title: Action brought on 11 September 1998 by Michael Cendrowicz against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-143/98)

text:
7.11.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 340/27
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        Finally, the applicant points out that the purpose for
                                                                   which the Community funding was granted was actually
                                                                   achieved in the stipulated budgetary context and,
Ð annul the decision adopted by the European                       consequently, the defendant's interest cannot be affected
     Commission on 10 June 1998, sent by registered post           by the maintenance of the payments made at the time. It
     on 7 July 1998 and received by the applicant on 9 July        concludes that the annulment of those payments, by the
     1998, demanding repayment of the sum of ECU                   unforeseeable decision to demand repayment of certain
     135 548 and, in so far as is necessary, annul the             sums more than five years after the conclusion of the
     measures implementing that decision;                          project, was made with blatant disregard for the principle
                                                                   of proportionality.
Ð order the defendant to pay all the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant states that in 1990, in the context of the           Action brought on 11 September 1998 by Michael
action programme for the European Year of Tourism                  Cendrowicz against the Commission of the European
(EYT), the Commission granted it a Community financial                                      Communities
contribution towards its project Europuzzle Ð pays de
                                                                                (Case T-143/98)
l'Est'. A first instalment of 80 % of the contribution was
paid in 1991, and the balance of 20 % was paid on                                          (98/C 340/52)
13 March 1992, following the report submitted to the
Commission by the applicant on the use of the financial
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
contribution in question.
                                                                   An action against the Commission of the European
The applicant points out that, since the payment of the            Communities was brought before the Court of First
balance, no observations concerning the regularity of the          Instance of the European Communities on 11 September
payments in respect of the project have been made to it by         1998 by Michael Cendrowicz, residing in Brussels,
the Commission. In July 1998, however, it received a letter        represented by Lucas Vogel, of the Brussels Bar, with an
from the Commission demanding repayment of part of the             address for service at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
Community subsidy, the contested decision in the present           SARL, 30 rue de Cessange.
case.
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant submits that the contested decision was
adopted in breach of the rights of the defence, in so far as,
since it was never informed of the allegations made by the         Ð annul the undated decision of the Commission
European Commission in respect of the regularity of the                 rejecting the application made by the applicant for
payment of the financial aid received by it, it was not                 post COM/98/97 (Head of Unit 1 Ð India, Nepal,
possible for it usefully to submit its comments on that                 Bhutan, Sri Lanka, in Directorate C of Directorate-
matter.                                                                 General IB), receipt of which was acknowledged by
                                                                        him on 16 September 1997;
The applicant maintains, furthermore, that the contested
decision breaches the principles of legal certainty and the        Ð annul the Commission's decision of 9 August 1997
protection of legitimate expectations. It points out that,              appointing another person to that post;
pursuant to the decision granting the financial
contribution and the statement by the recipient of a               Ð order the Commission to pay to the applicant, by way
financial contribution, it undertook to keep supporting                 of compensation for the non-material damage suffered
documents for the purposes of checks for five years. After              by him as a result of the illegality of the contested
that five year period, which began at the latest when the               decisions, the sum of BFR 100 000, subject to increase
project was concluded (that is to say when the balance                  or decrease during the course of the proceedings;
was paid), it was no longer required to keep the
supporting documents and the Commission therefore no
longer had the right to carry out checks. In so far as those       Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
checks constitute the basis for a possible challenge to the
sum or a part of the sum allocated, that means that at the         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
end of those five years, on 12 March 1997, the defendant
could no longer demand repayment and the applicant
could rely on the apparent legality of the payments and            The applicant, a grade A 4 official, contests the rejection
claim to be entitled to keep them.                                 of his application for the post described above. He states
                                                                   in that regard that virtually all his career has been spent in
                                                                   the performance of duties relating to Asian countries and
The applicant also considers that the contested decision is        that he was the acting Head of Unit IB/C/1 following the
vitiated by an error of reasoning, in so far as the criticisms     retirement of the Head of Unit, his hierarchical superior,
on which it is based have no factual basis.                        who was a grade A 3 official at that time.
 ---pagebreak--- C 340/28             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     7.11.98
As regards the person ultimately appointed to the post in          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
issue by the appointing authority, the applicant argues that
that person lacked professional experience in the field in         The applicant contests the refusal of the appointing
question, and that the appointment of that person resulted         authority to accept his application for the post referred to
from the application of political pressure at the highest          above. He maintains in that regard that, according to the
level.                                                             information brought to his notice, it would have been
                                                                   clear from an examination of the personal files of those
The applicant puts forward the following pleas in support          who applied for the post at issue in response to an initial
of his claim:                                                      notice of vacancy concerning that post that the applicant
                                                                   fulfilled the requirements of the post in question and that
Ð illegality of the decision fixing the level of the post to
                                                                   his appointment to that post would have been in the
    be filled at grade A 5/A 4, inasmuch as that decision
                                                                   interests of the service. Moreover, his application had the
    was adopted having regard not to the importance of
                                                                   unconditional support of the Director-General then
    the tasks performed by the unit but to the grade of the
                                                                   competent in the matter and of the Secretary-General at
    official appointed;
                                                                   the time. However, the applicant was appointed to the
Ð infringement of Article 27(3) of the Staff Regulations;          post in issue only on a temporary basis, with effect from
                                                                   1 February 1997. On 9 January 1998 the appointing
Ð absence, alternatively inadequacy, of consideration of           authority terminated that temporary appointment.
    the comparative qualifications and merits of the               Meanwhile, a notice of vacancy had been published
    candidates by the Advisory Committee on                        pursuant to Article 29(1)(c) of the Staff Regulations,
    Appointments, which did not examine their personal             which repeated the requirements as to qualifications and
    files;                                                         knowledge contained in the initial notice of vacancy.
Ð disregard of the criteria of professional experience and
                                                                   In support of his claims, the applicant pleads, first,
    competence referred to in the notice of vacancy in
                                                                   infringement of Articles 4 and 29 of the Staff Regulations,
    issue;
                                                                   breach of the principle of equal treatment and dereliction
Ð inadequacy of the statement of reasons for the                   on the part of the defendant of its duty to have regard for
    contested decision;                                            the welfare and interests of officials, in that it decided to
                                                                   resort to the transfer procedure provided for by
Ð misuse of powers in present case, together with a                Article 29(1)(c) of the Staff Regulations without first
    manifest error of assessment.                                  considering whether to hold a competition internal to the
                                                                   institution.
                                                                   He also pleads infringement of Article 7(1) and of the
                                                                   third paragraph of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations and
Action     brought on 14 September 1998 by             Dino        breach of the principles of non-discrimination and of the
         Cantoreggi against the European Parliament                protection of legitimate expectations, together, in the
                      (Case T-144/98)                              present case, with misuse of powers, inasmuch as the
                        (98/C 340/53)                              appointing authority appointed a person to the post in
                                                                   question without being guided solely by the interests of
               (Language of the case: French)                      the service; the appointment in issue was made on the
                                                                   basis of a nationality quota and with a view to reserving
An action against the European Parliament was brought              the post for a person who, it appears, is of the same
before the Court of First Instance of the European                 nationality as the President of the European Parliament,
Communities on 14 September 1998 by Dino Cantoreggi,               the latter having acted as the appointing authority in that
residing in Brussels, represented by Eric Boigelot, of the         context.
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 rue du Fort Rheinsheim.           Lastly, the applicant considers that he fulfilled all the
                                                                   conditions for appointment to the post in issue, and that
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        the contested decision was adopted on the basis of
Ð annul the appointing authority's decision of                     incorrect considerations, alternatively without taking into
    12 February 1998 by which it appointed another                 account the interests of the service alone. Consequently, it
    person to the post of head of division (in grade A 3,          is vitiated by reasoning which is based on incorrect
    step 1) in the Directorate-General for Administration,         criteria and infringes Article 7, the second paragraph of
    based in Brussels, pursuant to Notice of Vacancy               Article 25 and Articles 29(1) and 45 of the Staff
    No 8045 (post No VI/A/1297) and Notice of Transfer             Regulations; it also breaches certain general legal
    No PE/A/208;                                                   principles, such as the principles of the protection of
                                                                   legitimate expectations and of non-discrimination. The
Ð annul the appointing authority's decision rejecting the          applicant states in that regard that, for the purposes of his
    applicant's application for that post, which was               possible appointment to the post, he possessed, in addition
    contained in Note No 6006 drawn up by HeÂleÁne                 to his specific qualifications, the advantage of being
    Puech, Head of the Recruitment and Personnel                   familiar with the history of the buildings concerned and
    Management Department and sent to the applicant on             with the institution itself, and of being extremely highly
    25 February 1998;                                              qualified in technical managment.
Ð order the defendant to pay all the costs in any event.


