title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 24 March 1998 in Case T-175/94 (92):International Procurement Services SA v Commission of the European Communities (Taxation of costs)

text:
C 166/14             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   30.5.98
                                                  COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                          BeÂreldange (Luxembourg), represented initially by Alain
                      of 31 March 1998                             Levy, of the Paris Bar, and subsequently by Jean-NoeÈl
                                                                   Louis, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
in Case T-129/96: Preussag Stahl AG v Commission of the            Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson, 30 Rue de
                  European Communities (1)                         Cessange, v Court of Justice of the European Communities
(State aid to the steel industry Ð Notification of planned         (Agents: Timothy Millett and Aloyse May) Ð application
aid Ð Expiry of the validity of the relevant provisions of         for annulment of the decision of the Court of Justice of
the ECSC Aid Code Ð Grant of the planned aid Ð                     11 July 1996 suspending the procedure for filling one of
Decision finding the aid to be incompatible and ordering           the three positions declared vacant by vacancy notice
         its repayment Ð Legitimate expectations)                  CJ 91/95, as confirmed by the decision of 10 December
                                                                   1996 expressly rejecting the complaint lodged by the
                        (98/C 166/36)                              applicant against the first decision, for the destruction of
                                                                   an alleged parallel file and for payment of BFR 1 000 000
               (Language of the case: German)                      by way of compensation for the non-material damage
                                                                   suffered Ð the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),
In Case T-129/96: Preussag Stahl AG, established in                composed of P. Lindh, President, and K. Lenaerts and J. D.
Salzgitter (Germany), represented by Jochim Sedemund,              Cooke, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar,
Rechtsanwalt, Berlin, with an address for service in               has given a judgment on 24 April 1998, in which it:
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-
Rue, supported by Federal Republic of Germany (Agents:
Ernst Röder, Bernd Kloke, Holger Wissel and Oliver                 1. Dismisses the action;
Axster), against Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: Dimitris Triantafyllou and Paul
Nemitz) Ð application for the annulment of Commission              2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
Decision 96/544/ECSC of 29 May 1996 concerning State
aid to Walzwerk Ilsenburg GmbH (OJ L 233 of
                                                                   (1) OJ C 181 of 14.6.1997.
14.9.1996, p. 24) Ð the Court of First Instance (Third
Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of: V. Tiili,
President, C. P. BrieÈt, K. Lenaerts, A. Potocki and J. D.
Cooke, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar,
has given a judgment on 31 March 1998, in which it:
1. Dismisses the application;
                                                                        ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
2. Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and those                                  of 24 March 1998
    of the Commission;
                                                                   in Case T-175/94 (92):International Procurement Services
                                                                        SA v Commission of the European Communities (1)
3. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its
    own costs.                                                                           (Taxation of costs)
                                                                                (98/C 166/38)
(1) OJ C 318 of 26.10.1996.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                   In Case T-175/94 (92): International Procurement Services
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                          SA, established in Brussels, represented by Peter de Troyer,
                       of 2 April 1998                             of the Oudenaarde Bar, and Lydie Lorang, of the
                                                                   Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in
in Case T-86/97: ReÂa Apostolidis v Court of Justice of the
                                                                   Luxembourg at the latter's Chambers, 6 Rue Heine, v
                  European Communities (1)
                                                                   Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
(Officials Ð Suspension of promotion procedure Ð                   EÂtienne Lasnet) Ð application for taxation of costs made
                  Disciplinary proceedings)                        pursuant to the judgment delivered by the Court of First
                                                                   Instance on 11 July 1996 in Case T-175/94 International
                        (98/C 166/37)
                                                                   Procurement Services SA v Commission [1996] ECR II-
                                                                   729 Ð the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber),
                (Language of the case: French)                     composed of J. Azizi, President, and R. García-Valdecasas
                                                                   and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order
In Case T-86/97: ReÂa Apostolidis, an official of the Court        on 24 March 1998, the operative part of which is as
of Justice of the European Communities, residing at                follows:
 ---pagebreak--- 30.5.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 166/15
The total amount of the costs to be reimbursed by                  According to the applicant, by the clearly indadequate and
International Procurement Services SA to the Commission            insufficient measures adopted, the Community breached
shall be FF 50 000.                                                the general principles of equal treatment, protection of
                                                                   legitimate expectations, legal certainty, proportionality
(1) OJ C 174 of 25.6.1994.                                         and non-discrimination.
                                                                   In the applicant's view, the adoption of such measures so
                                                                   completely unrelated to circumstances in Portugal is
                                                                   tantamount to a total failure to take account of the
                                                                   situation there. By not taking account of the specific
Action brought on 15 December 1997 by Hermínia
                                                                   conditions affecting Portuguese customs officials, the
Fernanda dos Santos Morais Antas against Council of the
                                                                   Community did not act in such a way as to ensure that
     European Union and Commission of the European
                                                                   the damage caused to them was compensated, by way of
                         Communities
                                                                   more flexible rules, in the same way as that suffered by
                       (Case T-316/97)                             officials in northern European countries. In view of the
                        (98/C 166/39)                              conditions affecting their work as customs officials, which
                                                                   differ greatly from those affecting Portuguese conditions,
                                                                   the latter were able to take full advantage of some of the
             (Language of the case: Portuguese)                    measures put in place and thus gained a competitive
                                                                   advantage in the market by means of the Community
An action against the Council of the European Union and            funds from which they were able to benefit.
the Commission of the European Communities was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 15 December 1997 by Hermínia                        Furthermore, by requiring the applicant to maintain its
Fernanda dos Santos Morais Antas, residing at Vila Nova            professional organization fully in force in order to carry
de Gaia, represented by Cristina Ferreira, Francisco               out its duties until 31 December 1992, the Community did
Espregueira Mendes, Teresa Fonseca and Rui GuimaraÄes              not enable the organization to be dismantled or retrained
Lopes, of the Oporto Bar.                                          timeously in view of the circumstances of the single
                                                                   market and, secondly, fed' its hopes that its inglorious
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        efforts would be rewarded'.
Ð declare the Council and the Commission jointly and
    severally liable, pursuant to Articles 215 and 178 of          Finally, the applicant states that, although the Single Act
    the EC Treaty, for the damage caused by virtue of the          constitutes an overriding Community interest, that does
    transitional and training measures necessary in the            not justify customs officials, including the applicant,
    sector to which the applicant belongs;                         having inflicted upon them damage which is undeniably
                                                                   abnormal and specific without providing for them
                                                                   transitional and training measures which might be
Ð order the Council and the Commission jointly and                 considered adequate.
    severally to pay ESC 3 126 768 by way of
    compensation for the abovementioned damage,
    together with the interest accrued, at the rate of 10 %,
    as prescribed by law, from the date of the summons to
    the date on which payment is actually made;
Ð order the Council and the Commission to pay the                  Action brought on 15 December 1997 by David Manuel
    costs.                                                         de Abreu and Others against Council of the European
                                                                      Union and Commission of the European Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments:                                                   (Cases T-317/97 to T-508/97)
From 31 December 1992, the applicant was employed as                                       (98/C 166/40)
a customs agent in the Oporto Customs Authority area.
She claims to have suffered abnormal, particular and
direct damage as a result of the progressive realization of                     (Language of the case: Portuguese)
the internal market, established by the Single European
Act. The applicant points out that the causal factor of the
damage is not held to be, in the present action, the Single        An action against the Council of the European Union and
Act itself but the fact that the Community institutions did        the Commission of the European Communities was
not fulfil their obligation under the Single European Act,         brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
namely the obligation to introduce the appropriate                 Communities on 15 December 1997 by David Manuel de
compensatory and transitional measures for the retraining          Abreu and Others, residing in Portugal, represented by
of customs agent in view of the new Community                      Cristina Ferreira, Francisco Espregueira Mendes, Teresa
circumstances.                                                     Fonseca and Rui GuimaraÄes Lopes, of the Oporto Bar.


