title: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 March 2001 in Case C-373/99: Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Communities (EAGGF — Cleaxance of accounts — 1995 — Application manifestly inadmissible in part)

text:
14.7.2001               EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 200/35
                     ORDER OF THE COURT                                                           ORDER OF THE COURT
                          (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                          of 8 March 2001
                                                                                of 8 March 2001
in Case C-373/99: Hellenic Republic v Commission of the
                    European Communities (1)
                                                                             in Case C-465/99 P: Partex, Companhia Portuguesa de
                                                                             Serviços, SA v Commission of the European Communi-
(EAGGF — Cleaxance of accounts — 1995 — Application                                                          ties (1)
                  manifestly inadmissible in part)
                          (2001/C 200/63)                                    (Appeal — Decision reducing the financial contribution
                                                                             made by the European Social Fund — Possibility, for the
                                                                             Member State concerned, of reviewing a claim for payment
                                                                             in respect of which it has already certified the accuracy of
                     (Language of the case: Greek)                                                  the facts and accounts)
(Provisional translation: the definitive translation will be published                                  (2001/C 200/64)
               in the Reports of Cases before the Court)
In Case C-373/99 Hellenic Republic (Agents: V. Kontoloaimos                                    (Language of the case: Portuguese)
and I.-K. Chalkias) v Commission of the European Communi-
ties (Agent: M. Condou-Durande), application for partial
annulment of Commission Decision C (1999) 2476 of 28 July
1999 amending Decision 99/187/EC on the clearance of the
accounts presented by the Member States in respect of the                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
expenditure for 1995 of the Guarantee Section of the European                                    in the European Court Reports)
Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 1999
L 226, p. 26), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of
A. La Pergola, President of the Chamber, P. Jann, L. Sevón                  In Case C-465/99 P: Partex, Companhia Portuguesa de Serv-
(Rapporteur), S. von Bahr and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges,                     iços, SA (counsel: R. Chancerelle de Machete, Pedro Machete
Advocate General: A. Tizzano, R. Grass, Registrax, made an                   and Miguel Pena Machete) — appeal against the judgment of
order on 8 March 2001, the operative part of which is as                     the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
follows:                                                                     European Communities of 16 September 1999 in Case T-
                                                                             182/96 Partex v Commission [1999] ECR II-2673, seeking to
1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible in so far as it seeks     have that judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings
      the annulment of Commission Decision 99/187/EC on the                  being Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
      clearance of the accounts presented by the Member States in            T. Figueira, K. Simonsson and H. Speyart) — the Court,
      respect of the expenditure for 1995 of the Guarantee Section of        composed of C. Gulmann, President of the Sixth Chamber,
      the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund to               V. Skouris and F. Macken (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Mischo,
      the extent to which it imposes financial adjustments on the            Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on
      Hellenic Republic:                                                     8 March 2001, the operative part of which is as follows:
      —     in respect of olive oil, in relation to problems concerning
            aid to producers and consumption aid;                            1.    The appeal is dismissed.
      —     in respect of cotton, in relation to problems concerning         2.    The application for legal aid is dismissed.
            aid to producers, and
                                                                             3.    Partex, Companhia Portuguesa de Serviços, SA, is ordered to
      —     in relation to beef and veal, regarding the deduction of               pay the costs.
            administrative costs from the amount of the premiums.
2.    The costs are reserved.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.
(1) OJ C 6 of 8.1.2000.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) of 18 January 1996 in Case C-276/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kriminal- og Skifteret i Frederikshavn): criminal proceedings against Finn Ohrt (Definition of vessel engaged in a fisheries inspection - Obligations of the skipper of the vessel to be inspected)

text:
No C 77/4             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        16 . 3 . 96
G. Hirsch ( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, F. A.                Regulation, the skipper is presumed to be unaware of
Schockweiler, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn,                that status, unless the authorities taking action
C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray ( Rapporteur ), P. Jann,                         concerning the infringement prove otherwise.
H. Ragnemalm, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet, Judges; P. Leger,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment          (>) OJ No C 331 , 26 . 11 . 1994 .
on 16 January 1996 in which it:
I. Dismisses the application for revision as inadmissible.
2 . Orders the applicants to pay the costs.                                             ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( First Chamber)
(!) OJ No C 165 , 25 . 6 . 1991 .
                                                                                of 11 January 1996
                                                                     in Case C-89/95 P: Mr D v. Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities ( 1 )
                                                                     (Appeal manifestly inadmissible and manifestly
                                                                                unfounded)
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                              ( 96/C 77/08 )
                      ( Fourth Chamber)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: French)
                     of 18 January 1996
in Case C-276/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
the Kriminal- og Skifteret i Frederikshavn ): criminal                         published in the European Court Reports)
               proceedings against Finn Ohrt ( 1 )
(Definition of vessel engaged in a fisheries inspection —            In Case C-89/95 P: Mr D ( represented by Eric Boigelot) —
  Obligations of the skipper of the vessel to be inspected)          appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
                           ( 96/C 77/07 )                            the European Communities ( Fourth Chamber ) of
                                                                     26 January 1995 in Case T-549/93 [ 1995 ] ECR-SC 11-43
                                                                     between D and the Commission, seeking to have that
                (Language of the case: Danish)                       judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings being
                                                                     the Commission of the European Communities ( Agent: Ana
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be         Maria Alves Vieira ) — the Court ( First Chamber),
         published in the European Court Reports)                    composed of D. A. O. Edward, President of the Chamber,
                                                                     P. Jann ( Rapporteur ) and L. Sevón, Judges; M. B. Elmer,
In Case C-276/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                     Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on
                                                                     11 January 1996 , the operative part of which is as
of the EEC Treaty from the Kriminal- og Skifteret ( Criminal,        follows :
Bankruptcy and Probate Court), Frederikshavn ( Denmark ),
for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings pending
before that court against Finn Ohrt — on the interpretation          1 . The appeal is dismissed.
of Articles 2 and 3 of Commission Regulation ( EEC )
No 1382/87 of 20 May 1987 establishing detailed rules                2 . The appellant shall pay the costs.
concerning the inspection of fishing vessels ( OJ No L 132,
1987, p. 11 ) — the Court ( Fourth Chamber), composed of             (') OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 .
C. N. Kakouris, President of the Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn
and H. Ragnemalm ( Rapporteur ), Judges; A. M. La Pergola,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
on 18 January 1996 , in which it rules :
1 . Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1382/87              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Diikitiko
     of 20 May 1987 establishing detailed rules concerning           Protodikio ( Administrative Court of First Instance ),
     the inspection of fishing vessels must be interpreted as        Thessaloniki, by a decision of that court of 28 February
     meaning that every inspection vessel, regardless of type             1995 in the case of Sigfried Klattner v. Greek State
     or dimensions, must display the identification symbol or                                 ( Case C-389/95 )
     pennant described in Annex I to that Regulation.                                             ( 96/C 77/09 )
2 . The obligation to comply with the orders of a                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     representative of the competent authority of a Member           European Communities by a decision of the Administrative
     State, under Article 3 of the Regulation, presupposes           Court of First Instance, Thessaloniki, of 28 February 1995 ,
     that the skipper of the vessel to be inspected is aware of      which was received at the Court Registry on 25 January
     the status of that representative. In the absence of the         1 996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Sigfried Klattner
     symbol or pennant required by Article 2 of the                  v. Greek State on the following questions:


title: Case C-458/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Saarbrücken (Germany) lodged on 28 August 2015 — Criminal proceedings against K.B.

text:
               26.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 354/27

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Saarbrücken (Germany) lodged on 28 August 2015 — Criminal proceedings against K.B.
   (Case C-458/15)
   (2015/C 354/28)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Saarbrücken

      Party to the main proceedings

   K.B.