title: Case T-346/11: Action brought on 7 July 2011 — Gollnisch v Parliament

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/42

         Action brought on 7 July 2011 — Gollnisch v Parliament
   (Case T-346/11)
   2011/C 252/92
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Bruno Gollnisch (Limonest, France) (represented by: G. Dubois, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of European Parliament of 10 May 2011 to waive the applicant’s parliamentary immunity and to adopt Report No A7-0155/2011;

               —

               award Mr GOLLNISCH the sum of EUR 8 000 in compensation for non-material damage;

               —

               award Mr GOLLNISCH the sum of EUR 4 000 by way of costs incurred for legal advice and the preparation of this action.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant seeks, first, the annulment of the decision of the European Parliament of 10 May 2011 to adopt the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A7-0155/2011) and to reject the request for the defence of immunity and privileges of Bruno Gollnisch (2010/2284(IMM)) and, second, compensation for the non-material damage that it allegedly suffered in consequence of the adoption of the contested decision.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law:

               1.

               First plea, alleging infringement of Article 9 of the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Union of 8 April 1965.

               2.

               Second plea, concerning the necessary application in the present case of Article 9 of the Protocol.

               3.

               Third plea, alleging failure to follow the precedents set by previous decisions of the Committee on Legal Affairs of the European Parliament.

               4.

               Fourth plea, alleging failure to respect the legal certainty of European Union law and breach of legitimate expectations.

               5.

               Fifth plea, alleging breach of the independence of a Member.

               6.

               Sixth plea, alleging infringement of the provisions of the rules of the European Parliament relating to proceedings which might lead to the disqualification of a Member.

               7.

               Seventh plea, alleging breach of the rule that the parties should be heard and of the applicant’s rights of defence.


title: Case T-182/08: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 2009 — Commission v Atlantic Energy (Arbitration clause — Contract for financial assistance concluded under a specific programme in the field of non-nuclear energy — Failure to comply with the contract — Reimbursement of sums advanced — Statutory set-off — Procedure for judgment by default)

text:
               29.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/35

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 2009 — Commission v Atlantic Energy
   (Case T-182/08) (1)

   (Arbitration clause - Contract for financial assistance concluded under a specific programme in the field of non-nuclear energy - Failure to comply with the contract - Reimbursement of sums advanced - Statutory set-off - Procedure for judgment by default)
   2009/C 205/63
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: initially A.-M. Rouchaud-Joët and S. Lejeune, and subsequently A.-M. Rouchaud-Joët and F. Mirza, Agents, and M. Jarvis, Barrister)

      Defendant: Atlantic Energy Ltd (Truro, Cornwall, United Kingdom)

      Re:

   Action brought by the Commission under Article 238 EC for reimbursement of an advance paid by the European Community, together with interest, under contract BU 183/95 UK/AT.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Orders Atlantic Energy Ltd to reimburse to the Commission of the European Communities the principal sum of EUR 226 010, together with the interest provided for under Article 23.1 of the general conditions of contract BU 183/95 UK/AT in respect of the periods between 1 June 1996 and 28 February 2002 and between 16 July 2002 and 31 May 2008, less the sum of EUR 3 610,53, the final sum being increased by the interest provided for under the abovementioned Article 23.1 of the general conditions as from 1 June 2008 until the debt is discharged in full.

               2.

               Orders Atlantic Energy to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 5.7.2008.


title: Case C-443/07 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 December 2008 — Isabel Clara Centeno Mediavilla, Delphine Fumey, Eva Gerhards, Iona M. S. Hamilton, Raymond Hill, Jean Huby, Patrick Klein, Domenico Lombardi, Thomas Millar, Miltiadis Moraitis, Ansa Norman Palmer, Nicola Robinson, François-Xavier Rouxel, Marta Silva Mendes, Peter van den Hul, Fritz Von Nordheim Nielsen, Michaël Zouridakis v Commission of the European Communities, Council of the European Union (Appeal — Staff Regulations of officials — Plea of illegality of Article 12(3) of Annex XIII on the classification of officials recruited after 1 May 2004 — Consulting of the Staff Regulations Committee — No infringement of acquired rights or of the principle of equal treatment)

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/18

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 December 2008 — Isabel Clara Centeno Mediavilla, Delphine Fumey, Eva Gerhards, Iona M. S. Hamilton, Raymond Hill, Jean Huby, Patrick Klein, Domenico Lombardi, Thomas Millar, Miltiadis Moraitis, Ansa Norman Palmer, Nicola Robinson, François-Xavier Rouxel, Marta Silva Mendes, Peter van den Hul, Fritz Von Nordheim Nielsen, Michaël Zouridakis v Commission of the European Communities, Council of the European Union
   (Case C-443/07 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Staff Regulations of officials - Plea of illegality of Article 12(3) of Annex XIII on the classification of officials recruited after 1 May 2004 - Consulting of the Staff Regulations Committee - No infringement of acquired rights or of the principle of equal treatment)
   (2009/C 44/29)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellants: Isabel Clara Centeno Mediavilla, Delphine Fumey, Eva Gerhards, Iona M. S. Hamilton, Raymond Hill, Jean Huby, Patrick Klein, Domenico Lombardi, Thomas Millar, Miltiadis Moraitis, Ansa Norman Palmer, Nicola Robinson, François-Xavier Rouxel, Marta Silva Mendes, Peter van den Hul, Fritz Von Nordheim Nielsen, Michaël Zouridakis (represented by: G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, avocats)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities, (represented by: J. Currall and H. Krämer, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Arpio Santacruz and M. Bauer, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 11 July 2007 in Case T-58/05 Centeno Mediavilla and Others v Commission, by which the Court of First Instance dismissed the actions of the appellants seeking annulment of the decisions appointing them probationary officials, in so far as they fix their grade classification in accordance with the transitional provisions in Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities, as amended by Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004 (OJ 2004 L 124, p. 1) — Implications of the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations for the situation of persons on a list of suitable candidates or a reserve list before the date of entry into force of those regulations, namely 1 May 2004, but recruited after that date — Principles of legal certainty, protection of legitimate expectations and equal treatment — Scope of the duty to give reasons
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Ms Centeno Mediavilla, Ms Fumey, Ms Gerhards, Ms Hamilton, Mr Hill, Mr Huby, Mr Klein, Mr Lombardi, Mr Millar, Mr Moraitis, Ms Palmer, Ms Robinson, Mr Rouxel, Ms Silva Mendes, Mr van den Hul, Mr Von Nordheim Nielsen and Mr Zouridakis to pay the costs of the appeal;

