title: Appeal brought on 17 September 1996 by Giorgio Bernardi against the judgment delivered on 11 July 1996 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-146/95 between European Parliament and Giorgio Bernardi (Case C-303/96 P)

text:
No C 40/6               ( EN ]                Official Journal of the European Communities                                       8 . 2 . 97
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       observance of the maximum limit of 'small numbers '
                           (Third Chamber )                                    referred to in that provision.
                         of 12 December 1 996                            (') O I No C 64, 2 . 3 . 1996 .
in Case C-10/96 ( reference for a preliminary ruling made
by the Belgian Conseil d'État): Ligue Royale Belge pour la
Protection des Oiseaux ASBL and Société d'Études
Ornithologiques AVES ASBL v. Région Wallone;
intervener: Fédération Royale Ornithologique Belge
                                 ASBL (')                                                    ORDER OF THE COURT
 (Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of                                              (Fourth Chamber)
       wild birds — Prohibition of capture — Derogations)                                       of 12 December 1996
                              ( 97/C 40/ 11 )                            in Case C-49/96 P Nicolaos Progoulis v. Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (')
                    (Language of the case: French)                                    (Official — Appeal clearly inadmissible)
                                                                                ( 97/C 40/12 )
    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                           (Language of the case: French)
              published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
 In Case C-10/96 : reference to the Court under Article 177                          published in the European Court Reports)
 of the EC Treaty by the Belgian Conseil d'État for a
 preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                In Case C-49/96 P: Nicolaos Progoulis ( represented by
 court between Ligue Royale Beige pour la Protection des                  Konstantinos Adamantopoulos and Vassilios Akritidis) —
 Oiseaux          ASBL,      along     with    Societe     d'Études       appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance
 Ornithologiques AVES ASBL, and Region Wallone;                           ( Fifth Chamber ) of 15 December 1995 in Case T-l 31 /95
 intervener : Federation Royale Ornithologique Beige ASBL                 Progoulis v. Commission ( 1995 ) ECR-SC 11-907, seeking
 — on the interpretation ' of Articles 5 , 9 and 18 of Council            to have that order set aside , the other party to the
 Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1 979 on the conservation                proceedings being the Commission of the European
  of wild birds ( OJ No L 103 , 25 . 4 . 1979, p. 1 ) — the               Communities ( Agent: Ana Maria Alves Vieira, assisted by
  Court (Third Chamber ), composed of: J. C. Moitinho de                  Bertrand Wägenbaur ) — the Court ( Fourth Chamber ),
  Almeida , President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann                          composed of J. L. Murray ( Rapporteur ), President of the
  ( Rapporteur ) and J. -P. Puissochet, Judges; N. Fennelly,               Chamber, C. N. Kakouris and H. Ragnemalm, Judges ;
  Advocate-General ; H. von Holstein , Deputy Registrar, for               C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General ; R. Grass, Registrar, made
  the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 December 1996 ,               an order on 12 December 1996 , in which it :
  the operative part of which is as follows :
                                                                           1 . dismisses the appeal as clearly inadmissible;
   1 . Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the
        conservation of wild birds , and in particular Article 9           2 . orders the appellant to pay the costs.
        ( 1 ) (c) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that a
        Member State may not, on a decreasing basis and for                (') OJ No C 108 , 13 . 4 . 1996 .
        a limited period, authorize the capture of certain
        protected species in order to enable bird fanciers to
        stock their aviaries, where breeding and reproduction
        of those species in captivity arc possible but are not
        yet practicable on a large scale by reason of the fact
        that many fanciers would be compelled to alter their                Appeal brought on 17 September 1996 by Giorgio
        installations and change their habits.                              Bernardi against the judgment delivered on 11 July 1996
                                                                            by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
    2.   National authorities are authorized under Directive
                                                                            the European Communities in Case T-146/95 between
                                                                                European Parliament and Giorgio Bernardi
         79/409/EEC, and in particular under Article 9 (1 ) (c)
         thereof, to permit the capture of protected species with                                   ( Case C-303 /96 P )
         a view to obviating, in bird breeding for recreational                                           ( 97/C 40/ 13 )
         purposes, the problems of consanguinity which would
         result from too many endogenous crossings, on
         condition that there is no other satisfactory solution, it         An appeal against the judgment delivered on 11 July 1996
         being understood that the number of specimens which                 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
         may be captured must be fixed at the level of what                  European Communities in Case T-146/95 between
         proves to be objectively necessary to provide a                     European Parliament and Giorgio Bernardi was brought
         solution for those problems, subject always to                      before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
 ---pagebreak--- 8 . 2 . 97             I r,N                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 40 7
on 17 September 1996 by Giorgio Bernardi , represented                    2 . If the reply to Question 1 is in the negative, if, that is,
by Giancarlo Lattanzi, of the Massa-Carrara Bar, with an                       the Court of Justice reserves such competence for
address for service in Luxembourg at 22 Rue Godchaux.                          itself, for reasons relating, for instance, to the uniform
                                                                               application of Community provisions, may the specific
The appellant claims that the Court should :                                   circumstances as formulated by the defendant
                                                                               respondent State as an objection, which constituted
— find and declare the present appeal (') admissible and                       the issue of proof in Judgment No 5943/ 1994 of this
      well-founded,
                                                                               Court, and which were set out succinctly in the
— set aside the judgment appealed against,                                     previous paragraph of this Judgment, or certain of
                                                                               them and if so which, prevent an action founded on
— dispose of the case and allow the claims made therein,                       infringement of Article 25 ( 1 ) of the Second Council
                                                                               Directive 77/91 /EEC (') from succeeding ?
— refer the case back, as appropriate .
                                                                          (') OJ No L26 , 30 . 1 . 1977, p . 1 .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
— lack of jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance to
       consider the action on the basis of Article 173 of the
       EC Treaty: In the present case, the action concerns the            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
       procedure for appointing the European Ombudsman,                   Justice, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that Court of
       and is therefore a new subject matter, hence the                   10 October 1996, in the case of the Queen against
       application either of Article 43 of the ECSC Treaty                Medicines Control Agency, Ex parte: Generics ( UK )
       ( according to which 'the Court shall have jurisdiction                          Limited, E. R. Squibb & Sons, Intervener
       in any other case provided for by a provision
                                                                                Case C-368/96
       supplementing this Treaty'), or of a general principle
       of jurisdiction 'according to subject matter' ( since the                                       ( 97/C 40/ 15 )
       oath was taken by the European Ombudsman before
       the Court of Justice ),                                            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
— ( In the alternative ) breach of Community law.                         European Communities by an order of the High Court of
                                                                          Justice, Queen 's Bench Division, of 10 October 1996 ,
                                                                          which was received at the Court Registry on 22 November
(') Appeal directed against the judgment published in OJ No
     C 247, 24 . 8 . 1996 , p. 15 .
                                                                          1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of the Queen
                                                                          against Medicines Control Agency, Ex parte : Generics
                                                                          ( UK ) Limited, E. R. Squibb & Sons, Intervener, on the
                                                                          following questions:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the First Chamber of                1 . ( a ) What is meant by 'essentially similar' for the
the Efetio Athinon ( Court of Appeal, Athens ), by a                                   purposes of Article 4.8 ( a ) ( iii ) of Council
judgment of that court of 6 June 1996 in the case of                                   Directive 65/65/EEC (^ of 26 January 1965 on the
Alexandros Kefalas            and Others v.     Greek State     and                    approximation of provisions laid down by law,
Organismos Ikonomikis Anasinkrotisis Epikhirseon AE                                    regulation or administrative action relating to
and Others — Interveners: Athinaiki Khartopiia AE and                                  proprietary medicinal products ( as amended )? In
                                    Others                                             particular, when seeking to establish for that
                                                                                purpose that a medicinal product (product B ) is
                            ( Case C-367/96 )                                          essentially similar to a medicinal product which
                               ( 97/C 40/ 14 )                                         has been authorized within the Community for
                                                                                6/ 10 years in accordance with the Community
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                 provisions in force ( product A ), by reference to
European Communities by a judgment of the First                                        which physical or other characteristics or
Chamber of the Court of Appeal, Athens, of 6 June 1996 ,                               attributes of the medicinal products in question
                                                                                should this be determined ?
which was received at the Court Registry on 21 November
 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Alexandros                      ( b) Does the competent authority of a Member State
Kefalas and Others v. Greek State and Organismos                                       have a margin of discretion in determining the
 Ikonomikis Anasinkrotisis Epikhiriseon AE — Interveners :                             criteria in accordance with which the question of
 Athinaiki Khartopiia AE and Others — on the following                                 whether product B is essentially similar to
 questions:                                                                            product A is to be judged, and if so to what
                                                                                extent ?
 1 . Is the national court recognized as having the
        possibility of applying a provision of national law ( in           2 . May product B be authorized in accordance with
        this case Article 281 of the Greek Civil Code ) in order                Article 4.8 ( a ) ( iii ) of Directive 65/65/EEC ( as
        to assess whether a right granted by the Community                      amended ) in respect of:
        provisions at issue is being exercised by the party
        possessing the right in abuse of rights, or are there                    ( a ) all indications for which product A is currently
        other Community law principles, and if so which , to                           authorized in the relevant Member State at the
         be found in legislation or settled case-law, on which                          date of the application made in relation to
        the national court may, if need be, base itself?                               product B; or


