title: Action brought on 6 March 1997 by A. Lukens Folkers against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-59/97)

text:
10 . 5 . 97            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 142/27
Action brought on 6 March 1997 by R. Dusselaar against                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
the Council of the European Union and the Commission
                 of the European Communities                            ( a ) primarily: order the Community to pay to the
                          ( Case T-57/97)                                     applicant the sum of Fl 166 374, together with interest
                            ( 97/C 142/56 )                                   thereon at the rate of 8 % per annum from 1 9 May
                                                                              1992 until the date of payment in full;
                 (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                              in the alternative: order the Community to pay the
An action against the Council of the European Union and                       applicant such sum as the Court in its wisdom shall
the Commission of the European Communities was                                think fit, amounting to not less than Fl 61 220
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European                    ( namely, the amount resulting from the application of
Communities on 6 March 1997 by R. Dusselaar, of Wier                          Regulation ( EEC ) No 2187/93 ), together with interest
(Netherlands), represented by E. H. Pijnacker Hordijk, of                     thereon at the rate of 8% per annum from 19 May
the Amsterdam Bar, and M. T. P. J. van Oers, of The                           1992 until the date of the payment in full;
Hague Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the Chambers of L. Frieden, 62 Avenue 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:
( a) primarily: order the Community to pay to the                       The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
     applicant the sum of Fl 99 948 , together with interest            Case T-50/97 (')•
     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 28 063
     ( namely, the amount resulting from the application of
     Regulation ( EEC ) No 2187/93 ), together with interest
     thereon at the rate of 8 % per annum from 19 May                   Action brought on 6 March 1997 by A. Lukens Folkers
     1992 until the date of the payment in full;                        against the Council of the European Union and the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
( b) order the Community to pay the costs .                                                       ( Case T-59/97 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 142/58 )
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
Case T-50/97 (').
                                                                        An action against the Council of the European Union and
                                                                        the Commission of the European Communities was
(') Page 24 of this Official Journal.                                   brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                        Communities on 6 March 1997 by A. Lukens Folkers, of
                                                                        Onstwedde (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
                                                                        Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Frieden, 62 Avenue
Action brought on 6 March 1997 by H. Heringa against                    Guillaume .
the Council of the European Union and the Commission
                 of the European Communities                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
                           (Case T-58/97 )
                             ( 97/C 142/57 )                            ( a ) primarily: order the Community to pay to the
                                                                              applicant the sum of Fl 114 970, together with interest
                 (Language of the case: Dutch)                                thereon at the rate of 8% per annum from 19 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
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European                    applicant such sum as the Court in its wisdom shall
 Communities on 6 March 1997 by H. Heringa, of Leems                          think fit, amounting to not less than Fl 30 348
 ( Netherlands ), represented by E. H. Pijnacker Hordijk, of                   ( namely, the amount resulting from the application of
the Amsterdam Bar, and M. T. P. J. van Oers, of The                           Regulation ( EEC ) No 2187/93 ), together with interest
Hague Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                       thereon at the rate of 8% per annum from 19 May
the Chambers of L. Frieden, 62 Avenue Guillaume.                               1992 until the date of the payment in full;
 ---pagebreak--- 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 .


title: Action brought on 22 January 1996 by Antonia Carparelli against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-8/96)

