title: Action brought on 11 December 1997 by Anna Maria Baldo and Others against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-313/97)

text:
20.2.98                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 55/29
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those                The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
relied upon in Case T-288/97 Regione Friuli-Venezia                     relied upon in Case T-288/97 Regione Friuli-Venezia
Giulia v. Commission (1).                                               Giulia v. Commission (1).
(1) Not yet published in the Official Journal.                          (1) Not yet published in the Official Journal.
Action brought on 11 December 1997 by Anna Maria                        Action brought on 17 December 1997 by Dalmine SpA
Baldo and Others against the Commission of the                             against the Commission of the European Communities
                    European Communities                                                        (Case T-596/97)
                        (Case T-313/97)
                                                                                (98/C 55/59)
                          (98/C 55/58)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European
An action against the Commission of the European                        Communities was brought before the Court of First
Communities was brought before the Court of First                       Instance of the European Communities on 17 December
Instance of the European Communities on 11 December                     1997 by Dalmine SpA, represented by Fabrizio Arossa,
1997 by Mr and Mrs Baldo Anna Maria, Lena Livio,                        Avvocato, and Rachel Brandenburger, Solicitor of
Peresson Francesco, Burello Angelo, Iuretig Ugo, Buiatti                Freshfields, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
Gianfranco, Buiatti Eligio, Koren Alberto, Plesnicar Luigi,             the office of Elvinger, Hoss and Prussen, 2 place Winston
Marega Antonella, Interbartolo Gandolfo, Bandelli Luigi,                Churchill, Luxembourg.
Minutillo Vincenzo, Pontarini Roberto, Misson Luigi,
Ferro Luigi, Zanin Mario Tristano, Krt Narcizo, Nicoletti
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
Renato, Damiani Gilberto, Bergamo Giuseppe, Frosutto
Renato, Zanin Lucio, Smoljan Liberato, De Monte
Gianantonio, Liva Guido, Dominutti Giancarlo, Taboga                    Ð on the grounds more particularly set out in the
Silvio, Mini Dino, Agostinis Luigi, Fontana Silvano,                         application, annul Articles 2 and 4 of Commission
Caruzzi Luciano, Di Bidino Amabile, Tomasin Renzo,                           Decision C(97) 3036 of 6 October 1997 in so far as
Narduzzi Sereno, Collorigh Edo, Rizzi Giuliano, Coppola                      these Articles relate to the applicant,
Aurelio, Piron Robertino, Amerio Paolo (ditta Amerio
Carlo & c.), Amerio Paolo (ditta Percotrans di Paolo
Amerio & c.), Murello Aurelio, Aristone Claudio, Budola                 Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
Giuliano, Coppola Aurelio, Deganis Luciano, Fantini
Enzo, Uboldi Attilio, Culino Paolino, Bernardis Arrigo,
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Miniussi Alfio, Monai Patrizia, Cok Celeste, Di Vora
Angelo, represented by Vincenzo Cinque and Luciana
Candriella, of the Udine Bar, with an address for service at            The applicant, a public limited company incorporated
the Chambers of Luciana Candriella, aÁ Udine, via                       under Italian law, partially challenges a Decision arising
Morpurgo, 34.                                                           out of an investigation by the Commission into alleged
                                                                        infringements of Article 85 of the EC Treaty by producers
                                                                        of steel tubes. According to the applicant, even though
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             Article 4 of the contested Decision formally mentions
                                                                        three addressees, the same provision shows that the
Ð annul Commission Decision C(97) 2735 final of                         Commission has attempted to notify the Decision to
     30 July 1997,                                                      Siderca Saic, an indirect parent company of the applicant,
                                                                        and to the Techint Group', both established in Argentina,
                                                                        by delivering it to the applicant at its registered address.
Ð in the alternative, annul Article 5 of that Decision
     inasmuch as it requires the Member State to recover
     the aid (granted as from 1 July 1990), together with               The applicant submits in this regard that the Commission
     the interest accrued as from the date on which the aid             has infringed an essential procedural requirement, misused
     was paid,                                                          its powers and infringed the EC Treaty and the rules
                                                                        relating to its application, since it is not entitled to send a
                                                                        request for information to third parties by way of a
Ð in any event, order the Commission of the European                    Decision pursuant to Article 11(5) of Regulation No 17
     Communities to pay the costs.                                      notified to the applicant and to require the latter to pass


title: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of  22 June 2005  in Case C-281/04 P: Michael Leighton, Graham French, John Steven Neiger v Council of the European Union, Commission of the European Communities, John Pascoe, Richard Micklethwait, Ruth Margaret Micklethwait (Appeal — Action for failure to act — Failure to commence proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations — Non-contractual liability of the Community — Clear inadmissibility)

text:
               26.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/9

      ORDER OF THE COURT

   (Sixth Chamber)
   of 22 June 2005
   in Case C-281/04 P: Michael Leighton, Graham French, John Steven Neiger v Council of the European Union, Commission of the European Communities, John Pascoe, Richard Micklethwait, Ruth Margaret Micklethwait (1)

   (Appeal - Action for failure to act - Failure to commence proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations - Non-contractual liability of the Community - Clear inadmissibility)
   (2005/C 296/17)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case C-281/04 P: Michael Leighton, Graham French, John Steven Neiger, (lawyer: J. Barnett) the other parties to the proceedings being Council of the European Union, Commission of the European Communities, (Agents: E. Traversa and M. Shotter), John Pascoe, Richard Micklethwait, Ruth Margaret Micklethwait — appeal under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice lodged on 25 June 2004, the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of A. Borg Barthet, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet and U. Lõhmus (Rapporteur), Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 22 June 2005, the operative part of which is as follows

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Leighton, Mr French and Mr Neiger shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 288 of 11.09.2004.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Third Chamber) of 16 July 1998 in Case T-199/96: Laboratoires Pharmaceutiques Bergaderm SA and Jean-Jacques Goupil v. Commission of the European Communities (Cosmetic products - Directive 76/768/EEC - Directive 95/34/EC - Sun-creams and bronzing-products - Public health - Non-contractual liability of the Community)