title: Case C-223/08: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2006/100/EC — Non-transposition within the period prescribed)

text:
               24.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/10

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-223/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2006/100/EC - Non-transposition within the period prescribed)
   (2009/C 19/16)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

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

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to adopt or notify, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Council Directive 2006/100/EC of 20 November 2006 adapting certain Directives in the field of freedom of movement of persons, by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania (OJ 2006 L 363, p. 141)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2006/100/EC of 20 November 2006 adapting certain Directives in the field of freedom of movement of persons, by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 5.7.2008.


title: Case C-371/11: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 18 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Gent — Belgium) — Punch Graphix Prepress Belgium NV v Belgische Staat (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Reference by domestic law to European Union law — Directive 90/435/EEC — Directive 90/434/EEC — Prevention of economic double taxation — Exception — Liquidation of a subsidiary upon a merger — Distribution of profits — Concept of ‘liquidation’ )

text:
               8.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 379/10

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 18 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Gent — Belgium) — Punch Graphix Prepress Belgium NV v Belgische Staat
   (Case C-371/11) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Admissibility - Reference by domestic law to European Union law - Directive 90/435/EEC - Directive 90/434/EEC - Prevention of economic double taxation - Exception - Liquidation of a subsidiary upon a merger - Distribution of profits - Concept of ‘liquidation’)
   2012/C 379/16
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hof van Beroep te Gent

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Punch Graphix Prepress Belgium NV

      Defendant: Belgische Staat

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hof van Beroep te Gent — Interpretation of Article 4(1) of Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States (OJ 1990 L 225, p. 6) — Prevention of economic double taxation — Exception in respect of profits distributed when a subsidiary is liquidated — Concept of liquidation — Merger by acquisition whereby the subsidiary companies acquired are wound up without going into liquidation — Possibility, for the national tax authorities, of considering that such an operation entails liquidation, pursuant to national tax legislation which treats identically that operation and a merger which actually entails a liquidation

      Operative part of the judgment

   The concept of ‘liquidation’ in Article 4(1) of Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States, as amended by Council Directive 2006/98/EC of 20 November 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that the dissolution of a company in the context of a merger by acquisition cannot be considered to be such a liquidation.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.


title: Case T-440/07 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 14 March 2008 — Huta Buczek v Commission (Interim measures — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Admissibility — No urgency)

text:
               9.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 116/20

         Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 14 March 2008 — Huta Buczek v Commission
   (Case T-440/07 R)
   (Interim measures - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Admissibility - No urgency)
   (2008/C 116/36)
   Language of the case: Polish
   Parties

      Applicant: Huta Buczek sp. z o.o. (Sosnowiec, Poland) (represented by: D. Szlachetko-Reiter, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: K. Gross, M. Kaduczak and A. Styobiecka-Kuik, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for suspension of operation of Commission Decision C(2007) 5087 final of 23 October 2007 in Case No C 23/2006 (ex NN 35/2006) concerning State aid granted by Poland to the steel producer Grupa Technologie Buczek
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratif de Chalons en Champagne (Administrative Court, Chalons en Champagne) (First Chamber) by judgment of that court of 23 June 1998 in the case of Hugo Fernando Hocsman v Minister for Employment and Solidarity (Case C-238/98)

text:
C 258/30             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  15.8.98
     does not receive taxable earned income or receives             Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
     insignificant earned income, under national law the            Administratif de Chalons en Champagne (Administrative
     assessment is made in the name of both spouses, and,           Court, Chalons en Champagne) (First Chamber) by
     with the exception of earned income, the income of             judgment of that court of 23 June 1998 in the case of
     the spouses is aggregated with the income of the               Hugo Fernando Hocsman v Minister for Employment and
     spouse who receives more, and, where the income of                                       Solidarity
     a spouse is less than 30 % of the aggregate earned                                    (Case C-238/98)
     income of both spouses, there is attributed to him a
                                                                                (98/C 258/50)
     portion of the earned income of the other spouse
     which, together with his own earned income, enables
     him to attain 30 % of that income, subject to a                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     maximum of BFR 270 000 (indexed), which may                    European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal
     result, by virtue of the progressive nature of tax rates,      Administratif de Chalons en Champagne (First Chamber)
     in a reduction of the tax payable by the spouses?              of 23 June 1998, which was received at the Court Registry
                                                                    on 7 July 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                    Hugo Fernando Hocsman v Minister for Employment and
(2) as prohibiting a Member State from refusing, by
                                                                    Solidarity on the following question:
     recourse to the separate taxation described under
     No 1, the benefit of the marital allowance for the             The Tribunal Administratif de Chalons en Champagne
     spouse of a European official, with the exception of           (First Chamber) seeks a preliminary ruling on the question
     those who declare that they receive earned income              whether an equivalence accorded by one Member State
     which is exempted under a convention, without                  means that another Member State is required to verify, on
     reservation as to progressive rates of taxation, of less       the basis of Article 52 of the Treaty of Rome, whether
     than BFR 270 000 (indexed), who does not receive               the experience and qualifications evidenced thereby
     non-exempted income of a sufficient amount for the             correspond to those required for the award of national
     benefit of the marital allowance to be totally offset          diplomas and other formal qualifications, in particular
     by the tax due by virtue of the aggregation of the             in the case where the person benefiting from such
     spouses' income and the progressive nature of the tax          equivalence holds a diploma providing evidence of
     rates'?                                                        specialist training acquired in a Member State and
                                                                    included in the scope of a directive concerning the mutual
                                                                    recognition of diplomas.
                                                   COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                           (United Kingdom), represented by Kevin F. Bodley,
                       of 25 June 1998                              Solicitor, and Konstantinos Adamantopoulos, of the
                                                                    Athens Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
in Joined Cases T-371/94 and T-394/94: British Airways              the Chambers of ArseÁne Kronshagen, 12 Boulevard de la
plc and Others and British Midland Airways Ltd v                    Foire, supported in Case T-371/94 by Kingdom of
       Commission of the European Communities (1)                   Sweden, (Agent: Staffan Sandström), Kingdom of Norway,
(State aid Ð Air transport Ð Airline company in a critical          (Agent: Margit Tveiten), Maersk Air I/S, established in
financial situation Ð Authorisation for an increase in              Dragùer (Denmark), and Maersk Air Ltd, established in
                            capital)                                Birmingham (United Kingdom), represented by Roderic
                                                                    O'Sullivan and Philip Wareham, Solicitors, having an
                        (98/C 258/51)                               address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                    Arendt & Medernach, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt, and in
               (Language of the cases: English)                     both cases, Kingdom of Denmark (Agent: Peter Biering)
                                                                    and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
In Joined Cases T-371/94 and T-394/94: British Airways              Ireland (Agents: John E. Collins and Richard Plender) v
plc, established in Hounslow (United Kingdom),                      Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
Scandinavian Airlines System Denmark-Norway-Sweden,                 Nicholas Khan, Ben Smulders and Ami Barav), supported
established in Stockholm, Koninklijke Luchtvaart                    by French Republic (Agents: Marc Perrin de Brichambaut,
Maatschappij NV, established in Amstelveen (the                     Edwige Belliard, Catherine de Salins and Jean-Marc
Netherlands), Air UK Ltd, established in Stansted (United           Belorgey) and Compagnie Nationale Air France,
Kingdom), Euralair International, established in Bonneuil           established in Paris, represented by Olivier d'Ormesson, of
(France), TAT European Airlines, established in Tours               the Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
(France), represented by Romano Subiotto, Solicitor, with           at the Chambers of Jacques Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe Ð
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of             application for the annulment of Commission Decision 94/
Elvinger, Hoss & Prussen, 15 Côte d'Eich, and British               653/EC of 27 July 1994 concerning the notified capital
Midland Airways Ltd, established in Castle Donington                increase of Air France (OJ L 254 of 30.9. 1994, p. 73) Ð


