, by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium, as far the Flemish Region is concerned, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 18 of that directive.

               2.

               order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for the transposition of that directive expired on 27 November 2002.

      (1)  OJ L 309 of 27.11.2001, p. 1.


title: Case T-338/10: Action brought on 18 August 2010 — Commission v Tornasol Films

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/47

      Action brought on 18 August 2010 — Commission v Tornasol Films
      (Case T-338/10)
      ()
      (2010/C 288/89)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A.-M Rouchaud-Joët, Agent, and R. Alonso Pérez-Villaneuva, lawyer)

         Defendant: Tornasol Films SA (Madrid, Spain)

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay the applicant EUR 19 554,00 plus default interest calculated at the rate of 5 % per annum from 14 April 2009, and

                  —

                  order Tornasol Films SA to pay all the costs incurred in the present proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The present action concerns the alleged breach of a contract concluded between the Commission and the defendant within the framework of the MEDIA Plus Programme.
      The wording of that contract stipulated that the recipient is to deposit the equivalent of the amount received as Community support in a specified account within 30 days of the start of production and to submit to the Commission a reinvestment plan for that amount within six months from the same date.
      In support of its form of order, the applicant claims:

                  —

                  that the defendant has failed to comply with those contractual obligations although it has not presented any arguments and has not disputed the debit note sent by the Commission;

                  —

                  if the obligations provided for in the contract have been breached by the beneficiary, the wording of the contract allows the Commission to rescind it and require the return of the sums paid as a financial contribution;

                  —

                  in spite of various reminders and summonses the defendant has not repaid the funds awarded.


title: Case T-706/14: Judgment of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — Holistic Innovation Institute v REA (Research and technological development — Projects funded by the European Union in the field of research — Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — ZONeSEC and Inachus projects — Decision refusing participation of the applicant — Action for annulment and liability)

text:
               3.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/42

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — Holistic Innovation Institute v REA
   (Case T-706/14) (1)

   ((Research and technological development - Projects funded by the European Union in the field of research - Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) - ZONeSEC and Inachus projects - Decision refusing participation of the applicant - Action for annulment and liability))
   (2017/C 104/58)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Holistic Innovation Institute, SLU (Pozuelo de Alarcón, Spain) (represented initially by R. Muñiz García and subsequently by J. Marín López, lawyers)

      Defendant: Research Executive Agency (represented by: S. Payan-Lagrou and V. Canetti, acting as Agents, and by J. Rivas, lawyer)

      Re:

   First, application based on Article 264 TFEU and seeking annulment of the decision of the REA of 24 July 2014 [ARES (2014) 2461172], terminating negotiations and rejecting the participation of the applicant in the European projects Inachus and ZONeSEC and, second, application based on Article 268 TFEU and seeking compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of its exclusion from participation in the said projects and from the communication of certain information concerning the applicant following that decision.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Holistic Innovation Institute, SLU to pay the costs in the present proceedings;

               3.

               Each party shall bear its own costs relating to the interim measures.

      (1)  OJ C 421, 24.11.2014.


title: Case C-169/05: Judgement of the Court (Third Chamber) of  1 June 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation, Belgium) — Uradex SCRL v Union Professionnelle de la Radio et de la Télédistribution (RTD), Société Intercommunale pour la Diffusion de la Télévision (BRUTELE) (Copyright and related rights — Directive 93/83/EEC — Article 9(2) — Scope of the powers of a collecting society deemed to be mandated to manage the rights of a copyright owner or holder of related rights which has not transferred the management of his rights to it — Exercise of the right to grant or refuse permission to a cable operator to retransmit a programme by cable)

text:
               29.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/8

         Judgement of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 June 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation, Belgium) — Uradex SCRL v Union Professionnelle de la Radio et de la Télédistribution (RTD), Société Intercommunale pour la Diffusion de la Télévision (BRUTELE)
   (Case C-169/05) (1)

   (Copyright and related rights - Directive 93/83/EEC - Article 9(2) - Scope of the powers of a collecting society deemed to be mandated to manage the rights of a copyright owner or holder of related rights which has not transferred the management of his rights to it - Exercise of the right to grant or refuse permission to a cable operator to retransmit a programme by cable)
   (2006/C 178/13)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Cour de cassation
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Uradex SCRL