text:
C 299/32              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 26.9.98
judgment on 16 July 1998, the operative part of which is           3. the remainder of the action is dismissed;
as follows:
                                                                   4. the Commission is ordered to pay the costs.
1. the action is dismissed;
                                                                   (1) OJ C 370, 7.12.1996.
2. each party shall bear its own costs.
(1) OJ C 354, 23.11.1996.
                                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (First Chamber)
                                                                                of 14 July 1998
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                          in Case T-192/96: Giorgio Lebedef v. Commission of the
                      (Second Chamber)                                               European Communities (1)
                       of 16 July 1998                             (Staff committee Ð Procedures Ð Amendment of the staff
in Case T-162/96: Sandro Forcheri v. Commission of the             committee rules Ð General assembly Ð Electoral system
                  European Communities (1)                                                Ð Admissibility)
(Officials Ð Secondment in the interest of the service Ð                                    (98/C 299/53)
Temporary posting Ð Entitlement to secondment                                     (Language of the case: French)
 differential allowance Ð Discretion of the administration)
                        (98/C 299/52)                              In Case T-192/96: Giorgio Lebedef, an official at the
                                                                   Commission of the European Communities, residing in
                (Language of the case: French)                     Senningerberg (Luxembourg), represented by Gilles
                                                                   BouneÂou, of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for
In Case T-162/96: Sandro Forcheri, an official of the              service in Luxembourg at his Chambers at 4, rue de
Commission of the European Communities, residing in                l'Avenir, against the Commission of the European
Brussels, represented by Marc-Albert Lucas, of the LieÁge          Communities (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and Julian
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the              Currall) Ð application for the annulment, in whole or in
Chambers of Evelyne Korn, 21, rue de Nassau, against the           part, of the genral assembly of the staff of the
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Julian             Commission assigned to Luxembourg of 5 December 1995
Currall and Denis Waelbroeck) Ð application for                    and of the decision to amend the staff committee rules
annulment, first, of the decision of the Commission of             adopted by that assembly as well as all other subsequent
12 December 1995 rejecting the applicant's request to              acts adopted pursuant to that decision Ð the Court of
have the temporary duties taken on by him recognised and           First Instance (First Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf,
for payment of the differential allowance and, second, of          President, R. M. Moura Ramos and P. Mengozzi, Judges;
the decision of the Commission of 24 July 1996 declaring           Blanca Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
that the applicant is acting as head of division of Unit 4         gave a judgment on 14 July 1998, in which it:
(Common Customs Tariff), Directorate B (Customs),
                                                                   1. dismisses the action;
Directorate General XXI (Customs and Direct Taxation)
and recognising the temporary nature of the posting in so          2. the parties shall bear their own costs.
far as the date on which that decision is to take effect is
set at 1 August 1996 for a fixed term of one year and not          (1) OJ C 54, 22.2.1997.
for an indefinite period as from 29 October 1992 Ð the
Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of A.
Kalogeropoulos, President, C. W. Bellamy and J. Pirrung,
Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a
judgment on 16 July 1998, the operative part of which is
as follows:                                                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
1. the decisions of the Commission of 12 December 1995
                                                                                of 16 July 1998
     and 24 July 1996 are annulled except in so far as the
     second decision recognises the temporary nature of the        in Case T-199/96: Laboratoires Pharmaceutiques Berga-
     applicant's posting;                                          derm SA and Jean-Jacques Goupil v. Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
2. the Commission is ordered to pay to the applicant the           (Cosmetic products Ð Directive 76/768/EEC Ð Directive
     monthly differential allowance referred to in                 95/34/EC Ð Sun-creams and bronzing-products Ð Public
     Article 7(2) of the Staff Regulations to which he                health Ð Non-contractual liability of the Community)
     would have been entitled if he had been called on to
     occupy, temporarily, the post of Head of Unit XXI.B.4                                  (98/C 299/54)
     on 24 March 1993, together with default interest at                          (Language of the case: French)
     the rate of 8 % per annum with effect from the dates
     on which those payments should have been made and             In Case T-199/96: Laboratoires Pharmaceutiques Berga-
     until complete payment is made;                               derm SA, established at Rungis (France), and Jean-Jacques
 ---pagebreak--- 26.9.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 299/33
Goupil, residing at Chevreuse (France), represented by                 1 January 1989, together with interest at the statutory
Jean-Pierre Spitzer, of the Paris Bar, with an address for             rate applicable in Belgium, to run from the date of the
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May,                   first application for payment submitted by each of the
31 Grand-Rue v. the Commission of the European                         applicants respectively until payment is actually made;
Communities (Agents: Pieter Van Nuffel and Ami Barav)
Ð application pursuant to Articles 178 and 215, second             2. dismisses the remainder of the applicants' claims;
paragraph, of the EC Treaty, for compensation for damage
which the applicants purportedly suffered as a result of an        3. orders the Commission to pay the costs;
investigation conducted by the Commission, pursuant to
the 18th Commission Directive 95/34/EC of 10 July 1995             4. orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay its
adapting to technical progress Annexes II, III, VI and VII             own costs.
to Council Directive 76/768/EEC on the approximation of
the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic pro-            (1) OJ C 74, 8.3.1997 and OJ C 54, 22.2.1997.
ducts (2), into the use of psoralens in sun Ð creams and
bronzing Ð products Ð the Court of First Instance (Third
Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili, President, C. P. BrieÈt and
A. Potocki, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for
the Registrar, gave a judgment on 16 July 1998, in which
it:
                                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
1. dismisses the application;
                                                                                of 16 July 1998
2. orders the applicants to pay the costs.                               in Case T-219/96: Y. v. European Parliament (1)
                                                                   (Officials Ð Article 88 of the Staff Regulations Ð
(1) OJ C 54, 22.2.1997.
(2) OJ L 167, 18.7.1995, p. 19.                                    Suspension Ð Deductions from remuneration Ð Pensions
                                                                                rights Ð Damages)
                                                                                (98/C 299/56)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                          In Case T-219/96: Y., a former official of the European
                        of 16 July 1998                            Parliament, residing in Brussels, represented during the
                                                                   written procedure by GeÂrard Collin and, at the hearing,
in Joined Cases T-202/96 and T-204/96: Andrea von                  by Claude Andries and Jacques Lombart, all of the
Löwis and Marta Alvarez-Cotera v. Commission of the                Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                  European Communities (1)                         Fiduciaire Myson SAÁRL, 30 rue de Cessange, against the
(Freelance conference interpreters Ð Lawfulness of levying         European Parliament (Agents: Hans Krück and Hugo
           Community tax on their remuneration)                    Vandenberghe) Ð application for, first, repayment of
                                                                   deductions from the salary of the applicant made between
                         (98/C 299/55)                             1 November 1993 and 19 January 1996 and, second, an
                                                                   order requiring the European Parliament to pay damages
               (Language of the case: English)                     amounting to BEF 3 million by way of provisional
                                                                   compensation for the harm arising from the infringement
In Joined Cases T-202/96 and T-204/96: Andrea von                  of the official's pension rights Ð the Court of First
Löwis and Marta Alvarez-Cotero, conference interpreters,           Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J. Azizi, President,
of Geneva (Switzerland), represented by Gerard van der             R. García-Valdecasas and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung,
Wal, advocate with the right of audience before the Hoge           Registrar, gave a judgment on 16 July 1998, the operative
Raad der Nederlanden and member of the Brussels Bar,               part of which is as follows:
having an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Aloyse May, 31, Grand-Rue; the second                  1. Parliament shall repay to the applicant the deductions
applicant being supported by the Federal Republic of                   made from his remuneration between 1 November
Germany (Agent: Ernst Röder) v. the Commission of the                  1993 and 19 January 1996. That amount shall be paid
European Communities (Agent: Peter Oliver) Ð                           in addition to default interest at 8 % with effect from
application for the repayment of the Community tax                     5 March 1996;
deducted from the applicants' remuneration since
1 January 1989 Ð the Court (Third Chamber, extended                2. the remainder of the application is dismissed;
composition), composed of: V. Tiili, President, C. P. BrieÈt,
K. Lenaerts, A. Potocki and J. D. Cooke, Judges; A. Mair,          3. Parliament shall bear its own costs and one half of
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on              those of the applicant. The applicant shall bear one
16 July 1998 in which it:                                              half of his own costs.
1. orders the Commission to repay to the applicants the            (1) OJ C 54, 22.2.1997.
    sums referred to as Community tax which it has
    unlawfully levied on their remuneration paid since