title: Case C-554/11 P: Order of the Court of 15 October 2012 — Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV v European Commission (Appeal — Access to documents — Refusal of full access to documents relating to contract LIEN 97-2011 — Action for annulment — Fresh examination in the course of proceedings — Bringing a separate annulment action)

text:
               12.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/23

         Order of the Court of 15 October 2012 — Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV v European Commission
   (Case C-554/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Access to documents - Refusal of full access to documents relating to contract LIEN 97-2011 - Action for annulment - Fresh examination in the course of proceedings - Bringing a separate annulment action)
   2013/C 9/37
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV (represented by: H. Kaltenecker, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: P. Costa de Oliveira and T. Scharf, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 September 2011 in Case T-141/05 RENV Internationaler Hilfsfonds v Commission, by which the Court ordered that there is no longer any need to give a ruling on the applicant’s form of order seeking the annulment of the decision of the European Commission of 14 February 2005, rejecting its request for access to the file relating to contract LIEN 97-2011 — Procedural irregularities before the Court — Failure to deal with Cases T-141/05 RENV and T-36/10 in a coordinated manner — Burden and amount of costs

      Operative part

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.


15.6.2002              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 144/63
In support of its claims, the applicant maintains that the                       Removal from the register of Case T-30/98 (1)
Commission infringed both Article 81 of the EC Treaty and
Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, since it failed to take into                                    (2002/C 144/122)
account, or incorrectly assessed, the nature and actions of the
applicant undertaking and did not establish that the applicant
participated in the alleged meetings or the alleged collusive                               (Language of the Case: English)
arrangements within the Spanish market or in the agreements
and concerted practices as a whole, which are described in the
contested decision.
                                                                          By order of 16 January 2002 the President of the First Chamber
                                                                          of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                          ordered the removal from the register of Case T-30/98:
It is stated in that regard that the applicant is a small family-         Dr. Peter Stott v Conseil de l’Union européenne and Com-
style undertaking which distributes and processes carbonless              mission of the European Communities.
copy paper and that it neither manufactured nor exported to
markets other than the Spanish market during the period of
the infringement. Furthermore, attention is drawn to its                  (1) OJ C 184 of 13.6.1998.
modest economic size and the limited scale of its business as
compared with the other parties alleged to be involved.
As regards the fine imposed, it is submitted that quantification
thereof involved:
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-370/00 (1)
—     breach of the principles of proportionality and equal
      treatment;                                                                                (2002/C 144/123)
—     incorrect determination of the period of infringement;                                (Language of the Case: English)
—     failure to take account of the mitigating circumstances
      attendant upon the applicant’s situation.
                                                                          By order of 5 February 2002 the President of the Third
                                                                          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                          Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
(1) Not yet published in the Official Journal.                            T-370/00: N.V. Master Foods S. A. v Commission of the
                                                                          European Communities.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 79 of 10.3.2001.
        Removal from the register of Case T-113/97 (1)
                        (2002/C 144/121)                                         Removal from the register of Case T-42/01 (1)
                                                                                (2002/C 144/124)
                   (Language of the Case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: French)
By order of 21 February 2002 the President of the First
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                          By order of 24 January 2002 the President of the First Chamber
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                          of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
T-113/97: Pierre Tomarchio v the Court of Auditors of the
                                                                          ordered the removal from the register of Case T-42/01:
European Communities.
                                                                          Syndicat des employés, techniciens et cadres de la F.G.T.B. v
                                                                          Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 199 of 28.6.1997.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 118 of 21.4.2001.


title: Case C-223/07: Order of the President of the Court of 8 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/39

         Order of the President of the Court of 8 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden
   (Case C-223/07) (1)

   (2008/C 22/71)

      Language of the case: Swedish

   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 140, 23.6.2007.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 27 March 1996 in Joined Cases T-530/93 and others: R. Bathoorn and 213 Others v. Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Partial removal from the register)