      Defendant: Union Professionnelle de la Radio et de la Télédistribution (RTD), Société Intercommunale pour la Diffusion de la Télévision (BRUTELE)
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Belgian Court of Cassation — Interpretation of Article 9(2) of Council Directive 93/83/EEC of 27 September 1993 on the coordination of certain rules concerning copyright and rights related to copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission (OJ L 248, 1993, p. 15) — Extent of the powers of a collecting society deemed to be mandated to manage the rights of a copyright owner or holder of related rights who has not transferred the management of his rights to a collecting society — Exercise of the right to grant or refuse authorisation to a cable operator for cable retransmission
   Operative part of the judgement
   Article 9(2) of Council Directive 93/83/EEC of 27 September 1993 on the coordination of certain rules concerning copyright and rights related to copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission is to be interpreted as meaning that, where a collecting society is deemed to be mandated to manage the rights of a copyright owner or holder of related rights who has not transferred the management of his rights to a collecting society, that society has the power to exercise that rightholder's right to grant or refuse authorisation to a cable operator for cable retransmission and, consequently, its mandate is not limited to management of the pecuniary aspects of those rights.

      (1)  OJ C 143, 11.6.2005.


title: Case T-126/99: Action brought on 25 May 1999 by Graphischer Maschinenbau GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 226/40               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      7.8.1999
— therefore order the EAEC, represented by the Commission               2. pursuant to Article 176 of the EC Treaty (Article 233 of
    of the European Communities, to pay to the applicant,                    the Amsterdam Treaty), require the Commission to comply
    Autosalone Ispra dei F.lli Rossi s.n.c., the sum of                      with the Court’s judgment by declaring a further DM 4.875
    LIT 1 245 000 000, together with monetary revaluation                    million of the planned aid compatible with the common
    and interest from the due date until actual payment, or                  market;
    such other sum as may be ordered by the court;
                                                                        3. order the Commission to pay the costs.
— order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant’s complaint concerns the damage caused by                 The applicant is a Berlin (Spandau)-based manufacturer of
flooding on it property as a result of the overflowing of a             printing machines and subsidiary of Koenig & Bauer AG. In
stretch of drain which it was the responsibility of the EAEC            cooperation with other group companies, i produces individual
                                                                        assemblies for the various production plants in the group.
Joint Research Centre (JRC) to manage and maintain.
                                                                        Severe economic problems in 1996 threatened the company
                                                                        with closure in 1997, but this was averted by aid from the
                                                                        Land Berlin and a restructuring plan.
According to the applicant, the JRC has the authority and the
duty to oversee the structures connected with the operation of
the whole Centre, including the drain in question. Conse-
quently, the JRC has acted negligently, imprudently and                 In the contested decision, the Commission held that the
incompetently in not anticipating the incident.                         State aid planned for the plaintiff of DM 9.31 million was
                                                                        compatible with the common market only as to DM
                                                                        4.435 million thereof, and that the excess over that figure
                                                                        could not be granted.
                                                                        The applicant challenges the prohibition of the additional
                                                                        amount, arguing that it relates to development costs which in
                                                                        the Commission’s view had been incurred before notification
                                                                        in January 1998 and allegedly benefited not the applicant but
                                                                        its parent company.
Action brought on 25 May 1999 by Graphischer Maschi-
nenbau GmbH against the Commission of the European
                           Communities                                  The applicant maintains that the disallowed development costs
                                                                        are a central component of the restructuring plan, and that aid
                         (Case T-126/99)                                of that amount is necessary for the restructuring.
                         (1999/C 226/71)                                It argues that the Commission has:
                                                                        — wrongly based its decision on the timing of a part of the
                  (Language of the case: German)                             development costs;
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               — put an inappropriate time-limit on the development costs;
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 25 May 1999 by Graphischei
Maschinenbau, whose registered office is in Berlin, represented         — insufficiently examined the facts;
by Albrecht Bach Rechtsanwalt, Stuttgart, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Dupong & Dupong,
4-6 Rue de la Boucherie.                                                — denied the applicant a proper hearing;
                                                                        — insufficiently stated its reasons for the contested decision;
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  and
1. pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 174 of the EC             — infringed Article 92(3)(c) of the EC Treaty in the exercise
    Treaty (Article 230(4) of the Amsterdam Treaty), annul the               of its powers.
    second sentence of Article 1 of Commission Decision
    K(1999) 327 endg. of 3 February 1999, prohibiting the
    planned grant of state aid by the Federal Republic of
    Germany (No C 54/98) to Graphischer Maschinenbau.
    Berlin. in so far as it exceeded DM 4.435 million;


title: Action brought on 6 March 1997 by A. M. Weijenberg-Pleijers against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-60/97)