      Question referred

   Is the placing of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) on the list provided for in Article 2(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism (1) for the period from 11 August 2007 to 27 November 2009 (inclusive) resulting in particular from Council Decisions 2007/445/EC of 28 June 2007 (2), 2007/868/EC of 20 December 2007 (3), 2008/583/EC of 15 July 2008 (4), 2009/62/EC of 26 January 2009 (5), and Council Regulation (EC) No 501/2009 of 15 June 2009 (6) illegal?

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 344, p. 70.

      (2)  OJ 2007 L 169, p. 58.

      (3)  OJ 2007 L 340, p. 100.

      (4)  OJ 2008 L 188, p. 21.

      (5)  OJ 2009 L 23, p. 25.

      (6)  OJ 2009 L 151, p. 14.


title: Case C-561/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus (Estonia) lodged on 5 December 2012 — Nordecon AS, Ramboll Eesti AS v Rahandusministeerium

text:
               9.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/13

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus (Estonia) lodged on 5 December 2012 — Nordecon AS, Ramboll Eesti AS v Rahandusministeerium
   (Case C-561/12)
   2013/C 38/17
   Language of the case: Estonian

      Referring court

   Riigikohus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Nordecon AS, Ramboll Eesti AS

      Defendant: Rahandusministeerium

      Third Party: Maanteeamet

      Questions referred

               (a)

               Must Article 30(2) of Directive 2004/18/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts be interpreted as allowing the contracting authority to conduct negotiations with tenderers on tenders which do not comply with the mandatory requirements laid down in the technical specifications of the contract?

               (b)

               If the answer to Question (a) is in the affirmative, must Article 30(2) of Directive 2004/18 then be interpreted as allowing the contracting authority in the course of negotiations after opening the tenders to alter the mandatory requirements of the technical specifications, provided that the subject-matter of the contract is not altered and equal treatment of all tenderers is ensured?

               (c)

               If the answer to Question (b) is in the affirmative, must Article 30(2) of Directive 2004/18 then be interpreted as meaning that a rule which excludes alteration of the mandatory requirements of the technical specifications in the course of negotiations after opening the tenders is contrary to that provision?

               (d)

               If the answer to Question (a) is in the affirmative, must Article 30(2) of Directive 2004/18 then be interpreted as prohibiting the contracting authority from accepting as the best tender a tender which at the end of the negotiations does not comply with the mandatory requirements of the technical specifications?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114.


title: Action brought on 16 March 1995 by D.I.R. International Film Srl, Nostradamus Enterprises Ltd, Union P.N. Srl, United International Pictures BV, United International Pictures AB, United International Pictures APS, United International Pictures A/S, United International Pictures EPE, United International Pictures OY and United International Pictures y Cia SRC against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-85/95)

text:
No C 137/32           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     3 . 6 . 95
Action brought on 16 March 1995 by D.I.R. International              EFDO funding in relation to the distribution of the films
Film Sri, Nostradamus Enterprises Ltd, Union P.N. Sri,               'Nostradamus ' and 'Maniaci sentimentali '.
United International Pictures BV, United International
Pictures AB , United International Pictures APS, United              The applicants submit that the act of 5 December 1994
International Pictures A/S, United International Pictures            and/or the act by which the Commission purported to
EPE, United International Pictures OY and United                     instruct EFDO , on or prior to 5 December 1994, to reject
International Pictures y Cia SRC against the Commission of           UIP's applications must be annulled on any or all of the
                 the European Communities                            following grounds:
                        ( Case T-85/95 )
                                                                     ( a ) infringement of the selection criteria set out in the
                          ( 95/C 137/71 )                                    EFDO ' Guidelines';
                                                                     ( b ) infringement of the philosophy and the stated aims of
               (Language of the case: English)                               the Media programme;
An action against the Commission of the European                     (c ) lack of proper reasoning.
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 16 March 1995
by D.I.R. International Films Sri and Others, represented by
Michel Waelbroeck, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8—10, rue
                                                                     Action brought on 16 March 1995 by Compagnie Generale
Mathias Hardt, L-2010 Luxembourg.
                                                                     Maritime and others against the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
The applicants claim that the Court should :                                                   ( Case T-86/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 137/72
— annul :
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
    — the act of 5 December 1994 , notified to UIP
        ( London ) on 10 January 1995 , by which the                 An action against the Commission of the European
        European Film Distribution Office (' EFDO ') turned          Communities was brought before the Court of First
        down the applications made by various UIP                    Instance of the European Communities on 16 March 1995
        subsidiaries for EFDO funding in relation to the             by Compagnie Generale Maritime and others, represented
        distribution of the films 'Nostradamus ' and ' Maniaci       by Mr Nicholas Forwood, QC, and Mr Philip Ruttley,
        sentimentali',                                               solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                     Cabinet Arendt & Medernach, Boite Postale 39, L-2010
    — and/or the act by which the European Commission                Luxembourg.
        instructed or purported to instruct EFDO to take this
        act ,                                                        The applicants claim that the Court should :
— order the Commission to state whether it issued separate           — declare their application admissible and well-founded,
    instructions, either orally or in writing, with respect to
                                                                     — annul the Commission Decision of 21 December 1994
    the above act of 5 December 1994 and to produce or to
    procure that EFDO produce all correspondence and                      relating to the Far Eastern Freight Conference
    other documents ( including but not limited to internal                ( IV/33.218 ), and
    and external      documents,     minutes of EFDO        or
    Commission meetings ) evidencing such instructions ,             — order the Commission to pay the applicants ' costs in this
                                                                          action .
— if such instructions were issued in an oral form and if
    there exist no written record evidencing them, order the         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    defendant to provide or to produce that EFDO provide a           In the present application, the Commission's Decision of
    written summary of such instructions,                            21 December 1994 in case IV/33.218 is challenged by 13 of
                                                                     its 14 addressees, all of them member lines of the Far Eastern
— order the Commission to pay the costs .                            Freight Conference ( FEFC ). By this Decision, the defendant
                                                                     institution held that the applicants have infringed Article 85
                                                                     of the EC Treaty by agreeing common prices for inland
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  transport services supplied within the EC as part of a
                                                                     multimodal transport operation for the carriage of
The applicants challenge the act of 5 December 1994,                 containerized cargo .
whereby the European Film Distribution Office ('EFDO'), a
body established within the framework of the Media                   It follows from this Decision that, according to the
Programme, rejected the applications made by various                 Commission's position in relation to the application of the
subsidiaries of United International Pictures ('UIP') for            competition rules to multimodal international maritime


