title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 11 June 1996 in Case T-147/95: Geneviève Pavan v. European Parliament (Officials - Household allowance - Allowance paid from another source - Article 67 (2) of the Staff Regulations)

text:
No C 210/ 14          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    20 . 7 . 96
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             post of Deputy Director-General of Directorate-General I A
                       of 11 June 1996                               ( External Political Relations ) and, second, for annulment of
                                                                     the appointment of Mr B. to that post — the Court of First
in Case T-111/94: Giovanni Ouzounoff Popoff v.                       Instance ( Third Chamber ), composed of: C. P. Briët,
        Commission of the European Communities ( l )                 President, B. Vesterdorf and A. Potocki, Judges; J. Palacio
(Officials — Transfer ofpart ofan official's emoluments in           Gonzalez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
the currency of a Member State other than the country in             judgment on 11 June 1996 , in which it:
     which the institution has its seat — Inadmissibility)
                          ( 96/C 210/34 )
                                                                     1 , dismisses the action;
              (Language of tbe case: Spanish)
                                                                     2 , orders the parties to bear their own costs.
In Case T-111 /94 : Giovanni Ouzounoff Popoff, an official
                                                                     (') OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
of the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Antonio Creus, of the Barcelona Bar, and
Bonifacio Garcia Porras, of the Salamanca Bar, v.
Commission of the European Communities ( Agents :
Amparo Alcover San Pedro, Ana Maria Alves Vieira and
Carlos Gômez de la Cruz ) — application, first, for
annulment of the decision rejecting the complaint
concerning the transfer of part of the applicant's
                                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
emoluments to a home-purchase savings account in Danish
crowns , second, for a declaration recognizing the                                          of 11 June 1996
applicant's entitlement to such a transfer and, third,               in Case T-147/95 : Geneviève Pavan v. European
damages — the Court of First Instance ( Third Chamber ),                                       Parliament ( 1 )
composed of: C. P. Briët, President, B. Vesterdorf and A.            (Officiais — Household allowance — Allowance paid from
Potocki, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the
                                                                     another source — Article 67 (2) of the Staff Regulations)
Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 June 1996 , in which
it :                                                                                96/C 210/36 )
1 , dismisses the action as inadmissible;                                           (Language of the case: French)
2 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.                      In Case T-147/95 : Geneviève Pavan, an official of the
                                                                     European Parliament, residing in Luxembourg, represented
(>) O ] No C 120, 30 . 4 . 1994 .                                    by Alain Lorang, of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address
                                                                     for service in Luxembourg at his Chambers, 51 rue Albert
                                                                     1er, v. European Parliament ( Agents : Manfred Peter and
                                                                    Jannis Pantalis, assisted by Alex Bonn ) — application for
                                                                     annulment of the decision of the European Parliament of
                                                                     29 September 1994 concerning the recovery from the
                                                                     applicant of the sum of LFR 489 063 'representing the
                                                                     household allowance paid from another source from 1 June
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              1987' — the Court of First Instance ( Third Chamber ),
                       of 11 June 1996                               composed of: C. P. Briët, President, B. Vesterdorf and A.
in Case T-118/95 : Miguel Anacoreta Correia v.                       Potocki , Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the
        Commission of the European Communities ( ] )                 Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 June 1996 , in which
                                                                     it :
  (Officials — Recruitment procedure — Grade A 1 post)
                          ( 96/C 210/35 )
                                                                     1 , annuls the decision of the European Parliament of
                                                                          29 September 1994 concerning the recovery from the
               (Language of the case: French)                             applicant of the sum of LFR 489 063 'representing the
                                                                          household allowance paid from another source from
In Case T-118/95 : Miguel Anacoreta Correia , an official of              1 June 1987';
the Commission of the European Communities, residing in
Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersanden, of the                2 , orders the Parliament to pay the costs.
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SÀRL, 1 rue Glesener, v .
Commission of the European Communities ( Agents :                    (') OJ No C 248 , 23 . 9 . 1995 .