text:
20 . 7 . 96            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 210/ 15
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              Communities, residing in Brussels, represented by Eric
                        of 18 June 1996                               Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                      Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 rue du Fort
in Case T-150/94: Juana de la Cruz Vela Palacios v.                   Rheinsheim, v . Economic and Social Committee of the
Economic and Social Committee of the European                         European Communities ( Agents : Moises Bermejo Garde
                        Communities ( 1 )                             and Denis Waelbroeck ) — application for annulment of the
(Officials — Actions for annulment of measures and                    decisions of the Secretary-General of the Economic and
compensation — Admissibility — Submission of a                        Social Committee of 6 December 1993 and 22 June 1994
complaint by fax — Staff report — Delay — Statement of                imposing on the applicant the disciplinary measure of a
reasons for the award ofpoorer marks than in the previous             reprimand and rejecting the complaint lodged against that
             staff report — Non-material damage)                      measure, and for annulment or withdrawal of the appraisal
                          ( 96/C 210/37 )                             report of 5 July 1993 drawn up by the applicant's former
                                                                      superior — the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber ),
                 (Language of tbe case: French)                       composed of: A. Saggio, President, V. Tiili and R. M. Moura
In Case T-150/94 : Juana de la Cruz Vela Palacios, an official        Ramos, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the
of the Economic and Social Committee of the European                  Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 June 1996 , in which
                                                                      it :
Communities, residing in Brussels, represented by Eric
Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 rue du Fort            1 , annuls the decision of the Economic and Social
Rheinsheim, v. Economic and Social Committee of the                        Committee of 6 December 1993 imposing on the
European Communities ( Agents : Moises Bermejo Garde                       applicant the disciplinary measure of a reprimand and
and Denis Waelbroeck ) — application for annulment, first,                 the decision of the Economic and Social Committee of
of the decision of the Economic and Social Committee of                    22 June 1 994 rejecting the applicant's complaint against
18 June 1993 concerning the drawing-up of the applicant's                  the decision of 6 December 1993 ;
staff reports for the periods from 1 December 1986 to
31 August 1988 and from 1 September 1988 to 31 August                 2 , dismisses the remainder of the action;
 1990 and, second , of the decision of 13 January 1994
rejecting the complaint against those reports, and for                3 , orders the Economic and Social Committee to pay all
                                                                           the costs .
compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the
applicant as a result of breaches of duty allegedly committed
by the administration in relation to the applicant — the              (') OJ No C 316 , 12 . 11 . 1994 .
Court of First Instance ( First Chamber ), composed of: A.
Saggio, President, V. Tiili and R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges;
B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
given a judgment on 18 June 1996 , in which it :
                                                                           ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 1 , orders the Economic and Social Committee to pay the
                                                                                of 27 March 1996
     applicant a sum corresponding to BFR 50 000 by way of
     compensation for the non-material damage suffered by             in Joined Cases T-530/93 and others: R. Bathoorn and 213
     her;                                                             Others v. Council of the European Union and Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities ( ! )
2 , dismisses the remainder of the action ;
                                                                                (Partial removal from the register)
3,   orders the Economic and Social Committee to bear its
                                                                                ( 96/C 210/39 )
     own costs and to pay one half of the costs of the
     applicant, who is ordered to bear one half of her own
     costs .
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
 O OJ No C 161 , 11 . 6 . 1994 .                                      In Joined Cases T-530/93 to T-533/93 , T-l /94 to T-4/94 ,
                                                                      T-ll /94, T-53/94 and T-71 /94, T-73/94 to T-76/94,
                                                                      T-86/94 and T-87/94, T-91 /94, T-94/94 and T-96/94 ,
                                                                      T-101 /94 to T-106/94, T-118/94 to T-124/94 , T-130/94
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              and T-253/94 : R. Bathoorn and 213 Others, domiciled in
                        of 18 June 1996                               the Netherlands, represented by H. J. Bronkhorst, advocate
in Case T-293/94 : Juana de la Cruz Vela Palacios v.                  with a right of audience before the Hoge Raad ( Supreme
Economic and Social Committee of the European                         Court) of the Netherlands, and E. H. Pijnacker Hordijk, of
                         Communities (')                              the Amsterdam Bar, with an address for service in
 (Officials — Admissibility — Act adversely affecting an              Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Frieden, 62 avenue
 official — Interim appraisal note — Duty to act in good faith        Guillaume, v . Council of the European Union ( Agent: A.
                     — Disciplinary measure)                          Brautigam ) and Commission of the European Communities
                                                                       ( Agent: Thomas van Rijn ) — application for compensation
                           ( 96/C 210/38 )                            under Article 178 and the second paragraph of Article 215
                 (Language of the case: French)                       of the EEC Treaty for the damage which the applicants claim
                                                                      to have suffered as a result of the application of Council
 In Case T-293/94 : Juana de la Cruz Vela Palacios, an official       Regulation ( EEC ) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting
 of the Economic and Social Committee of the European                 general rules for the application of the levy referred to in
 ---pagebreak--- No C 210/ 16            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     20 . 7 . 96
Article 5 ( c ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 804/68 in the milk and            ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
milk products sector ( OJ No L 90 , 1984 , p . 13 ) — the                                      of 17 April 1996
President of the First Chamber (Extended Composition ) of
the Court of First Instance made an order on 27 March                  in Case T-3/93 ( 92 ): Société anonyme à participation
1996 , the operative part of which is as follows :                     ouvrière Compagnie nationale Air France v. Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities ( J )
1 , the name of J. F. van Rooy is removed from the list of                          (Competition — Taxation of costs)
      applicants in Case T-533/93;                                                               ( 96/C 210/41 )
2 , the parties are ordered to bear their own costs.                                  (Language of the case: French)
(') OJ No C 334, 9 . 12 . 1993 .                                       In Case T-3/93 ( 92 ): Société anonyme à participation
                                                                       ouvrière Compagnie nationale Air France, established in
                                                                       Paris, represented by Eduard Marissens, of the Brussels Bar,
                                                                       with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
                                                                       of Lucy Dupong, 14a rue des Bains, v . Commission of the
                                                                       European Communities ( Agents: Francisco Enrique
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             Gonzalez-Diaz and Géraud de Bergues ), supported by
                                                                       United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
                         of 17 April 1996                              ( Agents : John D. Colahan and Christopher Vajda ), with an
in Case T-2/93 ( 92 ): Société anonyme à participation                 address for service in Luxembourg at the British Embassy,
ouvrière Compagnie nationale Air France v. Commission of               14 boulevard Roosevelt, and British Airways pic,
                  the European Communities ( 1 )                       established at Hounslow ( United Kingdom ), represented by
               (Competition — Taxation of costs)                       Richard Fowler, QC, of the Bar of England and Wales , and
                                                                       William Allan and James E. Flynn, Solicitors, with an
                            ( 96/C 210/40 )
                                                                       address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                       Loesch and Wolter, 11 rue Goethe — application for
                  (Language of the case: French)                       taxation of the costs payable by the applicant to the
                                                                       intervener British Airways pic pursuant to the judgment of
In Case T-2/93 ( 92 ): Société anonyme à participation                 the Court of First Instance of 24 May 1994 in Case T-3/93
ouvrière Compagnie nationale Air France, established in                Air France v. Commission [ 1994 ] ECR 11-121 — the Court
Paris, represented by Eduard Marissens, of the Brussels Bar,           of First Instance ( Third Chamber, Extended Composition ),
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers              composed of C. P. Briët, President, B. Vesterdorf, P. Lindh,
of Lucy Dupong, 14a rue des Bains , v . Commission of the              A. Potocki and J. D. Cooke , Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
European Communities ( Agents : Francisco Enrique                      made an order on 17 April 1996 , in which it:
Gonzalez-Diaz and Géraud de Bergues ), supported by
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland                   fixes the sum of the total costs payable by the applicant to
 ( Agents : John D. Colahan and Christopher Vajda ), with an           the intervener British Airways pic at £ 40 000.
address for service in Luxembourg at the British Embassy,
 14 boulevard Roosevelt, TAT SA, established at Tours                  (') OJ No C 45 , 17. 2 . 1993 .
 ( France ), represented by Antoine Winckler , of the Paris Bar,
and Romano Subiotto, Solicitor, with an address for service
 in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger and Hoss , 15
 Côte d'Eich, and British Airways pic, established at
Hounslow (United Kingdom ), represented by William Allan
 and James E. Flynn, Solicitors , with an address for service in                      ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
 Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch and Wolter, 1 1 rue                        OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 Goethe — application for taxation of the costs payable by
 the applicant to the intervener British Airways pic pursuant                                  of 22 April 1996
 to the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 May              in Case T-23 /96 R: Eisa De Persio v. Commission of the
  1994 in Case T-2/93 Air France v . Commission [ 1 994] ECR                                European Communities
 11-323 — the Court of First Instance ( Third Chamber,                                            ( 96/C 210/42 )
 Extended Composition ), composed of C. P. Briët, President,
 B. Vesterdorf, P. Lindh , A. Potocki and J. D. Cooke, Judges;
 H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 17 April 1 996 , in                              (Language of the case: Italian)
 which it :
                                                                        In Case T-23/96 R: Eisa De Persio, an official of the
 fixes the sum of the total costs payable by the applicant to           Commission of the European Communities, represented by
 the intervener British Airways pic at £ 29 000.                        Giovanni Petroni and Franco Giampietro, of the Rome Bar,
                                                                        with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
                                                                        of Gilles Bouneau, 15 avenue du Bois, v . Commission of the
  (>) OJ No C 45 , 17 . 2 . 1993 .                                      European Communities ( Agent: Gianluigi Valsesia ) —
                                                                        application, first, for suspension of operation of the decision
                                                                        of the Commission of 22 December 1 995 transferring the