title: Case C-355/14: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 2 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Аdministrativen sad Pleven — Bulgaria) — ‘Polihim-SS’ EOOD v Nachalnik na Mitnitsa Svishtov (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Indirect taxation — Excise duties — Directive 2008/118/EC — Chargeability of excise duties — Article 7(2) — Concept of ‘departure of excise goods from a duty suspension arrangement’ — Taxation of energy products and electricity — Directive 2003/96/EC — Article 14(1)(a) — Use of energy products to produce electricity — Purchase and resale by an intermediate purchaser of energy products located in a tax warehouse — Direct delivery of energy products to an operator for the production of electricity — Indication of the intermediate purchaser as the ‘consignee’ of the products in the tax documents — Infringement of the requirements of national law as regards exemption from excise duty — Refusal of exemption — Proof of the use of the products in circumstances permitting exemption from excise duty — Proportionality)

text:
               8.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/5

         Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 2 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Аdministrativen sad Pleven — Bulgaria) — ‘Polihim-SS’ EOOD v Nachalnik na Mitnitsa Svishtov
   (Case C-355/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Indirect taxation - Excise duties - Directive 2008/118/EC - Chargeability of excise duties - Article 7(2) - Concept of ‘departure of excise goods from a duty suspension arrangement’ - Taxation of energy products and electricity - Directive 2003/96/EC - Article 14(1)(a) - Use of energy products to produce electricity - Purchase and resale by an intermediate purchaser of energy products located in a tax warehouse - Direct delivery of energy products to an operator for the production of electricity - Indication of the intermediate purchaser as the ‘consignee’ of the products in the tax documents - Infringement of the requirements of national law as regards exemption from excise duty - Refusal of exemption - Proof of the use of the products in circumstances permitting exemption from excise duty - Proportionality))
   (2016/C 287/06)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Аdministrativen sad Pleven

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant:‘Polihim-SS’ EOOD

      Defendant: Nachalnik na Mitnitsa Svishtov

      Intervening party: Okrazhna prokuratura Pleven

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 7(2) of Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that the sale of excise goods held by an authorised warehousekeeper in a tax warehouse does not bring about their release for consumption until the time at which those goods are physically removed from that tax warehouse.

               2.

               Article 14(1)(a) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity, read in conjunction with Article 7 of Directive 2008/118, must be interpreted as precluding a refusal by the national authorities to exempt from excise duty energy products which, after having been sold by an authorised warehousekeeper to an intermediate purchaser, are sold on by that purchaser to an end-user who satisfies all the requirements under national law to benefit from an exemption of excise duty on those products and to whom those products are delivered directly by that authorised warehousekeeper from his tax warehouse, on the sole ground that the intermediate purchaser, declared by that warehousekeeper as the consignee of those products, does not have the status of end-user authorised under national law to receive energy products exempt from excise duty.

      (1)  OJ C 329, 22.9.2014.


title: Case F-23/14: Action brought on 19 March 2014 — ZZ v EESC

text:
               16.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/42

         Action brought on 19 March 2014 — ZZ v EESC
   (Case F-23/14)
   2014/C 184/70
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi and A. Tymen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Economic and Social Committee (EESC)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decisions to reassign the applicant from the post of Head of Unit to the post of Adviser and to no longer pay him the management allowance and the claim for damages.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Decision 326/13 A of the Secretary-General of the EESC of 26 June 2013 reassigning the applicant to a post of Adviser to the Director of the Directorate for Logistics, with effect from 1 September 2013;

               —

               Annul Decision 344/13 A of the Secretary-General of the EESC of 1 July 2013 ordering that the management allowance be no longer paid to the applicant as of 1 September 2013;

               —

               Award damages, by way of compensation for the prejudice sustained by the applicant, in the amount of EUR 5 000;

               —

               In any event, order the defendant to pay all the costs.


C 378/26             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     5.12.98
limiting the effects of the liberalisation of special regular           promote unfair competition with regard to existing
services which was introduced by that regulation.                       regular services, and, in particular, to the disadvantage
Consequently, according to the Commission, the French                   of those provided by Schiocchet SARL;
State has not breached Community law.
                                                                    Ð annul classification Decision D(98)ab/g/plainte/
The applicant maintains that the exemption provision laid
                                                                        Schiocchet/class-2 90176 of the Commission of
down in Article 4(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 684/92 is
                                                                        19 August 1998.
unlawful, inasmuch as that provision is itself incompatible
with the Treaty and, in particular, with Article 75(1)(a) of
the Treaty of Rome. In the present case, the exemption              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
provision at issue has enabled SocieÂteÂ Mousset, since the
entry into force of Article 4(2) of the regulation in               The present case concerns allegedly unlawful conduct on
question, to continue to compete with the existing regular          the part of the company known as Taxi Gaby Colarelli, a
service provided by the applicant, which was established            competitor of the applicant.
prior to that regulation, and has the effect of distorting
competition in the common market.                                   The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as
                                                                    those relied on by the applicant in Case T-169/98
According to the applicant, the Commission wrongly                  Schiocchet v. Commission.
considered SocieÂteÂ Mousset to have been exempt from the
authorisation requirement since the entry into force of
Regulation (EEC) No 684/92. In addition, the
Commission erred in law in considering that paragraph
1.3 of Article 2 of that regulation was not intended to
restrict the scope of Article 4(2) thereof.
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case T-159/97 (1)
The Commission has also engaged in unlawful                                                  (98/C 378/47)
discrimination, inasmuch as it applied different treatment
to comparable situations, thereby placing the applicant at                         (Language of the case: French)
a disadvantage by comparison with other providers of
regular services. That difference in treatment was not              By order of 9 October 1998 the President of the Third
justified by the existence of any other objectives to which         Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
any weight attaches.                                                Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                    Case T-159/97: Luis Manuel Chaves Fonseca FerraÄo v.
                                                                    Office for the Harmonisation of the Internal Market
                                                                    (trade marks and designs).
Action brought on 16 October 1998 by Schiocchet SARL                (1) OJ C 212, 12.7.1997.
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                       (Case T-170/98)
                        (98/C 378/46)
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case T-297/97 (1)
An action against the Commission of the European                                             (98/C 378/48)
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 16 October                                 (Language of the case: English)
1998 by Schiocchet SARL, the registered office of which is
at Beuvillers (France), represented by Pascal Barbier, of the       By order of 9 October 1998 the President of the Third
Thionville Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg           Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
at the Chambers of Faltz and AssocieÂs, 6 Rue Heinrich              Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Heine.                                                              Case T-297/97: David T. Keeling v. Office for the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                         Harmonisation of the Internal Market (trade marks and
                                                                    designs).
Ð annul the provisions of Article 4(2) of Council
    Regulation No 684/92, inasmuch as its effect is to              (1) OJ C 26, 24.1.1998.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 14 December 1995 in Case C-138/94: Commission of the European Communities v. Ireland (Failure to fulfil obligations - Directive 91/496/EEC - Veterinary checks - Failure to transpose)