               3.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 22, 26.1.2008.


title: Case T-270/16 P: Judgment of the General Court of 14 February 2017 — Kerstens v Commission (Appeal — Civil Service — Officials — Dismissal of the action at first instance — Acts contrary to the dignity of the civil service — Dissemination of insulting remarks with regard to another official — Disciplinary proceedings — Enquiry in the form of an examination of the facts — Disciplinary penalty of a reprimand — Procedural irregularity — Consequences of the irregularity)

text:
               27.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/12

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 February 2017 — Kerstens v Commission
   (Case T-270/16 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil Service - Officials - Dismissal of the action at first instance - Acts contrary to the dignity of the civil service - Dissemination of insulting remarks with regard to another official - Disciplinary proceedings - Enquiry in the form of an examination of the facts - Disciplinary penalty of a reprimand - Procedural irregularity - Consequences of the irregularity))
   (2017/C 095/20)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Petrus Kerstens (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: T. Bohr and C. Ehrbar, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 18 March 2016, Kerstens v Commission (F-23/15, EU:F:2016:65), and seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 18 March 2016, Kerstens v Commission (F-23/15, EU:F:2016:65) in so far as it rejects the claim for annulment of the European Commission’s decision of 15 April 2014 imposing a reprimand on Mr Petrus Kerstens;

               2.

               Annuls the Commission’s decision of 15 April 2014 imposing a reprimand on Mr Kerstens;

               3.

               Orders the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings on appeal and of the proceedings at first instance.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 18.7.2016.


Avis juridique important

|

E1994P0005

Reference for an advisory opinion by Marknadsdomstolen by order of that court of 30 August 1994 in the case of Konsumentombudsmannen against TV-Shop i Sverige AB (Case E-5/94)

Official Journal C 347 , 08/12/1994 P. 0013 - 0013

Reference for an advisory opinion by Marknadsdomstolen by order of that court of 30 August 1994 in the case of Konsumentombudsmannen against TV-Shop i Sverige AB (Case E-5/94) (94/C 347/12)Reference has been made to the EFTA Court by an order of 30 August 1994 of Marknadsdomstolen (the Market Court), Sweden, which was received at the Court Registry on 12 September 1994, for an advisory opinion in the case of Konsumentombudsmannen (the Consumer Ombudsman) against TV-Shop i Sverige AB, on the following question:Does Article 2 (2) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC (the TV Directive) or the transmitting State principle contained therein prevent a receiving State from taking action against an advertisement which is distributed by an advertiser by means of television broadcasts from other EEA States?


title: Case C-261/09: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 November 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart — Germany) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued in respect of Gaetano Mantello (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 3(2) — Ne bis in idem — Concept of the same acts — Possibility for the executing judicial authority to refuse to execute a European arrest warrant — Final judgment in the issuing Member State — Possession of narcotic drugs — Trafficking in narcotic drugs — Criminal organisation)

text:
               15.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/13

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 November 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart — Germany) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued in respect of Gaetano Mantello
   (Case C-261/09) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Article 3(2) - Ne bis in idem - Concept of the ‘same acts’ - Possibility for the executing judicial authority to refuse to execute a European arrest warrant - Final judgment in the issuing Member State - Possession of narcotic drugs - Trafficking in narcotic drugs - Criminal organisation)
   2011/C 13/20
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart

      Party in the main proceedings

   Gaetano Mantello

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart — Interpretation of Article 3(2) of Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1) — Principle of ‘ne bis in idem’ at national level — Whether executing judicial authority may refuse to execute a European arrest warrant issued for the purpose of conducting a criminal prosecution concerning acts some of which have already been subject to final disposal at trial in the issuing Member State — Concept of ‘the same acts’ — Situation in which all the facts on which the European arrest warrant is based were known to the investigating authorities of the issuing Member State at the time of the first criminal proceedings but were not used for tactical reasons relating to the investigation

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               For the purposes of the issue and execution of a European arrest warrant, the concept of ‘same acts’ in Article 3(2) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States constitutes an autonomous concept of European Union law.

               In circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings where, in response to a request for information within the meaning of Article 15(2) of that Framework Decision made by the executing judicial authority, the issuing judicial authority, applying its national law and in compliance with the requirements deriving from the concept of ‘same acts’ as enshrined in Article 3(2) of the Framework Decision, expressly stated that the earlier judgment delivered under its legal system did not constitute a final judgment covering the acts referred to in the arrest warrant issued by it and therefore did not preclude the criminal proceedings referred to in that arrest warrant, the executing judicial authority has no reason to apply, in connection with such a judgment, the ground for mandatory non-execution provided for in Article 3(2) of the Framework Decision.

      (1)  OJ C 220, 12.9.2009.