               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/34

         Removal from the register of Case C-54/02 (1)

   (2004/C 94/82)
   By order of 10 December 2003 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case C-54/02: Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 97 of 20.04.2002.


title: Case T-545/11: Action brought on 14 October 2011 — Stichting Greenpeace Nederland and PAN Europe v Commission

text:
               3.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/28

         Action brought on 14 October 2011 — Stichting Greenpeace Nederland and PAN Europe v Commission
   (Case T-545/11)
   2011/C 355/50
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Stichting Greenpeace Nederland (Amsterdam, Netherlands) and Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: B. Kloostra, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that the Commission’s decision of 10 August 2011 is in violation of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) and Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 (2);

               —

               Annul the Commission’s decision of 10 August 2011; and

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that Article 4(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2011 does not give Member States a right of veto and that, consequently, the defendant may not rely on a Member State’s opinion that the exception of Article 4(2) of the said regulation is applicable or not to the request for information lodged by the applicants.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the exception to disclosure laid down in Article 4(2), first indent, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 must be waived due to an overriding public interest in disclosing the information requested, as the conditions laid down in Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 are met in the present case.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is not in accordance with Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and Article 4 of the Aarhus Convention as:

                           —

                           The defendant failed to evaluate the concrete risk of damage by the disclosure of the information requested to the commercial interests invoked; and

                           —

                           The defendant failed to balance the commercial interests concerned against the general interest of disclosure of environmental information as described in Article 4(4), second paragraph, of the Aarhus Convention.

         The applicants further allege that should the Aarhus Convention not be directly applicable, Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 should be applied as convention-complaint as possible.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43)

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13)


16.5.98               EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 151/7
    What must be the rate that it is legally appropriate to       requirements laid down in the Annex and Article 5) and
    adopt, in the absence of any applicable domestic law          on 31 December 1994 (as regards the remainder of the
    and of any choice thus made by the Member State               provisions).
    within the bracket allowed by the directive?
                                                                  (1) OJ L 340, 31.12.1993, p. 15.
                                                                  (2) OJ C 137, 2.5.1998, p. 12.
    In other words, what must be the scope of the
    directive in such circumstances and must it be
    considered that the applicable rate is: 1 %? 0 %? and
    why not 0,25 % or 0,50 %?
(1) OJ L 103, 18.4.1973, p. 15.
(2) OJ L 249, 3.10.1969, p. 25.
(3) OJ L 156, 15.6.1985, p. 23.                                         Removal from the register of Case C-287/97 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 151/12)
                                                                  By order of 17 September 1997, the President of the Court
                                                                  of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
                                                                  removal from the register of Case C-287/97: (Reference
                                                                  for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
Action brought on 16 March 1998 by the Commission of              Bassano del Grappa): Claudio Matteazzi v. Caseificio
 the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain            Sociale S. Rocco Scarl.
                       (Case C-73/98)
                                                                  (1) OJ C 295, 27.9.1997.
                        (98/C 151/11)
An action against Kingdom of Spain was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
16 March 1998 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Juan Guerra FernaÂndez and
                                                                        Removal from the register of Case C-160/97 (1)
GeÂrard Berscheid, acting as Agents, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la                                 (98/C 151/13)
Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                  By order of 4 December 1997, the President of the Court
The applicant claims that the Court should:                       of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
                                                                  removal from the register of Case C-160/97: Commission
                                                                  of the European Communities v. Italian Republic.
Ð declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force,
    or to notify, the laws, regulations or administrative         (1) OJ C 199, 28.6.1997.
    provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
    85/73/EEC on the financing of health inspections and
    controls of fresh meat and poultrymeat (1) as amended
    by Council Directive 93/118/EEC of 22 December
    1993, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its
    obligations under the EC Treaty, and
                                                                        Removal from the register of Case C-173/97 (1)
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.                                                   (98/C 151/14)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:               By order of 4 December 1997, the President of the Court
                                                                  of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
                                                                  removal from the register of Case C-173/97: Commission
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to              of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic.
those in Case C-66/98 (2); the period for implemen-
tation expired on 31 December 1993 (as regards the                (1) OJ C 199, 28.6.1997.


title: Case T-429/04: Action brought on 25 October 2004 by Trubowest Handel GmbH and Mr Viktor Makarov against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               5.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/24

         Action brought on 25 October 2004 by Trubowest Handel GmbH and Mr Viktor Makarov against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-429/04)
   (2005/C 31/47)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 25 October 2004 by Trubowest Handel GmbH, Cologne (Germany), and Mr Viktor Makarov, Cologne (Germany), represented by Dr K. Adamantopoulos and E. Petritsi, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               order the European Community, in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 288 of the EC Treaty, to make good the damage suffered as a result of the adoption of the definitive anti-dumping measures prescribed by the anti-dumping Regulation, by awarding the amounts of

               —

               EUR 118 058.46 to Trubowest by way of compensation for damages, together with default interest on this amount in the rate of 8 % annually;

               —

               EUR 397 916.91 (EUR 277 939.37 + 63 448.54 + 56 529. 00) to Mr Makarov by way of compensation for damages, together with default interest on this amount in the rate of 8 % annually;

               —

               EUR 128 000.00 to Trubowest loss of profit for the period between 2000 and 2004, together with default interest on this amount at the rate of 8 % annually; in the alternative a sum due to Trubowest by way of compensation for damage for loss of profit for the period between 2000 and 2004, to be assessed during the proceedings, following an interlocutory judgment of the Court, by agreement between the parties; and

               —

               EUR 150 000.00 by way of compensation to Mr Makarov for the moral prejudice that he suffered together with default interest in the rate of 8 % annually on this amount;

               —

               order that all the costs occasioned by the applicants in the course of the present proceedings be borne by the Council and the Commission.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The first applicant is an importer of seamless pipes and tubes in the European Community and the second applicant is its managing director. By their application they seek to be compensated for the damage they allegedly suffered by reason of the adoption of Regulation 2320/97 (1) imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or non-alloy steel originating in Hungary, Poland, Russia, the Czech Republic, Romania and the Slovak Republic.
   The applicants argue that in the context of proceedings under Article 81 EC, a fine was imposed on several community producers of seamless pipes and tubes (2). According to the applicants, it is very likely, if not certain, that the anti-competitive conduct of the seamless pipes and tubes producers affected the injury and causality analysis of the anti-dumping proceedings, given the overlap in the product scope, in the companies involved and in the periods of investigation of the competition and anti-dumping proceedings. Nevertheless, the applicants contend, the Commission entirely failed to take into account that anti-competitive conduct when determining the injury caused by the allegedly dumped imports, as required by Regulation 384/1996 (3).
   On the above basis the applicants invoke a breach of Regulation 384/1996 as well as of the obligation of good and sound administration, due care and diligence. They further argue that the Council and the Commission later recognised that the impact of the anti-competitive conduct has affected the anti-dumping investigation and, by Regulation 1322/2004 (4) considered it no longer appropriate to apply the measures imposed by Regulation 2320/1997.
   The applicants reason that had the Council and the Commission not violated the above rules and obligations, Regulation 2320/1997 might never have been adopted and the applicants might never have incurred the damage they incurred because of it. The applicants therefore seek compensation for that damage which, in the case of the first applicant takes the form of a restitution of duties it actually paid under Regulation 2320/1997 as well as compensation for loss of profit. The second applicant requests compensation for the amounts he paid under Regulation 2320/1997, loss of profit due to non-payment of his director's salary, legal costs allegedly incurred as well as moral prejudice damage.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2320/97 of 17 November 1997, OJ L 322, 25.11.1997, p. 1.