text:
2 . 3 . 96           I EN 1                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 64/3
Advocate-General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal                       ( Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on              Almeida, C. Gulmann, L. Sevon and M. Wathelet, Judges;
14 December 1995 , in which it rules :                                 C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
                                                                       given a judgment on 14 December 1995 , in which it:
Article 4 (1 ) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December
1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of             1 . declares that, by failing to bring into force all the laws,
equal treatment for men and women in matters of social                       regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
security must be interpreted as meaning that national                        comply with Council Directive 90/675/EEC of
provisions under which employment regularly consisting of                    10 December 1990 laying down the principles
fewer than 15 hours a week and regularly attracting                          governing the organization of veterinary checks on
remuneration ofup to one-seventh of the monthly reference                    products entering the Community from third countries,
amount is excluded from compulsory insurance under the                       Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first
statutory sickness and old-age insurance schemes, and                        subparagraph of Article 32 (1 ) of that Directive;
national provisions under which employment which tends
by its nature to be regularly limited to fewer than 1 8 hours a
week or is so limited in advance by a contract ofemployment            2 . orders Ireland to pay the costs.
is excluded from the obligation to contribute to the
statutory unemployment insurance scheme, do not                        •(>) OJ No C 174, 25 . 6 . 1994 .
constitute discrimination on grounds ofsex, even where the
relevant provisions affect considerably more women than
men, since the national legislature was reasonably entitled to
consider that the legislation in question was necessary jn
order to achieve a social policy aim unrelated to any
discrimination on grounds of sex.
(!) OJ No C 1 , 4 . 1 . 1994 .                                                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 14 December 1995
                                                                        in Case C-138/94 : Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities v. Ireland C )
                                                                        (Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 91/496/EEC —
                                                                                Veterinary checks — Failure to transpose)
                                                                                ( 96/C 64/06 )
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                      of 14 December 1995
in Case C-l 32/94: Commission of the European
                   Communities v. Ireland (^                            In Case C-138/94 : Commission of the European
 (Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 90/675/EEC —                Communities ( Agents : Jose Luis Iglesias Buhigues and James
           Veterinary checks — Failure to transpose)                    Macdonald Flett ) v. Ireland ( Agent: Michael A. Buckley ) —
                                                                        application for a declaration that, by failing to bring into
                           ( 96/C 64/05                                 force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
                                                                        necessary to comply with Council Directive 91 /496/EEC of
                                                                         15 July 1991 laying down the principles governing the
                (Language of the case: English)                         organization of veterinary checks on animals entering the
                                                                        Community from third countries and amending Directives
                                                                         89/662/EEC, 90/425/EEC and 90/675/EEC ( OJ No L 268 ,
 In Case C-l 32/94 : Commission of the European                          1991 , p. 56 ) and/or in failing to inform the Commission
 Communities ( Agents : Jose Luis Iglesias Buhigues and James           forthwith thereof, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations
 Macdonald Flett ) v. Ireland (Agent: Michael A. Buckley ) —            under that Directive, in particular Article 30 thereof, and
 application for a declaration that, by failing to bring into           under the Treaty establishing the European Community —
 force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions              the Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of: D. A. O. Edward
 necessary to comply with Council Directive 90/675/EEC of                ( Rapporteur ), President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de
 10 December 1990 laying down the principles governing the              Almeida , C. Gulmann, L. Sevon and M. Wathelet, Judges;
 organization of veterinary checks on products entering the              C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
 Community from third countries ( OJ No L 373 , 1990, p. 1 )             given a judgment on 14 December 1995 , in which it:
 and/or by failing to inform the Commission forthwith
 thereof, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
 Directive, in particular Article 32 thereof, and under the              1 . declares that, by failing to bring into force all the laws,
 Treaty establishing the European Community — the Court                       regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
 ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of: D. A. O. Edward                              comply with Council Directive 91 /496/EEC of 15 July
 ---pagebreak---  No C 64/4              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                       2 . 3 . 96
      1991 laying down the principles governing the                         the internal market, Ireland has failed to fulfil its
      organization of veterinary checks on animals entering                 obligations under Article 26 of that Directive;
      the Community from third countries and amending
      Directives 89/662/EEC, 90/425/EEC and 90/675/EEC,
      Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under              2 . orders Ireland to pay the costs.
      Article 30 (1 ) of that Directive;
                                                                      (') OJ No C 202 , 23 . 7 . 1994 .
 2 . orders Ireland to pay the costs.
 (') OJ No C 174, 25 . 6 . 1994 .
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 14 December 1995
                                                                     in Joined Cases C-163/94, C-165/94 and C-250/94
                                                                      ( references for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado
                                                                      Central de lo Penal de la Audiencia Nacional ): criminal
                                                                     proceedings against Lucas Emilio Sanz de Lera and
                                                                                Others (M
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  (Capital movements — Non-member countries — National
                         ( Fifth Chamber )                                     authorization for the transfer of banknotes)
                      of 14 December 1995                                                        ( 96/C 64/08 )
in Case C-161/94: Commission of the European
                  Communities v. Ireland (')
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
 (Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 90/425/EEC —
           Veterinary checks — Failure to transpose)
                            ( 96/C 64/07 )                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
                (Language of the case: English)                      In Joined Cases C-163/94, C-165/94 and C-250/94 :
                                                                     references to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty
                                                                     from the Juzgado Central de lo Penal de la Audiencia
In Case C-161/94 : Commission of the European                        Nacional ( High Court, Criminal Section ), Spain, for a
Communities ( Agents: Jose Luis Iglesias Buhigues and James          preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings pending
Macdonald Flett) v. Ireland ( Agent: Michael A. Buckley) —           before that court against Lucas Emilio Sanz de Lera ,
application for a declaration that, by failing to bring into         Raimundo Diaz Jimenez and Figen Kapanoglu — on the
force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions            interpretation of Articles 73b, 73c ( 1 ) and 73d ( 1)(b ) of the
necessary to comply with Council Directive 90/425/EEC of             EC Treaty — the Court, composed of G. C. Rodriguez
26 June 1990 concerning veterinary and zootechnical                  Iglesias, President, C. N. Kakouris and G. Hirsch ( Presidents
checks applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live           of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, F. A. Schockweiler, P. J. G.
animals and products with a view to the completion of the            Kapteyn ( Rapporteur), C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, P. Jann,
internal market ( OJ No L 224, 1990, p. 29 ), Ireland has            H. Ragnemalm and L. Sevón, Judges; G. Tesauro,
failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive, in            Advocate-General ; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal
particular Article 26 thereof, and under the Treaty                  Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on
establishing the European Community — the Court ( Fifth              14 December 1995 , the operative part of which is as
                                                                     follows :
Chamber ), composed of: D. A. O. Edward ( Rapporteur ),
President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida , C.
Gulmann, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet, Judges; C. O. Lenz,
Advocate-General ; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a                  1 . Articles 73b (1 ) and 73d (1)(b) of the EC Treaty
judgment on 14 December 1995 , in which it:                                preclude rules which make the export of coins,
                                                                           banknotes or bearer cheques conditional on prior
                                                                           authorization but do not by contrast preclude a
                                                                           transaction of that nature being made conditional on a
1 . declares that, by failing to bring into force all the laws,            prior declaration. Such rules do not fall within the scope
     regulations and administrative provisions necessary to                of Article 73c (1 ) of the Treaty;
     comply with Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June
     1990 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks
     applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live             2 . Article 73b (1 ), in conjunction with Articles 73c and
     animals and products with a view to the completion of                 73d (1)(b) of the Treaty, may be relied on before


title: Case C-359/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart (Germany), lodged on 2 August 2007 — SOBO Sport & Entertainment GmbH v Land Baden-Württemberg