Gianluigi Valsesia and Julian Currall , assisted by Denis
Waelbroeck ) — application, first, for annulment of the
decision rejecting the application of the applicant for the


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 7 December 1995 in Joined Cases T-544/93 and T-566/93: Giovanni Battista Abello and Others and Gerhard Riesch v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Pay slips - Weightings - Council Regulations (EEC/Euratom/ECSC) No 3761/92, (EEC/Euratom/ECSC) No 3765/92 and (EEC/Euratom/ECSC) No 3766/92 - Objection of illegality)

text:
No C 16/ 12            EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                        20 . 1 . 96
2 , orders the parties to bear their own costs.                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 7 December 1995
f 1 ) OJ No C 90, 26 . 3 . 1994 .                                  in Joined Cases T-544/93 and T-566/93 : Giovanni Battista
                                                                   Abello and Others and Gerhard Riesch v. Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities f 1 )
                                                                   (Officials — Pay slips — Weightings — Council Regulations
                                                                   (EEC/Euratom/ECSC) No 3761/92, (EEC/Euratom/ECSC)
                                                                   No 3765/92 and (EEC/Euratom/ECSC) No 3766/92 —
                                                                                Objection of illegality)
                                                                                ( 96/C 16/27)
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                    of 30 November 1995
in Case T-507/93 : Paulo Branco v. Court of Auditors of the        In Joined Cases T-544/93 and T-566/93 : Giovanni Battista
                  European Communities (*)                         Abello and the other officials and servants of the
(Officials — List of officials eligible for promotion —            Commission of the European Communities listed in the
 Transfer to another institution — Act adversely affecting an      Annex to the judgment, and Gerhard Riesch, an official of
official — Legal interest in bringing proceedings — Claim          the Commission of the European Communities, represented
                 for damages — Inadmissible)                       by Michele Tamburini and Franco Colussi, of the Milan Bar,
                            96/C 16/26
                                                                   with an address for service in Luxembourg at 36 rue de
                                                                   Wiltz, v. Commission of the European Communities
                                                                   ( Agent: Gianluigi Valsesia ), supported by the Council of the
                                                                   European Union ( Agent: Anna Lo Monaco ) — application,
             (Language of the case: Portuguese)                    first, for the annulment of the applicants' pay slips for
                                                                   December 1992 and January 1993 , inasmuch as they were
                                                                   drawn up in accordance with the weightings resulting
In Case T-507/93 : Paulo Branco, an official of the                from the application of Council Regulations
Commission of the European Communities, formerly an                ( EEC/Euratom/ECSC ) No 3761 /92, ( EEC/Euratom/ECSC )
official of the Court of Auditors of the European                  No 3765/92 and ( EEC/Euratom/ECSC ) No 3766/92 ( OJ No
Communities, residing in Brussels, represented initially by        L 383 , pp . 1 , 9 and 11 ), and, by way of objection, a
Dieter Grozinger de Rosnay and David M. Travessa                   declaration that the Regulations in question are illegal, and,
Mendes, and subsequently by Raoul Wagener and David M.             second, for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered
Travessa Mendes, of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address            by the applicants as a result of the application of the
for service in Luxembourg at the latter's Chambers, 6-12           contested weightings — the Court of First Instance ( Fourth
Place d'Armes, v. Court of Auditors of the European                Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts, President, and R.
Communities (Agents : initially Jean-Marie Steiner and Jan         Schintgen and R. Garria-Valdecasas, Judges; H. Jung,
Inghelram and subsequently Jan Inghelram and Isabel Jalles )       Registrar, gave a judgment on 7 December 1995 , in
— application, first, for the annulment of the promotion           which it :
procedure of the Court of Auditors for 1993 , inasmuch as
the applicant was excluded therefrom, and, second, for
compensation for the non-material damage allegedly                 1 , dismisses the application;
suffered by the applicant as a result of breaches of duty
allegedly committed by the administration of the defendant         2 , orders the parties to bear their own costs.
institution in the context of the promotion procedures for
1992 and 1993 — the Court of First Instance ( First                (!) OJ No C 325 , 9 . 12 . 1993 and OJ No C 1 , 4 . 1 . 1994 .
Chamber ), composed of: H. Kirschner, acting for the
President, and A. Kalogeropoulos and V. Tiili, Judges;
J. Palacio Gonzalez, Registrar, gave a judgment on
30 November 1 995 , in which it:
                                                                       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
1 , dismisses the application as inadmissible;                                         of 10 November 1995
                                                                   in Case T-554/93 : A. T. E. Saint, C. Murray and M. Craig v.
                                                                   Council of the European Union and Commission of the
2 , orders the parties to bear their own costs, including the                         European Communities ( x )
      costs relating to the proceedings for interim
      measures .