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Ufficio del Giudice Conciliatore di Milano by order of that court of 25 June 1996 in the case of Aprile SRL against Amministrazione delle Finanze (Case C-228/96)

text:
14 . 9 . 96        1 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 269/7
Action brought on 1 July 1996 by the Commission of the                      provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
   European Communities against the Hellenic Republic                       92/65/EEC ( 1 ) of 13 July 1992 laying down animal
                        ( Case C-226/96 )                                   health requirements governing trade in and imports into
                                                                            the Community of animals, semen , ova and embryos not
                          ( 96/C 269/ 17
                                                                            subject to animal health requirements laid down in
                                                                            specific Community rules referred to in Annex A ( I ) to
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before                  Directive 90/425/EEC ( 2 ), the Hellenic Republic is in
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 1 July                  breach of its obligations under the Treaty and that
1996 by the Commission of the European Communities,                         Directive ,
represented by Maria Kontou-Durande and Carmel
O'Reilly, of its Legal Service, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, also             — order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs .
of the Commission 's Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
Kirchberg.
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                      Under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the Treaty
— declare that, by failing to adopt, or communicate to the            establishing the European Community, a directive is to be
     Commission, within the period prescribed, the laws,              binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member
    regulations or administrative provisions necessary to             State to which it is addressed . Under the first paragraph of
    comply with Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June               Article 5 of the Treaty, the Member States are to take all
     1990 on package travel , package holidays and package            appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to
    tours ('), the Hellenic Republic is in breach of its              ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty
    obligations under the Treaty and that Directive,                  or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the
                                                                      Community . Hitherto the Hellenic Republic has not
— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs .                      informed the Commission of the adoption of the laws,
                                                                      regulations or administrative provisions adapting Greek
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   legislation to the Directive in question .
Under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the Treaty
establishing the European Community, a directive is to be             (') OJ No L 268 , 14 . 9 . 1992 , p . 54 .
binding, as to the result to be achieved , upon each Member           ( 2 ) OJ No L 224 , 18 . 8 . 1990 , p . 29 .
State to which it is addressed . Under the first paragraph of
Article 5 of the Treaty, the Member States are to take all
appropriate measures , whether general or particular , to
ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty
or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the
Community. Hitherto the Hellenic Republic has not
informed the Commission of the adoption of the laws ,
regulations or administrative provisions adapting Greek               Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Ufficio del Giudice
legislation to the Directive in question .                            Conciliatore di Milano by order of that court of 25 June
                                                                      1996 in the case of Aprile SRL against Amministrazione
(') OJ No L 158 , 23 . 6 . 1990 , p . 59 .                                                         delle Finanze
                                                                                ( Case C-228/96 )
                                                                                96/C 269/ 19 )
Action brought on 1 July 1996 by the Commission of the                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
   European Communities against the Hellenic Republic                 European Communities by order of Ufficio del Giudice
                          Case C-227/96                               Conciliatore di Milano ( Office of the Judge-Conciliator,
                                                                      Milan ) on the following questions :
                          ( 96/C 269/ 18 )
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before             1 . Do the principles of legal certainty , effective protection
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 1 July                  of rights arising under Community law and
19 96 by the Commission of the European Communities,                        non-discrimination as regards the protection in damages
represented by Maria Kontou-Durande, of its Legal Service ,                 of the aforesaid rights ( according to which the
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of                  procedural conditions of domestic law must not be less
Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, also of the Commission 's Legal                    favourable and , in any event, must not make it
Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg .                                         excessively difficult to exercise such rights ), as
                                                                            formulated in the case-law of the Court of Justice ,
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                preclude the introduction of national rules , such as those
                                                                            laid down in the first paragraph of Article 29 of Law
— declare that, by failing to adopt within the period                       No 428 of 29 December 1990 , which , whilst it is
    prescribed , the laws, regulations or administrative                    apparently formulated as an interpretative provision
 ---pagebreak--- No C 269/8           [ EN |                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                        14 . 9 . 96
    and, as a result, has retroactive effect, in fact substituted             subject of judgment in Case 340/87 Commission v.
    a ( five-year ) prescription period for the ordinary                      Italy ( 6 ) — and, in any event, whenever national
    ( 10-year ) limitation period formerly in force, and which,               provisions are retained or introduced which lay down
    in further reducing the prescription period to three                      rules inconsistent with what is provided by directly
    years, considers those periods to be already in course at                 applicable Community rules, such as those of the Treaty
    the time when it entered into force, thereby derogating,                  prohibiting charges having equivalent effect and of the
    without apparent justification, also from the general                     Common Customs Tariff which were the subject of the
    principle set out in Article 252 of the implementing and                  Court's judgment in Case C-209/89 Commission v.
    transitional provisions of the Civil Code, under which,                   Italy ( 7) and its judgment of 5 October 1995 in Case
    in the event that the exercise of a right is made subject to              C-l 25/94 Aprile SRL, in liquidation v. Amministrazione
    a shorter time limit than that laid down by previous                      delle Finanze dello Stato ( 8 ), where the national
    laws, the new time limit applicable also to the exercise of               provisions maintained in force required the payment,
    rights which arose previously begins to run only as from                  contrary to Community law, of charges not due in
    the entry into force of the new provision ?                               circumstances ( such as customs clearance of goods ) such
                                                                              that the trader was not in a position to refuse to pay ? It is
                                                                              therefore asked whether the Member State in breach of
2 . Does the principle that the procedural conditions of
    domestic law for the protection of rights arising under                   the obligation to implement Community provisions
    Community law must not be less favourable than those                      having direct effect is entitled to plead that periods of
    relating to similar actions of a domestic nature                          prescription or limitation expired during the time when
    ( judgments of 15 December 1976 (*) in Case 33/76 Rewe                    the incompatible national provisions were maintained in
    v. Landwirtschaftskammer Saarland ( 2 ) and Case 45/76                    force .
    Comet BV v. Produktschap voor Siergewassen ( , ) ;
    upheld in subsequent other judgments ) preclude the                (])   Properly, judgment of 16 December 1976 .
    introduction of a national provision, such as that                 (2)   ( 1976 ] ECR, p . 1989 .
    provided for in the first paragraph of Article 29 of Law           (3)   | 1976 ] ECR, p . 2043 .
                                                                       (4)   [ 1991 ] ECR I , p . 1575 .
    No 428 of 29 December 1990, which, whilst apparently               (5)   Council Directive 83/643/EEC of 1 December 1983 ( OJ No
    designed to standardize the time limits for the                          L 359 , 22 . 12 . 1983 , p. 8 ).
    repayment of sums paid in relation to customs                      ( 6 ) | 1989 ] ECR , p . 1483 .
    operations , in reality ( as is clear from the heading and         ( 7 ) [ 1991 ] ECR I , p . 1575 .
    the actual wording of the provision ) has the effect of            ( 8 ) | 1995 ] ECR I , p . 2919 .
    extending the prescription periods formerly laid down
    by Article 91 of the Customs Law ( applicable only in the
    event of calculation errors or where a duty other than
    that laid down in the tariff is applied ) to objective undue
    payments made as a result of breaches of Community
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arbeitsgericht
    law, whilst analogous claims for the recovery of
                                                                       Frankfurt am Main by order of that court of 11 June 1996
    objective undue payments under the ordinary domestic
                                                                       in the case of Friedrich Santner against Hoechst
    law ( Article 2033 of the Civil Code ) are subject to the
                                                                                Aktiengesellschaft
     10-year limitation period ?
                                                                                Case C-229/96 )
3 . Is the principle laid down by the Court of Justice in Case                                         96/C 269/20 )
     C-208 /90 Emmott v. Minister for Social Welfare and
     Attorney General ( 4 ) — to the effect that, until such time      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     as an EEC directive has been properly transposed, a               European Communities by order from the Arbeitsgericht
     defaulting Member State may not rely on an individual's           ( Labour Court ) Frankfurt am Main of 11 June 1996 ,
     delay in initiating proceedings against it in order to            received at the Court Registry on 1 July 1996 , for a
     protect rights conferred upon him by the provisions of            preliminary ruling in the case of Friedrich Santner against
     the directive and that a period laid down by national law         Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft on the following questions :
     within which proceedings must be initiated cannot begin
     to run before that time — as an application of the                 1 . Where, following termination of the legal transfer to an
     principle of legal certainty, binding upon the national                   outside firm of the cleaning operations of individual
     courts in the same way as written provisions of                           parts of a business, those operations are again carried
     Community law ?                                                           out by the undertaking itself, can they be treated as part
                                                                               of a business within the meaning of Directive
4 . If the preceding question is answered in the affirmative,                  77/ 187/EEC (')?
     does the aforementioned principle laid down in Case
     C-208/90 Emmott v. Minister for Social Welfare and                 2 . Is the position the same where, following their retransfer
     Attorney General, by virtue of its constituting a specific                to the undertaking, those cleaning operations of
     application of one of the fundamental principles of                       individual parts of the business are re-merged into the
     Community law, have general , direct effect, that is to                   cleaning operations of the business as a whole ?
     say, is it directly applicable and may it be relied upon
     before the national courts by individuals whenever a               (M OJ No L 61 , 5 . 3 . 1977, p . 26 .
     directive is not properly transposed — as in the case
     relating to Directive 83/643/EEC ( 5 ) which formed the