text:
No C 77/ 16           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      16 . 3 . 96
The applicant considers that the medical committee 's                responsible for more than 10 years, takes issue with the
reports are unlawful in so far as once the committee had             rejection of his application for the vacant post of
established a direct link between the disease and the                Director-General of DG J. He contends that one reason why
performance of an occupational activity, it had exhausted its        his application was unsuccessful lies in the need to have
task; the committee's breakdown in percentage terms of the           regard for a geographical balance in management posts
various factors which contributed to the emergence of the            within the institution .
applicant's disease exceeded the scope of the question
referred to it and had no basis in the Staff Regulations .           The applicant first of all claims that there has been a breach
                                                                     of Articles 4 and 29 ( 1 ) of the Staff Regulations inasmuch as
The applicant asserts, finally, that the method of calculation       the contested decisions were taken without prior
used by the defendant infringes the principle of equality.           consultation of the Permanent Representatives Committee.
Firstly, she is discriminated against in comparison with             In the present case, he argues, the Council was notified only
other persons less vulnerable to certain working conditions,         of the proposal by the Secretary-General, which merely
whereas every official must be recognized as fit for work at         refers to the list of posts for the 1995 budgetary year and to
the medical examination before recruitment. Secondly, the            the expediency of appointing the candidate who was
lack of provision in the applicable Community rules as to            ultimately successful to Grade A 1 with effect from 1 June
the method to be followed for evaluating the factors which           1995 , without reference to a specific post. It thus appears
may have led to the emergence of the occupational disease in         that :
itself constitutes a source of discrimination .
                                                                     — the appointing authority, which was not informed of
                                                                         either the list of officials who had applied for the post at
                                                                         issue or of the qualifications required for that post, did
                                                                         not even have the opportunity itself to consider the
                                                                         comparative merits of candidates, as required under
                                                                         Article 45 of the Staff Regulations,
Action brought on 16 January 1996 by Themistocles
 Contargyris against the Council of the European Union              — the Council adopted a decision of appointment which
                        ( Case T-6/96 )                                  was not designed, under the conditions laid down in the
                                                                         Staff Regulations, to fill a vacancy in a specific post,
                          ( 96/C 77/35 )
                                                                    — the decisions rejecting the applicant's candidature and
                (Language of the case: French)                           dismissing his complaint were unlawfully adopted by the
                                                                         Secretary-General, since the appointing authority's
                                                                         powers to fill the post at issue could lawfully be exercised
An action against the Council of the European Union was                  only by the Council .
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 16 January 1996 by Themistocles                      The applicant also takes the view that the terms in which the
Contargyris, residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noel          notice of vacancy in question was drafted were general and
Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the                   did not enable the appointing authority to consider the
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at          comparative merits of the various candidates . He also claims
the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 1 Rue Glesener.               that the Secretary-General breached Articles 7 and 27 of the
                                                                     Staff Regulations by treating the need to establish a
The applicant claims that the Court should :                        geographical balance as a determinant criterion.
— annul the decision rejecting his application for the               Finally, the applicant claims that there has been a breach of
    Grade A 1 post in DG J 'Economic and Social                     the duty to state reasons as well as misuse of powers in this
                                                                    case .
    Cohesion, Regional Policy, Social Policy, Employment,
    Social Dialogue, Education and Youth, Culture,
    Audio-Visual',
— annul the Council's decision appointing another
    candidate to Grade A 1 ,                                        Action brought on 22 January 1996 by Antonia Carparelli
                                                                       against the Commission of the European Communities
— annul the decision assigning that other candidate to the
    post of Director-General of DG J,                                                          ( Case T-8/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 77/36 )
— annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the
    Council of 7 November 1995 dismissing the applicant's                            (Language of the case: French)
    complaint,
                                                                    An action against the Commission of the European
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                             Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                    Instance of the European Communities on 22 January 1996
Pleas in law and main arguments:                                     by Antonia Carparelli, residing in Brussels, represented by
                                                                    Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of
The applicant, who is a director in Directorate 1 of                the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
Directorate-General G of the Council, for which he has been          at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 1 Rue Glesener.
 ---pagebreak---  16 . 3 . 96            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 77/ 17
The applicant claims that the Court should :                             Pontevedra, Spain ), Asociación Nacional de Armadores de
— annul the decision of the Commission of 21 March
                                                                         Buques ( whose registered office is in Vigo, Pontevedra,
                                                                         Spain), Congeladores de Pesca de Merluza (Anamer) ( whose
      1995, in so far as it fixes Brussels as the applicant's place      registered office is in Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain ), Asociación
     of recruitment and place of origin, together with all               Nacional de Armadores de Buques Congeladores de
     decisions subsequently adopted on the basis thereof,                Pesquerías Varias ( Anavar ) (whose registered office is in
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                                 Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain ) and the Asociación de Sociedades
                                                                         Pesqueras Españolas (ASPE ) (whose registered office is in
Pleas in law and main arguments:                                         Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain ) represented by Antonio Creus
                                                                         Carreras and Xavier Ruiz Calzado, of the Barcelona Bar,
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
in Case T-33/95 Lozano Palacios v. Commission of the                     and by Bonifacio García Porras, of the Salamanca Bar, with
European Communities.
                                                                         an address for service at 78 Avenue d'Auderghem,
                                                                         Brussels .
                                                                         The applicant claims that the court should :
Action brought on 25 January 1996 by Area Cova, SA                       — annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 2565/95 of
and Others against the Commission of the European                             30 October 1995 concerning the stopping of fishing for
  Communities and the Council of the European Union                           Greenland halibut by vessels flying the flag of a Member
                                                                              State inasmuch as it prohibits fishing for Greenland
                          ( Case T-12/96 )                                    halibut in the waters of NAFO zones 2 and 3 by vessels
                            ( 96/C 77/37 )                                   flying the flag of a Member State or registered in a
                                                                             Member State, as well as the retention on board, the
                (Language of the case: Spanish)                              transhipment and the landing of such stock captured by
                                                                             the abovementioned vessels after the date of entry into
An action against the Commission of the European                              force of that Regulation,
Communities and the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European               — declare Council Regulation ( EC ) No 1761/95 of 29 June
Communities on 25 January 1996 by Area Cova, SA ( whose                       1995 amending, for the second time, Regulation ( EC )
registered office is in Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain ), Armadora                  No 3366/94 laying down for 1995 certain conservation
Jose Pereira, SA ( whose registered office is in Vigo,                       and management measures for fishery resources in the
Pontevedra, Spain ), Armadores Pesqueros de Aldan, SA                        Regulatory Area as defined in the Convention on Future
(whose registered office is in Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain ),                    Multilateral Cooperation in the North-west Atlantic
Centropesca, SA ( whose registered office is in Vigo,                         Fisheries, inapplicable inasmuch as it establishes the
Pontevedra, Spain ), Chymar, SA (whose registered office is                  quota for Greenland halibut for the Community fleet in
in Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain ), Eloymar, SA ( whose registered                 NAFO areas 3 LMNO at 5 013 tonnes, modifying the
office is in Estribela, Pontevedra, Spain ), Exfaumar, SA                    autonomous quota of 18 630 tonnes established by
(whose registered office is in Bueu, Pontevedra, Spain ),                     Regulation ( EC ) No 850/95 and in so far as it is the basis
Farpespan, SL (whose registered office is in Moaña,                           for Regulation ( EC) No 2565/95 ,
Pontevedra, Spain ), Freiremar, SA ( whose registered office is         — declare the Bilateral Agreement on Fisheries between the
in Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain ), Hermanos Gandón, SA ( whose                    European Community and the Government of Canada,
registered office is in Cangas, Pontevedra, Spain), Heroya,                   signed on 20 April 1995 in the context of the NAFO
SA (whose registered office is in Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain ),                  Convention, inapplicable in so far as it establishes a
Hiopesca, SA (whose registered office is in Vigo,                            quota for catches of Greenland halibut for the
Pontevedra, Spain ), Jose Pereira e Hijos, SA (whose                          Community fleet of 5 013 tonnes as from 16 April 1995 ,
registered office is in Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain ), Juana Oya                 which is below the autonomous quota established
Perez ( whose registered office is in Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain ),              by Regulation ( EC ) No 850/95 , and in so far as it is the
Manuel Nores Gonzalez (whose registered office is in                          basis for the abovementioned Regulation ( EC ) No
Marin, Pontevedra, Spain ), Moradiña, SA (whose registered                    1761 /95 ,
office is in Cangas, Pontevedra, Spain ), Navales Cerdeiras,
SL (whose registered office is in Camariñas, La Coruña,                  — order the Commission and/or the Council to pay all the
Spain), Nugago Pesca, SA ( whose registered office is in                     costs of the proceedings.
Bueu, Pontevedra, Spain ), Pesquera Austral, SA ( whose                  Pleas in law and main arguments:
registered office is in Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain ), Pescaberbés,
SA (whose registered office is in Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain ),             The applicant companies in the present case, owners of the
Pesquerías Bígaro Narval, SA ( whose registered office is in             36 Spanish freezer trawlers authorized to catch Greenland
Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain ), Pesquera Cíes, SA ( whose                     halibut in NAFO waters in areas 2 and 3 , according to the
registered office is in Vigo, Pontevedra , Spain ), Pesca                fishing plans approved by the Spanish administrative
Herculina, SA (whose registered office is in Vigo,                       authorities for 1995 , challenge the lawfulness of Regulation
Pontevedra, Spain), Pesquera Inter, SA (whose registered                 (EC) No 1761 /95 and the Bilateral Agreement on Fisheries
office is in Cangas, Pontevedra, Spain ), Pesquerías                     between the European Community and Canada inasmuch
Marinenses, SA (whose registered office is in Marin,                     as it establishes a quota as from 16 April 1995 for Greenland
Pontevedra, Spain ), Pesquerías Tara, SA (whose registered               halibut for the Community fleet which is less than the quota
office is in Cangas, Pontevedra, Spain ), Pesquera Vaqueiro,             established by Regulation ( EC ) No 850/95 . The pleas in law
SA (whose registered office is in Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain),              relied upon with regard to infringement are analogous with
Sotelo Dios, SA (whose registered office is in Vigo,                     those in Case T-l 94/95 (*).