                                                                                (Removal from the register)
                                                                                ( 96/C 16/28 )
(!) OJ No C 282 , 20 . 10 . 1993 .                                                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                   In Case T-554/93 : A. T. E. Saint, C. Murray and M. Craig
                                                                   (United Kingdom and Ireland ), represented by E. H.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 January 2000 in Joined Cases T-194/97 and T-83/98, Eugénio Branco, Lda v Commission of the European Communities (European Social Fund — Action for failure to act — Admissibility — Action for annulment — Decision to suspend financial assistance — Certification by the Member State — Misappraisal of the facts — Legitimate expectations — Acquired rights — Legal certainty — Proportionality)

text:
C 163/24               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     10.6.2000
                                                        COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        of 30 March 2000
                                                                                of 27 January 2000
in Case T-51/96: Miwon Co. Ltd v Council of the European
                            Union (1)                                    in Joined Cases T-194/97 and T-83/98, Eugénio Branco,
                                                                             Lda v Commission of the European Communities (1)
(Anti-dumping — Breach of a price undertaking — Injury                   (European Social Fund — Action for failure to act —
                       to the Community)                                 Admissibility — Action for annulment — Decision to
                                                                         suspend financial assistance — Certification by the Member
                                                                         State — Misappraisal of the facts — Legitimate expectations
                                                                           — Acquired rights — Legal certainty — Proportionality)
                         (2000/C 163/46)
                                                                                (2000/C 163/47)
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
In Case T-51/96 Miwon Co. Ltd, established in Seoul, South               In Joined Cases T-194/97 and T-83/98, Eugénio Branco, Lda,
Korea, represented by J.F. Bellis, of the Brussels Bar, with an          established in Lisbon, represented by B. Belchior, of the Vila
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch              Nova de Gaia Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
and Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe v Council of the European Union,               at the Chambers of J. Schroeder, 6 Rue Heine v Commission
(Agents: A. Tanca, H.-J. Rabe and G. Khan), supported by                 of the European Communities (Agents: in case T-194/97,
Commission of the European Communities, (Agent: N. Khan)                 A.M. Alves Vieira and K. Simonsson and, in Case T-83/98,
— application for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No                M.T. Figueira and K. Simonsson) — Application, in Case
81/96 of 19 January 1996 amending Regulation (EEC) No                    T-194/97, for a declaration of failure to act by the defendant
2455/93 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports               in so far as it unlawfully failed to rule on the claim for final
of monosodium glutamate originating in Indonesia, the Repub-             payment of financial assistance awarded by the European
lic of Korea and Taiwan and collecting definitively the pro-             Social Fund in case nos 870301 P1 and 870302 P3 and, in Case
visional duties imposed and terminating the proceeding with              T-83/98, for annulment of Commission Decisions C (1998) 47
regard to Thailand (OJ 1996 L 15, p. 20), in so far as it                and C (1998) 48 of 17 February 1998 suspending such
concerns the applicant — the Court (Third Chamber, Extended              assistance — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber),
Composition), composed of: M. Jaeger, President, K. Lenaerts,            composed of M. Jaeger, President and K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi,
V. Tiili, J. Azizi and P. Mengozzi, Judges; A. Mair, Adminis-            Judges; M. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 March              judgment on 27 January 2000 in which it:
2000, in which it:
                                                                         1. Orders that Cases T-194/97 and T-83/98 be joined for the
1. Dismisses the action;                                                      purposes of judgment;
                                                                         2. Finds the action for failure to act in Case T-194/97 to be
2. Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of         inadmissible;
     the Council;
                                                                         3. Dismisses the action for annulment in Case T-83/98;
3. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs.
                                                                         4. Orders the defendant to pay 10% of the applicant’s costs in
                                                                              addition to its own costs.
(1) OJ C 180 of 22.6.1996.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 252 of 16.8.1997 and C 278 of 5.9.1998.