      (2)  2003/382/EC, Commission Decision of 8 December 1999 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case IV/E-1/35.860-B seamless steel tubes) (notified under document number C(1999) 4154), OJ L 140, 6.6.2003, p. 1.

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community, OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1

      (4)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1322/2004 of 16 July 2004 amending Regulation (EC) No 2320/97 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or non-alloy steel originating in, inter alia, Russia and Romania OJ L 246, 20.7.2004, p. 10


title: Joined Cases T-35/05, T-61/05, T-107/05, T-108/05 and T-139/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 29 November 2006 — Agne-Dapper and Others v Commission and Others (Officials — Pensions — Application of the weighting calculated by reference to the average cost of living in the country of residence — Transitional arrangements set up by the regulation amending the Staff Regulations of Officials from 1 May 2004 — Act adversely affecting an official — Objection of illegality)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/38

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 29 November 2006 — Agne-Dapper and Others v Commission and Others
   (Joined Cases T-35/05, T-61/05, T-107/05, T-108/05 and T-139/05) (1)

   (Officials - Pensions - Application of the weighting calculated by reference to the average cost of living in the country of residence - Transitional arrangements set up by the regulation amending the Staff Regulations of Officials from 1 May 2004 - Act adversely affecting an official - Objection of illegality)
   (2006/C 331/85)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties
   In Case T-35/05,

      Applicants: Elisabeth Agne-Dapper (Schoorl, Netherlands) and the other former officials of the Commission of the European Communities whose names are set out in the annex to the judgment (represented initially by G. Vandersanden, L. Levi and A. Finchelstein, and subsequently by G. Vandersanden and L. Levi)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Joris and H. Tserepa-Lacombe, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Arpio Santacruz and I. Sulce, Agents)
   In Case T-61/05,

      Applicants: Cornelius Rozemeijer (Alkmaar, Netherlands), Gaston Vaesken (Saint-Mandrier, France) and Pierrette Vaesken (Sanary-sur-Mer, France) (represented initially by G. Vandersanden, L. Levi and A. Finchelstein, and subsequently by G. Vandersanden, L. Levi and C. Ronzi, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Arpio Santacruz and I. Sulce, Agents)
   In Case T-107/05,

      Applicant: François Muller (Strasbourg, France) (represented initially by G. Vandersanden, L. Levi and A. Finchelstein, and subsequently by G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers)

      Defendant: Court of Auditors of the European Communities (represented by: T. Kennedy, J.-M. Stenier and M. Bavendamm, Agents)
   In Case T-108/05,

      Applicant: Suzy Frederic-Leemans (Lahas, France) (represented initially by G. Vandersanden, L. Levi and A. Finchelstein, and subsequently by G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) (represented by: M. Bermejo Garde and E. Fierro, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Arpio Santacruz and I. Sulce, Agents)
   In Case T-139/05,

      Applicants: Charlotte Becker (Menton, France), Seamus Killeen (Dublin, Ireland), Robert Payne (Dublin, Ireland), Paul Van Raij (Overeen, Netherlands), Wilhelmus Van Miltenburg (Huizen, Netherlands) and Deirdre Gallagher (Dublin, Ireland) (represented initially by G. Vandersanden, L. Levi and A. Finchelstein, and subsequently by G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Mustapha-Pascha, L. Knudsen and K. Zejdova, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Arpio Santacruz and I. Sulce, Agents)
   Re:
   In essence, annulment of the applicants' pension statements — and, in one case only, of the payslip of an applicant assigned to non-active status — of May 2004, in so far as those pension statements and payslips apply for the first time a weighting calculated illegally by reference to the cost of living in the applicants' respective countries of residence, and no longer in relation to the cost of living in the capital of each of those countries.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the actions as inadmissible.

               2.

               Orders each of the parties to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 143, 11.6.2005.


               3.5.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 99/15

         Action brought on 16 February 2007 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Kingdom of Norway
   (Case E-2/07)
   (2007/C 99/15)
   An action against the Kingdom of Norway was brought before the EFTA Court on 16 February 2007 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Niels Fenger, Arne T. Andersen and Lorna Young, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35, Rue Belliard, B-1040 Brussels.
   The applicant requests the EFTA Court to declare that:

               1.

                  By maintaining in force rules in the Lov av 28. juli 1949 nr. 26 om Statens Pensjonskasse relating to pension rights accrued on the basis of periods of employment after 1 January 1994 pursuant to which the survivor's pension of a widower whose spouse became a member of the Public Service Pension Fund prior to 1 October 1976 is curtailed in relation to his other income whereas a widow in the same circumstances receives her survivor's pension without curtailment, the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 69(1) EEA and Article 5 of the Act referred to at point 20 in Annex XVIII of the EEA Agreement (Council Directive 86/378/EEC of 24 July 1986 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in occupational social security schemes, as amended by Council Directive 96/97/EC of 20 December 1996), as adapted by Protocol 1 thereto,

               and

               2.

                  The Kingdom of Norway bear the costs of these proceedings

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

               —

               The case concerns rules in the Norwegian Public Service Pension Act relating to the pension rights of widowers whose spouses became members of the Public Service Pension Fund prior to 1 October 1976, wherein:

                           —

                           Their survivors' pensions are curtailed in relation to their other income;

                           —

                           Widows in the same circumstances receive their survivors' pensions without curtailment.

               —

               Article 69(1) EEA provides that men and women shall receive equal pay for equal work.