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 March 2000 in Case T-29/97: Alain Libéros v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Classification in grade — Professional experience)

text:
C 122/30                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                    29.4.2000
     — annuls Article 2(1) of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
        that there were agreements on the exchange of price
        information at the meetings of the Executive Committee of                                  of 9 March 2000
        Cembureau — The European Cement Association, and in so
        far as it finds that the applicant participated in the
                                                                           in Case T-29/97: Alain Libéros v Commission of the
        infringement after 19 March 1984;
                                                                                European Communities (1)
     — annuls Article 2(2) of Decision 94/815 as regards the               (Officials — Classification in grade — Professional experi-
        applicant in so far as it finds that the periodic circulation of                                   ence)
        information between Cembureau — The European Cement
        Association and its members related, so far as concerns the                                (2000/C 122/40)
        Belgian and Netherlands prices, to those two countries’
        producers’ minimum prices for supplies of cement by lorry
        and, so far as concerns Luxembourg, the prices, inclusive of                          (Language of the case: French)
        rebates, of that country’s producer;
                                                                           In Case T-29/97: Alain Libéros, an official of the Commission
     — annuls Article 5 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it concerns        of the European Communities, residing in Brussels, represented
        the applicant;                                                     by M.-A. Lucas, of the Liège Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                           Luxembourg at the Chambers of E. Korn, 21 Rue de Nassau,
                                                                           against Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
     — annuls Article 9 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it concerns        J. Currall and F. Duvieusart-Clotuche) — application for annul-
        the applicant;                                                     ment of the Commission decision of 15 March 1996 determin-
                                                                           ing the applicant’s definitive classification in Grade A 7 and
                                                                           for annulment of the Commission decision of 5 November
     — dismisses the remainder of the application;                         1996 dismissing the applicant’s administrative complaint —
                                                                           the Court of First Instance (Single Judge), composed of
                                                                           B. Vesterdorf, ruling as a single judge; H. Jung, Registrar, has
     — orders each party to bear its own costs.                            given a judgment on 9 March 2000, the operative part of
                                                                           which is as follows:
42. In Case T-104/95 Tsimenta Chalkidos v Commission:                      1. The application is dismissed;
     — annuls Article 1 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds           2. The parties shall bear their own costs.
        that the applicant participated in the infringement before
        18 November 1983 and after 1 September 1986;                       (1) OJ C 131 of 26.4.1997.
     — annuls Article 6 of Decision 94/815 in so far as it finds
        that the applicant participated in the infringement before
        18 November 1983 and after 1 September 1986;
     — fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
        Article 9 of Decision 94/815 at EUR 510 000;
                                                                                of 23 February 2000
     — dismisses the remainder of the application;
                                                                           in Joined Cases T-223/97 and T-17/98: Reinder Kooyman
                                                                             and Petra Van Eynde-Neutens v European Parliament (1)
     — orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay one half
        of the costs incurred by the Commission;                           (Officials — Auxiliary staff — Auxiliary interpreters
                                                                           employed for the sessions of the Parliament — Lawfulness
                                                                           of the deduction of Community tax from their remuneration)
     — orders the Commission to bear one half of its own costs.
                                                                                (2000/C 122/41)
(1) OJ C 101 of 22.4.1995, C 119 of 13.5.1995, C 137 of 3.6.1995                              (Language of the case: Dutch)
    and C 208 of 12.8.1995.
                                                                           In Joined Cases T-223/97 and T-17/98: Reinder Kooyman and
                                                                           Petra Van Eynde-Neutens, conference interpreters respectively
                                                                           residing in Zurich (Switzerland) and in Brussels, represented
                                                                           by G. van der Wal, Advocaat with a right of audience before