title: Case T-321/11: Action brought on 21 June 2011 — Morelli v OHIM — Associazione Nazionale Circolo del Popolo della Libertà (PARTITO DELLA LIBERTÀ)

text:
               13.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 238/33

         Action brought on 21 June 2011 — Morelli v OHIM — Associazione Nazionale Circolo del Popolo della Libertà (PARTITO DELLA LIBERTÀ)
   (Case T-321/11)
   2011/C 238/57
   Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Raffaello Morelli (Livorno, Italy) (represented by: G. Frenelli, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Associazione Nazionale Circolo del Popolo della Libertà (Milan, Italy)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the First Board of Appeal’s decision of 17 March 2011 and that of the Opposition Division of 14 May 2010;

               —

               declare that the applicant’s opposition to the application for registration of a trade mark No 5.890.009 is upheld and refuse the application for that mark;

               —

               order the Associazione Nazionale Circolo del Popolo della Libertà to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Associazione Nazionale Circolo del Popolo della Libertà

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘PARTITO DELLA LIBERTÀ’ (application for registration No 5.890.009), for goods and services in classes 9, 14, 16, 24, 25, 35, 36, 38, 41, 42 and 45.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Raffaello Morelli

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Domain name ‘partitodellaliberta.it’, assigned by the Autorità proposta all’assegnazione dei domini ‘it’ to Raffaello Morelli on 9 August 2004, which the opponents claimed was used in the course of trade for goods and services in classes 16, 35, 38, 41 and 45

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: Misapplication of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark, incorrect appraisal of ‘use in the course of trade’ with reference to a name used in the sphere of politics and incorrect appraisal of the documents proving business use of the earlier sign.


title: Judgment of the Court of 17 September 2002 in Case C-413/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Immigration Appeal Tribunal): Baumbast, R v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Freedom of movement for persons — Migrant worker — Rights of residence of members of the migrant worker's family — Rights of the children to pursue their studies in the host Member State — Articles 10 and 12 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 — Citizenship of the European Union — Right of residence — Directive 90/364/EEC — Limitations and conditions)

text:
C 274/2                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       9.11.2002
2.    Community law does not prohibit a Member State from                   the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance
      resisting actions for repayment of charges levied in breach of        and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 1999 L 226, p. 26), in so far
      Community law by relying on a time-limit under national law           as it imposes on the Federal Republic of Germany a flat-rate
      of three years, by way of derogation from the ordinary rules          correction of 5 % to the expenditure declared in respect of
      governing actions between private individuals for the recovery of     financial support in the arable crops sector in Mecklenburg-
      sums paid but not due, for which the period allowed is more           Vorpommern, equal to the sum of DEM 30 394 115,33,
      favourable, provided that that time-limit applies in the same         instead of 2 %, equal to the sum of DEM 12 157 646,13 —
      way to actions based on Community law for repayment of such           the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of
      charges as to those based on national law.                            the Chamber, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward,
                                                                            A. La Pergola, and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; C. Stix-
3.    Community law precludes the adoption by a Member State of             Hackl, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Administrator, for the
      provisions making repayment of a tax held to be contrary to           Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 September 2002, in
      Community law by a judgment of the Court, or whose                    which it:
      incompatibility with Community law is apparent from such a
      judgment, subject to conditions relating specifically to that tax
      which are less favourable than those which would otherwise be         1.    Dismisses the action;
      applied to repayment of the tax in question.
                                                                            2.    Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
( 1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 366 of 18.12.1999.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                      of 19 September 2002
                                                                                of 17 September 2002
in Case C-377/99: Federal Republic of Germany v Com-
           mission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                            in Case C-413/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                            from the Immigration Appeal Tribunal): Baumbast, R v
(EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — 1995 financial year                               Secretary of State for the Home Department (1)
                           — Arable crops)
                                                                            (Freedom of movement for persons — Migrant worker —
                           (2002/C 274/02)                                  Rights of residence of members of the migrant worker’s
                                                                            family — Rights of the children to pursue their studies in
                                                                            the host Member State — Articles 10 and 12 of Regulation
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                            (EEC) No 1612/68 — Citizenship of the European Union —
                                                                            Right of residence — Directive 90/364/EEC — Limitations
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                                and conditions)
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (2002/C 274/03)
In Case C-377/99, Federal Republic of Germany (Agents:
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
initially by W.-D. Plessing and C.-D. Quassowski and sub-
sequently W.-D. Plessing and B. Muttelsee-Schön) v Com-
mission of the European Communities (Agents: M. Niejahr and
G. Braun) — application for partial annulment of Commission
Decision 1999/596/EC of 28 July 1999, amending Decision
1999/187/EC on the clearance of the accounts presented by                   In Case C-413/99: Reference to the Court under Article 234
the Member States in respect of the expenditure for 1995 of                 EC by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal (United Kingdom) for
 ---pagebreak--- 9.11.2002               EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 274/3
a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
court between Baumbast, R and Secretary of State for the
Home Department, on the interpretation of Article 18 EC and                                            (Sixth Chamber)
Article 12 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of
15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers
within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II),                                       of 24 September 2002
p. 475), the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias,
President, P. Jann, F. Macken (Rapporteur), N. Colneric and                  in Case C-471/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
S. von Bahr (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann,                            the Sozialgericht Nürnberg): Alfredo Martínez Domín-
D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet,                 guez, Joaquín Benítez Urbano, Agapito Mateos Cruz,
V. Skouris, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and C.W.A. Timmermans,                      Carmen Calvo Fernández v Bundesanstalt für Arbeit,
Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Adminis-                                         Kindergeldkasse ( 1)
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 September
2002, in which it has ruled:
                                                                             (Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Articles 77 and 78 —
                                                                             Pensioners under the legislation of several Member States
                                                                             — Pensioners under a social-security convention between
1.    Children of a citizen of the European Union who have installed         Member States concluded prior to accession to the European
      themselves in a Member State during the exercise by their              Communities — Benefits for dependent children and for
      parent of rights of residence as a migrant worker in that              orphans of pensioners — Entitlement to family benefits for
      Member State are entitled to reside there in order to attend           which the competent institution of a Member State other
      general educational courses there, pursuant to Article 12 of           than that of residence is responsible — Conditions of
      Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October                                            entitlement)
      1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the
      Community. The fact that the parents of the children concerned                                    (2002/C 274/04)
      have meanwhile divorced, the fact that only one parent is a
      citizen of the Union and that parent has ceased to be a migrant
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
      worker in the host Member State and the fact that the children
      are not themselves citizens of the Union are irrelevant in this
      regard.                                                                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
2.    Where children have the right to reside in a host Member State
      in order to attend general educational courses pursuant to
                                                                             In Case C-471/99: Reference to the Court under Article 177
      Article 12 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68, that provision
                                                                             of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Sozialgericht
      must be interpreted as entitling the parent who is the primary
                                                                             Nürnberg (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the proceed-
      carer of those children, irrespective of his nationality, to reside
                                                                             ings pending before that court between Alfredo Martínez
      with them in order to facilitate the exercise of that right
                                                                             Domínguez, Joaquín Benítez Urbano, Agapito Mateos Cruz,
      notwithstanding the fact that the parents have meanwhile
                                                                             Carmen Calvo Fernández and Bundesanstalt für Arbeit, Kinder-
      divorced or that the parent who has the status of citizen of the
                                                                             geldkasse, on the interpretation of Articles 77(2)(b), 78(2)(b)
      European Union has ceased to be a migrant worker in the host
                                                                             and 79(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of
      Member State.
                                                                             14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to
                                                                             employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members
                                                                             of their families moving within the Community, as amended
3.    A citizen of the European Union who no longer enjoys a right           and updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of
      of residence as a migrant worker in the host Member State can,         2 June 1983 (OJ 1983 L 230, p. 6), the Court (Sixth
      as a citizen of the Union, enjoy there a right of residence by         Chamber), composed of: F. Macken, President of the Chamber,
      direct application of Article 18(1) EC. The exercise of that right     C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen, V. Skouris and
      is subject to the limitations and conditions referred to in that       J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General;
      provision, but the competent authorities and, where necessary,         L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
      the national courts must ensure that those limitations and             judgment on 24 September 2002, in which it has ruled:
      conditions are applied in compliance with the general principles
      of Community law and, in particular, the principle of pro-
                                                                             Articles 77(2)(b) and 78(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No
      portionality.
                                                                             1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security
                                                                             schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to
                                                                             members of their families moving within the Community, as amended
                                                                             and updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June
( 1) OJ C 6 of 8.1.2002.                                                     1983, and read in conjunction with Article 79(1) thereof, must be
                                                                             interpreted as meaning that the competent institution of a Member
                                                                             State other than that of the residence of a person in receipt of an old-
                                                                             age or invalidity pension, or of the residence of orphans of a deceased
                                                                             worker, is not required to grant the persons concerned benefits for
                                                                             dependent children or for orphans where the conditions laid down by