title: Case C-381/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d'appel de Caen, chambres réunies by judgment of that Court of 17 October 2002 in the case of Association Comité économique régional agricole fruits et légumes de Bretagne (CERAFEL) against François Faou and GAEC de Kerlidou

text:
7.12.2002              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 305/17
could harm the environment, and in particular without risk to          2002, received at the Court Registry on 23 October 2002, for
water, air, soil and plants and animals, without causing a             a preliminary ruling in the case of Association Comité
nuisance through noise or odours and without adversely                 économique régional agricole fruits et légumes de Bretagne
affecting the countryside or places of special interest.               (CERAFEL) against François Faou and GAEC de Kerlidou on
                                                                       the following question:
In the present case, the Italian Republic has not adopted any          Can a Member State, without infringing the principle of non-
appropriate measure to ensure that waste deposited in the Via          discrimination, apply Article 15b(1) and (8) of Regulation
Granciara disposal site in Castelliri is recovered or disposed         (EEC) No 1035/72 of the Council of 18 May 1972 (1) by
of without endangering human health and without using                  making certain production and marketing rules mandatory for
procedures or methods which could harm the environment.                producers who are established in the district of a Board and
Consequently, it has failed to fulfil its obligations under            who are not members of it and by making them liable for all
Article 4 of the directive.                                            or part of the fees paid by member producers, without
                                                                       distinguishing according to whether or not those non-member
                                                                       producers are part of a production sector regulated by law,
Article 8 of the directive provides that Member States are to          which, as in the case of the organic production sector, would
ensure that any holder of waste has it handled by a private or         make the Board’s measures irrelevant or of merely occasional
public waste collector or by an undertaking which carries out          and marginal interest for them.
the operations listed in Annex II A or B of the directive, or
recovers or disposes of it himself in accordance with the
provisions of the directive. To that end, the owners or                (1 ) Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 of the Council of 18 May 1972 on
managers of disposal sites are regarded as holders within the               the common organization of the market in fruit and vegetables
meaning of Article 8.                                                       (OJ L 118 of 20.5.1972, p. 1).
The Italian Republic has failed to adopt the necessary measures
to ensure that the holder of waste deposited in the disposal
site at Castelliri (Frosinone) has such waste handled by a
private or public collector or an undertaking carrying out the
operations provided for in Annex II A or II B to the directive.
Consequently, it has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Article 8 of the directive.
                                                                       Action brought on 24 October 2002 by the Commission
                                                                       of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
( 1) OJ L 194 of 25.7.1975, p. 39.
( 2) OJ L 78 of 26.3.1991, p. 32.
                                                                                (Case C-383/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 305/32)
                                                                       An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d’appel de
                                                                       Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 October
Caen, chambres réunies by judgment of that Court of
                                                                       2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
17 October 2002 in the case of Association Comité
                                                                       represented by Minas Konstantinidis and Roberto Amorosi,
économique régional agricole fruits et légumes de
                                                                       acting as Agents.
Bretagne (CERAFEL) against François Faou and GAEC de
                              Kerlidou
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
                         (Case C-381/02)
                                                                       1.     declare that, by failing to adopt the necessary measures
                         (2002/C 305/31)                                      to ensure that waste deposited in the disposal sites at
                                                                              Rodano (Milan) is recovered or disposed of without
                                                                              endangering human health and without using procedures
                                                                              or methods which could harm the environment, and by
                                                                              failing to adopt the measures necessary to ensure that the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        holder of waste deposited in the disposal sites at Rodano
European Communities by judgment of the Cour d’appel de                       (Milan) has such waste handled by a private or public
Caen (Court of Appeal, Caen) chambres réunies of 17 October                   collector or an undertaking carrying out the operations


title: Case T-323/05: Action brought on 24 August 2005 — Coffee Store v OHIM

text:
               12.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/26

         Action brought on 24 August 2005 — Coffee Store v OHIM
   (Case T-323/05)
   (2005/C 281/49)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant(s): The Coffee Store GmbH (Mannheim, Germany) (represented by: M. Buddeberg, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 June 2005, reference No R 855/2004-2;

               —

               order that Community trade mark application 3 346 228 THE COFFEE STORE be registered;

               —

               order OHIM to bear the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark sought: The word mark ‘THE COFFEE STORE’ for goods and services in Classes 30, 32, 41 and 43.

      Decision of the examiner: Refusal to register the goods and services in Classes 30, 32 and 43.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

      Pleas in law: The trade mark applied for cannot be considered as a sign exclusively of descriptive character within the meaning of Article 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94. Furthermore, the trade mark applied for is not devoid of any distinctive character within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94.


title: Case T-34/02: Action brought on 20 February 2002 by EURL Le Levant 001 and Others against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
4.5.2002              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 109/57
Action brought on 20 February 2002 by EURL Le Levant                     financial investment exclusively in order to benefit from a tax
001 and Others against the Commission of the European                    break. The applicants also maintain that the Commission has
                          Communities                                    infringed Council Directive 90/684/EEC on aid to shipbuilding.
                                                                         They submit that Article 4(7) of that directive can apply only
                                                                         to shipyards or ship operators, and in no circumstances to
                         (Case T-34/02)                                  private investors.
                       (2002/C 109/109)
                                                                         In addition, the applicants plead infringement of the principles
                                                                         of the protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty
                   (Language of the case: French)                        and failure to comply with the obligation to provide a
                                                                         statement of reasons. Moreover, by ordering the recovery of
                                                                         the alleged aid when that is contrary to the abovementioned
                                                                         general principles of law, the Commission has infringed
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                Article 14 of Council Regulation No 659/1999 (2).
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 20 February 2002 by the company
EURL Le Levant 001 and Others, represented by Pierre Kirch,              According to the applicants, the contested decision also
lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                       contains manifest errors of assessment and is based on material
                                                                         inaccuracies.
The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                         In addition, the applicants plead infringement of Article 153(2)
—     annul the Commission’s decision of 25 July 2001 on                 of the EC Treaty, in that the Commission does not take into
      the State aid implemented by France in the form of                 account the interests of the applicants, who are consumers of
      development assistance for the cruise vessel ‘Le Levant’,          financial services. Lastly, they claim that the Commission has
      built by Alstom Leroux Naval for operation in Saint-               infringed Article 2 of Regulation No 69/2001 (3) by failing to
      Pierre-et-Miquelon (State aid C 74/99 — France), publi-            apply the de minimis rule.
      shed in OJ L 327 of 12 December 2001, p. 37;
                                                                         (1) Rectifying Finance Law No 86-824 of 11 July 1986, published in
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                             JORF (Official Journal of the French Republic) of 12 July 1986,
                                                                             p. 8688.
                                                                         (2) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying
                                                                             down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              Treaty (OJ L 83 of 27.3.1999, p. 1).
                                                                         (3) Commission Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 of 12 January 2001 on
                                                                             the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de
The applicants in this case are one-man undertakings with                    minimis aid (OJ L 10 of 13.1.2001, p. 30).
limited liability and the persons who formed those undertak-
ings. Those persons have invested, through a one-man limited
liability undertaking (EURL), in the vessel ‘Le Levant’. The
investment could be inferred from their taxable income, in
accordance with the French ‘Loi Pons’ (1). The applicants
are contesting the Commission’s decision declaring those
companies to be recipients of State aid in consequence of the
construction of the vessel ‘Le Levant’.                                  Action brought on 13 February 2002 by ALITALIA
                                                                           against the Commission of the European Communities
In support of their action, the applicants assert that the
Commission has exceeded its powers by adopting a decision                                          (Case T-35/02)
the effect of which is to require a Member State to recover
from private individuals, and not from undertakings within                                       (2002/C 109/110)
the meaning of Community law, the amount of the State aid.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
The applicants further maintain that the Commission has
infringed their rights of defence and their right to a fair
hearing, by not allowing them effectively to submit their
observations prior to the adoption of the decision.                      An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 13 February 2002 by ALITALIA,
Next, the applicants deny that they are undertakings within              represented by Guido Alpa, Mario Siragusa, Gian Michele
the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty. In the applicants’        Roberti, Giuseppe Scassellati and Francesca Maria Moretti,
view, they are merely private investors who have made a                  lawyers.