title: Case T-402/13: Action brought on 31 July 2013 — Orange v Commission

text:
               26.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/28

         Action brought on 31 July 2013 — Orange v Commission
   (Case T-402/13)
   2013/C 313/53
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Orange (Paris, France) (represented by: J.-P. Gunther and A. Giraud, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present action, the applicant seeks annulment of the Commission’s decisions of 25 and 27 June 2013 addressed to France Télécom, Orange and all the companies directly or indirectly controlled by them, ordering them to undergo an inspection pursuant to Article 20(4) of Council Regulation No 1/2003. (1) Those decisions were taken in the context of proceedings under Article 102 TFEU and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement concerning the sector providing internet connectivity services (Case AT.40090).
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of necessity and proportionality, in that the Commission ordered an inspection in relation to practices which were very similar to those covered by a decision delivered by the French competition authority only nine months earlier, even though the French competition authority found no anti-competitive conduct on the part of Orange. The applicant claims that, at the time of the inspection, the Commission did not seek additional information to that which it already had at its disposal, something which it ought to have done in accordance with the case-law in this area.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decisions are arbitrary, in that the Commission does not have sufficiently serious and detailed grounds for taking a measure as intrusive as an inspection.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles [101 TFEU] and [102 TFEU] (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).


title: Case C-231/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Brescia Regional Court — Third Civil Chamber — by order of that court of 8 May 2001 in case of El.Da. s.r.l. against Ministero delle Finanze

text:
11.8.2001               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 227/13
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d’Appel                      preliminary ruling in the case of Intervention Board for
de Pau (First Criminal Chamber) by judgment of that                         Agricultural Produce against Penycoed Farming Partnership,
court of 15 May 2001, in the criminal proceedings against                   on the following questions:
Jacques Bourrasse — Party claiming civil damages: Union
Régionale Syndicale des Petits et Moyens Transporteurs                      1.    Do Articles 1 and/or 2 of Council Regulation 3950/92 (1)
du Sud Ouest (UNOSTRA Aquitaine); Intervener: Inspec-                             permit the competent body in a Member State to take
                  tion du Travail des Transports                                  legal action directly against a producer to recover levy
                                                                                due from that producer (otherwise than pursuant to
                                                                                Article 2 (3) in respect of direct sales)?
                          (Case C-228/01)
                                                                            2.    If so, in what circumstances may such action be taken?
                          (2001/C 227/21)
                                                                            3.    In particular, may such action be taken where the
                                                                                purchaser to whom milk was delivered was (a) not
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                            approved pursuant to Article 7 of Commission Regu-
European Communities by judgment of the Cour d’Appel de                           lation 536/93 (2) and/or (b) has not complied with any of
Pau (First Criminal Chamber) of 15 May 2001, received at the                      its obligations under Article 7 of that Regulation
Court Registry on 11 June 2001, for a preliminary ruling in                       and/or (c) has not recovered or sought to recover levy
the criminal proceedings against Jacques Bourrasse — Party                        from the producers concerned?
claiming civil damages: Union Régionale Syndicale des Petits
et Moyens Transporteurs du Sud Ouest (UNOSTRA Aquitaine);
Intervener: Inspection du Travail des Transports, on the                    (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92, of 28 December 1992,
following questions:                                                            establishing an additional levy in the milk and milk products
                                                                                sector (OJ L 405, 31.12.1992, p. 1).
1.    Can ‘the hiring of a vehicle without a driver’ as envisaged           (2) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 536/93 of 9 March 1993 laying
      by Article 2 of Council Directive 84/647/EEC (1) be                       down detailed rules on the application of the additional levy on
      interpreted as permitting the lessor, a road haulage                      milk and milk products (OJ L 57, 10.03.1993, p. 12).
      company governed by French law:
      —     to obtain the carriage authorisations necessary
            within French territory on behalf of the lessee, a
            road haulage company governed by Portuguese law
      —     to manage on behalf of the lessee, a road haulage
            company governed by Portuguese law, the tacho-
            graph discs of the drivers employed by that com-
            pany?                                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Brescia Regional
                                                                            Court — Third Civil Chamber — by order of that court
2.    Did the hired vehicles have to be registered in Portugal?             of 8 May 2001 in case of El.Da. s.r.l. against Ministero
                                                                                delle Finanze
(1) Council Directive 84/647/EEC of 19 december 1984 on the use
    of vehicles hired without drivers for the carriage of goods by road                              (Case C-231/01)
    (OJ L 335 of 22.12.1984 p. 72).
                                                                                (2001/C 227/23)
                                                                            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                            European Communities by order of the Brescia Regional Court
                                                                            — Third Civil Chamber — of 8 May 2001 received at the
                                                                            Court Registry on 12 June 2001, for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                            the case of El.Da. s.r.l. against Ministero delle Finanze on the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal                   following question:
(England and Wales) (Civil Division), by order of that
court of 31 May 2001, in the case of Intervention                           (1) Is Article 11(1) of Italian Law No 448 of 23 December
Board for Agricultural Produce against Penycoed Farming                           1998 (G.U.R.I. No 302 of 29 December 1998, ordinary
                            Partnership                                           supplement) compatible with Community law, in particu-
                                                                                lar with Articles 10 and 12 of Council Directive
                          (Case C-230/01)                                         69/335/EEC (1) of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes
                                                                                on the raising of capital, inasmuch as it provides that the
                                                                                administrative charge is payable at a flat annual rate for
                          (2001/C 227/22)                                         registration of other company documents for each of the
                                                                                years from 1985 to 1992, equal to the sum of the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                            sum of ITL 750 000 for public limited companies and
European Communities by an order of the Court of Appeal                           partnerships limited by shares and ITL 400 000 for
(England and Wales) (Civil Division) of 31 May 2001, which                        private limited companies and ITL 90 000 for other
was received at the Court Registry on 12 June 2001, for a                         companies?
 ---pagebreak--- C 227/14                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                    11.8.2001
(2) Is Article 11(3) of Law No 448/98 compatible with                       tungssenat Salzburg of 18 June 2001, received at the Court
     Community law, inasmuch as it provides that interest on                Registry on 20 June 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the
     the sums to be reimbursed in so far as they exceed the                 appeal concerning Ewald Feichtinger, the Salzburg District
     sum provided for by Article 11(1) should be calculated                 Commission and the land transfer agent of the Land of
     according to the legal rate in force at the date on which              Salzburg (Case C-237/01), and Dr Dieter Cerha, the Mayor of
     that Law entered into force (2,5 % per annum) and not                  Salzburg and the land transfer agent of the Land of Salzburg
     according to the rate provided for by Article 5 with                   (Case C-238/01) on the following question:
     respect to Article 1 of Law No 29 of 26 January 1961, as
     subsequently amended?
                                                                            Are the provisions of Article 56 et seq. of the EC Treaty to be
                                                                            interpreted as precluding the application of Paragraphs 12, 36
(1) Official Journal, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412.            and 43 of the Salzburger Grundverkehrsgesetz (Salzburg Land
                                                                            Transfer Law) of 1997 in the version published in LGBl.
                                                                            No 11/1999, whereby any person who wishes to acquire a
                                                                            building plot in the federal Land of Salzburg must comply
                                                                            with a notification or authorisation procedure in respect of the
                                                                            acquisition of that plot, with the consequence that one of the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Politierechtbank                  fundamental freedoms of the acquirer of title as guaranteed by
Te Mechelen (Local Criminal Court, Mechelen) by order                       the laws of the European Union has been infringed in this
of that court of 11 June 2001 in the case of Openbaar                       case?
                Ministerie against Hans Van Lent
                           (Case C-232/01)
                           (2001/C 227/24)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Politierechtbank Te
Mechelen (Local Criminal Court, Mechelen) of 11 June 2001                   Action brought on 25 June 2001 by the Commission
received at the Court Registry an 18 June 2001, for a                       of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
preliminary ruling in the case of Openbaar Ministerie against                                           Sweden
Hans Van Lent on the following question:
                                                                                (Case C-247/01)
Do Community rules, in particular Article 39 EC (ex Article 48
of the EC Treaty) and Article 10 EC (ex Article 5 of the EC
Treaty), preclude a Member State from requiring registration                                        (2001/C 227/26)
of a vehicle belonging (1) to a leasing company established in
a neighbouring Member State, which is leased by an employer
and used by an employee (2) who is resident in the first-                   An action against the Kingdom of Sweden was brought before
mentioned Member State, at a distance of some 200 km from                   the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 25 June
his place of employment, in a situation where the employee in               2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
question resides in the first-mentioned Member State (3) during             represented by Lena Ström, acting as Agent, with an address
the week and uses the vehicle in order to perform his contract              for service in Luxembourg.
of employment and also during his free time, including
weekends and holiday periods?                                               The Commission claims that the Court should:
                                                                            1.    declare that the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its
                                                                                obligations both under the first sentence of Article 4(4)
                                                                                of Council Directive 79/409/EEC (1) of 2 April 1979 on
                                                                                the conservation of wild birds, most recently amended by
                                                                                Directive 97/49/EC (2), which was replaced by Article 6(3)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger                            and (4) of Council Directive (3) 92/43/EEC of 21 May
Verwaltungssenat Salzburg by order of that court of 18                            1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild
June 2001 in the appeal concerning Ewald Feichtinger,                             fauna and flora, and under Articles 6(3) and 9(2) of
Dr Dieter Cerha, the Salzburg District Commission, the                            Directive 79/409/EEC,
Mayor of Salzburg and the land transfer agent of the Land
                              of Salzburg                                   2.    order the Kingdom of Sweden to bear the costs.
                 (Cases C-237/01 and C-238/01)
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
                           (2001/C 227/25)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      In accordance with the Treaty of Accession Sweden undertook
European Communities by order of the Unabhängiger Verwal-                   to fulfil the requirements of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of