title: Action brought on 1 July 1993 by Bremer Vulkan Verbund AG against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-63/95)

text:
3 . 6 . 95              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 137/9
Action brought on 28 June 1993 by Hanseatische                            The pleas in law and main arguments were the subject of an
Industrie-Beteiligungen GmbH against the Commission of                    information notice in Official Journal No C 222 of
                 the European Communities                                 18 August 1993 , p. 10.
                           ( Case C-62/95 )
                             ( 95/C 137/15 )                              (!) OJ No L 144 , 16 . 6 . 1993 , p . 21 .
                                                                          ( 2 ) OJ No C 222 , 18 . 8 . 1993 , p . 8 .
The action brought by Hanseatische Industrie-Beteiligungen
GmbH against the Commission of the European
Communities ( Case C-335/93 ), which was referred to the
Court of First Instance by order of the Court of Justice of
27 September 1993 pursuant to Article 4 of Council
Decision 93/350/Euratom, ECSC, EEC of 8 June 1993                         Action brought on 10 March 1995 by the Italian Republic
amending Council Decision 88/591/ECSC, EEC, Euratom                           against the Commission of the European Communities
establishing a Court of First Instance of the European                                               ( Case C-69/95 )
Communities ( l ), became pending before the Court of                                                  ( 95/C 137/17 )
Justice on 8 March 1995 , following an order of the Court of
First Instance declining jurisdiction over the action, which
had been registered at the Court of First Instance as Case                An action against the Commission of the European
T-488/93 , and remitting it to the Court of Justice, so that               Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
that Court can rule on the present action together with Case               European Communities on 10 March 1995 by the Italian
 C-329/93 ( 2 ).                                                           Republic, represented by Umberto Leanza , acting as Agent,
                                                                           assisted by Oscar Fiumara, Avvocato dello Stato, with an
                                                                           address for service in Luxembourg at the Italian Embassy, 5
                                                                           Rue Marie-Adelaide .
The pleas in law and main arguments were the subject of an
 information notice in Official Journal No C 222 of
 18 August 1993 , p. 9 .                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                           — annul Commission Decision 94/ 871 /EC of 21 December
 (') OJ No L 144 , 16 . 6 . 1993 , p . 21 .                                      1994 on the clearance of the accounts presented by the
 ( 2 ) OJ No C 222 , 18 . 8 . 1993 , p . 8 .                                    Member States in respect of the expenditure for 1991 of
                                                                                the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee
                                                                                Fund ( EAGGF ) Guarantee Section, in so far as it holds
                                                                                the sum of Lit 103 161 493 560 presented for clearance
                                                                                by the Italian Republic not chargeable to the
                                                                                EAGGF,
                                                                           — order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 Action brought on 1 July 1993 by Bremer Vulkan Verbund
 AG against the Commission of the European                                  Infringement and misapplication of Articles 1 , 3 and 5 of
                                Communities                                 Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 729/70 ( x ), of Article 8 of
                             ( Case C-63/95 )                               Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 1723/72 (2 ), and of the
                               ( 95/C 137/16 )
                                                                            rules governing the milk sector ( Article 4 of Council
                                                                            Regulation ( EEC ) No 857/84 ( 3 ) as amended ; Commission
                                                                            Regulation ( EEC ) No 1546/88 (4 )). Misuse of powers .
                                                                            Failure to state reasons : Italy has fully complied with
 The action brought by Bremer Vulkan Verbund AG against                     Community rules on the repurchase of quotas by
  the Commission of the European Communities ( Case                         suspending their reallocation, in full accordance with
  C-3 39/93 ), which was referred to the Court of First Instance            Community objectives, as a result of the extraordinary
  by order of the Court of Justice of 27 September 1993                     situation which the country is still facing. During 1991 , and
  pursuant to Article 4 of Council Decision 93/350/Euratom,                 thus coinciding with the time for the reallocation of
  ECSC, EEC of 8 June 1993 amending Council Decision                        repurchased quotas fixed by Community rules at 1 June
  88/591/ECSC, EEC, Euratom establishing a Court of First                   1991 , a major discrepancy began to appear between actual
  Instance of the European Communities (*), became pending                  milk production and the national guaranteed quantity.
  before the Court of Justice on 8 March 1995 , following an                Then in February 1992, when the scale of the problem had
  order of the Court of First Instance declining jurisdiction               become clearer, Italy informed the Commission of the
  over the action, which had been registered at the Court of                situation, thereby initiating negotiations for an increase in
  First Instance as Case T-490/93 , and remitting it to the                 its overall reference quantity (which has recently been
  Court of Justice, so that that Court can rule on the present              granted with limited retroactive effect). In December 1992,
  action together with Case C-329/93 ( 2 ).                                 when the Council of EEC Agriculture Ministers reached a