title: Case C-180/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 9 April 2010 — Jarosław Słaby v Minister Finansów

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/17

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 9 April 2010 — Jarosław Słaby v Minister Finansów
   (Case C-180/10)
   2010/C 179/28
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Jarosław Słaby

      Defendant: Minister Finansów

      Question referred

   Is a natural person who carried out an agricultural activity on land and subsequently, on account of a change to urban management plans which occurred for reasons beyond his control, ceased that activity and reclassified his property as private property, divided it into smaller parts (land designated for a holiday home development) and began to dispose of it, on that basis a taxable person for VAT within the meaning of Article 9(1) of Directive 2006/112/EC (1) and Article 4(1) and (2) of Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC (2) who is liable for payment of VAT on the basis of a trading activity?

      (1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

      (2)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).


title: Case T-287/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 15 October 2007 — cApStAn v Commission

text:
               22.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/44

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 15 October 2007 — cApStAn v Commission
   (Case T-287/07) (1)

   (2007/C 315/84)

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 223, 22.9.2007.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura di Pordenone by order of that court of 18 October 1995 in the Case of Tommaso Morellato and Usl No 11, Pordenone (Case C-358/95)

text:
20 . 1 . 96            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 16/7
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura di               The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pordenone by order of that court of 18 October 1995 in the
 Case of Tommaso Morellato and Usl No 11 , Pordenone                 1 , declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force or,
                        ( Case C-358/95 )                                in the alternative, communicate, within the prescribed
                           ( 96/C 16/13                                  period, the laws, regulations or administrative
                                                                         provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
                                                                         91/371 /EEC ( J ) of 20 June 1991 on the implementation
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   of the Agreement between the European Economic
European Communities by an order of the Pretura                          Community and the Swiss Confederation concerning
( Magistrates Court), Pordenone, of 18 October 1995 ,                    direct insurance other than life assurance, the Kingdom
which was received at the Court Registry on 21 November                  of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under
1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Tommaso                   Articles 5 and 189 of the Treaty establishing the
Morellato v. Usl No 11 , Pordenone :
                                                                         European Communitiy;
— are Articles 30 and 36 of the Treaty establishing the EEC
                                                                     2 , order the defendant to pay the costs .
    to be interpreted as precluding the Italian legislation on
    the working and marketing of cereals, flour, bread and
    pasta ( Law No 480 of 4 July 1967), in so far as such            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    legislation prohibits the sale of deep-frozen special
    wholemeal bread having:                                          The mandatory nature of the third paragraph of Article 189
                                                                     and the first paragraph of Article 5 of the EC Treaty requires
    — a moisture content in excess of the percentages                Member States to adopt the appropriate measures in order
         referred to in Article 16 ,                                 to ensure compliance with the obligations stemming from
    — an ash content lower than that prescribed by                   the Directives, observing the time limits laid down therein .
         Article 16 in conjunction with Article 7 ( 3 ),             That period expired on 4 July 1993 without the Kingdom of
                                                                     Spain having brought into force the necessary provisions.
    — an admixture of bran, which is not a permitted
         ingredient,                                                 (') OJ No L 205 , 27. 7. 1991 , p . 48 .
    accordingly, are those legislative provisions to be
    regarded as a quantitative restriction or a measure
    having equivalent effect thereto within the meaning of
    Article 30 ?
— In the event of an affirmative answer to that question, is         Action brought on 23 November 1995 by the Commission
    the Italian State, in circumstances such as those of this        of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
    case, entitled to rely on the derogation provided for in                                        Spain
    Article 36 of the EC Treaty, for the purpose of protecting
    public health ?                                                                          Case C-361/95 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 16/15 )
— Is the Italian legislation to be disapplied by the Italian
    courts ?
                                                                     An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
                                                                     the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
— Is the free movement on Italian territory of bread                 23 November 1995 by the Commission of the European
    produced in France and described as aforesaid to be              Communities, represented by D. Gouloussis and B. Vila
    permitted ?                                                      Costa, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
                                                                     Luxembourg at the office of C. Gômez de la Cruz, Wagner
                                                                     Centre, Kirchberg Plateau .
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should :
Action brought on 23 November 1995 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                Spain
                                                                     1 , declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force or,
                                                                         in the alternative, communicate, within the prescribed
                        ( Case C-360/95                                  period, the laws, regulations or administrative
                           ( 96/C 16/14 )                                provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
                                                                         92/49/EEC (*) of 18 June 1992 on the coordination of
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before                laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                      to direct insurance other than life assurance, the
23 November 1995 by the Commission of the European                       Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations
Communities, represented by D. Gouloussis and B. Vila                    under Articles 5 and 189 of the Treaty establishing the
Costa, acting as Agents, with an address for service in                  European Community;
Luxembourg at the office of C. Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner
Centre, Kirchberg Plateau .                                          2 , order the defendant to pay the costs .