               —

               Article 5 of the Act referred to at point 20 in Annex XVIII of the EEA Agreement (Council Directive 86/378/EEC of 24 July 1986) regulates the application of the principle of equal treatment to occupational social security schemes.


title: Case C-446/14 P: Appeal brought on 25 September 2014 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 16 July 2014 in Case T-295/12 Federal Republic of Germany v European Commission

text:
               17.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 409/29

         Appeal brought on 25 September 2014 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 16 July 2014 in Case T-295/12 Federal Republic of Germany v European Commission
   (Case C-446/14 P)
   2014/C 409/42
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and J. Möller, acting as Agents, Prof. Dr. T. Lübbig and Dr. M. Klasse, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               set aside in full the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 July 2014 in Case T-295/12;

               2.

               order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         In addition, the form of order sought by the Federal Republic of Germany at first instance is maintained in its entirety.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The subject-matter of this appeal is the judgment of the General Court of 16 July 2014 in Case T-295/12 Federal Republic of Germany v European Commission, in which the General Court dismissed the action of the Federal Republic of Germany against the decision of the European Commission of 25 April 2012 on State aid SA.25051 (C 19/2010) (ex NN 23/2010) granted by Germany to the Zweckverband Tierkörperbeseitigung in Rhineland-Palatinate, Saarland, Rheingau-Taunus-Kreis and Landkreis Limburg-Weilburg (Reference: C(2012) 2557 final).
   In its appeal the Federal Republic of Germany complains of an incorrect definition of the evidential criteria which the General Court established for the determination of a ‘manifest error of assessment’ in the event that a Member State defines a service of general economic interest (SGEI) in a sector which is not harmonised under EU law. The (alleged) recipient of the aid in the underlying administrative procedure is the Zweckverband Tierkörperbeseitigung in Rhineland-Palatinate — an establishment which received State compensatory payments for the animal health task of providing animal carcase disposal capacities in the event of an epidemic. Crucial to the issue of the classification of those compensatory payments as aid in the judgment under appeal is essentially the fact that the General Court did not classify the animal health tasks, with which the Zweckverband is entrusted, as SGEI.
   The Federal Republic of Germany puts forward three grounds in support of its appeal.
   The first ground alleges infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU and Article 106(2) TFEU in so far as those provisions were misinterpreted in the judgment under appeal to the effect that the German authorities had made such serious errors in the classification of the reserve capacity to cope with epidemics as SGEI that those errors must, in the view of the General Court, be classified as ‘manifest’. The Federal Republic of Germany argues that the judgment under appeal encroaches upon the margin of discretion which is due to Member States when defining a SGEI. According to the Federal Republic of Germany, there is in any event no ‘manifest error of assessment’ in the case of the SGEI definition. The Federal Republic of Germany notes (i) that that criterion for assessment is indisputably not mentioned at all by the Commission in the underlying decision, (ii) that the Commission also stated in the proceedings before the General Court that it was not obliged to prove the presence of a ‘manifest error of assessment’, and (iii) that neither the Commission’s considerations in the decision nor the General Court’s findings in the judgment under appeal substantively support the alleged presence of a ‘manifest error of assessment’.
   The second ground alleges infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU owing to the erroneous finding of an economic advantage on the basis of an erroneous assessment of the ‘Altmark criteria’. (1) The Federal Republic of Germany argues, inter alia, that the General Court committed errors when assessing the third Altmark criterion (necessity of the compensatory payments). The General Court failed to recognise that the Commission erred in law in failing to assess whether the compensatory payments for the reserve capacity to cope with epidemics exceed the net additional costs of the provision of that reserve capacity. Instead, the Commission and, following it, the General Court rejected out of hand the necessity for such costs by referring to an alleged lack of need for a separate reserve capacity to cope with epidemics.
   The third ground alleges failure to state adequate reasons in the judgment under appeal, particularly in that alleged errors made by the German authorities must be classified as particularly serious and ‘manifest’. It is also not explained why the view of the German authorities is indefensible from any conceivable point of view.

      (1)  Judgment in Altmark, C-280/00, EU:C:2003:415.


title: Case C-174/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio lodged on 2 April 2010 — Paola Tonachella v Ministero dell’Interno

text:
               19.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/33

      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio lodged on 2 April 2010 — Paola Tonachella v Ministero dell’Interno
      (Case C-174/10)
      (2010/C 161/48)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Paola Tonachella

         Defendant: Ministero dell’Interno

         Question referred

      Is a national system under national legislation (introduced as from the Bersani Decree, Decree-Law No 223 of 4 July 2006, converted into Law No 248 of 4 August 2006) compatible with Articles 43 and 49 of the EC Treaty, when it, inter alia:

                  (a)

                  tends generally to protect holders of licences issued at an earlier period following a tendering procedure that unlawfully excluded some operators;

                  (b)

                  in fact ensures the maintenance of acquired commercial positions (by, for example, prohibiting new licensees from locating their kiosks within a specified distance of those already in existence);

                  (c)

                  provides for cases in which the licence may lapse when the licensee directly or indirectly carries on cross- border gaming activities analogous to those under the licence?


title: Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 115, 14.5.2005

text:
               28.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 132/38

         (2005/C 132/66)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 115, 14.5.2005

   Past publications

      OJ C 106, 30.4.2005

      OJ C 93, 16.4.2005

      OJ C 82, 2.4.2005

      OJ C 69, 19.3.2005

      OJ C 57, 5.3.2005

      OJ C 45, 19.2.2005

   These texts are available on:

               EUR-Lex:http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex

               CELEX:http://europa.eu.int/celex


title: Case C-418/06 P: Appeal brought on 13 October 2006 by the Kingdom of Belgium against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) on 25 July 2006 in Case T-221/04 Belgium v Commission

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/34

         Appeal brought on 13 October 2006 by the Kingdom of Belgium against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) on 25 July 2006 in Case T-221/04 Belgium v Commission

   (Case C-418/06 P)
   (2006/C 294/60)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: A. Hubert, Agent, H. Gilliams, P. de Bandt and L. Goossens, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               set aside the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance on 25 July 2006 in Case T-221/04 and, upholding the action brought by the present appellant, annul Commission Decision 2004/136/EC (1) of 4 February 2004;

               —

               in the alternative, set aside the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance on 25 July 2006 in Case T-221/04 and, on the basis of its unlimited jurisdiction, reduce the correction of € 9 322 809 applied by the Commission in Decision 2004/136/EC to € 1 491 085;

               —

               in the further alternative, set aside the judgment in Case T-221/04 delivered by the Court of First Instance on 25 July 2006 and refer the case back to the Court of First Instance;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings before both the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The appellant raises four grounds in support of its appeal.
   In its first ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the Court of First Instance distorted the facts or, at the very least, erred in the legal appraisal of those facts and the consequences in law to be drawn from them. According to the appellant, the judgment is founded in it entirety on an incorrect factual assumption inasmuch as the Court of First Instance took the view that the Belgian computerised system of graphic encoding of agricultural areas (GIS) constitutes a measurement tool which is closer to reality than the area data declared by farmers themselves, whereas the exact area of an agricultural holding can only be determined, in a formal and indubitable manner, either by measurement carried out by a person properly qualified to do so or by photo interpretation of satellite images taken in the framework of teledetection.
   By its second ground of appeal, which consists of five limbs, the appellant alleges breach of Articles 6(7) and 8 of Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 (2) and of Articles 6 and 9 of Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 (3) inasmuch as the Court of First Instance, inter alia, wrongly formed the view that the appellant was under an obligation to comply with implied rules necessary for compliance with express rules and inasmuch as it incorrectly considered that the control system introduced by the Belgian authorities would not be effective by reason of the lack of follow-up of the GIS data and because of late encoding of the data. The appellant also submits that, in several respects, the reasoning provided by the Court of First Instance is inadequate and/or contradictory.
   The third ground of appeal is based on an error of law allegedly committed by the Court of First Instance in regard to the application of the principle of proportionality, as the maximum harm suffered by FEOGA was, in the opinion of the appellant, significantly less than the flat-rate correction imposed.
   Finally, by its fourth ground of appeal; the appellant expresses the view that the Court of First Instance wrongly dismissed, as being inadmissible, its request that that Court reduce the flat-rate correction imposed on the basis of its unlimited jurisdiction. The lack of an express provision conferring on the Community Courts unlimited jurisdiction does not, ipso facto, mean that they do not have any such jurisdiction.