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 25 June 1998 in Joined Cases T-177/94 (92) and T-377/94 (92) and in Case T-99/95 (92), Henk Altmann and Others and Peter Edmond Stott v. Commission of the European Communities (Taxation of costs)

text:
C 278/36             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   5.9.98
offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, rue de Cessange v.                 Currall) Ð application for taxation of costs following
Council of the European Union (Agents: Diego Canga                   the judgments of the Court of First Instance in Joined
Fano and Marie-Jeanne Vernier) Ð application for                     Cases T-177/94 and T-377/94 Altmann and Others v.
annulment of the Council's decision, notified to the                 Commission [1996] ECR II-2041 and in Case T-99/95
applicant by note of 25 October 1995, to recover the                 Stott v. Commission [1996] ECR II-2227 Ð the Court of
equivalent of 91 working days from his salary for                    First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of: A.
unjustified absences between 9 March 1994 and                        Kalogeropoulos, President, C. W. Bellamy and J. Pirrung,
15 February 1995 Ð the Court of First Instance (First                Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 25 June
Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, A.                   1998, the operative part of which is as follows:
Kalogeropoulos and R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges; B.
Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a           The total amount of the costs to be reimbursed by the
judgment on 8 July 1998, the operative part of which is as           Commission to the applicants is fixed in the sum of GBP
follows:                                                             15 000, together with any VAT payable thereon.
1. The Council's decision of 25 October 1995 to recover              (1) OJ C 188, 9.7.1994, OJ C 392, 31.12.1994 and OJ C 286,
    the equivalent of 91 working days from the applicant's               28.10.1995.
    salary for unjustified absences between 9 March 1994
    and 15 February 1995 is partially annulled in so far as
    it concerns 58 days of allegedly unauthorised absence
    recorded during the period between 9 March 1994 and
    20 September 1994.
                                                                          ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
2. The Council is ordered to repay to the applicant the                                     of 25 June 1998
    amounts unduly deducted from his salary Ð
    equivalent to 58 working days together with default              in Joined Cases T-14/97 and T-15/97, Sofivo SAS and
    interest at the rate of 5 % per annum as from the date                   Others v. Council of the European Union (1)
    when those amounts were first deducted.                          (Agriculture Ð Common organisation of the markets Ð
                                                                     Beef and veal Ð Intervention mechanisms Ð Premium for
3. The remainder of the application is dismissed.                    the early marketing of veal calves Ð Average carcase
                                                                     weight Ð Criteria for fixing the same Ð Action for
4. The Council is to bear its own costs and two-thirds of                             annulment Ð Inadmissibility)
    the costs incurred by the applicant.                                                     (98/C 278/81)
5. The applicant is to bear one-third of his own costs.                              (Language of the case: French)
(1) OJ C 318, 26.10.1996.                                            In Joined Cases T-14/97 and T-15/97: Sofivo SAS,
                                                                     established at CondeÂ-sur-Vire (France), Sofivo Production
                                                                     SAS, established at BreÂceÂ (France), Sovinor SAS,
                                                                     established at CondeÂ-sur-Vire, Denkavit France sarl,
                                                                     established at Montreuil-Bellay (France), Sobeval Viande
                                                                     SA, established at PeÂrigueux (France), Serval SA,
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            established at Sainte-Eanne (France), Besnier Industrie
                       of 25 June 1998                               SNC, established at Bourgbarre (France), Sovida SA,
                                                                     established at ChaÃteaubriand (France), Ouest EÂlevage
in Joined Cases T-177/94 (92) and T-377/94 (92) and                  SICA, established at Ploudaniel (France), Guinde SA,
in Case T-99/95 (92), Henk Altmann and Others and                    established at Montauban (France), Tarbouriech SA,
Peter Edmond Stott v. Commission of the European                     established at Villeneuve-sur-Lot (France), Mamellor sarl,
                       Communities (1)                               established at Charnay-leÁs-MaÃcon (France), Coopagri
                      (Taxation of costs)                            Bretagne, established at Landerneau (France), Collet et
                                                                     Compagnie SA, established at ChaÃteaubourg (France),
                        (98/C 278/80)                                KermeneÂ SA, established at Saint-Jacut-du-MeneÂ (France),
                                                                     and Vals SA, established at Champagne (France),
               (Language of the case: English)                       represented initially by Deborah Kryvian and subsequently
                                                                     by Philippe Denesle, of the Rouen Bar, with an address for
In Joined Cases T-177/94 (92) and T-377/94 (92): Henk                service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Loesch,
Altmann and Others and Margaret Casson and Others,                   11 rue Goethe, v. Council of the European Union (Agents:
represented by Rhodri Thompson, Barrister, of the Bar                John Carbery and Moyra Sims-Robertson), supported by
of England and Wales, 4 Raymond Buildings, Gray's                    Commission of the European Communities (Agent: GeÂrard
Inn, London, against Commission of the European                      Berscheid) Ð application for annulment of Article 1(4) of
Communities (Agent: Julian Currall) and in Case T-99/95              Council Regulation (EC) No 2222/96 of 18 November
(92): Peter Edmond Stott, represented by Rhodri                      1996 amending Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 on the
Thompson, Barrister, of the Bar of England and Wales,                common organisation of the market in beef and veal (OJ
4 Raymond Buildings, Gray's Inn, London, against                     L 296, 21.11.1996, p. 50) Ð the Court of First Instance
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: Julian                (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J. Azizi, President, and R.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Koophandel by judgment of that court of 10 January 1997 in the case of Colim NV against Bigg's Continent Noord NV (Case C-33/97)