title: Case T-397/02: Action brought on 19 December 2002 by Arla Foods and Others against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 70/24                 EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                        22.3.2003
       —    access, permission to copy and to produce before              Action brought on 19 December 2002 by Arla Foods
            the courts all documents relating to the project              and Others against the Commission of the European
            PRODCOM concerning Eurogramme Ltd directly or                                            Communities
            indirectly and, in particular, those appearing in the
            list enclosed with the originating request together
            with all the elements of the internal investigation                                    (Case T-397/02)
            file carried out by the Head of Unit DG EUROSTAT/
            R.1 ‘Administrative and personnel matters’ including
            the audit report of 21 December 2000;                                                   (2003/C 70/40)
       —    financial assistance to allow her to cover the entire                           (Language of the case: Danish)
            cost of defending the action seeking compensation
            for non-material, professional and material damage
            suffered as a result of defamatory statements made
            against her;
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
—      order the defendant to pay the costs.                              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 19 December 2002 by Arla Foods,
                                                                          Viby J (Denmark), and eight other Danish cheese producers,
                                                                          represented by Georg Lett, advokat.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          The applicants claim that the Court should:
The applicant was an official of the Commission, working for              —      Annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 1829/2002 of
DG EUROSTAT. She was responsible for the PRODCOM                                 14 October 2002 (1) on the registration of the name ‘Feta’
project in respect of which Eurogramme Ltd entered into a                        under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of Council
contract for the provision of statistical services.                              Regulation No 2081/92.
                                                                          —      Order the Commission to pay the costs.
According to the applicant, Eurogramme Ltd made serious
accusations against the applicant in this respect. Subsequently,
the applicant brought an action on the grounds of defamation
against Eurogramme Ltd before the courts in the United
Kingdom.                                                                  Pleas in law and main arguments
In that context, the applicant submitted a request within the             Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the
meaning of Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations seeking to              protection of geographical indications and designations of
obtain access and permission to copy and produce before the               origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs ( 2) introduced
courts in the United Kingdom all documents relating to                    Community rules governing inter alia designations for food-
the PRODCOM project. That request also sought financial                   stuffs. Under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 of
assistance to allow her to cover the entire cost of defending             12 June 1996 on the registration of geographical indications
the action seeking compensation for damage suffered as a                  and designations of origin under the procedure laid down
result of defamatory statements made against her by Eurogram-             in Article 17 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 (3)
me Ltd. That request was rejected by the contested decision.              designations including ‘feta’ were registered. By judgment of
                                                                          16 March 1999 (4), the Court of Justice annulled Regulation
                                                                          No 1107/96 as regards the term ‘feta’. With the contested
In support of her application, the applicant alleges infringe-            regulation, the Commission has again registered the term ‘feta’
ment of Decision No 94/90 (1)on public access to Commission               as a protected geographical indication in favour of Greece.
documents and infringement of Article 19 of the Staff
Regulations. The applicant points out that the contested
decision gives no reason for refusing access to the file and              The applicants, all Danish producers of feta cheese, claim that
permission to produce such documents before the courts.                   the contested regulation should be annulled and submit that
                                                                          the regulation is vitiated by fundamental formal defects which
                                                                          lead to its being invalid as regards registration of the term
( 1) 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom: Commission Decision of 8 February           ‘feta’. According to the applicants, the Greek legislation was
     1994 on public access to Commission documents (OJ 1994 L 46,         enacted too late to enable the term ‘feta’ to be registered
     58).                                                                 pursuant to Article 17 of Council Regulation No 2081/92.
                                                                          Moreover, neither the principal points in Greece’s application
                                                                          nor technical goods specifications for the term ‘feta’ have been
                                                                          made public.
 ---pagebreak--- 22.3.2003                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 70/25
The applicants further claim that ‘feta’ does not fulfil the                The applicant claims that the Court should:
conditions for registration pursuant to Council Regulation
No 2081/92. ‘Feta’ is a generic term which cannot be protected
under that regulation. ‘Feta’ is a generally used term of reference         —     declare the present application admissible;
for a given dairy product. The evolution in the Greek legislation
shows that ‘feta’ has been construed as a generic term in
Greece as well, just as the Council and the Commission in                   —     annul the Commission Decision resulting in the filing of
their formulations have treated feta as a generic product.                        the third complaint ( 1) on 30 October 2002 before the
Furthermore, Greek feta is not one uniform type of product,                       New York District Court against the applicants, as
leading to the conclusion that the aim is in reality the                          publicly announced by the Commission in its Press
protection of Greek cheese per se.                                                Release IP/05/1592 of 31 October 2002;
                                                                            —     order the Commission to pay the costs of the present
Lastly, the applicants submit that the registration of the term                   proceedings, including the costs of the applicants and
‘feta’ is contrary to the principle laid down in Article 7(4) of                  any intervening parties.
Council Regulation No 2081/92, fundamental principles of EC
law and therefore the Treaty, including Article 12 EC and
Article 34(3) EC, and also the principle of the protection of
legitimate expectations and the proportionality principle.
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
( 1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1829/2002 of 14 October 2002
     amending the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 with regard
     to the name ‘Feta’ (OJ 2002 L 277, p 10).
( 2) OJ 1992 L 208, p. 1.
( 3) OJ 1996 L 148, p. 1.
                                                                            The applicants are the defendants in legal proceedings brought
( 4) Joined Cases C-289/96, C-293/96 and C-299/96 Denmark and               by the Commission on behalf of the European Community
     Others v Commission [1999] ECR I-1541.                                 and a number of Member States before a United States court
                                                                            seeking treble and punitive damages, equitable relief and
                                                                            various types of injunctive relief for the applicants’ alleged
                                                                            participation in money laundering schemes.
                                                                            The applicants submit that the European Community, rep-
                                                                            resented by the Commission, lacks the competence to adopt
                                                                            the contested act and to bring action on its own behalf and on
Action brought on 9 January 2003 by R. J. Reynolds                          behalf of Member States for the following reasons:
Tobacco Holdings, Inc., R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company,
R. J. Reynolds Tobacco International, Inc. and RJR Acqui-
sition Corp. against the Commission of the European                         —     Article 2 EC does not confer any specific and autonomous
                             Communities                                          powers upon the institutions;
                             (Case T-6/03)                                  —     Article 281 EC merely states that the EC enjoys legal
                                                                                personality, without addressing any issue of competence;
                            (2003/C 70/41)
                                                                            —     Article 282 EC does not confer any competence on the
                                                                                EC, represented by the Commission to bring an action
                    (Language of the case: English)                               before the court of a non-Member State;
                                                                            —     Article 280 EC does not grant the EC, represented by the
                                                                                Commission, any competence to bring legal action for
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                         the protection of the Community’s financial interests.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                        Article 280 only grants limited competence on the
European Communities on 9 January 2003 by R. J. Reynolds                          Community to ensure that Member States introduce
Tobacco Holdings, Inc., Winston-Salem, United States of                           measures that are effective to protect the Community’s
America, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, Winston-Salem,                           financial interest and to assist the Member States in this
United States of America R. J. Reynolds Tobacco International,                    task;
Inc., Winston-Salem, United States of America and RJR
Acquisition Corp, Wilmington, United States of America,
represented by Mr Eric Morgan de Rivery and Ms Francesca                    —     even if one assumes that Article 280 EC grants such
Marchini Camia, Lawyers.                                                          competence on the EC, the contested act does not fulfil


title: Case C-500/03: Action brought on 26 November 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic

text:
24.1.2004               EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 21/25
1.    Is it permissible to resort to other language versions of          The appellant claims that the Court should:
      the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1) to elucidate
      the meaning of the word ‘charitable’ in Article 13A.1 (g)          —     set aside the contested judgment of the Court of First
      and (h), or must the word have the same meaning as in                    Instance of 17 September 2003 (1) and
      domestic law?
                                                                         —     1.    in Case T-309/01,
2.    If article 13A(1)(g) and (h) are to be interpreted as                          annul the Commission Decision of 14 August 2001
      applying to an organisation that is recognised as having                       (REC 4/00) in so far as it requires subsequent
      a social character, are they to be interpreted as applying                     accounting for import duties in the amount of
      to a profitmaking entity such as the Kingscrest Residential                    DEM 218 605,65, and order the Commission to pay
      Care Homes partnership?                                                        the costs of the proceedings;
3.    Are article 13A.1 (g) and (h) of the Directive to be                     2.    in Case T-239/02,
      interpreted as meaning that they confer on Member States
      a discretion to recognise for the purposes of those                            annul the Commission Decision of 5 March 2002
      provisions an organisation which is registered under the                       (REC 4/01) in so far as it requires subsequent
      Care Standards Act 2000 (or the Registered Homes Act                           accounting for import duties in the amount of
      1984 or the Children Act 1989) but which is not a body                         DEM 222 116,06, and order the Commission to pay
      governed by public law and does not have the status of a                       the costs of the proceedings.
      charity under the domestic law of the Member State
      concerned?
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
(1) Of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member        The appellants contest the judgment of the Court of First
    States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value           Instance on the following grounds:
    added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ L 145 of 13.6.77,
    p. 1).
                                                                         —     Breach of Article 220(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC)
                                                                               No 2913/92 (2). The Court of First Instance incorrectly
                                                                               based its ruling on a finding that the error made by the
                                                                               competent customs authority was detectable by the
                                                                               appellants. In the contested judgment, the Court of First
                                                                               Instance exaggerated the duty of care to be expected of
                                                                               the economic operators concerned. In addition, it failed
                                                                               to appreciate the complexity of the applicable rules.
Appeal brought on 26 November 2003 (fax: 25 November
2003) by Peter Biegi Nahrungsmittel GmbH and Com-                        —     Flawed procedure in so far as the Court of First Instance
monfood Handelsgesellschaft für Agrar-Produkte mbH                             incorrectly declined to hear the witnesses named by the
against the judgment delivered on 17 September 2003 by                         appellants. Instead, it based its judgment on assumptions
the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                       detrimental to the appellants.
European Communities in Joined Cases T-309/01 and
T-239/02 between Peter Biegi Nahrungsmittel GmbH and
                                                                         (1) Not yet published in the ECR.
Commonfood Handelsgesellschaft für Agrar-Produkte
                                                                         (2) OJ L 302, p. 1.
mbH, and the Commission of the European Communities
                         (Case C-499/03 P)
                           (2004/C 21/46)
                                                                         Action brought on 26 November 2003 by the Com-
                                                                         mission of the European Communities against the Portu-
                                                                                guese Republic
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 17 September
2003 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of                                       (Case C-500/03)
the European Communities in Joined Cases T-309/01 and
T-239/02 between Peter Biegi Nahrungsmittel GmbH and                                                (2004/C 21/47)
Commonfood Handelsgesellschaft für Agrar-Produkte mbH,
and the Commission of the European Communities was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 26 November 2003 (fax: 25 November 2003) by Peter                An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
Biegi Nahrungsmittel GmbH and Commonfood Handelsge-                      before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
sellschaft für Agrar-Produkte mbH, represented by Dr Klaus               26 November 2003 by the Commission of the European
Landry and Dr Lothar Harings of Sozietät Graf von Westphalen             Communities, represented by António Caeiros, acting as
Bappert & Modest, Große Bleichen 21, D-20354, Hamburg.                   Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- C 21/26                  EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                         24.1.2004
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               The Commission claims that the Court should:
—     Declare that, by approving Order No 783/98 without                  1.     Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
      notifying it at the draft stage, the Portuguese Republic has               and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8 of Directive              Directive 2001/12/EC (1) of the European Parliament and
      98/34/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the                         of the Council of 26 February 2001 amending Council
      Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for                        Directive 91/440/EEC (2) on the development of the
      the provision of information in the field of technical                     Community’s railways, Directive 2001/13/EC (3) of the
      standards and regulations, in the version in force at the                  European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February
      material time;                                                             2001 amending Council Directive 95/18/EC (4) on the
                                                                                licensing of railway undertakings and Directive 2001/14/
—     Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.                            EC (5) of the European Parliament and of the Council
                                                                                of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway
                                                                                infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the
                                                                                use of railway infrastructure and safety certification and,
                                                                                in any event, by not having communicated them to the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                  Commission, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil
                                                                                its obligations thereunder; and
Article 2 of the Regulamento da Navegação em Albufeiras                   2.     Order the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.
(Waterway Navigation Regulations) (Order No 783/98 of
19 September 1998) contains technical regulations within the
meaning of Community law. It is a regulatory measure adopted
by the Government of the Portuguese Republic which is de jure
mandatory and which lays down the technical characteristics               Pleas in law and main arguments
(dimensions and power) which pleasure craft must observe in
order to be used in Portugal for pleasure navigation in public
waterways in Portugal, the only exception being the waterways
                                                                          The time-limit for transposition of the directives expired on
in the Douro River. The article thus manifestly applies to
                                                                          15 March 2003.
Portugal or, at least, to a major part of it. Accordingly, the
Portuguese Republic ought, pursuant to Article 8(1) of Direc-
tive 98/34/EC, to have forwarded to the Commission the draft
legislative measure which was adopted by the Portuguese                   (1 ) OJ 2001 L 75, p. 1.
Government as Order No 783/98.                                            (2 ) Of 29 July 1991 (OJ 1991 L 237, p. 1).
                                                                          (3 ) OJ 2001 L 75, p. 26.
                                                                          (4 ) Of 19 June 1995 (OJ 1995 L 143, p. 70).
                                                                          (5 ) OJ 2001 L 75, p. 29.
(1) OJ L 204 of 21.7.1998, p. 37.
Action brought on 26 November 2003 by the Com-                            Action brought on 27 November 2003 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities against the                           mission of the European Communities against the
                        Kingdom of Sweden                                                          Kingdom of Spain
                           (Case C-501/03)                                                          (Case C-503/03)
                            (2004/C 21/48)                                                           (2004/C 21/49)
An action against the Kingdom of Sweden was brought                       An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 No-
26 November 2003 by the Commission of the European                        vember 2003 by the Commission of the European Communi-
Communities, represented by W. Wils and K. Simonsson,                     ties, represented by Carmel O’Reilly and Luis Escobar Guerrero,
acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.              acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.


title: Case C-259/07: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 31 January 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2005/51/EC — Public procurement — Procedure for the award of public contracts — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               29.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/9

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 31 January 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden
   (Case C-259/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2005/51/EC - Public procurement - Procedure for the award of public contracts - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2008/C 79/15)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Kukovec and K. Nyberg, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk, acting as Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2005/51/EC of 7 September 2005 amending Annex XX to Directive 2004/17/EC and Annex VIII to Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and the Council on public procurement (OJ 2005 L 257, p. 127)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2005/51/EC of 7 September 2005 amending Annex XX to Directive 2004/17/EC and Annex VIII to Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and the Council on public procurement, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 183, 4.8.2007.


title: Action brought on 4 March 1997 by Onno Plug against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-47/97)