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart (Germany), lodged on 2 August 2007 — SOBO Sport & Entertainment GmbH v Land Baden-Württemberg
   (Case C-359/07)
   (2007/C 269/39)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: SOBO Sport & Entertainment GmbH

      Defendant: Land Baden-Württemberg
   Questions referred

               1.

               Are Articles 43 and 49 EC to be interpreted as precluding a national monopoly on certain gaming, such as sports betting and lotteries, where there is no consistent and systematic policy to limit gaming in the Member State concerned as a whole, because the operators which have been granted a licence within that Member State encourage and advertise participation in other gaming — such as State-run sports betting and lotteries — and, moreover, other games with the same or even higher potential danger of addiction — such as betting on certain sporting events (horse racing), slot machines and casino games — may be provided by private service providers?

               2.

               Are Articles 43 and 49 EC to be interpreted as meaning that authorisations to operate sports betting, granted by the competent State bodies of the Member States, which are not restricted to the particular national territory, entitle the holder of the authorisation and third parties appointed by it to make and implement offers to conclude contracts in other Member States as well without any additional national authorisations being required?


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 19 June 1997 in Case T-260/94: Air Inter SA v. Commission of the European Communities (Air transport - Continuation of an exclusive concession on domestic routes - Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 - Articles 5 and 8 - Rights of the defence - Audi alteram partem - Principle of good faith - Principle of proportionality - Article 90 (2) of the EC Treaty)

text:
16 . 8 . 97             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 252/25
3 . orders the parties, including the interveners, to bear                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     their own costs .
                                                                                of 19 June 1997
(') OJ No C 275 , 13 . 10 . 1993 .                                      in Case T-73/96: Miguel Forcat Icardo v. Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (')
                                                                        (Officials — Assignment to a new post — Interests of the
                                                                                service — Misuse ofpowers)
                                                                                ( 97/C 252/54
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                          of 19 June 1997
in Case T-260/94 : Air Inter SA v. Commission of the
                   European Communities (' )
                                                                        In Case T-73/96 : Miguel Forcat Icardo, an official of the
                                                                        Commission, residing in Brussels, represented by Georges
(Air transport — Continuation of an exclusive concession                Vandersanden, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
on domestic routes — Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 —                      service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
Articles 5 and 8 — Rights of the defence — Audi alteram                 Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange, v. Commission of the European
partem — Principle of good faith — Principle of                         Communities ( Agent: Julian Currall ) — application for
     proportionality -— Article 90 (2) of the EC Treaty)                annulment of the memorandum of the Director-General of
                                                                        Directorate-General IX ( Personnel and Administration ) of
                            ( 97IC 252/53 )                             11 August 1995 assigning the applicant to a new post
                                                                        with effect from 1 October 1995 and for compensation
                 (Language of the case: French)                         for the non-material damage suffered — the Court of First
                                                                        Instance ( Third Chamber ), composed of: B. Vesterdorf,
                                                                        President, and C. P. Briët and A. Potocki, Judges; B.
In Case T-260/94 : Air Inter SA, having its registered office           Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
in Paray Vieille Poste, France, represented by Jean-Pierre              a judgment on 19 June 1997, in which it:
Spitzer, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand
Rue, against Commission of the European Communities                      1 . dismisses the application as inadmissible in so far as it
(Agents: Rolf Wägenbaur and Lucio Gussetti ), supported                       concerns the claim for compensation based on the
by TAT European Airlines, represented by Antoine                             second paragraph of Article 24 of the Staff
Winckler, of the Paris Bar, and Romano Subiotto,                              Regulations of officials of the European Communities;
Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Elvinger and Hoss, 2, Place Winston
Churchill, and United Kingdom of Great Britain and                      2 . dismisses the remainder of the application;
Northern Ireland ( Agents: John E. Collins and Richard
Plender) — application for annulment of Article 1 of                    3 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.
Commission Decision 94/291/EC of 27 April 1994 on a
procedure relating to the application of Council
Regulation ( EEC ) No 2408/92 ( Case VII/AMA/IV/93 —                     (') OJ No C 233 , 10 . 8 . 1996 .
TAT — Paris ( Orly) — Marseille and Paris ( Orly ) —
Toulouse ) ( OJ No L 127, 19 . 5 . 1994, p. 32 ) — the Court
of First Instance               ( Second    Chamber,     Extended
 Composition ), composed of: C. W. Bellamy, President, C. P.
 Briët and A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges; J. Palacio Gonzales,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
 19 June 1997, in which it:                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 25 June 1997
 1 . dismisses the application;                                          in Case T-7/96: Francesco Perillo v. Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (')
 2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs, including those              (Lomé Convention — European Development Fund —
      of the proceedings in Case C-301 /94 which took place              Non-payment of contract — Commission's non
      before the Court of Justice and those incurred by TAT,                                    contractual liability)
      but not those incurred by the United Kingdom                                                   ( 97/C 252/55 )
      Government, an intervening party, which shall bear its
      own costs .
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
 (') OJ No C 275 , 1 . 10 . 1994 .
                                                                         In Case T-7/96 : Francesco Perillo, trading as ITAM
                                                                         SIDER, residing in Altamura, Italy, represented by Mario