text:
No C 94/6            1 EN |                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   22 . 3 . 97
regulations or administrative provisions necessary to                    national court must not take account of those internal
comply fully with Council Directive 90/434/EEC of 23 July                provisions, even when classifying the legal relationship on
1990 on the common system of taxation applicable to                      the basis of which a national of a Member State calls on
mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of                 the finance administration to refund sums that were paid
shares concerning companies of different Member                          in contravention of the said Article 10 of Directive 69/
States ('), the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its               335/EEC .
obligations under the EC Treaty.
                                                                         (') OJ No L 249 , 3 . 10 . 1969 , p . 25 .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Under Article 12 ( 1 ) of the Directive, the Member States
were to comply with the provisions of the Directive not
later than 1 January 1992 and to inform the Commission
thereof. The Greek authorities acknowledge that they have                References for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal
not yet adopted the necessary provisions by reason of                    Superior de Justicia de Catalunya by orders of that court
internal difficulties in the Greek legal system and the                  of 3 and 9 December 1996 in the cases of ( i ) Fuerzas
failure so far to adopt, at Community level, the Tenth                   Eléctricas de Catalunya SA (Fecsa) and (ii ) Autopistas
Directive on cross-border company mergers and the                        Concesionaria Española SA against Tribunal Económico
Regulation on the statute for a European company.                        Administrativo Regional de Catalunya and Departament
                                                                             d'Economia i Finances de la Generalitat de Catalunya
The Commission observes that those reasons cannot                                       ( Cases C-31/97 and C-32/97)
exempt the Hellenic Republic from its obligation to                                                   ( 97/C 94/ 13 )
implement the Directive .
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
(') OJNoL225 , 20 . 8 . 1990 , p . 1 .
                                                                         European Communities by orders of the Tribunal Superior
                                                                         de Justicia de Catalunya ( High Court of Justice,
                                                                         Catalunya ) of 3 and 9 December 1996 , which was
                                                                         received at the Court Registry on 23 January 1997, for a
                                                                         preliminary ruling in the cases of ( i ) ( Case C-31 /97)
                                                                         Fuerzas Eléctricas de Catalunya SA ( Fecsa ) and ( ii ) ( Case
References for preliminary rulings by the Pretura di Roma                C-32/97) Autopistas Concesionaria Española SA against
by orders of that court of 17 December 1996 in the cases                 Tribunal Economico-Administrativo Regional de Catalun
of Ministero delle Finanze v. 1 . IN.CO.GE.'90 srl; 2 . Idel
                                                                         ya and Departament d'Economia i Finances de la Genera
gard srl; 3 . IRIS '90 srl; 4. Camed srl; 5 . PPA — Pomezia              litat de Catalunya on the following question:
Progetti Appalti srl; 6. Edilcam srl; 7. Impresa A. Cecchini
EC srl; 8 . EMO srl; 9. Emoda srl; 10. Sappesi srl; 11 .                 Having regard to Articles 11 ( b ) and 12 of Council
ING. Luigi Martini srl; 12 . Giacomo srl and 13 . Mafar srl              Directive 69/335/EEC ( 1 ) of 17 July 1969, is the purported
                  ( Cases C- 10/97 to C-22/97)                           levying by the Spanish Administration of the duty on
                          ( 97/C 94/12 )                                 transfers of assets and documented legal transactions on
                                                                         records of redemption ( repayment of loans ) in conformity
                                                                         with Community law, or on the contrary does it conflict
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   with Community law with the result that it must be
European Communities by orders of the Pretura di Roma                    disallowed as being incompatible therewith ?
( Magistrate's Court, Rome ) of 17 December 1996 , which
were received at the Court Registry on 16 January 1997,                  (') OJ No L 249, 3 . 10 . 1969 , p. 25 .
for preliminary rulings in the cases of Ministero delle Fi
nanze v. 1 . IN. CO . GE. ' 90 srl ; 2 . Idelgard srl ; 3 . IRIS ' 90
srl; 4 . Camed srl ; 5 . PPA — Pomezia Progetti Appalti srl;
6 . Edilcam srl ; 7. Impresa A. Cecchini EC srl; 8 . EMO srl ;
9 . Emoda srl; 10 . Sappesi srl; 11 . ING. Luigi Martini srl ;
12 . Giacomo srl and 13 . Mafar srl, on the following                    Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank
question :                                                               van Koophandel by judgment of that court of 10 January
                                                                         1997 in the case of Colim NV against Bigg's Continent
Whether the imcompatibility with Article 10 of Council                                                  Noord NV
Directive 69/335/EEC (') of 17 July 1969 , as interpreted                                           ( Case C-33/97)
by the Court of Justice in its judgment of 20 April 1993
( in Joined Cases C-71/91 and C-178/91 Ponenti Carni and                                              ( 97/C 94/14 )
Cispadana Costruzione v. Amministrazione delle Finanze
dello Stato [ 1993 ] ECR I, p. 1915 ), of Article 3 ( XVIII )            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
and (XIX ) of Decree Law No 853 of 19 December 1984,                     European Communities by a judgment of- the Rechtbank
converted into Law No 17 of 17 February 1985 , means,                    van Koophandel ( Commercial Court ) of 10 January 1997,
on the basis of the criteria for integration of national law             which was received at the Court Registry on 27 January
and Community law which that Court has laid down, that                    1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Colim NV
the said Article 3 ( XVIII ) and ( XIX ) must be set aside in            against Bigg's Continent Noord NV on the following
their entirety, and in particular whether it means that the              questions :
 ---pagebreak--- 22 . 3 . 97             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 94/7
1 . Is a legal provision of a Member State whereby:                        adopted a common position (No 56/96 ) with a view to
                                                                           adopting Directive 96/.../EC of the European
     — the particulars required to be mentioned on                         Parliament and of the Council concerning common