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 March 2001 in Case C-261/99: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure of a State to fulfil obligations — State aid incompatible with the common market — Recovery — No absolute impossibility of implementation)

text:
14.7.2001               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                               C 200/3
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                          (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 22 March 2001
                         of 22 March 2001
                                                                           in Case C-261/99: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v French Republic (1)
in Case C-17/99: French Republic v Commission of the
                   European Communities (1)
                                                                           (Failure of a State to fulfil obligations — State aid incompat-
                                                                           ible with the common market — Recovery — No absolute
                                                                                impossibility of implementation)
(State aid — Rescue and restructuring aid — Procedure for
the examination of State aid — Failure to order a Member
          State to disclose the requisite information)                                                 (2001/C 200/04)
                          (2001/C 200/03)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                    (Language of the case: French)                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           In Case C-261/99: Commission of the European Communities
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     (Agent: G. Rozet) v French Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-
                   in the European Court Reports)                          Bellanger and F. Million) — application for a declaration that,
                                                                           by not adopting within the prescribed period the measures
                                                                           needed to recover from the recipients thereof aid declared
                                                                           unlawful and incompatible with the common market by
In Case C-17/99: French Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger              Commission Decision 1999/378/EC of 4 November 1998 on
and F. Million) v Commission of the European Communities                   aid granted by France to Nouvelle Filature Lainière de Roubaix
(Agent: G. Rozet) — application for annulment of Commission                (OJ 1999 L 145, p. 18), the French Republic has failed to fulfil
Decision 1999/378/EC of 4 November 1998 on aid granted                     its obligations under the fourth paragraph of Article 189 of
by France to Nouvelle Filature Lainière de Roubaix (OJ 1999                the EC Treaty (now the fourth paragraph of Article 249 EC)
L 145, p. 18) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed                        and under Articles 4 and 5 of that decision — the Court (Fifth
of: A. La Pergola, President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet                   Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola, President of the
(Rapporteur), L. Sevón, S. von Bahr and C.W.A. Timmermans,                Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), P. Jann, S. von Bahr and
Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy                C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General;
Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 March             R. Grass, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 March
2001, in which it:                                                         2001, in which it:
                                                                           1.    Declares that, by failing to comply with Commission Decision
1.    Dismisses the application;                                                 1999/378/EC of 4 November 1998 on aid granted by France
                                                                                to Nouvelle Filature Lainière de Roubaix, the French Republic
2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.                               has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty;
                                                                           2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.


title: Action brought on 28 January 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities v. Ireland (Case C-24/98)

text:
7.3.98                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 72/13
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura                    The Applicant claims that the Court should:
Circondariale di Torino, by order of 18 December 1997,
       in the case of Battital Srl v. Regione Piemonte               1) declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                        (Case C-14/98)                                   or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                         Council Directive 94/28/EC of 23 June 1994 laying
                         (98/C 72/24)                                    down the principles relating to the zootechnical and
                                                                         genealogical conditions applicable to imports from
                                                                         third countries of animals, their semen, ova and
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   embryos (1), and amending Directive 77/504/EEC (2)
European Communities by order of 18 December 1997                        on pure-bred breeding animals of the bovine species,
from the Pretura Circondariale di Torino (District                       Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
Magistrate's Court, Turin), which was received at the                    Directive and under the Treaty, and
Court Registry on 22 January 1998, for a preliminary
ruling in the case of Battital Srl v. Regione Piemonte               2) order Ireland to pay the costs.
(Region of Piedmont), on the following questions:
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
1. Having regard to Article 1 of Directive 95/40/EC of
    19 July 1995 (1), Article 2 of Directive 96/14/Euratom,          Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive shall
    ECSC, EC of 12 March 1996 (2) and Article 1 of                   be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each
    Directive 96/15/EC of 14 March 1996 (3), does the                Member State, carries by implication an obligation on the
    ban on the importation of organisms of the Citrus                Member States to observe the period for compliance laid
    genus still apply in Italy (or in any region of Italy)?          down in the directive. That period expired on 1 July 1995
                                                                     without Ireland having enacted the provisions necessary to
                                                                     comply with the directive referred to in the conclusions of
2. Did that ban cease to apply with effect from 1 April              the Commission.
    1996?
                                                                     (1) OJ L 178, 12.7.1994, p. 66.
                                                                     (2) OJ L 206, 12.8.1977, p. 8.
3. Is the Ministerial Decree of 31 January 1996 of
    the Ministry of Agricultural Resources, which
    incorporated Directive 95/40/EC, incompatible, so far
    as the relevant provisions are concerned, with the
    discontinuance of the ban on imports into Italian
    territory (or into any part thereof) of plant organisms
    of the Citrus genus, as would appear to result from              Action brought on 28 January 1998 by the Commission of
    the combined effect of Directive 95/40/EC of 19 July                         the European Communities v. Ireland
    1995, Article 2 of Directive 96/14/Euratom, ECSC, EC                                      (Case C-24/98)
    of 12 March 1996 and Article 1 of Directive 96/15/EC
    of 14 March 1996?                                                                          (98/C 72/26)
(1) OJ L 182, 2.8.1995, p. 14.                                       An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
(2) OJ L 68, 19.3.1996, p. 24.                                       Justice of the European Communities on 28 January 1998
(3) OJ L 70, 20.3.1996, p. 35.                                       by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                     represented by Mr Richard Wainwright, principal legal
                                                                     adviser, and Mr Michael Shotter, a national official
                                                                     seconded to the Commission under an arrangement for the
                                                                     exchange of officials, acting as agents, with an address for
                                                                     service in Luxembourg at the office of Mr Carlos Gómez
                                                                     de la Cruz, a member of the Legal Service of the
Action brought on 26 January 1998 by the Commission of               Commission, Centre Wagner.
            the European Communities v. Ireland
                        (Case C-21/98)                               The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                         (98/C 72/25)
                                                                     Ð declare that, by failing to notify the laws, regulations
                                                                         or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of                Directive 94/22/EC of 30 May 1994 aiming at
Justice of the European Communities on 26 January 1998                   establishing the conditions for granting and using
by the Commission of the European Communities,                           authorizations for the prospection, exploration and
represented by Mr James Macdonald Flett, a member of                     production of hydrocarbons (1), or by failing to adopt
its Legal Service, acting as agent, with an address for                  the measures necessary to comply with it, Ireland has
service in Luxembourg at the office of Mr Carlos Gómez                   failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive, and
de la Cruz, also a member of its Legal Service, Centre
Wagner.                                                              Ð order Ireland to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 72/14                 EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  7.3.98
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   1995 without Ireland having enacted the provisions
                                                                      necessary to comply with the directive referred to in the
                                                                      conclusions of the Commission.
Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive shall
be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each
                                                                      (1) OJ L 157, 24.6.1994, p. 33.
Member State, carries by implication an obligation on the
                                                                      (2) OJ L 43, 20.2.1979, p. 20.
Member States to observe the period for compliance laid
down in the directive. That period expired on 1 July 1995
without Ireland having enacted the provisions necessary to
comply with the directive referred to in the conclusions of
the Commission.
(1) Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the
    Council (OJ L 164, 30.6.1994, p. 3).                                    Removal from the register of Case C-276/96 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 72/28)
                                                                      By order of 10 November 1997 the President of the Sixth
                                                                      Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European
Action brought on 29 January 1998 by the Commission of                Communities has ordered the removal from the register
             the European Communities v. Ireland                      of Case C-276/96: Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities v. Portuguese Republic.
                          (Case C-26/98)
                           (98/C 72/27)                               (1) OJ C 294, 5.10.1996.
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 29 January 1998
by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Hans Christian Stùvlbñk, a member of its
Legal Service, and Michael Shotter, a national official
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-170/97 (1)
seconded to the Commission under an arrangement for the
exchange of officials, acting as agents, with an address for                                   (98/C 72/29)
service in Luxembourg at the office of Mr Carlos Gómez
de la Cruz, a member of the Legal Service of the
Commission, Centre Wagner.
                                                                      By order of 13 November 1997 the President of the Court
                                                                      of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                           removal from the register of Case C-170/97: Commission
                                                                      of the European Communities v. Portuguese Republic.
Ð declare that by failing to notify the laws, regulations             (1) OJ C 199, 28.6.1997.
     or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     Directive 94/26/EC (1) of 15 June 1994 adapting to
     technical progress Council Directive 79/196/EEC (2) of
     6 February 1979 on the approximation of the laws of
     the Member States concerning electrical equipment for
     use in potentially explosive atmospheres employing
     certain types of protection, or by failing to adopt the
     measures necessary to comply with it, Ireland has                      Removal from the register of Case C-171/97 (1)
     failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive, and
                                                                                (98/C 72/30)
Ð order Ireland to pay the costs.
                                                                      By order of 13 November 1997 the President of the Court
                                                                      of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   removal from the register of Case C-171/97: Commission
                                                                      of the European Communities v. Portuguese Republic.
Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive shall
be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each                (1) OJ C 199, 28.6.1997.
Member State, carries by implication an obligation on the
Member States to observe the period for compliance laid
down in the directive. That period expired on 31 March