title: Case C-173/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom) made on 8 April 2011 — Football Dataco Ltd, Scottish Premier League Ltd, Scottish Football League, PA Sport UK Ltd v Sportradar GmbH (a company registered in Germany), Sportradar (a company registered in Switzerland)

text:
               2.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom) made on 8 April 2011 — Football Dataco Ltd, Scottish Premier League Ltd, Scottish Football League, PA Sport UK Ltd v Sportradar GmbH (a company registered in Germany), Sportradar (a company registered in Switzerland)
   (Case C-173/11)
   2011/C 194/13
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Football Dataco Ltd, Scottish Premier League Ltd, Scottish Football League, PA Sport UK Ltd

      Defendants: Sportradar GmbH (a company registered in Germany), Sportradar (a company registered in Switzerland)

      Questions referred

               1.

               Where a party uploads data from a database protected by sui generis right under Directive 96/9/EC (1) (‘the Database Directive’) onto that party's web server located in member state A and in response to requests from a user in another member state B the web server sends such data to the user's computer so that the data is stored in the memory of that computer and displayed on its screen

                           (a)

                           is the act of sending the data an act of ‘extraction’ or ‘re-utilisation’ by that party?

                           (b)

                           does any act of extraction and/or re-utilisation by that party occur

                                       (i)

                                       in A only

                                       (ii)

                                       in B only or

                                       (iii)

                                       in both A and B?

      (1)  Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 march 1996 on the legal protection of databases, OJ L 77, p. 20


title: Action brought on 25 May 1998 by Patricia Boyes against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-81/98)