           labelling and which are mandatory under national                rules for the internal market in electricity ( OJ No
           legislation;                                                    C 315 , 24 . 10 . 1996 , p. 18 ), mean that the competent
     — instructions for use;                                               authorities of a Member State under Article 9 ( 3 ) of
                                                                           Council Regulation No 17 of 6 February 1962 are
     — guarantee certificates;                                             precluded on the basis of the second paragraph of
                                                                           Article 5 of the Treaty, under which the Member
     must be given at least in the language or languages of                States are to abstain from any measure which could
     the territory where the products are placed on the                    prejudice the attainment of the objectives of the
     market, with the consequence that the packaging of                    Treaty, from applying Article 85 ( 1 ) of the Treaty by
     imported products must be altered, a 'technical                       administrative order to an agreement between an
     regulation' within the meaning of Directive 83/189/                   electricity supply undertaking and a local authority,
     EEC (')?                                                              under which the local authority grants to the
                                                                           electricity supply undertaking, for consideration, the
2 . ( a ) Where specific EC rules exist for products                       exclusive right to use the public roads in its area for
           concerning the particulars which must appear on                 the purpose of installation and operation of the mains
           the product, can a Member State require imported                necessary for the direct supply of electricity to end
           products to carry other information in the                      users and agrees not to undertake the public supply of
           language of the linguistic area in which the                    electricity, or cause it to be undertaken, in the area
           products are sold, or in a language readily                     covered by the concession (a concession agreement)?
           understood by the consumer ?
     ( b ) If the answer to Question ( a ) is in the affirmative,      2 . If Question 1 is answered in the negative:
           may such a requirement be made of all
                                                                           Do the competent authorities of a Member State under
           information on packaging or only of certain
           information and, if so, which ?                                 Article 9 ( 3 ) of Regulation No 17, by applying
                                                                           Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty to a concession
     (c ) In respect of products for which there are no                    agreement in the terms described in Question 1
           specific EC rules, may a Member State require all               between an electricity supply undertaking in that State
           or certain ( and if so which ) information on the               and a local authority, when, in other Member States,
           imported products to be given in the language of                such undertakings have sales areas protected by
           the linguistic territory in which the products are              contract or de facto from competition or there are
           sold, or in a language readily understood by the                statutory monopolies over electricity supply, infringe
           consumer ?                                                      the obligation on the Member States which follows
                                                                           from the second paragraph of Article 5 in conjunction
(') OJ No L 109 , 20. 4 . 1983 , p . 8 .                                   with Article 3 ( g) of the EC Treaty to abstain from
                                                                           any measure which may jeopardize the Community
                                                                           objective of establishing a system ensuring that
                                                                           competition in the internal market is not distorted ?
                                                                       3 . If Question 2 is answered in the negative :
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Kammergericht,
Berlin, by order of that court of 23 December 1996 in                      Is Article 9 ( 3 ) of Regulation No 17, under which the
the cartel administration proceedings between 1 . RWE                      authorities of the Member States remain competent to
Energie Aktiengesellschaft; 2. Stadt Nordhorn and the                      apply Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty as long as the
                         Bundeskartellamt                                  Commission has not initiated any procedure, unlawful
                          ( Case C-34/97)                                  on the ground that Article 85 ( 1 ) ( prohibition ) and
                                                                           Article 85 ( 3 ) ( exemption ) form an indivisible whole
                            ( 97/C 94/15 )                                 for applying the law but the national authorities are
                                                                           not granted, in addition to the competence to prohibit,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice                            the power to exempt, which is instead reserved
of the European Communities by order of the                                exclusively to the Commission ( Article 9 ( 1 ) of
Kammergericht, Berlin, — Kartellsenat ( Cartel Chamber                     Regulation No 17)?
of the Berlin Court of Appeal ) of 23 December 1996 ,
received at the Court Registry on 24 January 1997, for a               4 . If Question 3 is answered in the negative :
preliminary ruling in the cartel administration proceedings
between 1 . RWE Energie Aktiengesellschaft; 2 . Stadt                      ( a ) Are the competent authorities of a Member State
Nordhorn ( Municipality of Nordhorn ) and the                                    under Article 9 ( 3 ) of Regulation No 17 precluded
Bundeskartellamt ( Federal Cartel Office ) on the following                      from applying Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty to
questions :                                                                      an agreement if that agreement has been duly
                                                                                notified to the European Commission for
1 . Does the fact that the European Commission is                                exemption, the Commission has refused to initiate
     seeking to complete the internal market in the                              a procedure and the person who notified the
     electricity sector by legislation, and that as a result the                 agreement challenges that refusal by bringing an
     Council of the European Union has in the interim                            action for a declaration of failure to act, and the