title: Case T-59/00: Action brought on 17 March 2000 by Compagnia Portuale Pietro Chiesa v Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 149/38               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      27.5.2000
The applicants submit that, in the consultation procedure, the             — Order the Commission to pay the costs.
Commission failed to take any account of the comments
on the abovementioned publications made by the sectors
concerned.                                                                 Pleas in law and main arguments
First plea in law: lack of competence/ ultra vires/ breach by the          The present proceedings are directed against the final decision
Commission of essential procedural requirements:                           contained in the letter of 22 December 1999, reference
                                                                           D17587, in which the Commission rejected complaint
                                                                           No IV/37332 Compagnia Portuale Pietro Chiesa v Italian
With regard to vertical agreements, Articles 2, 3, 4 and 5 of              Republic, Autorità Portuale del Porto di Genova and Compag-
the contested regulation introduce ‘a posteriori control’. This            nia Unica Lavoratori Merci Varie (C.U.L.M.V.), relating to an
control has consequences solely for the future. In addition,               infringement of Article 86 of the EC Treaty in conjunction
abuses attributable to economic dependence are not taken into              with Article 82 thereof, deriving from an alleged abuse by
consideration.                                                             C.U.L.M.V. of its dominant position, resulting from its de facto
                                                                           monopoly in the Port of Genoa as regards the conduct of port
The abolition of the automatic nullity of agreements prohibited            operations and the supply of port labour.
under Article 81 EC constitutes an infringement of the Treaty.
The new rules create conditions under which the entire free                In support of its claim, the applicant alleges, first, a failure to
market can, with impunity, be restricted to approved dealers               undertake investigative measures, in so far as the defendant
and supplies to non-approved dealers can be excluded.                      did not commence proceedings under Council Regulation
                                                                           No 17/62 either against C.U.L.M.V. or against the Genoa Port
                                                                           Authority. The applicant alleges in that regard that the
Second plea in law: the consultations which preceded the                   contested practices derive:
adoption of the regulation were not conducted in a manner
consistent with the spirit of the Treaty:                                  — From the conduct of C.U.L.M.V. which, carrying on
                                                                               business simultaneously as a terminal operator and an
The new rules have been presented by the Commission as                         undertaking supplying labour, hampers access to those
constituting no more than a modernisation of procedures,                       markets by competitors. The Port Authority is aware of
whereas the spirit, if not the letter, of the Treaty has been                  this situation.
ignored. The scope of the modernisation programme has,
moreover, been considered only from the point of view of                   — From administrative measures and/or failure to act by the
facilitating the tasks of the European Commission.                             Port Authority, which the applicant criticises as being
                                                                               contrary to the Community competition rules.
                                                                           The applicant also alleges breach of the principle audi alterem
                                                                           partem and submits that the statement of the reasons for the
                                                                           contested decision is contradictory.
Action brought on 17 March 2000 by Compagnia Portuale
Pietro Chiesa v Commission of the European Communi-
                                ties
                                                                           Action brought on 16 March 2000 by Continental and
                          (Case T-59/00)                                   Overseas Investments NV against the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
                         (2000/C 149/72)
                                                                                (Case T-64/00)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                                                 (2000/C 149/73)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                                      (Language of the case: Dutch)
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on 17 March
2000 by Compagnia Portuale Pietro Chiesa, represented by
Giuseppe Michele Giacomini and Barbara Della Barile, of the                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Genoa Bar.                                                                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 16 March 2000 by Continental
                                                                           and Overseas Investments NV (formerly ‘Jubertrade NV’),
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:              established in Antwerp, represented by Y. Van Gerven and J.
                                                                           Bernaerts, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
— Annul the letter of 22 December 1999, reference D17587,                  Luxembourg at the Chambers of M. Loesch, of the Luxembourg
     of the European Commission, Competition DG;                           Bar, 11 Rue Goethe.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 1 April 2003 in Case T-13/01: Daniele Riva v Commission of the European Communities (Contract as a member of the temporary staff — Admissibility — Act adversely affecting an official — Compliance with time-limits under the Staff Regulations — Second renewal of a contract as a member of the temporary staff — Articles 2(d), 8 and 47 of the CEOS)

text:
7.6.2003                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 135/29
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                        ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                          of 1 April 2003                                                              of 1 April 2003
in Case T-12/01: Cristina Ascatigno Battistella v Com-                      in Case T-13/01: Daniele Riva v Commission of the
          mission of the European Communities (1)                                               European Communities (1)
(Contract as a member of the temporary staff — Admissi-                     (Contract as a member of the temporary staff — Admissi-
bility — Act adversely affecting an official — Compliance                   bility — Act adversely affecting an official — Compliance
with time-limits under the Staff Regulations — Second                       with time-limits under the Staff Regulations — Second
renewal of a contract as a member of the temporary staff —                  renewal of a contract as a member of the temporary staff —
             Articles 2(d), 8 and 47 of the CEOS)                                         Articles 2(d), 8 and 47 of the CEOS)
                          (2003/C 135/46)                                                              (2003/C 135/47)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                                              (Language of the case: Italian)
In Case T-12/01: Cristina Ascatigno Battistella, a former                   In Case T-13/01: Daniele Riva, a former member of the
member of the temporary staff of the Commission of the                      temporary staff of the Commission of the European Communi-
European Communities, residing in Verghera di Samarate                      ties, residing in Leggiuno (Italy), represented by B. Nascimbene
(Italy), represented by B. Nascimbene and M. Condinanzi,                    and M. Condinanzi, lawyers, with an address for service in
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against                 Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communi-
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: F. Clo-                     ties (Agents: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and A. Dal Ferro) —
tuche-Duvieusart and A. Dal Ferro) — application for annul-                 application for annulment of the decision of 28 September
ment of the decision of 28 September 2000 by which the                      2000 by which the authority empowered to conclude contracts
authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment                     of employment rejected the complaint lodged by the applicant
rejected the complaint lodged by the applicant seeking a                    seeking a declaration that the employment relationship which
declaration that the employment relationship which bound                    bound her to the Commission was a relationship of indefinite
her to the Commission was a relationship of indefinite period               period under a contract as a member of the temporary staff
under a contract as a member of the temporary staff pursuant                pursuant to Article 2(d) of the Conditions of Employment of
to Article 2(d) of the Conditions of Employment of other                    other Servants, renewed on more than one occasion with the
Servants, renewed on more than one occasion with the effects                effects referred to in the last paragraph of Article 8 of those
referred to in the last paragraph of Article 8 of those conditions          conditions — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber),
— the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of                  composed of R. García-Valdecasas, President of the Chamber,
R. García-Valdecasas, President of the Chamber, P. Lindh and                P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an
J.D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on                    order on 1 April 2003, the operative part of which is as
1 April 2003, the operative part of which is as follows:                    follows:
1.    The action is dismissed as inadmissible.                              1.     The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
2.    The parties are to bear their own costs.                              2.     The parties are to bear their own costs.
( 1) OJ 2001 C 95.                                                          (1 ) OJ 2001 C 95.


title: Case T-412/05: Action brought on  18 November 2005  —  M  v Ombudsman

text:
               25.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/35

         Action brought on 18 November 2005 — ‘M’ v Ombudsman
   (Case T-412/05)
   (2006/C 48/69)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant(s):‘M’ (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: G. Vandersanden, lawyer)

      Defendant(s): European Ombudsman
   Form of order sought
   The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

               —

               hold that the European Community has incurred non-contractual liability under the second paragraph of Article 288 EC as a result of wrongful acts or omissions committed by the European Ombudsman in the performance of his duties, specifically as a result of the publication of his report 1288/99/OV wrongfully naming the applicant, and as a result of the European Ombudsman's negligence in investigating the matter and the incorrect conclusions he arrived at;

               —

               consequently, order the European Community, represented by the European Ombudsman, to pay the applicant by way of compensation for professional and non-material damage and for damage to his health a sum provisionally assessed at EUR 150 000, without prejudice to any subsequent amendment in the course of the proceedings;