text:
25.7.98               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 234/33
for officials and other agents on mission. Until April 1997,        Action brought on 25 May 1998 by Patricia Boyes against
those services (ticket issuing, hotel bookings and                        the Commission of the European Communities
associated services) were provided by four travel agencies,                               (Case T-81/98)
including the applicant. In 1997, before the expiry of the
contract, the Commission opened an initial procedure.                                      (98/C 234/64)
After receiving the tenders, the defendant decided to annul
that procedure.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
On 20 March 1998, the Commission informed the
applicant of its intention not to award a new contract in           An action against the Commission of the European
respect of which a prior call for competition was made in           Communities was brought before the Court of First
view of the fact that various tenders' were irregular and          Instance of the European Communities on 25 May 1998
that it therefore intended to award the contract by means           by Patricia Boyes, represented by S. C. I. Ferdinand, J.
of negotiated procedure without prior publication of the            Tracey Kelly, J. Singh Sandhu and Becket Bedford, of
contract notice.                                                    Ferdinand Kelly, Solicitors, 21 Bennetts Hill, Birmingham,
                                                                    B2 5QP, United Kingdom.
In support of its claims, the applicant alleges breach of the
general principle of the protection of legitimate                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
expectations, infringement of Article 190 of the EC Treaty
and of Articles 11 and 12 of Council Directive 92/50/EEC
of 16 June 1992 (1), and misuse of powers as a result of            Ð annul the decision of the Commission in Case IV/
abuse of procedures.                                                    34.907/F3 Ð NAIL dated 5 March 1998;
The applicant claims in this regard that, so far as concerns        Ð declare that the Commission is required under
contracts, the general principle of the protection of                   Article 176 of the Treaty establishing the European
legitimate expectations requires any contracting body who               Community to take the necessary measures to comply
has made the award of a contract subject to a tender                    with the judgment to be delivered;
procedure to conclude the procedure, unless supervening
circumstances which were unforeseeable when the
contract notice was published cause the contracting                 Ð in application of Article 215 of that Treaty, order the
authority to lose interest in the contract. In the present              Commission to make good the damage caused by the
case, the defendant first of all suspended the tender                   Commission's decision dated 5 March 1995; and
procedure in order to alter the technical specifications in
the contract documents' and subsequently annulled it                Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
because of substantial alterations to the specifications in
the contract notice'. However, despite the fact that the
contracting authority cannot effect any alterations to the          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
contract notice or, even less, to the contract documents
since that would constitute a serious breach of the
principle of non-discrimination, the Commission based               The applicant explains that in June 1991 she became the
itself on such grounds in order to annul the procedure.             tenant of The Britannia Inn in the village of Alcombe,
Moreover, the Commission never informed the applicant               Minehead, Somerset under a lease which had been granted
of the reasons for the annulment of the tender procedure.           to her by Inntrepreneur Estates Limited. The lease
                                                                    contained a beer-tie provision. On 17 July 1992
                                                                    Inntrepreneur notified, inter alia, the applicant's lease to
Secondly, the applicant claims that the derogations                 the Commission and applied for negative clearance, a
provided by Article 11 of the directive to the general              declaration that its standard lease fell within Regulation
system must be interpreted strictly in so far as they               (EEC) No 1984/83 (1) and/or retrospective individual
constitute an exception to the general rule provided for            exemption. On 30 July 1993 the Commission published
therein, and the contracting authority must show that the           an Article 19(3) Notice in relation to Inntrepreneur (Case
requisite requirements for their application have been              IV/34.387) (2) in which it stated that it had reached a
fulfilled, that is that an open or restricted procedure was         favourable conclusion and intended to grant retrospective
abandoned on the ground that the tenders submitted were             individual exemption. The applicant, together with
irregular or unacceptable. In any event, the contracting            numerous other tenants of Inntrepreneur, notified the
authority cannot alter the substantive conditions of the            Commission of their opposition to the proposed grant of
contract. The applicant claims that, nevertheless, in the           retrospective individual exemption. Subsequently, in
present case some of the offers submitted were valid and            October 1993, she submitted, separately, a formal
that, furthermore, the defendant reduced considerably the           complaint to the Commission in respect of Inntrepreneur
duration of the contract in question, from two years to             (Case IV/34.907/F3). Inntrepreneur withdrew its
seven months and to four months respectively for the two            application for exemption in October 1997 and on
successful tenderers.                                               5 March 1998 the Commission formally rejected the
                                                                    applicant's complaint for lack of Community interest on
(1) OJ L 209 of 24.7.1992, p. 1.                                    the ground that her rights under Article 85 of the EC
                                                                    Treaty could be adequately safeguarded by the national
                                                                    courts.
 ---pagebreak--- C 234/34               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   25.7.98
The applicant seeks relief from the Court of First Instance           Action brought on 29 May 1998 by FeÂdeÂration
on the ground that in rejecting her complaint the                     Internationale de l'Automobile against the Commission of
Commission failed to properly investigate the question                                 the European Communities
whether her rights under Article 85 could be adequately                                      (Case T-85/98)
safeguarded by the national courts of the United Kingdom.
                                                                                (98/C 234/66)
(1) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1984/83 of 22 June 1983
    on the application of Article 85(3) of the EC Treaty to
    categories of exclusive purchasing agreements (OJ L 173 of                       (Language of the case: English)
    30.6.1983, p. 5).
(2) OJ C 206 of 30.7.1993, p. 2.
                                                                      An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                      Instance of the European Communities on 29 May 1998
                                                                      by FeÂdeÂration Internationale de l'Automobile, represented
                                                                      by Lord Lester of Herne Hill QC, Mark Hoskins, Craig
                                                                      Pouncey and Veronica Roberts, with an address for service
Action brought on 27 May 1998 by Frans Jacobs against                 in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Georges Baden, 7
       the Commission of the European Communities                     Place du TheÂaÃtre.
                         (Case T-82/98)
                          (98/C 234/65)                               The applicant claims that the Court should:
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                      Ð declare the Commission decision adopted on or
                                                                          around 22 December 1997 to provide to members of
An action against the Commission of the European                          the press copies of the warning letters dated
Communities was brought before the Court of First                         19 December 1997 was unlawful and is therefore
Instance of the European Communities on 27 May 1998                       void; and
by Frans Jacobs, residing at Walshoutem (Belgium),
represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis, VeÂronique Leclercq,
Ariane Tornel and FrancËoise Parmentier, of the Brussels              Ð make an order for nominal damages in the sum of one
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                     hundred ECUs for non-pecuniary harm caused to the
offices of Fiduciaire Myson SaÁrl, 30 Rue de Cessange.                    applicant's reputation;
The applicant claims that the Court should:                           Ð order that the Commission must make good the
                                                                          pecuniary loss suffered by the applicant as a result of
Ð annul the Commission's decision not to promote the                      the Commission's unlawful acts, namely, the leaking
     applicant to grade B 4 in the 1997 promotions                        of the warning letters to the press and the statements
     procedure;                                                           made to the press by Mr Van Miert;
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.                               Ð order that the Commission should pay interest at the
                                                                          annual rate of 8 % as from the date of judgment in
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       these proceedings;
In support of his claim, the applicant maintains, first, that         Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
the contested decision is vitiated by the complete absence
of any statement of reasons, contrary to Article 25 of the
Staff Regulations of officials.                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
He further states that, although he has been eligible for             The applicant in the present case (the FIA) is an
promotion since 1 May 1997, no staff report or any other              association declared in conformity with the French law of
report concerning his conduct, efficiency and ability has             1 July 1901 and enjoying consultative status at the
been drawn up as required by Article 43 of the Staff                  Council of Europe and at the United Nations. It is an
Regulations. The applicant considers that, in the absence             international federation of 143 national automobile clubs,
of such a report, the defendant was unable to make any                automobile associations, touring clubs and national
lawful assessment, on the same basis, of the comparative              federations for motoring and motor sport, representing
merits of the applicant and of those of his colleagues who            113 countries and over 100 million motorists. Through its
were eligible for promotion to grade B 4, and that the                Sports Division and its affiliated National Sporting
contested decision therefore disregards Article 45 of the             Authorities, the FIA lays down rules accepted throughout
Staff Regulations and the principles of equal treatment               the world as governing all categories of international
and non-discrimination.                                               motor sport for vehicles with four or more wheels. These
                                                                      rules are contained in the International Sporting Code. In
                                                                      addition, the FIA has an economic interest in certain


title: Case F-24/08: Action brought on 22 February 2008 — Wilms v Commission

text:
               9.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 116/34

         Action brought on 22 February 2008 — Wilms v Commission
   (Case F-24/08)
   (2008/C 116/65)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Günter Wilms (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. van der Woude, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   The subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Annulment of the decision of 17 April 2007 in so far as it awards the applicant no additional priority points in the 2003 Promotion procedure, making a total of 1 priority point and a grand total of 19 points, and an order that the defendant pay compensation.
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 17 April 2007 in so far as it awards the applicant no additional priority points in the 2003 Promotion procedure, making a total of 1 priority point and a grand total of 19 points;