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 September 2002 in Case T-13/99: Pfizer Animal Health SA v Council of the European Union (Transfer of resistance to antibiotics from animals to humans — Directive 70/524/EEC — Regulation concerning the withdrawal of the authorisation of an additive in feedingstuffs — Admissibility — Article 11 of Directive 70/524/EEC — Manifest error of assessment — Precautionary principle — Risk assessment and risk management — Consultation of a scientific committee — Principle of proportionality — Legitimate expectations — Obligation to state reasons — Right to property — Misuse of powers)

text:
23.11.2002            EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 289/21
                                                       COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of:
                                                                         J. Azizi, President, K. Lenaerts and M. Jaeger, Judges; F. Erlbach-
                                                                         er, Legal Secretary, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                    of 11 September 2002                                 11 September 2002, in which it:
                                                                         1.     Dismisses the application;
in Case T-13/99: Pfizer Animal Health SA v Council of the                2.     Orders Pfizer to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by
                      European Union ( 1)                                       the Council, including those relating to the proceedings for
                                                                                interim relief;
(Transfer of resistance to antibiotics from animals to humans            3.     Orders the Asociación nacional de productores de ganado
— Directive 70/524/EEC — Regulation concerning the                              porcino, the Asociación española de criadores de vacuno de
withdrawal of the authorisation of an additive in feeding-                      carne, the Fédération européenne de la santé animale and the
stuffs — Admissibility — Article 11 of Directive 70/524/                        Fédération européenne des fabricants d’adjuvants pour la
EEC — Manifest error of assessment — Precautionary                              nutrition animale to bear their own costs and to pay those
principle — Risk assessment and risk management —                               incurred by the Council in respect of their intervention in the
Consultation of a scientific committee — Principle of pro-                      main proceedings and the proceedings for interim relief;
portionality — Legitimate expectations — Obligation to                   4.     Orders the Asociación española de productores de huevos and
   state reasons — Right to property — Misuse of powers)                        the Pig Veterinary Society to bear their own costs and to pay
                                                                                those incurred by the Council in respect of their applications for
                                                                                leave to intervene;
                        (2002/C 289/40)
                                                                         5.     Orders the Commission, the Kingdom of Denmark, the
                                                                                Kingdom of Sweden, the Republic of Finland and the United
                                                                                Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                own costs, both in the main proceedings and in the proceedings
                                                                                for interim relief.
                                                                         (1 ) OJ C 86 of 27.3.1999.
In Case T-13/99, Pfizer Animal Health SA, established in
Louvain-la-Neuve (Belgium), represented by I.S. Forrester QC,
M. Powell, Solicitor, E. Wright, Barrister, and W. van Lemberg-
en, lawyer, instructed by S.J. Gale-Batten, Solicitor, with an
address for service in Luxembourg, supported by Asociación                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
nacional de productores de ganado porcino (Anprogapor),
established in Madrid, and Asociación española de criadores                                      of 11 September 2002
de vacuno de carne (Asovac), established in Barcelona (Spain),
represented by J. Folguera Crespo, A. Gutiérrez Hernández,               in Case T-70/99: Alpharma Inc. v Council of the European
J. Massaguer Fuentes and E. Navarro Varona, avocats, with                                                Union ( 1)
an address for service in Luxembourg, and by Féderation
européenne de la santé animale (Fedesa), established in Brus-            (Transfer of resistance to antibiotics from animals to humans
sels, and Féderation européenne des fabricants d’adjuvants               — Directive 70/524/EEC — Regulation withdrawing auth-
pour la nutrition animale (Fefana), established in Brussels,             orisation of an additive in feedingstuffs — Admissibility —
represented by D. Waelbroeck and D. Brinckman, avocats,                  Breach of essential procedural requirements — Manifest
with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Council of the              error of assessment — Precautionary principle — Risk
European Union (Agents: J. Carbery, M. Sims and F. P. Ruggeri            assessment and risk management — Consultation of a
Laderchi), supported by Commission of the European Com-                  scientific committee — Principle of proportionality — Legit-
munities (Agents: P. Oliver, T. Christoforou and K. Fitch), by           imate expectations — Obligation to state reasons — Rights
Kingdom of Denmark (Agents: M. J. Molde, Holst-Christensen                                           of the defence)
and S. Ryom), by Kingdom of Sweden (Agents: A. Kruse and
L. Nordling), by Republic of Finland (Agents: H. Rotkirch,                                          (2002/C 289/41)
T. Pynnä and E. Bygglin) and by United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: R. Magrill): Application                                 (Language of the case: English)
for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 2821/98 of
17 December 1998 amending, as regards withdrawal of the
authorisation of certain antibiotics, Directive 70/524/EEC               In Case T-70/99, Alpharma Inc., established in Fort Lee, New
concerning additives in feedingstuffs (OJ 1998 L 351, p. 4),             Jersey (United States of America), represented by G. Robert,


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 November 2002 in Case C-454/99: Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Fisheries — Conservation and management of fishery resources — Control measures for fishing activities)

text:
C 323/10               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        21.12.2002
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                    Regulation (EEC) No 2241/87 of 23 July 1987 establishing
                                                                          certain control measures for fishing activities (OJ 1987 L 207,
                                                                          p. 1) (thereafter), as well as Article 10(2) of Regulation
                         (Fifth Chamber)                                  No 2057/82 and Article 11(2) of Regulation No 2241/87;
                                                                          Article 9 of Regulation No 2241/87; and Article 1(2) of
                                                                          Regulation No 2057/82 or Article 1(2) of Regulation No 2241/
                                                                          87, in conjunction with Article 5(2) of Regulation No 170/83,
                      of 14 November 2002
                                                                          the Court, composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the
                                                                          Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur),
                                                                          P. Jann and S. von Bahr, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate
in Case C-454/99: Commission of the European Communi-                     General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 No-
ties v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern                       vember 2002, in which it:
                             Ireland (1)
                                                                          1.    Declares that, in respect of each of the years 1985 to 1988 and
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                          1990, by
Fisheries — Conservation and management of fishery
     resources — Control measures for fishing activities)
                                                                                —     failing to put in place specific detailed rules for the
                                                                                utilisation of the quotas allocated to it and to carry out
                                                                                the inspections and other controls required by the relevant
                         (2002/C 323/10)
                                                                                Community legislation,
                   (Language of the case: English)                              —     failing provisionally to close certain fisheries when the
                                                                                quotas had been exhausted,
                                                                                —     failing (in 1988 only) to take sufficient measures to
                                                                                prevent the misreporting of landings of mackerel, and
In Case C-454/99, Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: T. van Rijn and K. Fitch) v United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: R. Magrill, assisted by M.                 —     failing to take administrative or penal action against the
Hoskins, barrister): Application for a declaration that, in                           masters of ships infringing the regulations or any other
respect of each of the years 1985 to 1988 and 1990, by:                               person responsible for those infringements,
—     failing to put in place appropriate detailed rules for the                the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has
      utilisation of the quotas allocated to it,                                failed to comply with its obligations under Article 5(2) of
                                                                                Council Regulation (EEC) No 170/83 of 25 January 1983
                                                                                establishing a Community system for the conservation and
—     failing to carry out inspections and other controls as                    management of fishery resources and Article 1(1) of Council
      required by the relevant Community regulations,                           Regulation (EEC) No 2057/82 of 29 June 1982 establishing
                                                                                certain control measures for fishing activities by vessels of the
                                                                                Member States (up to 1 August 1987) and Article 1(1) of
—     failing provisionally to close certain fisheries when the                 Council Regulation (EEC) No 2241/87 of 23 July 1987
      quota was exhausted,                                                      establishing certain control measures for fishing activities
                                                                                (thereafter), as well as Article 10(2) of Regulation No 2057/
—     failing (in 1988 only) to take sufficient measures to                     82 (up to 1 August 1987) and Article 11(2) of Regulation
      prevent the misreporting of landings of mackerel, and                     No 2241/87 (thereafter); Article 9(1) and (2) of Regulation
                                                                                No 2241/87; and Article 1(2) of Regulation No 2057/82,
                                                                                as amended by Council Regulations (EEC) No 3723/85 of
—     failing to take administrative or penal action against the                20 December 1985 and No 4027/86 of 18 December 1986
      masters of ships infringing the regulations or any other                  (up to 1 August 1987) and Article 1(2) of Regulation
      person responsible for those infringements,                               No 2241/87 (thereafter);
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has              2.    Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
failed to comply with its obligations under Article 5(2) of                     Ireland to pay the costs.
Council Regulation (EEC) No 170/83 of 25 January 1983
establishing a Community system for the conservation and
management of fishery resources (OJ 1983 L 24, p. 1) and
                                                                          (1 ) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.
Article 1(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2057/82 of
29 June 1982 establishing certain control measures for fishing
activities by vessels of the Member States (OJ 1982 L 220,
p. 1) (up to 1 August 1987) and Article 1(1) of Council