               —

               order the European Community, represented by the European Ombudsman, to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By complaint brought before the European Ombudsman, a group of citizens sought a finding that there had been an instance of maladministration within the Commission in its handling of a complaint lodged by those citizens against their national authorities. By decision issued on 18 July 2002, the Ombudsman found that there had been an instance of maladministration and unfair treatment of the complaint on the part of the Commission.
   The purpose of the present action, which has been brought by an official of the Commission unit responsible for handling the complaint at issue, is to seek compensation for damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of his having been named in person in Decision 1288/99/OV and alleged negligence by the European Ombudsman in his investigation of the complaint and in the conclusions he arrived at in that decision. The applicant contends that after the decision had been published he was named in a press release issued by the European Ombudsman, and this was reproduced in various newspapers and on internet websites, which caused him to suffer damage. In the applicant's view, the damage allegedly suffered is especially serious as he holds an important position and the publication of the European Ombudsman's decision could seriously undermine his professional integrity.
   The applicant bases his claim on the second paragraph of Article 288 EC, establishing the non-contractual liability of the European Community, which, according to the applicant, has been incurred in the present case as a result of the allegedly wrongful conduct on the part of the Ombudsman.
   In support of his claim, the applicant alleges that, in the present case, the Ombudsman committed a serious breach of his duties by naming individuals — including the applicant — in person in his report in breach of the principles of confidentiality and proportionality insofar as the publication of the applicant's name was not, in the applicant's view, absolutely necessary and could not be justified by any exception to the general rule of confidentiality (1).
   Moreover, the applicant claims that conduct of the Ombudsman and his staff constitutes a breach of the audi alterem partem principle, which forms a fundamental element of the right to a fair hearing. He also submits that it is forbidden to make an adverse judgment on a natural or legal person in a report that is to be published after general disclosure and is to be widely circulated.
   Lastly, the applicant also claims that, in adopting the decision at issue, the Ombudsman made an incorrect assessment of the facts and based himself on inadequate information.

      (1)  In support of his claim, the applicant relies, inter alia, on Case C-315/99 P ISMERI-EUROPA v Court of Auditors [2001] ECR I-5281.


title: Case C-257/14: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 17 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Corina van der Lans v Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Air transport — Passengers’ rights in the event of delay or cancellation of a flight — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Article 5(3) — Denied boarding and cancellation — Long flight delay — Compensation and assistance to passengers — Extraordinary circumstances)

text:
               9.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/11

         Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 17 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Corina van der Lans v Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV
   (Case C-257/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Passengers’ rights in the event of delay or cancellation of a flight - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 5(3) - Denied boarding and cancellation - Long flight delay - Compensation and assistance to passengers - Extraordinary circumstances))
   (2015/C 371/13)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank Amsterdam

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Corina van der Lans

      Defendant: Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 must be interpreted as meaning that a technical problem, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which occurred unexpectedly, which is not attributable to poor maintenance and which was also not detected during routine maintenance checks, does not fall within the definition of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of that provision.

      (1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.


title: Case F-87/14: Action brought on 1 September 2014 — ZZ v Council

text:
               1.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 431/49

         Action brought on 1 September 2014 — ZZ v Council
   (Case F-87/14)
   (2014/C 431/78)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Action seeking (i) the annulment of the Council’s decisions relating to the reimbursement of the applicant’s hospital expenses and (ii) an order for the Council to pay default and compensatory interest, on the one hand, and compensation for the non-material damage allegedly suffered, on the other.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               Partially annul the decisions of the Brussels Settlements Office, as set out in Statement 55 of 27 September 2013, relating to the applicant’s request of 12 July 2012 for reimbursement of hospital expenses;

               —

               declare that the letters of 19 November 2013 from the Head of the Settlements Office concerning the unfavourable response to a supposed prior authorisation request of 12 July 2012 are invalid, or, in the alternative, annul those letters;

               —

               annul, so far as is necessary, the appointing authority’s decision of 22 May 2014 rejecting the complaints submitted by the applicant on 27 December 2013 and 18 February 2014;

               —

               order the Council to pay the default and compensatory interest with effect from the date on which the sums claimed were payable, and to pay compensation for the non-material damage suffered by the applicant;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs.


C 136/14              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  15.5.1999
       Removal from the register of Case C-19/98 (1)                 the register of Case C-133/97 (reference for a preliminary
                                                                     ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Livor-
                        (1999/C 136/30)                              no): Centro Acciai Rivestiti Srl (CAR) v Direzione Regionale
                                                                     delle Entrate per la Toscana (Sezione di Livorno).
By order of 26 February 1999 the President of the Fifth
Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities          (1) OJ C 181, 14.6.1997.
has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-19/98:
Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of
Spain.
(1) OJ C 94, 28.3.1998.
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-18/98 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 136/32)
                                                                     By order of 4 March 1999 the President of the Fourth Chamber
       Removal from the register of Case C-133/97 (1)                of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has
                                                                     ordered the removal from the register of Case C-18/98:
                        (1999/C 136/31)                              Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of
                                                                     Spain.
By order of 2 March 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from             (1) OJ C 94, 28.3.1998.


title: Case T-142/17 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 23 March 2017 — Kaimbi v Council (Application for interim measures — Restrictive measures — Democratic Republic of the Congo — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency)

text:
               6.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/24

         Order of the President of the General Court of 23 March 2017 — Kaimbi v Council
   (Case T-142/17 R)
   ((Application for interim measures - Restrictive measures - Democratic Republic of the Congo - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency))
   (2017/C 178/35)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Delphin Kaimbi (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: O. Okito and A. Ouannès, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Re:

   Application based on Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU, seeking suspension of the operation of Council Regulation (EU) 2016/2230 of 12 December 2016 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2016 L 336 I, p. 1).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-460/12: Action brought on 17 October 2012 — Virgin Media v Commission

text:
               8.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 379/28

         Action brought on 17 October 2012 — Virgin Media v Commission
   (Case T-460/12)
   2012/C 379/49
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Virgin Media Ltd (Hook, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Ellison, D. Slater, Solicitors, and D. Waelbroeck, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare the application admissible and well-founded;

               —

               Annul the State aid decision SA.33540 of the Commission of 12 June 2012 published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 25 July 2012 declaring the aid measure ‘City of Birmingham — Digital Districts NGA Network’ compatible with Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay all costs and expenses in these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging an incorrect statement of the facts in the contested decision, which includes, inter alia:

                           —

                           a finding that the applicant had no competitive presence in the Digital Districts of Birmingham comprising Digbeth, Eastside and the Jewellery Quarter (the ‘Relevant Area’);

                           —

                           a finding that the Relevant Area has only a modest next generation access (‘NGA’) broadband capability consisting of BT Group plc's planned Fibre-to-the-cabinet (‘FTTC’) roll-out in a part of the area;

                           —

                           a finding that broadband speeds in the relevant area are substantially limited to low end (20 Mbps download and 2 Mbps upload);

                           —

                           a finding that the market has failed because certain specific services are not available to a category of small and medium sized enterprises (‘SMEs’) in the area at prices they can afford;

                           —

                           a finding that no party had any objection to Birmingham City Council's NGA broadband scheme relating to the Digital Districts (the ‘Scheme’);