title: Case C-51/01: Action brought on 5 February 2001 by Commission of the European Communities against Beta Television SpA (Videomusic/TMC2)

text:
21.4.2001                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 118/11
      Is Article 3a(1)(e) of the directive to be interpreted as           Action brought on 5 February 2001 by Commission of
      meaning that the information on the identification of the           the European Communities against Beta Television SpA
      competitor must be restricted to the extent absolutely                                    (Videomusic/TMC2)
      necessary and it is therefore not permitted if, in addition
      to the competitor’s name, its company logo (if it exists)
      and its shop are shown?                                                                      (Case C-51/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/17)
(1) OJ 1997 L 290, p. 18.
(2) OJ 1984 L 250, p. 17.                                                 An action against Beta Television SpA (Videomusic/TMC2)
                                                                          was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                          Communities on 5 February 2001 by the Commission of the
                                                                          European Communities, represented by Bernard Mongin,
                                                                          assisted by Massimo Moretto, avvocato.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          —     order the defendant to repay, to the Commission, EUR
Action brought on 5 February 2001 by Commission of                              382 312, together with interest as from 14 July 1999
the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain                           until actual payment;
                                                                          —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                            (Case C-47/01)
                           (2001/C 118/16)                                Pleas in law and main arguments
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before                 The action, brought on the basis of an arbitration clause, seeks
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 Febru-              the repayment of sums of money advanced in the context of
ary 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,                   Contract No 70320, signed on 13 November 1996, in the
represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana, with an address for               context of the 16:9 Action Plan to promote the broadcast of
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la                high-definition television programmes in Europe.
Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                          The beneficiary, within the period laid down in the contract,
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               broadcast only 6 hours and 34 minutes of programmes in
                                                                          16:9 format instead of the 500 hours offered and contracted
                                                                          for. The Commission therefore decided to terminate the
—     declare that, by failing to draw up or, in any event,               contract, governed by Belgian law, for breach of contract by
      communicate to the Commission, the plan, outline or                 the defendant.
      inventory summary required by Articles 4(1) and 11 of
      Council Directive 96/59/EC (1) of 16 September 1996 on
      the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlori-
      nated terphenyls (PCB/PCT), the Kingdom of Spain has
      failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
—     order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.
                                                                          Action brought on 5 February 2001 by Commission of
                                                                          the European Communities against TV Internazionale
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                         SpA
The pleas in law and main arguments relied on are set out in                                       (Case C-52/01)
the application.
                                                                                (2001/C 118/18)
(1) OJ 1996 L 243, p. 31.                                                 An action against TV Internazionale SpA was brought before
                                                                          the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 Febru-
                                                                          ary 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                          represented by Bernard Mongin, assisted by Massimo Moretto,
                                                                          avvocato.


title: Assumption of duties by a new Judge of the Court of Justice

text:
16.3.2002              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 68/1
                                                                    I
                                                              (Information)
                                                 COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                          COURT OF JUSTICE
Assumption of duties by a new Judge of the Court of                     Fifth Chamber
                             Justice
                                                                        Mr Jann, President of the Chamber,
                         (2002/C 68/01)                                 Mr von Bahr, Mr Edward, Mr La Pergola, Mr Wathelet,
                                                                        Mr Timmermans and Mr Rosas, Judges.
Following his appointment as Judge of the Court of Justice of           2.     In addition, as regards the period from 22 January 2002
the European Communities by decision of the Governments                 to 6 October 2002, the list on the basis of which the
of the Member States of the European Communities of                     composition of the Fifth Chamber is determined, as set out in
19 December 2001 (1), Mr Allan Rosas took his oath before               the decision adopted by the Court at its meeting on 18 Septem-
the Court on 16 January 2002.                                           ber 2001 (1), has been amended as follows:
                                                                        Fifth Chamber
(1) OJ L&nbsp:20 of 23.1.2002, p. 4.
                                                                        (President: Mr Jann)
                                                                        Mr Edward, Mr La Pergola, Mr von Bahr, Mr Timmermans,
                                                                        Mr Wathelet, and Mr Rosas, Judges.
Decisions adopted by the Court at its general meeting on                (1) OJ C 303 of 27.10.2001, p. 1.
                        22 January 2002
                         (2002/C 68/02)
The Court of Justice of the European Communities adopted                Appeal brought on 6 December 2001 by Procter &
the following decisions at its meeting on 22 January 2002:              Gamble Company against the judgment delivered on
                                                                        19 September 2001 by the Second Chamber of the Court
                                                                        of First Instance of the European Communities in case
                                                                        T-117/00 (1) between Procter & Gamble Company and
Assignment of Judge Rosas                                               Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
                                                                                Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
Mr Rosas is assigned to the First and Fifth Chambers.
                                                                                (Case C-468/01 P)
Composition of the Fifth Chamber                                                                  (2002/C 68/03)
1.     The composition of the Fifth Chamber for the period
from 22 January 2002 to 6 October 2002 has been determined              An appeal against the judgment delivered on 19 September
as follows:                                                             2001 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 September 2001 in Case T-171/00: Peter Spruyt v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Protection against the risk of accident and of occupational disease — Entitlement to benefits provided for under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations — Hang-gliding accident)