text:
No C 142/22            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   10 . 5 . 97
— in the specific analysis of the compensation paid for              Action brought on 4 March 1997 by Onno Plug against
    each year in the period between 1992 and 1996, the                      the Commission of the European Communities
    Commission provides information which is manifestly                                     ( Case T-47/97)
    inadequate and did not lead evidence in the
    proceedings which would enable it to arrive at the                                       ( 97/C 142/46 )
    conclusions it did,
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
— infringement of Article 92 of the Treaty, inasmuch as              An action against the Commission of the European
    the measures complained of by the applicant do not               Communities was brought before the Court of First
    constitute State aid. As regards the granting of                 Instance of the European Communities on 4 March 1997
    compensation, the applicant considers that, even if it is        by Onno Plug, residing in Thonex ( Switzerland),
    accepted ( merely as a working hypothesis ) that                 represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of
    fulfilment by RTP of requirements which justify                  the   Brussels   Bar,  with    an   address  for  service    in
    payment of compensation could be characterized as                Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30,
     'public service requirements', the criteria when                Rue de Cessange .
    determining the remuneration for the provision of
    such 'public service' lead directly to the conclusion            The applicant claims that the Court should :
    that State aid within the meaning of Article 92 of the
    Treaty is involved .                                             — annul the implied decision rejecting his complaint of
                                                                         22 February 1996 and, in so far as is necessary, the
The applicant points out that the option adopted by the                  express decision rejecting his complaint, adopted on
Portuguese legislature manifestly creates objective                      27 November 1996 and notified to him on 2 December
conditions for the breach of the rules on competition.                   1996, in so far as the Commission refused to adopt
                                                                         the decision provided for by Article 19 of the Rules on
— RTP is in direct and immediate competition with SIC                    the Insurance of Officials of the European
    and with TVI ( and is also in competition with other                 Communities against the Risk of Accident and of
    major channels =— in particular European channels —                  Occupational Disease without seeking new expert
    mainly broadcast in Portugal via satellite or                        medical reports,
     distributed by cable )
                                                                     — order the Commission to pay a sum equivalent to 13
                                                                         years of his salary, on the basis that account is to be
— RTP's activity as holder of the concession for a public                taken of the amount of pay to which he would have
     service is an ancillary, marginal activity which                    been entitled on the day of delivery of the judgment
    constitutes a very small part of its programming                     and that interest will be payable on that sum at 8 %
     ( especially of its programmes in periods in which                  per annum from the date of the judgment to be given,
     significant income from advertising is generated ).
                                                                     — order the Commission to pay the entire costs .
— Almost the whole of the 'public service programme' is
     undertaken by RTP's second channel alone, since                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     RTP's Channel 1 is, in practice, exclusively
    commercial ( more commercial than the private                    The applicant, formerly a temporary servant of the
    channels of other European countries, according to the           European Commission, was given retirement with an
     findings of the Commission ).                                   invalidity pension with effect from 1 January 1985 . In
                                                                     1989, he brought an action against the Commission
Besides the question of compensation, the applicant                  relating to the procedure for being invalided out and the
mentions      other  State   measures  in  favour    of  RTP:        relationship between the procedures laid down in
exemptions from charges and taxes, waiver by the Social              Articles 73 and 78 of the Staff Regulations, and for
Security of a charge of Esc 1 206 600 000, late payments             damages . The Court of First Instance of the European
tolerated by Portugal Telecom ( owner of the television              Communities gave judgment on 27 February 1992 ( Case
signal distribution network ) and the conditions of the              T-165/89 Plug v. Commission [ 1992] ECR 11-367).
debenture loan for 1994 .
                                                                     On 22 February 1996, the applicant submitted a request
                                                                     under Article 90 ( 1 ) of the Staff Regulations seeking, in
In the applicant's view, it is clear that the aid granted by         particular, that the Commission take a decision on the
the State to RTP does not fall under any of the                      request for recognition of the occupational nature of his
exemptions provided for in Article 92 ( 2 ) of the Treaty.           disease, in accordance with Article 73 of the Staff
Nor can reliance be placed on Article 90 of the Treaty in            Regulations and the Insurance Rules, without seeking new
order to attempt to demonstrate that the aid of which                expert medical reports .
RTP is the recipient is lawful under Community law.
Moreover, the Commission does not rely on that provision             The applicant contends that the Commission has not
in the contested decisions .
                                                                     granted the request but has made the decision referred to
                                                                     in Article 19 of the Insurance Regulations subject to a new
(') OJ No C 77, 16 . 3 . 1996, p. 14.                                expert medical opinion. The medical reports in the
                                                                     applicant's file contain all the information that is needed
                                                                     for   the   Commission      to   take   that  decision .   The
 ---pagebreak---  10 . 5 . 97           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 142/23
Commission's position fails to take account of the binding           concerned the unlawful appointment by the Parliament on
authority of the judgment of 27 February 1992, Articles 18           3 July 1989, with effect from 1 June 1989, and its
and 19 of the Insurance Rules and the principle of good              subsequent re-appointment, of another official to the post
management. Having regard to everything on the file, its             of Language Adviser in the Danish Translation Division,
position also constitutes a misuse of powers. Since                  despite the fact that the applicant fulfilled all the necessary
27 February 1992, the Commission has systematically                  conditions and had been proposed for appointment to the
been acting in disregard of the applicant's rights and               post .
contrary to the Insurance Rules, as it had before that date .
The Commission could not legitimately instruct a new                 The applicant complains that the Parliament failed
expert for the purpose of the decision under Article 19 of           correctly to comply with the judgments delivered by the
the Insurance Regulations . In addition the pre-litigation           Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice, that it
procedure was not adhered to since the Commission made               disregarded the consequences of those judgments, and that
its decision on the complaint without convening the                  it refused to acknowledge the unlawfulness of its conduct,
Interdepartmental Group.                                             in that it persisted in such unlawful acts .
As regards the application for damages, the applicant                The Parliament's conduct has adversely affected the career
contends that the persistently unlawful behaviour of the             progress of the applicant, who is seeking, on a provisional
Commission over 13 years, since the application made on              basis, compensation for the material damage suffered in
24 January 1984, or at the very least over five years, since         the sum of Bfrs 6 000 000, corresponding to the difference
the judgment of 27 February 1992, has had a detrimental              in his salary and related allowances over the period from
effect on his physical and psychological health.                     1 June 1989 until the date of the applicant's retirement.
                                                                     Moreover, the applicant has suffered considerable non
                                                                     material damage, estimated in the sum of Bfrs 5 000 000,
                                                                     because the Parliament's conduct has seriously affected his
                                                                     health,    in  that   he     has   contracted  three   illnesses
Action brought on 4 March 1997 by Erik Dan Frederiksen               acknowledged by the appointing authority as being serious
                against the European Parliament                      illnesses within the meaning of Article 72 ( 1 ) of the Staff
                         ( Case T-48/97 )                            Regulations .
                           ( 97/C 142/47
                 (Language of the case: French)
An action against the European Parliament was brought                Action brought on 4 March 1997 by TAT European
before the Court of First Instance of the European                   Airlines against the Commission of the European
Communities on 4 March 1997 by Erik Dan Frederiksen,                                            Communities
residing at Howald ( Luxembourg ), represented by Georges                                    ( Case T-49/97)
Vandersanden, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson                                       ( 97/C 142/48 )
Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                     An action against the Commission of the European
— award the applicant, on a provisional basis,                       Communities was brought before the Court of First
      compensation for the material damage suffered in the           Instance of the European Communities on 4 March 1997
      estimated sum of Bfrs 6 000 000,                               by TAT European Airlines, established at Tours ( France ),
                                                                     represented by Romano Subiotto, of the Law Society of
                                                                     England and Wales, and Nicholas Levy, of the Bar of
— award the applicant compensation for the non                      England and Wales, with an address for service in
      material damage suffered, estimated on an equitable            Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger & Hoss, 15
      basis to amount to the sum of Bfrs 5 000 000,                  Cote d'Eich .
— order the European Parliament to pay all the costs.                The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  — annul the contested communication pursuant to
                                                                          Article 173 of the Treaty, primarily on account of
The applicant has previously brought a number of actions                  infringement of essential procedural requirements and,
against the European Parliament ( for example, Case                       in the alternative, by reason of manifest errors of
                                                                          assessment,
T-169/89, reported at [ 1991 ] ECR 11-1403 , and Case
T-106/92 , reported at [ 1995] ECR SC 11-99, an abstract of
which appears at [ 1995] ECR-SC I-A-29 ), all of which               — order the Commission to pay the costs .


title: Case F-31/09: Action brought on 26 March 2009 — Noël v Council

text:
               6.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/22

         Action brought on 26 March 2009 — Noël v Council
   (Case F-31/09)
   2009/C 129/38
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Isabelle Noël (Rosières-Saint-André, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision appointing the applicant a probationary official to the extent that that decision affects his AST 1-7 career path.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 13 November 2006 appointing the applicant an official to the extent that that decision affects his AST 1-7 career path;

               —

               Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 October 2004 in Case C-460/03: Commission of the European Communities v Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2000/53/EC — End-of-life vehicles — Failure to implement)

text:
               8.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/16

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fourth Chamber)
   of 28 October 2004
   in Case C-460/03: Commission of the European Communities v Ireland (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2000/53/EC - End-of-life vehicles - Failure to implement)
   (2005/C 6/29)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case C-460/03: action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 31 October 2003, between Commission of the European Communities (Agents: X. Lewis and M. Konstantinidis) and Ireland (Agent: D. O'Hagan) - the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, acting as President of the Fourth Chamber, E. Juhász and E. Levits (Rapporteur), Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 October 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of life vehicles, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive and in particular Article 10(1) thereof;

               2.