                           —

                           a finding that the mapping and consultation process confirms that the Scheme will not have a negative impact upon competition.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an incorrect application of the State aid rules and in particular those expressed in the Community Guidelines for the application of state aid rules in relation to rapid deployment of broadband networks (OJ 2009 C 235, p. 7) (the ‘Broadband Guidelines’). The defendant’s misapplication of the TFEU's State aid rules and the Broadband Guidelines includes, inter alia:

                           —

                           a failure to rebut a presumption against the legality of State aid in an area with competing residential broadband services (paragraphs 77 and 78 of the Broadband Guidelines);

                           —

                           a failure to show a market failure (paragraph 35 of the Broadband Guidelines), in particular to define the relevant market that had allegedly failed; and to adduce meaningful evidence to find a ‘failure’ on the basis of price alone;

                           —

                           a failure to conduct a proper market consultation (paragraph 51 (a) of the Broadband Guidelines);

                           —

                           a failure to assess the impact of the State aid upon competition in the relevant markets in accordance with paragraphs 34 and 35 of the Broadband Guidelines.


title: Case T-475/04: Action brought on 24 November 2004 by Bouygues SA and Bouygues Télécom against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               19.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/20

         Action brought on 24 November 2004 by Bouygues SA and Bouygues Télécom against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-475/04)
   (2005/C 69/37)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 24 November 2004 by Bouygues SA, established in Paris, and Bouygues Télécom, established in Boulogne-Billancourt (France), represented by Louis Vogel, Joseph Vogel, Bernard Amory, Alexandre Verheyden, François Sureau and Didier Théophile, lawyers.
   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               1.

               annul Commission decision C(2004)2647 of 20 July 2004 – State aid – France concerning alteration of the fees payable by Orange and SFR for the Universal Mobile Telecommunication System (UMTS) licences;

               2.

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   This action is brought against Commission decision C(2004)2647 final of 20 July 2004 concluding that aid was not granted by the French State to Orange France and SFR by way of the retroactive reduction in the fee of EUR 4 995 000 000 which each of those operators had undertaken to pay to the French State for the Universal Mobile Telecommunication System (UMTS) licence awarded to it on 18 July 2001. By the adoption of that decision, the complaint lodged by the applicant companies was rejected.
   It is recalled in that regard that the French Government issued two invitations to apply for the award of the UMTS licences. The first, in which Orange France and SFR participated, was launched in August 2000. The amount of the fee had been set at EUR 4 995 000 000 per licence. Bouygues Télécom had decided not to compete on account of the price set. In the second invitation to apply, the amount of the fee was reduced to EUR 619 000 000. Bouygues Télécom was awarded a UMTS licence following that second procedure. However, in the meantime, the French Government decided to align retroactively the amount of the fees provided for in the first procedure with that provided for in the second invitation to apply.
   In support of their claims, the applicants plead, first, infringement of Article 87 of the Treaty. They argue in that regard that:

               —

               State licence fees are public revenue and that the French State, by altering retroactively the amount of the fees payable by Orange and SFR, waived its right to collect a debt in an immediately available form, payable and of a fixed amount;

               —

               By relying on the consideration that the contested decision is justified by the principle of non-discrimination, the Commission avoided discussion of the substance of the issue. It is argued inter alia in that regard that Orange and SFR were able, through the effect of the French Government's decision, to enjoy a temporal advantage arising from the possibility of penetrating the UMTS market early while being guaranteed, even though nothing had been envisaged to that effect during the first invitation to apply, that the amount of their UMTS licence fee would be reduced to the level of that required in respect of the second invitation to apply;

               —

               The decision at issue had a real effect on competition by enabling Orange and SFR, which were already powerful operators on the French mobile telephony market, to consolidate their position on the emerging UMTS market and, as a result, to restrict the access of their competitors to that market.

         In addition, the applicants submit that, by merely stating, without any further explanation, that the award of the UMTS licences cannot be treated as a market transaction, the defendant, in breach of Article 230 of the Treaty, failed to state proper reasons for its decision.
   Finally, the applicants submit that the Commission infringed Articles 87 and 88 EC by not examining the measure at issue by way of the formal review procedure laid down by those provisions.


title: Case C-152/12: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 February 2014 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Transport — Directive 2001/14/EEC — Development of the Union’s railways — Charging scheme for access to railway infrastructure — Articles 7(3) and 8(1) — Possibility of levying a mark-up on charges — Costs directly incurred as a result of operating the train service)

text:
               29.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/4

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 February 2014 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria
   (Case C-152/12) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Transport - Directive 2001/14/EEC - Development of the Union’s railways - Charging scheme for access to railway infrastructure - Articles 7(3) and 8(1) - Possibility of levying a mark-up on charges - Costs directly incurred as a result of operating the train service)
   2014/C 93/06
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Vasileva and H. Støvlbæk, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Bulgaria (represented by: T. Ivanov, D. Drambozova and E. Petranova, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna and M. Szpunar, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 7(3) and 8(1) of Directive 2001/14/EC 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 (OJ 2001 L 75, p. 1) — Charging scheme for access to railway infrastructure — Notion of ‘cost directly incurred as a result of operating the train service’ — Income exceeding the costs directly incurred as a result of operating the train service — Conditions for the application of Article 8(1) of Directive 2001/14/EC.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by allowing to be included in the calculation of charges incurred for all of the minimum services and for access by the network to the service infrastructure costs, namely staff remuneration and social security contributions, which cannot be considered to be directly incurred as a result of operating the train service, the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(3) of Directive 2001/14/EC 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, as amended by Directive 2007/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission, the Republic of Bulgaria and the Republic of Poland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 174, 16.6.2012.


title: Case C-160/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 1 March 2017 — Raoul Thybaut, Johnny De Coster and Frédéric Romain v Région wallonne

text:
               6.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/11

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 1 March 2017 — Raoul Thybaut, Johnny De Coster and Frédéric Romain v Région wallonne
   (Case C-160/17)
   (2017/C 178/12)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Raoul Thybaut, Johnny De Coster and Frédéric Romain

      Defendant: Région wallonne

      Question referred

   Is Article 2(a) of Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (1) to be interpreted as including in the concept of plan or programme an area prescribed by a legislative provision and adopted by a regional authority:

               —

               the sole purpose of which is to determine the boundary of a geographical area in which an urban development plan is capable of being carried out, it being understood that this plan, which must pursue a defined objective — in this case concerning renovation and development of urban functions requiring the creation, modification, extension, removal or overhang of roads and public spaces — justifies the adoption of the area, which in turn entails acceptance of the principle of this plan, but which must still be subject to planning permission which requires the assessment of effects; and

               —

               which has the effect, from a procedural point of view, of allowing planning permission applications for measures or works located in this area to benefit from a special procedure, it being understood that the planning rules that were applicable to the land concerned before adoption of the area remain applicable, but that the use of this procedure may allow derogation from these rules to be obtained more easily; and

               —

               which enjoys a presumption of public interest for expropriations within the framework of an accompanying expropriation plan?

      (1)  Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (OJ 2001 L 197, p. 30).