text:
5.1.2002                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                                C 3/31
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                       of 20 September 2001
                                                                                of 20 September 2001
in Case T-171/00: Peter Spruyt v Commission of the
                    European Communities (1)
                                                                           in Case T-95/01: Gérald Coget and Others v Court of
(Officials — Protection against the risk of accident and of                          Auditors of the European Communities (1)
occupational disease — Entitlement to benefits provided for
under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations — Hang-gliding
                              accident)
                                                                           (Officials — Post of Secretary General — Appeal for
                                                                           candidacies — ‘High level’ experience — Wide measure of
                            (2002/C 3/53)
                                                                                discretion of the institution — Call to interview)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (2002/C 3/54)
In Case T-171/00: Peter Spruyt, an official of the Commission
of the European Communities, residing in Arolo di Leggiuno                                     (Language of the case: French)
(Italy), represented by E. Boigelot, avocat, with an address for
service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: J. Currall) — application for annulment
of the decision of the Commission of 13 September 1999
whereby it refused to apply to the applicant Article 73 of the
Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities —
the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of                   In Case T-95/01: Gérald Coget, an official of the Court of
J. Azizi, President, K. Lenaerts and M. Jaeger, Judges; J. Palacio         Auditors of the European Communities, residing in Hettange-
González, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment               Grande (France), Pierre Hugé, an official of the Court of
on 20 September 2001 in which it:                                          Auditors of the European Communities, residing in Bonnevoie
                                                                           (Luxembourg), Emmanuel Gabolde, an official of the Court of
                                                                           Auditors of the European Communities, residing in Metz
1.    annuls the decision of the Commission of 13 September 1999           (France), represented by A. Soulier, avocat, with an address for
      refusing to apply to the applicant Article 73 of the Staff           service in Luxembourg, against Court of Auditors of the
      Regulations of Officials of the European Communities,                European Communities (Agents: J.-M. Stenier, P. Giusta,
                                                                           B. Schäfer and D. Waelbroeck) — application for annulment
2.    orders the Commission to reimburse to the applicant all the          of the decision of the Court of Auditors of 22 February 2001
      medical expenses connected with the hang-gliding accident            to appoint Michel Hervé to the post of Secretary General of
      sustained by him on 9 May 1999 other than those which have           the institution with effect from 1 July 2001 — the Court of
      been reimbursed to him under Article 72 of the Staff                 First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of J. Azizi, President,
      Regulations, together with default interest at the annual rate of    K. Lenaerts and M. Jaeger, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator,
      6,25 % as from 13 September 1999,                                    for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 20 September 2001, in
                                                                           which it:
3.    orders the Commission to bear the cost of paying the benefits
      referable to total and partial temporary incapacity and partial
      permanent incapacity of the applicant, linked to the accident,       1.    dismisses the application;
      under the conditions laid down in Article 73 of the Staff
      Regulations and by the Rules on the insurance of officials of the
      European Communities against the risk of accident and of
                                                                           2.    orders the parties to bear their own costs, including those arising
      occupational disease.
                                                                                from the application for interim relief.
4.    orders the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 186 of 30.6.2001.
(1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 February 2001 in Cases T-38/99 to T-50/99: Sociedade Agrícola dos Arinhos, Ld.a and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Commission Decision 98/653/EC — Emergency measures on the ground of the occurrence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in Portugal — Natural or legal persons — Act of direct and individual concern to them — Admissibility)

text:
19.5.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 150/23
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              2.    Orders the applicants to pay the costs, including those relating
                                                                               to the interlocutory proceedings;
                       of 7 February 2001                                3.    Orders the intervener to bear its own costs.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 136 of 15.5.99.
in Cases T-38/99 to T-50/99: Sociedade Agrı́cola dos
Arinhos, Ld.a, and Others v Commission of the European
                         Communities (1)
(Action for annulment — Commission Decision 98/653/EC
— Emergency measures on the ground of the occurrence of
bovine spongiform encephalopathy in Portugal — Natural
or legal persons — Act of direct and individual concern to                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                     them — Admissibility)
                                                                                of 20 March 2001
                         (2001/C 150/43)                                 in Case T-52/99 T. Port GmbH & Co. KG v Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities (1)
                                                                         (Bananas — Imports from ACP States and third countries
                 (Language of the case: Portuguese)                      — Calculation of annual quantity allocated — Action for
                                                                         damages — Admissibility — Possibility of relying on
                                                                         WTO rules — Misuse of powers — General principles of
                                                                                Community law)
In Cases T-38/99 to T-50/99: Sociedade Agrı́cola dos Arinhos,
Ld.a, established in Lisbon, Portugal, Sociedade Agrı́cola do
Monte da Aldeia, Ld.a, established in Lisbon, António José                                        (2001/C 150/44)
da Veiga Teixeira, residing in Coruche, Portugal, Sociedade
Agrı́cola Monte da Senhora do Carmo SA, established in
Almeirim, Portugal, Sociedade Agrı́cola de Perescuma SA,
established in Almeirim, Sociedade Agrı́cola Couto de Fornil-                                (Language of the case: German)
hos SA, established in Moura, Portugal, Casa Agrı́cola da
Raposeira, Ld.a, established in Coruche, José de Barahona                In Case T-52/99 T. Port GmbH & Co. KG, established in
Núncio, residing in Évora, Portugal, Prestase — Prestação de          Hamburg (Germany), represented by G. Meier, avocat, against
Serviços e Contabilidade, Ld.a, established in Lisbon, Sociedade         Commission of the European Communities (Agents: K.-D. Bor-
Agro-Pecuária da Herdade do Zambujal, Ld.a, established in              chardt and H. van Vliet) — application for for compensation
Palmela, Portugal, Francisco Luı́s Pinheiro Caldeira, residing in        for the loss which the applicant has allegedlysuffered as a
Campo Maior, Portugal, Sociedade Agrı́cola Cabral de Ascen-              result of the Commission introducing, under Regulation (EC)
são, Ld.a, established in Horta dos Arcos, Serpa, Portugal,             No 2362/98 of 28 October 1998 laying down detailed
Joaquim Inácio Passanha Braancamp Sobral, residing in Lisbon,           rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC)
represented by C. Botelho Moniz and J. Rôla Roque, of the                No 404/93 regarding imports of bananas into the Community
Lisbon Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg,                   (OJ 1998 L 293, p. 32), provisions which are alleged to conflict
supported by Portuguese Republic (Agents: L. Fernandes,                  with World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules and certain
A.C. de Seiça Neves and A.M. Gonçalves Monteiro), against                general principles of Community law — the Court of First
Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                          Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of P. Lindh, President,
A.M. Alves Vieira and G. Berscheid, assisted by V. Airão,) —            R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas and J.D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio Gonzá-
application for annulment of Article 2(a) of Commission                  lez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
Decision 98/653/EC of 18 November 1998 concerning emerg-                 20 March 2001, in which it:
ency measures made necessary by the occurrence of bovine
spongiform encephalopathy in Portugal (OJ 1998 L 311,                    1.    Dismisses the action;
p. 23), inasmuch as it prohibits the dispatch from Portugal to
Spain and France of fighting bulls intended for cultural and
sporting events — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamb-             2.    Orders the applicant to pay its own costs and those of the
er), composed of: V. Tiili, President, R.M. Moura Ramos                        Commission.
and P. Mengozzi, Judges; G. Herzig, Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 February 2001, in which
it:                                                                      (1) OJ C 121 of 1.5.99.
1.    Dismisses the applications as inadmissible;


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d'Instance, Lille, by judgment of that court of 19 March 1996 in the case of Directeur Général des Douanes et Droits Indirects v. Eridania Béghin-Say SA (Case C-103/96)