               Orders Ireland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 304 of 13.12.2003


title: Case C-251/11: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal administratif de Rennes — France) — Martial Huet v Université de Bretagne occidentale (Social policy — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Clause 5(1) — Successive fixed-term employment contracts — Measures to prevent the abuse of such contracts — Conversion of the previous fixed-term contract into a contract of indefinite duration — Obligation to reproduce in identical terms the principal clauses of the previous fixed-term contract)

text:
               28.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 126/3

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal administratif de Rennes — France) — Martial Huet v Université de Bretagne occidentale
   (Case C-251/11) (1)

   (Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Clause 5(1) - Successive fixed-term employment contracts - Measures to prevent the abuse of such contracts - Conversion of the previous fixed-term contract into a contract of indefinite duration - Obligation to reproduce in identical terms the principal clauses of the previous fixed-term contract)
   2012/C 126/04
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal administratif de Rennes

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Martial Huet

      Defendant: Université de Bretagne occidentale

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Administrative Court of Rennes — Interpretation of Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43) — Successive fixed-term contracts in the public sector — Obligation to reproduce in identical terms the principal clauses of the previous fixed-term contract where that contract is converted into an employment contract of indefinite duration — Principles of equivalence and of non-reduction of the earlier level of protection

      Operative part of the judgment

   Clause 5 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, which is set out in the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State, which provides in its national legislation for conversion of fixed-term employment contracts into an employment contract of indefinite duration when the fixed-term employment contracts have reached a certain duration, is not obliged to require that the employment contract of indefinite duration reproduces in identical terms the principal clauses set out in the previous contract. However, in order not to undermine the practical effect of, or the objectives pursued by, Directive 1999/70, that Member State must ensure that the conversion of fixed-term employment contracts into an employment contract of indefinite duration is not accompanied by material amendments to the clauses of the previous contract in a way that is, overall, unfavourable to the person concerned when the subject-matter of that person’s tasks and the nature of his functions remain unchanged.

      (1)  OJ C 238, 13.8.2011


title: Case C-39/05 P: Appeal brought on 2 February 2005 by Kingdom of Sweden against the judgment delivered on 23 November 2004 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-84/03 between Maurizio Turco, supported by Republic of Finland, Kingdom of Denmark and Kingdom of Sweden and Council of the European Union, supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Commission of the European Communities

text:
               30.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/13

         Appeal brought on 2 February 2005 by Kingdom of Sweden against the judgment delivered on 23 November 2004 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-84/03 between Maurizio Turco, supported by Republic of Finland, Kingdom of Denmark and Kingdom of Sweden and Council of the European Union, supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-39/05 P)
   (2005/C 106/27)
   Language of the case: English
   An appeal against the judgment delivered on 23 November 2004 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-84/03 (1) between Maurizio Turco, supported by Republic of Finland, Kingdom of Denmark and Kingdom of Sweden and Council of the European Union, supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Commission of the European Communities, was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 2 February 2005 by Kingdom of Sweden, represented by K. Wistrand, acting as Agent.
   The Appellant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               Set aside paragraph 1 of the operative part of the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 November 2004 in Case T-84/03 Maurizio Turco v Council of the European Union;

               2.

               Annul the Council's decision of 19 December 2002 in so far as it concerns access to the legal opinion from the Council's legal service and

               3.

               Order the Council to pay the costs incurred by the Kingdom of Sweden in the proceedings before the Court of Justice.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The Swedish Government submits that the Court of First Instance has infringed Community law in the judgment under appeal.
   The Court of First Instance pointed out, on the one hand, that it is for the institutions to assess in each individual case whether the documents whose disclosure is sought actually fall within the exceptions set out in Regulation No 1049/2001 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (‘openness regulation’).
   On the other hand, the Court of First Instance upheld the Council's assertion that there was a general need for confidentiality for legal opinions in legislative matters. That was so, first, because the disclosure of documents of that type could give rise to doubt as to the lawfulness of the legislation in question, and, second, because the maintenance of the independence of opinions from the Council's legal service can constitute an interest worthy of protection. On that basis, the Court of First Instance found that the Council did not make an error of judgment in refusing access to the legal opinion on the basis of the exception in the second indent of Article 4(2) of the openness regulation.
   In the view of the Swedish Government, that conclusion is incompatible with the obligation to assess the question of disclosure in the light of the content of the specific document. That finding of the Court of First Instance thus infringed Community law.

      (1)  OJ C 112, 10/05/2003, p. 38.

      (2)  OJ L 145, 31/05/2001, p. 43.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 7 November 1997 in Case T-218/95: Azienda Agricola 'Le Canne' Srl v. Commission of the European Communities (Agriculture - Fisheries - Aquaculture and establishment of protected marine areas - Community financial aid - Declaration of ineligibility of certain expenditure - Action for annulment - Action for damages)

text:
20 . 12 . 97             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 387/ 19
Communities,          residing at        Sterrebeek      ( Belgium ),      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and                                           of 7 November 1997
Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson                 in Case T-2 18/95 : Azienda Agricola 'Le Canne' Srl v.
SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange, v. Commission of the                                   Commission of the European Communities ( 1 )
European Communities ( Agents : Gianluigi Valsesia and,
                                                                         (Agriculture — Fisheries — Aquaculture and establishment
initially, Ana Maria Alves Vieira and, subsequently,
                                                                         of protected marine areas — Community financial aid —
Florence Clotuche ) — application for annulment of the
decision, dated 26 March 1996, of the selection board in                 Declaration of ineligibility of certain expenditure —
                                                                                Action for annulment — Action for damages)
competition COM/A/955 , by which it decided not to
admit the applicant to the oral test in the competition                                               ( 97/C 387/35 )
and, in so far as may be necessary, annulment of
the    initial   decision      of that  selection   board,     dated
16 February 1996 — the Court of First Instance ( Second                                   (Language of the case: Italian)
Chamber ), composed of: C. W. Bellamy, President, and
A. Kalogeropoulos and P. Lindh, Judges; A. Mair,
                                                                         In Case T-218/95 : Azienda Agricola ' Le Canne' Sri,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
6 November 1997, in which it:
                                                                         established in Porto Viro, Italy, represented by Giulio
                                                                         Schiller, Giuseppe Carraro and Francesca Mazzonetto, of
1 . dismisses the action;                                                the Padua Bar, and by Guy Arendt, of the Luxembourg
                                                                         Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
1.   orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to                  latter's Chambers, 62 Avenue Guillaume, v. Commission
     pay one third of the applicant's costs.                             of the European Communities ( Agents : Eugenio de March
                                                                         and Hubertus Van Vliet ) — application, first, for
(') OJ C 233 , 10 . 8 . 1996 .
                                                                         annulment of the decision by the Commission to reduce
                                                                         Community financial aid originally granted and, secondly,
                                                                         for compensation for the damage suffered by the applicant
                                                                         as a result of that reduction — the Court of First Instance
                                                                         ( Third Chamber ), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President,
                                                                         C. P. Briët and A. Potocki, Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez,
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                        of 6 November 1997
                                                                         7 November 1997, in which it :
in Case T-101 /96 : Maria Elisabeth Wolf v. Commission of
                  the European Communities (')                           1 . dismisses the action ;
(Officials — Open competition — Non-admission to the
            tests — Professional experience required)                    2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                            ( 97/C 387/34 )
                                                                         (') OJ C 77, 16 . 3 . 1996 .
                  (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-101 /96 : Maria Elisabeth Wolf, a member of the
auxiliary staff of the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry
Demaseure and Ariane Tornel , of the Brussels Bar, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange , v.                                                  of 7 November 1997
Commission of the European Communities ( Agents : Julian
Currall and Bertrand Wägenbaur ) — application for                       in Case T-84/96: Cipeke — Comercio e Industria de Papel
annulment of the decision of the selection board in                          Lda v. Commission of the European Communities (')
competition COM/A/955 not to admit the applicant to
that competition, and for compensation for the non-                      (European Social Fund — Decision to reduce financial
material damage suffered by her as a result of that                          assistance — Duty to provide a statement of reasons)
decision — the Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber ),                                            ( 97/C 387/36 )
composed of: C. W. Bellamy, President, and A.
Kalogeropoulos and M. Jaeger, Judges; A. Mair,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                              (Language of the case: Portuguese)
6 November 1997, in which it:
1.   dismisses the action ;                                              In Case T-84/96 : Cipeke — Comercio e Industria de Papel
                                                                         Lda , established in Lisbon, represented by Miguel Ferrão
2 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.                          Castelo Branco, then by João Caniço Gomes, both of the
                                                                         Lisbon Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
(") OJ C 233 , 10 . 8 . 1996 .                                           the Chambers of Francois Brouxel , 6 Rue Zithe , v.
                                                                         Commission of the European Communities ( Agent: Maria
                                                                         Teresa Figueira and Knut Simonsson ) — application for