               —

               order the defendant to pay compensation of at least EUR 5 000;

               —

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


title: Case C-378/03: Action brought on 9 September 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

text:
C 264/22               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                          1.11.2003
      —     by failing regularly to release certain transit docu-        Action brought on 9 September 2003 by the Commission
            ments (TIR carnets) with the result that the own             of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
            resources arising therefrom were not properly                                             Belgium
            accounted for or made available to the Commission
            within the prescribed periods;
                                                                                (Case C-378/03)
      —     by failing to forward to the Commission all the
            other undisputed customs duties treated in the same
                                                                                (2003/C 264/37)
            way (entry in B accounts instead of A accounts) in
            respect of the Belgium customs authority’s failure to
            release TIR carnets since 1996;
      —     by refusing to pay interest on the amounts due to            An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
            the Commission                                               before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                         9 September 2003 by the Commission of the European
      the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations        Communities, represented by C. Giolito and G. Wilms, acting
                                                                         as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
      under Articles 6, 9, 10 and 11 of Council Regulation (EC,
      Euratom) No 1150/2000 (1) of 22 May 2000
      implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom (2) on the
      system of the Communities’ own resources which, with               The Commission of the European Communities claims that
      effect from 31 May 2000, repealed and replaced Council             the Court should:
      Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 (3) of 29 May
      1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom (4)
      on the system of the Communities’ own resources, the               —     Declare that, by making late payments of the own
      purpose of which is the same.                                            resources where debtors pay in stages, the Kingdom of
                                                                               Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 6,
                                                                               10 and 11 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/
2.    Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                           2000 (1) of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/
                                                                               728/EC, Euratom (2) on the system of the Communities’
                                                                               own resources which, with effect from 31 May 2000,
                                                                               repealed and replaced Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom)
                                                                               No 1552/89 (3) of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                88/376/EEC, Euratom (4) on the system of the Communi-
                                                                               ties’ own resources, the purpose of which is the same.
During two checks of traditional own resources carried out in            —     Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
Belgium in 1996 and 1997, the Commission found that there
were anomalies in the customs transit scheme in relation to
the establishment, accounting and contribution of the own
resources and the application of the Community TIR transit
scheme. The anomalies were due to default or delay in the                Pleas in law and main arguments
payment of the own resources to the Commission because of
a failure to comply with the accounting rules laid down in
Article 6(3) of Regulation 1150/2000.
                                                                         During the check of traditional own resources carried out in
                                                                         Belgium in 1996, the Commission found that the Belgian
                                                                         authorities had not, within the period laid down by Com-
The Commission cannot accept the justifications put forward              munity rules, paid to it the own resources recovered in the
by Belgium for those anomalies and delays. The delays greatly            form of stage payments of import duties. Those duties ought
exceed the periods laid down by Article 6(3) of Regulation               to have been transferred from the B accounts to the A accounts
1150/2000 for entry in both the A and B accounts. Where an               as each stage payment was made by the debtor. The payment
item should have been entered in the A accounts, the effect of           of duties to a separate account from the B accounts over a
the delay has been belated availability of the own resources             period of several months resulted in delays in making available
concerned and, therefore, interest for late payment is due.              the own resources, for which interest for late payment is due.
(1) OJ L 130 of 31.5.2000, p. 1.                                         (1) OJ L 130 of 31.5.2000, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 293 of 12.11.1994, p. 9.                                        (2) OJ L 293 of 12.11.1994, p. 9.
(3) OJ L 155 of 7.6.1989, p. 1.                                          (3) OJ L 155 of 7.6.1989, p. 1.
(4) OJ L 185 of 15.7.1988, p. 24.                                        (4) OJ L 185 of 15.7.1988, p. 24.


title: Case T-612/14: Action brought on 11 August 2014  — Souruh v Council

text:
               13.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 361/25

         Action brought on 11 August 2014 — Souruh v Council
   (Case T-612/14)
   2014/C 361/38
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Souruh SA (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat and C. Cornet d'Elzius, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the applicant’s action admissible and well-founded;

               —

               in consequence, annul Decision 2014/309/CFSP of 28 May 2014 and its subsequent implementing measures, insofar as they concern the applicant;

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-432/11 Makhlouf v Council
       (1).

      (1)  OJ C 290, p. 13.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 January 2005 in Case C-27/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck): Petra Engler v Janus Versand GmbH (Brussels Convention — Request for the interpretation of Article 5(1) and (3) and Article 13, first paragraph, point 3 — Entitlement of a consumer to whom misleading advertising has been sent to seek payment, in judicial proceedings, of the prize which he has ostensibly won — Classification — Action of a contractual nature covered by Article 13, first paragraph, point 3, or by Article 5(1) or in matters of tort, delict or quasi-delict by Article 5(3) — Conditions)

text:
               5.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 57/2

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 20 January 2005
   in Case C-27/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck): Petra Engler v Janus Versand GmbH (1)

   (Brussels Convention - Request for the interpretation of Article 5(1) and (3) and Article 13, first paragraph, point 3 - Entitlement of a consumer to whom misleading advertising has been sent to seek payment, in judicial proceedings, of the prize which he has ostensibly won - Classification - Action of a contractual nature covered by Article 13, first paragraph, point 3, or by Article 5(1) or in matters of tort, delict or quasi-delict by Article 5(3) - Conditions)
   (2005/C 57/03)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-27/02: reference to the Court under the Protocol of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters from the Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck (Austria), made by decision 14 January 2002, registered at the Court 31 January 2002, in the proceedings between Petra Engler and Janus Versand GmbH – the Court (Second Chamber) composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann and R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General, M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 20 January 2005, in which it ruled:
   The rules of jurisdiction of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic, by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic, and by the Convention of 29 November 1996 on the Accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden must be interpreted in the following way:

               —

               legal proceedings by which a consumer seeks an order, under the law of the Contracting State in which he is domiciled, that a mail order company established in another Contracting State award a prize ostensibly won by him is contractual in nature for the purpose of Article 5(1) of that convention, provided that, first, that company, with the intention of inducing the consumer to enter a contract, addresses to him in person a letter of such a kind as to give the impression that a prize will be awarded to him if he returns the ‘payment notice’ attached to the letter and, second, he accepts the conditions laid down by the vendor and does in fact claim payment of the prize announced;

               —

               on the other hand, even though the letter also contains a catalogue advertising goods for that company and a request for a ‘trial without obligation’, the fact that the award of the prize does not depend on an order for goods and that the consumer has not, in fact, placed such an order has no bearing on that interpretation.

      (1)  OJ C 109 of 04.05.2002.