      (1)  Commission Decision 2004/136/EC of 4 February 2004 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the EuropeanAgricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2004 L 40, p. 31).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 of 27 November 1992 establishing an integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes (OJ 1992 L 355, 1).

      (3)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 of 23 December 1992 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes (OJ 1992 L 391, p. 36), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1648/95 of 6 July 1995 (OJ 1995 L 156, p. 27).


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 November 2004 in Case T-173/03: Anne Geddes v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Word mark ‘NURSERYROOM’ — Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               5.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/20

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 30 November 2004
   in Case T-173/03: Anne Geddes v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Word mark ‘NURSERYROOM’ - Absolute grounds for refusal - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2005/C 31/40)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case T-173/03: Anne Geddes, residing at Auckland (New Zealand), represented by G. Farrington, Solicitor, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: E. Dijkema and A. Folliard-Monguiral) – action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 February 2003 (Case R 839/2001-4) regarding an application for registration of the Community word mark ‘NURSERYROOM’ – the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of: J Pirrung, President, N.J. Forwood and S. Papasavvas, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 November 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 171 of 19.7.2003.


title: Case T-25/12: Order of the General Court of 3 October 2012 — 3M Pumps v OHIM — 3M (3M Pumps)

text:
               24.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 366/40

         Order of the General Court of 3 October 2012 — 3M Pumps v OHIM — 3M (3M Pumps)
   (Case T-25/12) (1)

   2012/C 366/81
   Language of the case: Italian
   The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 98, 31.3.2012.


title: Case T-416/07: Action brought on 21 November 2007 — RedEnvelope v OHIM — Red Letter Days (REDENVELOPE)

text:
               12.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 8/26

         Action brought on 21 November 2007 — RedEnvelope v OHIM — Red Letter Days (REDENVELOPE)
   (Case T-416/07)
   (2008/C 8/46)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: RedEnvelope Inc. (San Francisco, United States) (represented by: A. Poulter, Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Red Letter Days Ltd (London, United Kingdom)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal dated 14 September 2007, No R 765/2005-1, in so far as the decision provided for the admission of new evidence in support of the grounds of opposition;

               —

               order that the defendant pays the applicant's costs of this appeal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘REDENVELOPE’ for services in classes 35 and 42 — application No 1 601 392

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Red Letter Days Ltd

      Mark or sign cited: The registered and non-registered national word and figurative marks ‘RED LETTER’, ‘RED LETTER DAYS’ and ‘RED LETTER DAYS PLC’ for goods and services in classes 9, 14, 16, 18, 21, 22, 25, 26, 33, 36, 39, 41, 42, 43 and 44

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition partially upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the Opposition Division's decision and remittal of the case to the Opposition Division for further consideration in so far as it regards Article 8(4) of Council Regulation No 40/94

      Pleas in law: Violation of Article 74(2) of Council Regulation No 40/94, as the Board of Appeal admitted new evidence, which will allow the Opposition Division to make a decision based on evidence, which was not available earlier in the proceedings and to which the applicant has not had an opportunity to respond before the Opposition Division.


title: Case T-167/16: Action brought on 19 April 2016 — Poland v Commission

text:
               4.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/34

         Action brought on 19 April 2016 — Poland v Commission
   (Case T-167/16)
   (2016/C 243/37)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/180 of 9 February 2016 amending the Annex to Implementing Decision 2014/709/EU concerning animal health control measures relating to African swine fever in certain Member States, as regards the entries for Estonia, Lithuania and Poland (OJ 2016 L 35, p. 12) in so far as the gmina (commune) of Czyże, the remaining part of the gmina of Zabłudów and the gmina of Hajnówka together with the city of Hajnówka are included in Part II of the Annex to Decision 2014/709/EU;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant puts forward three pleas in law in support of its action.

               1.

               First plea in law: infringement of the principle of proportionality by reason of the failure to have regard for the requirement that the contested measures must be necessary for achieving the intended objectives, the failure to have regard for the requirement that the contested measures must be appropriate for achieving the intended objectives, and the failure to have regard for the requirement that those measures must be strictly proportionate.

               2.

               Second plea in law: failure to comply with essential formal requirements laid down in Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers (OJ 2011 L 55, p. 13) and in the rules of procedure of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed.

               3.

               Third plea in law: failure to comply with the obligation to set out reasons for the contested decision.


title: Case C-231/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio by orders of 6 April, 17 and 26 May 2000 in the case of Cooperativa LATTEPIU a.r.l. v Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo A.I.M.A.

text:
26.8.2000             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 247/17
transparency. Finland’s view that a political decision of the           Action brought on 9 June 2000 by the Commission of the
Valtioneuvosto entitles it to disregard the transparency require-          European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
ment is contrary to the directive.
                                                                                (Case C-232/00)
(1) OJ L 40 of 11.2.1989, p. 8.
                                                                                (2000/C 247/22)
                                                                        An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
                                                                        the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 June
                                                                        2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                        represented by Maria Patakia and Bernard Mongin, of its Legal
                                                                        Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
                                                                        of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner
                                                                        Centre, Kirchberg.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio by orders of
6 April, 17 and 26 May 2000 in the case of Cooperativa                  The Commission claims that the Court should:
LATTEPIU a.r.l. v Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel
                   mercato agricolo A.I.M.A.
                                                                        1.    declare that, by failing to adopt and to notify to the
                                                                              Commission, within the time-limit laid down, the laws,
                        (Case C-231/00)                                       regulations and administrative provisions necessary for it
                                                                              to comply fully with Commission Directive 97/38/EC (1)
                        (2000/C 247/21)                                       of 20 June 1997 amending Annex C to Council Directive
                                                                              92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system
                                                                              for the recognition of professional education and training
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        to supplement Council Directive 89/48/EEC, the Hellenic
European Communities by orders of 6 April, 17 and 26 May                      Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
2000 by the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale (Regional                      Treaty and that directive;
Administrative Court), Lazio v Azienda di Stato per gli
interventi nel mercato agricolo A.I.M.A. (State Agricultural            2.    order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
Market Intervention Body (AIMA)) which was received at the
Court Registry on 9 June 2000, for a preliminary ruling on the
following questions:
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
1.   May the provisions contained in Articles 1 and 4 of
     Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 (1) of 28 December
     1992 and Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Regulation                 In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 EC,
     (EEC) No 536/93 (2) of 9 March 1993 be interpreted as              directives are binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
     meaning that it is possible, in cases of administrative or         each Member State to which they are addressed.
     judicial challenge to the relevant measures, to derogate
     from the time-limits prescribed for the allocation of              Under the first paragraph of Article 10 EC, Member States are
     quotas and the operation of adjustments and levies?                to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular,
                                                                        to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty
2.   If not, are the provisions contained in Articles 1 and 4 of        or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the
     Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December                 Community.
     1992 and Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Regulation
     (EEC) No 536/93 of 9 March 1993 valid, in the light of
     Article 33 (ex 39) of the Treaty, in so far as they do not         It is not disputed by the Hellenic Republic that it must adopt
     provide that derogations may be made from the periods              measures to comply with the abovementioned directives.
     prescribed by those provisions for the allocation of
     individual reference quantities, for adjustments and levies
     in cases of administrative or judicial challenge to those          The Commission records that until now the Hellenic Republic
     provisions?                                                        has not adopted the appropriate measures for the full incorpor-
                                                                        ation of the directive at issue into Greek law.
(1) OJ L 405, 31.12.1992, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 57, 10.3.1993, p. 12.                                          (1) OJ L 184, 12.7.1997, p. 31.