title: Case T-293/08: Action brought on 24 July 2008 — BASF Plant Science and Others v Commission

text:
               25.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/28

         Action brought on 24 July 2008 — BASF Plant Science and Others v Commission
   (Case T-293/08)
   (2008/C 272/55)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: BASF Plant Science GmbH (Ludwigshafen, Germany), Plant Science Sweden AB (Svalöv, Sweden), Amylogene HB (Svalöv, Sweden) and BASF Plant Science Holding GmbH (Ludwigshafen, Germany) (represented by: D. Waelbroeck, lawyer, U. Zinsmeister, lawyer and D. Slater, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               To declare the present application admissible and well founded;

               —

               To declare that, by failing to take the necessary measures provided for in Article 18 of Directive 2001/18/EC of 12 March 2001 and in Article 5 of Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 and adopt the Amflora Decision, the Commission has failed to fulfil its obligations under these articles; alternatively

               —

               To order the annulment of the Commission decision granting a mandate to EFSA ‘for a consolidated opinion on use of antibiotic resistant marker genes (ARM) used as marker genes in genetically modified plants’, dated 14 May 2008 and the suspension of the procedure leading to the adoption of the Amflora Decision, notified to the applicants by letter dated 19 May 2008;

               —

               To grant the requested measures of instruction;

               —

               To order the defendant to pay all costs and expenses incurred in these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants claim that the Commission, by failing to adopt a decision on the request for authorisation to place a genetically modified potato (‘Amflora potato’) on the market for industrial uses under Directive 2001/18/EC (1), has disregarded its obligations under Article 18(1) of the said directive and Article 5(6) of Council Decision 1999/468/EC (‘the Comitology decision’) (2) and has thereby failed to act within the meaning on Article 232 EC.
   The applicants submit that the Commission's obligation to adopt such a decision within the timeframe laid down in Directive 2001/18/EC is further confirmed by a number of factors, namely (a) the need to preserve institutional balance, (b) further consideration of the legal basis for the Commission's request and (c) general principles of EC law.
   However, the applicants contend that, in the event that the Court found that the Commission's letter of 19 May 2008 constitutes a definition of the Commission's position, and that the applicants' action for failure to act is therefore inadmissible, the applicants request in the alternative the Court to annul the Commission decision of 14 May 2008 granting a mandate to EFSA for a consolidated opinion, and the suspension of the procedure pending a fifth scientific assessment, leading to the adoption of the contested decision.
   The applicants claim that in adopting the contested decision, and thus, further delaying the adoption of the Amflora Decision, the Commission infringed Article 18(1) of Directive 2001/18 and Article 5(6) subparagraph 3 of the Comitology decision, which required the Amflora Decision to be adopted within 120 days following the commencement of the Community procedure, as well as fundamental EC law principles of proportionality, sound administration, legitimate expectations, legal certainty and non-discrimination.

      (1)  Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC (OJ 2001 L 106, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (OJ 1999 C 184, p. 23).


title: Case C-120/00: Action brought on 29 March 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
10.6.2000                 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 163/15
2. Does the fact that that institution responsible for the social         Pleas in law and main arguments
     security of self-employed workers of a Member State of
     the EC applied Article 95a(5) of Regulation (EEC) No
                                                                          The pleas in law and main arguments raised are similar to
     1408/71 in the situation described in the first question
     constitute, in the circumstances in which it was applied, a          those set out in Case C-105/00 (2); the implementation period
                                                                          set by the directive expired on 30 December 1998.
     serious infringement of Community law within the mean-
     ing of the case-law of the CJEC where that institution has
     already infringed Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (Articles
                                                                          (1) OJ L 202 of 30.7.1997, p. 60.
     12 and 46), as stated in the judgment of the CJEC of                 (2) See p. 10 of this Official Journal.
     2 August 1993 in a similar case and the social security
     institution recognises that fact in the proceedings and the
     court hearing the case has given a ruling to that effect by
     judgment of 10 February 1999 and where, following
     correspondence between the Commission of the European
     Communities and the Member State, the Minister respon-
     sible for the national social security institution asked the
     latter to regularise the situation of the migrant worker and
     that institution acceded to that request by applying the             Action brought on 29 March 2000 by the Commission of
     abovementioned Article 95a(5)?                                        the European Communities against the French Republic
(1) Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on                                    (Case C-120/00)
    the application of social security schemes to employed persons
    and their families moving within the Community (OJ English
    special edition, 1971 (II) p. 416).                                                              (2000/C 163/26)
                                                                          An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                          Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 March
                                                                          2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                          represented by Karen Banks, Legal Adviser, acting as Agent,
                                                                          with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
                                                                          Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of the Commission’s Legal Service,
Action brought on 29 March 2000 by the Commission of                      Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
the European Communities against the Grand-Duchy of
                             Luxembourg
                                                                          The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                          the Court should:
                           (Case C-119/00)
                                                                          — Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                           (2000/C 163/25)                                     and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                               Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the
                                                                               Council of 30 June 1997 amending Council Directive
An action against the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                                                               89/552/EEC on the coordination of certain provisions laid
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                               down by law, regulation or administrative action in
ties on 29 March 2000 by the Commission of the European
                                                                               Member States concerning the pursuit of television broad-
Communities, represented by Karen Banks, Legal Adviser,
                                                                               casting activities (1) and/or by failing to inform the Com-
acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                               mission thereof, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of the Commission’s
                                                                               obligations under that directive;
Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                          — Order the French Republic to pay the costs.
The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should:
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
— Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
     and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the             The pleas in law and main arguments raised are similar to
     Council of 30 June 1997 amending Council Directive                   those set out in Case C-119/00 (2); the implementation period
     89/552/EEC on the coordination of certain provisions laid            set by the directive expired on 30 December 1998.
     down by law, regulation or administrative action in
     Member States concerning the pursuit of television broad-
     casting activities (1) and/or by failing to inform the Com-          (1) OJ L 202 of 30.7.1997, p. 60.
     mission thereof, the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg has                   (2) See p. 15 of this Official Journal.
     failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
— Order the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.