text:
No C 142/28              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   10 . 5 . 97
( b ) order the Community to pay the costs .                             Action brought on 13 March 1997 by P. J. M. Janssen
                                                                         against the Council of the European Union and the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                ( Case T-63/97 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 142/60 )
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
Case T-50/97 (').                                                                         (Language of the case: Dutch)
(') Page 24 of this Official Journal .                                   An action against the Council of the European Union and
                                                                         the Commission of the European Communities was
                                                                         brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                         Communities on 13 March 1997 by P. J. M. Janssen, of
                                                                         Wanssum ( Netherlands ), represented by E. H. Pijnacker
                                                                         Hordijk, of the Amsterdam Bar, and M. T. P. J. van Oers,
                                                                         of The Hague Bar, with an address for service in
Action brought on 6 March 1997 by A. M. Weijenberg                      Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Frieden, 62 Avenue
Pleijers against the Council of the European Union and                   Guillaume .
            the Commission of the European Communities
                            ( Case T-60/97)                              The applicant claims that the Court should :
                              ( 97/C 142/59 )
                                                                         ( a ) primarily: order the Community to pay to the
                                                                               applicant the sum of F1 419 246 , together with interest
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                              thereon at the rate of 8 % per annum from 1 9 May
                                                                               1992 until the date of payment in full;
 An action against the Council of the European Union and
 the Commission of the European Communities was
                                                                               in the alternative: order the Community to pay the
                                                                               applicant such sum as the Court in its wisdom shall
 brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                               think fit, amounting to not less than Fl 86 531
 Communities on 6 March 1997 by A. M. Weijenberg
 Pleijers, of Wittem ( Netherlands ), represented by E. H.                     ( namely, the amount resulting from the application of
                                                                               Regulation ( EEC ) No 2187/93 ), together with interest
 Pijnacker Hordijk, of the Amsterdam Bar, and M. T. P. J.
                                                                               thereon at the rate of 8 % per annum from 19 May
 van Oers, of The Hague Bar, with an address for service in
 Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Frieden, 62 Avenue
                                                                               1992 until the date of the payment in full ;
 Guillaume .
                                                                          ( b) order the Community to pay the costs .
 The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                          The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
  ( a ) primarily: order the Community to pay to the
                                                                          Case T-50/97 (').
         applicant the sum of Fl 35 953 , together with interest
         thereon at the rate of 8 % per annum from 19 May
         1992 until the date of payment in full;                          (') Page 24 of this Official Journal .
         in the alternative: order the Community to pay the
         applicant such sum as the Court in its wisdom shall
         think fit, amounting to not less than Fl 20 595
         ( namely, the amount resulting from the application of           Action brought on 13 March 1997 by W. H. J. Mulder
         Regulation ( EEC ) No 2187/93 ), together with interest          against the Council of the European Union and the
         thereon at the rate of 8% per annum from 19 May                            Commission of the European Communities
         1992 until the date of the payment in full ;                                                ( Case T-64/97 )
                                                                                97/C 142/61 )
   ( b ) order the Community to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                           An action against the Council of the European Union and
                                                                           the Commission of the European Communities was
  The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                   brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
   Case T-50/97 0 ).                                                       Communities on 13 March 1997 by W. H. J. Mulder, of
                                                                           Haarzuilens ( Netherlands ), represented by E. H. Pijnacker
   (') Page 24 of this Official Journal .
                                                                           Hordijk, of the Amsterdam Bar, and M. T. P. J. van Oers,
                                                                           of The Hague Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                           Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Frieden, 62 Avenue
                                                                           Guillaume .


Important legal notice

|

E2000P0003

Action brought on 10 April 2000 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Kingdom of Norway (Case E-3/00)

Official Journal C 165 , 15/06/2000 P. 0011 - 0011

Action brought on 10 April 2000 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Kingdom of Norway(Case E-3/00)(2000/C 165/07)An action against the Kingdom of Norway was brought before the EFTA Court on 10 April 2000 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Peter Dyrberg, acting as agent of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 74, Rue de Trèves/Trierstraat, B-1040 Brussels.The applicant claims that the Court should:1. declare that the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11 of the EEA Agreement, by applying its legislation so as to prohibit the import and marketing in Norway of cornflakes, fortified per 100 g with 1 mg thiamine, 1 mg riboflavin, 10 mg niacin and 7 mg iron, which are lawfully manufactured and marketed, in other EEA States;2. order the Kingdom of Norway to pay the costs of the proceedings.Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:- Article 11 of the EEA Agreement prohibits quantitative restrictions on imports, and all measures having an equivalent effect thereto, unless such a measure is justified under Article 13 of the EEA Agreement,- by refusing an application for authorisation to import cornflakes, fortified per 100 g with 1 mg thiamine, 1 mg riboflavin, 10 mg niacin and 7 mg iron Norway has, according to the applicant, failed to comply with Article 11 of the EEA Agreement,- the applicant submits that justification for this prohibition cannot be found in Article 13 of the EEA Agreement on grounds of public health, since there is no evidence that the fortified product creates a health risk.