text:
No C 158/4                  EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      1 . 6 . 96
      exploitation of copyright vis-à-vis the other Member                       criterion for ascertaining whether there is a pronounced
      States of the European Union ?                                             sexual odour; that leads to the systematic rejection of
                                                                                imports from Denmark, where testing is done by the
C ) Società Italiana Autori ed Editori — Italian Society of Authors              ' scatol ' method recognized by the competent authorities
     and Publishers .                                                            there . The German authorities wrongly invoke
                                                                                Article 7 ( 1 ) ( b ) of the Directive, since the German
                                                                                practice is not directed to control by spot checks of
                                                                                compliance with the Community rules but to the
                                                                                systematic enforcement of a method which is recognized
                                                                                by Germany as the only reliable one .
                                                                            — Infringement of the conditions under Community law
Action brought on 27 March 1996 by the Commission of
                                                                                for a declaration of unfitness for consumption under
the European Communities against the Federal Republic of
                                                                                Article 5 of Directive 64/433/EEC as amended by
                                  Germany
                                                                                Directive 91 /497/EEC : In the framework of control by
                             ( Case C- 1 02/96 )                                 spot checks, the country of destination may indeed apply
                               ( 96/C 158 /07 )                                  a suitable method of its own choice, but it is not entitled
                                                                                on that basis to deny the fitness for consumption of all
                                                                                consignments of meat which have been found to be fit
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                            for consumption in the country of origin . That would
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                              not be compatible with the principle of the internal
Communities on 27 March 1996 by the Commission of the                            market, nor with Article 8 of Directive 89/662/EEC,
European Communities, represented by Klaus-Dieter                                which provides for a sort of arbitration procedure in
Borchardt, of its Legal Service, with an address for service in                  which the Commission plays a decisive part.
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of its
Legal Service , Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                        That procedure has already led, with respect to the
                                                                                ' scatol' method applied in Denmark , whose reliability
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                     was also doubted by France, to a confirmation of that
                                                                                method; unlike the French authorities, the German
 1 , declare that, by imposing the special obligation of                         authorities refuse to respect that result.
      marking and subjecting to heat treatment under
      Article 6 ( 1 ) ( b ) of Directive 64/433/EEC ( ! ) the carcases      — Breach of Article 30 of the EC Treaty: The German
      of uncastrated male pigs if the meat, regardless of the                    Federal Government wrongly invokes compelling
      carcase weight, has an androstenone content of more                         reasons of consumer protection . The requirements with
      than 0,5 ^ig/g, applying Professor Claus's modified                        respect to the production and placing on the market of
      immunoenzyme test,                                                          fresh meat for human consumption have been fully
                                                                                harmonized by Directives 64/433/EEC ( as amended
                                                                                by Directive " 91 /497/EEC ) and 89/662/EEC . The
      and by regarding the meat as giving off a pronounced
      sexual odour and consequently unfit for human                               declaration on the problem of boar's meat made by the
                                                                                Council and Commission when Directive 91 /497/EEC
      consumption under Article 5 ( 1 ) ( o ) of Directive
                                                                                was adopted has merely a clarifying function and cannot
      64/433/EEC if the threshold of 0,5 juig/g of androstenone
      is exceeded,
                                                                                be interpreted in a way which is incompatible with the
                                                                                wording of the Directive .
      the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its
      obligations under Article 6 ( 1 ) ( b ) and Article 5 ( 1 ) ( o )     (') OJ , English Special Edition 1963-1964 , p . 185 .
                                                                            C-) OJ No L 268 , 1991 , p . 69 .
      of Directive 64/433/EEC as amended by Directive                       (■') OJ No L 395 , 1989 , p . 13 .
      91 /497/EEC ( 2 ) in conjunction with Articles 5 ( 1 ), 7
      and 8 of Directive 89/662/EEC ( 3 ) and under Article 30
      of the EC Treaty;
 2 , order the defendant to pay the costs .
                                                                            Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
 Pleas in law and main arguments                                            d'Instance, Lille, by judgment of that court of 19 March
                                                                            1996 in the case of Directeur Général des Douanes et Droits
 — Infringement of the conditions under Community law                                       Indirects v. Eridania Béghin-Say SA
      for imposing a special obligation of marking and heat                                            ( Case C-103/96 )
      treatment under Article 6 of Directive 64/433/EEC as
      amended by Directive 91 /497/EEC : The German                                                      ( 96/C 158/08 )
      authorities' requirement of marking and subjecting to
      heat treatment if appropriate even carcases of less than              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      80 kilograms is clearly contrary to Article 6 ( 1 ) ( b ) of the      European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal
      Directive . Also contrary to that provision is the                    d'Instance ( District Court ), Lille , of 19 March 1996 , which
      unilateral determination of a specified test as the                   was received at the Court Registry on 28 March 1996 , for a
 ---pagebreak--- 1 . 6 . 96             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        No C 158/5
preliminary ruling in the case of Directeur Général des                1 . Having regard to the facts held to be proved ( ) in part 3
Douanes et Droits Indirects v. Eridania Béghin-Say SA on                      of this judgment ( above all those set out in paragraphs A
the following questions :                                                     to D and L, commencing on the 7th folio and ending on
                                                                              the 12th folio ) and the applicable Community
( 1 ) Is Article 9 of Council Regulation ( EEC )                              provisions, is the dual (2 ) tariff classification assigned to
       No 3677/86 (') of 24 November 1986 laying down                         the goods in question by the Tribunal Técnico de l a
       provisions for the implementation of Regulation                        Instância and later confirmed by the Tribunal Técnico
       No 1999/85 ( 2 ) valid, in that it provides that, in order             de 2 a Instância and the Tribunal Tributârio de 2a
       for goods to rank as equivalent goods, they must fall                  Instância correct ?
       within the same subheading of the Common Customs
       Tariff as the import goods, notwithstanding that the            2 . If not, what is the proper tariff classification ?
       basic regulation, Regulation No 1999/85 of 16 July
       1985 , does not lay down any such condition ?
                                                                       (') The imported goods are an electrical apparatus of the make
( 2 ) Is Article 9 of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3677/86 of               Merlin Gerin , model : Alpes 100 12 KVA, comprising :
       24 November 1986 valid , in that it provides that, in                 ( a ) a cabinet containing:
       order for goods to rank as equivalent goods, they must                      1 , a rectifier-charger which feeds, from the electricity
       fall within the same subheading of the Common                                   network , an undulator and maintains a battery on
       Customs Tariff as the import goods, notwithstanding                             charge;
                                                                                2 , an    undulator    which converts direct current into
       that such a condition gives rise to disproportionate                            regulated alternating current;
       effects for economic operators ?                                            3 , a static inverter switch which enables surges to be
                                                                                absorbed without giving rise to a disproportionate
( 3 ) Is Article 9 of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3677/86 of                         feed ;
       24 November 1986 valid, having regard to the                          ( b ) a second cabinet containing a sealed set of lead-acid
       principles of the protection of legitimate expectations                     accumulators which can operate independently for 30
       and legal certainty, in that it provides that, in order for                 minutes .
       goods to rank as equivalent goods, they must fall within        ( 2 ) The rectifier/charger, the AC converter and the inverter were
       the same subheading of the Common Customs Tariff as                   classified under tariff heading 85.01 B.II.(f) and the cabinet
       the import goods, notwithstanding that that Article,                  containing the accumulators was classified under heading 85.04
                                                                             B.I.
       combined with the provisions of Regulation
       No 2658/87 on the combined nomenclature ( 3 ),
       suddenly made it impossible, with effect from
        1 January 1988 and only until 1 January 1992, for
       persons to avail themselves of the inward-processing
       relief arrangements in respect of compensation on an
       equivalent basis as between cane sugar and beet
       sugar ?
                                                                       Action brought on 3 April 1996 by the Commission of the
                                                                            European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
(') OJ No L 351 , 1986 , p . 1 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 188 , 1985 , p . 1 .                                                                   ( Case C-107/96 )
C ) OJ No L 256 , 1987, p . 1 .                                                                        ( 96/C 158/ 10 )
                                                                       An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
                                                                       the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                       3 April 1996 by the Commission of the European
Reference for a preliminary ruling by order of the Supremo              Communities, represented by Richard Wainwright,
Tribunal Administrative ( Second Division — Taxation                   Principal Legal Adviser, and Fernando Castillo de la Torre,
Matters ) of 28 February 1996 in the proceedings pending               of its Legal Service, with an address for service in
before that court between Codiesel — Sociedade de Apoio                 Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gômez de la Cruz,
Técnico       à   Industria,    Lda,   and   Conselho     Técnico      Wagner Centre .
                              Aduaneiro
                         ( Case C-105 /96 )
                           ( 96/C 158/09 )
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should :
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 1 , declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force,
 European Communities by an order of the Supremo                               within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations or
 Tribunal Administrative ( Supreme Administrative Court)                       administrative provisions necessary to comply with
 ( Second Division — Taxation Matters ) of 28 February                         Council Directive 91 /156/EEC ( 1 ) of 18 March 1991
 1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on 1 April                    amending Directive 75/442/EEC ( 2 ) on waste , the
 1 996 , for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending                   Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations
 before that court between Codiesel — Sociedade de Apoio                       under Articles 5 and 189 of the Treaty establishing the
 Técnico à Industria, Lda, and Conselho Técnico Aduaneiro                      European Community;
 ( Customs      Examination        Board ) on    the    followings
 questions :                                                            2 , order the defendant to pay the costs .


title: Case T-560/12: Action brought on 17 December 2012 — Miejskie Przedsiębiorstwo Energetyki Cieplnej v European Chemicals Agency

text:
               16.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/18

         Action brought on 17 December 2012 — Miejskie Przedsiębiorstwo Energetyki Cieplnej v European Chemicals Agency
   (Case T-560/12)
   2013/C 79/33
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Miejskie Przedsiębiorstwo Energetyki Cieplnej sp. z o.o. (Brzesko, Poland) (represented by: T. Dobrzyński, legal adviser)

      Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Decision SME(2012) 3538 of the European Chemicals Agency of 15 October 2012 imposing on the applicant an administrative charge of EUR 20 700;

               —

               as a precautionary claim, annul Decision MB/D/29/2010 of ECHA’s Management Board of 12 November 2010 on the classification of services for which charges are levied;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging failure to comply with Commission Regulation (EC) No 340/2008 and Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and infringement of the principle of conferral

                           —

                           The contested decision is incompatible with the regulation on fees and charges because the defendant is entitled only to impose administrative charges, whereas the imposition of dissuasive fines is a matter for the Member States. Administrative charges must be appropriate in relation to the scope of the work carried out by ECHA. An administrative charge of EUR 20 700 for incorrect declaration of the undertaking’s size has a punitive function and equates to a fine. The defendant thereby encroached upon the powers of the Member States, which is incompatible with the principle of conferral laid down in Article 5 TEU and constitutes action where there is a lack of competence within the meaning of Article 263 TFEU.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equality

                           —

                           The principle of equality laid down in Article 5 of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union is infringed where the amount of an administrative charge is made conditional upon the size of an undertaking. Since an administrative charge serves by definition to cover the costs of the administration’s services, there can be no objective justification for the introduction of a distinction according to the size of the undertakings registered. The administrative burden in verifying the size of the undertakings is similar. Accordingly, large undertakings which have incorrectly declared themselves as SMEs pay a charge which covers the costs not only of the service connected with the procedure for verifying their size but also of verifying the size of other undertakings, or which even covers the costs of other ECHA services.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legal certainty

                           —

                           In declaring that its undertaking was small, the applicant acted on the basis of the mistaken belief that that was the correct classification of the company’s size, but without culpability. According to the information contained, under ‘charges’, on the website of the national REACH helpdesk, the size of an undertaking is defined by the national Law on freedom of business activity. Under that law, when determining the size of an undertaking the shareholding structure is not material; instead, account must be taken of the number of workers employed and the net annual turnover, which the applicant did. The obligation to take account of Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC of 6 May 2003 when determining the size of an undertaking was not correctly communicated to the persons concerned. Nor did ECHA inform undertakings of the amount of the administrative charges which may be imposed for incorrect classification of an undertaking’s size, thereby infringing the principle of legal certainty.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging misuse of powers

                           —

                           The defendant misused its powers in setting clearly excessive rates of charges in Decision MB/D/29/2010, and also in according itself very broad powers in the form of the ability to use all legal remedies to recover charges and the impossibility of avoiding those charges. Article 13(4) of Regulation No 340/2008 cannot justify those powers. The imposition of the administrative charge pursues in reality an objective other than that stated in recital 2 in the preamble to Regulation No 340/2008 (covering the cost of ECHA services) and the charge does not correspond to ECHA’s work burden but constitutes an illegitimate fine imposed on the defendant.


title: Case C-396/09: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Bari — Italy) — Interedil Srl, in liquidation v Fallimento Interedil Srl, Intesa Gestione Crediti SpA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Whether a lower court has the power to refer a question to the Court for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 — Insolvency proceedings — International jurisdiction — The centre of a debtor’s main interests — Transfer of a registered office to another Member State — Concept of establishment)

text:
               10.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 362/3

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Bari — Italy) — Interedil Srl, in liquidation v Fallimento Interedil Srl, Intesa Gestione Crediti SpA
   (Case C-396/09) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Whether a lower court has the power to refer a question to the Court for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 - Insolvency proceedings - International jurisdiction - The centre of a debtor’s main interests - Transfer of a registered office to another Member State - Concept of establishment)
   2011/C 362/04
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale ordinario di Bari

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Interedil Srl, in liquidation

      Defendant: Fallimento Interedil Srl, Intesa Gestione Crediti SpA

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale ordinario di Bari — Interpretation of Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (OJ 2000 L 160, p. 1) — The centre of a debtor’s main interests — Presumption as to the place of a company’s registered office — Establishment in another Member State — Community or national concepts

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               European Union law precludes a national court from being bound by a national procedural rule under which that court is bound by the rulings of a higher national court, where it is apparent that the rulings of the higher court are at variance with European Union law, as interpreted by the Court of Justice.

               2.

               The term ‘centre of a debtor’s main interests’ in Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings must be interpreted by reference to European Union law.

               3.

               For the purposes of determining a debtor company’s main centre of interests, the second sentence of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1346/2000 must be interpreted as follows:

                           —

                           a debtor company’s main centre of interests must be determined by attaching greater importance to the place of the company’s central administration, as may be established by objective factors which are ascertainable by third parties. Where the bodies responsible for the management and supervision of a company are in the same place as its registered office and the management decisions of the company are taken, in a manner that is ascertainable by third parties, in that place, the presumption in that provision cannot be rebutted. Where a company’s central administration is not in the same place as its registered office, the presence of company assets and the existence of contracts for the financial exploitation of those assets in a Member State other than that in which the registered office is situated cannot be regarded as sufficient factors to rebut the presumption unless a comprehensive assessment of all the relevant factors makes it possible to establish, in a manner that is ascertainable by third parties, that the company’s actual centre of management and supervision and of the management of its interests is located in that other Member State;

                           —

                           where a debtor company’s registered office is transferred before a request to open insolvency proceedings is lodged, the company’s centre of main activities is presumed to be the place of its new registered office.

               4.

               The term ‘establishment’ within the meaning of Article 3(2) of Regulation No 1346/2000 must be interpreted as requiring the presence of a structure consisting of a minimum level of organisation and a degree of stability necessary for the purpose of pursuing an economic activity. The presence alone of goods in isolation or bank accounts does not, in principle, meet that definition.

      (1)  OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.