title: Case T-223/00: Action brought on 25 August 2000 by Kyowa Hakko Kogyo Company Ltd and Kyowa Hakko Europe GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 316/32                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       4.11.2000
The applicant states that the decision is of direct and individual        This decision has imposed a fine to the applicants, after having
concern to it in its capacity as a competitor of the recipient            considered they have infringed Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty
undertakings in the European market for the production and                and Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement by participating in
assembly of parking systems for motor vehicles. It claims that            agreements on prices, sales volumes and the exchange of
the decision in issue infringes its entitlement to a fair hearing,        individual information on sales volumes of synthetic lysing.
which can be safeguarded only by the opening of the main
examination procedure. The Commission unlawfully omitted
to investigate, by way of the main examination procedure, the             The applicants does not contest the factual background of the
                                                                          case. Instead, in support of its conclusions, they submit the
grounds on which a distortion of competition is alleged by
                                                                          following pleas on law:
the applicant in its complaint. The Commission based its
assessment on incorrect information contained in an expert’s
report. Lastly, it incorrectly defined the market concerned and           —     The Commission’s imposition of the fine in question, that
incorrectly assessed the number of competitors.                                 is calculated on the basis of a new ‘Fines Guidelines’ (1),
                                                                                infringes the principles of legal certainty and of legitimate
                                                                                expectations.
                                                                          —     Specifically, when imposing the fine, the Commission
                                                                                applied the Fines Guidelines retroactively, in opposition
                                                                                to statements made and correspondence provided by the
                                                                                Commission staff as part of the discussions leading to
                                                                                Kyowa’s cooperations pursuant to the Commission
Action brought on 25 August 2000 by Kyowa Hakko                                 Notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines in
Kogyo Company Ltd and Kyowa Hakko Europe GmbH                                   cartel case (2).
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                          —     In addition and in the alternative, the Commission has
                                                                                violated the principle of proportionality by imposing a
                         (Case T-223/00)                                        fine that takes into account Kyowa’s worldwide activities,
                                                                                and not the fact that only a small percentage of its
                         (2000/C 316/61)                                        worldwide turnover was generated in what is to be
                                                                                considered as the relevant market in the present case, i.e.
                                                                                the EEA.
                    (Language of the case: English)                       —     In the base fine calculation the Commission has unduly
                                                                                refused to take into account the substantial fines already
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                       imposed on the Applicants by the US authorities.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 25 August 2000 by Kyowa Hakko
Kogyo Company Ltd and Kyowa Hakko Europe GmbH,                            (1) Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to
                                                                              Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 Article 65(5) of the ECSC
represented by Dr Cornelis Canenbley and Dr Kay Diedrich of                   Treaty (OJ C 9, of 14.1.1998, p. 3).
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, Brussels.                                 (2) OJ C 207, of 18.7.1996, p. 4.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul Commission Decision No. C (2000) 1565 final of
      7 June 2000 in relation to the fine imposed or reduce the
      fine imposed upon the applicant as per the Court’s
      discretion;
                                                                          Action brought on 25 August 2000 by Archer Daniels
—     order the Commission to bear the costs of these proceed-            Midland Company and Archer Daniels Midland Ingredi-
      ings.                                                               ents Limited against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                     (Case T-224/00)
The applicants in the present case, a Company established                                           (2000/C 316/62)
under Japanese Law, and its European subsidiary, are involved,
inter alia, in animal health products. In relation to amino acids,
Kyowa Hakko currently has production facilities in Japan,                                     (Language of the case: English)
Hungary, Mexico and the USA. They seek the annulment of
Article 2 of the Commission decision dated 7 June 2000 —
C(2000) 1565 final, concerning a procedure under Article 81               An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
of the EC Treaty (Case Comp/36.545/F3 — Amino Acids).                     ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the


5.7.2003               EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 158/21
        Removal from the register of Case C-395/01 ( 1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-426/01 ( 1)
                         (2003/C 158/36)                                                        (2003/C 158/38)
By order of 19 March 2003 the President of the Court of                By order of 27 March 2003 the President of the Fifth Chamber
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                of the Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered
from the register of Case C-395/01 (Reference for a preliminary        the removal from the register of Case C-426/01 (Reference for
ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat of the Land                a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal d’Instance, Vienne): SA
Vorarlberg): Herbert Bregenzer.                                        Société ACCEA Finances v Christian Giner.
( 1) OJ C 3, 05.01.2002.
                                                                       (1 ) OJ C 3, 05.01.2002.
        Removal from the register of Case C-417/01 ( 1)
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case C-432/01 ( 1)
                         (2003/C 158/37)
                                                                                (2003/C 158/39)
By order of 25 March 2003 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-417/01 (Reference for a preliminary        By order of 25 March 2003 the President of the Court of
ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat of the Land                Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Vorarlberg): Herbert Bregenzer.                                        from the register of Case C-432/01 (Reference for a preliminary
                                                                       ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat of the Land
                                                                       Vorarlberg): Helmut Gunz.
( 1) OJ C 3, 05.01.2002.
                                                                       (1 ) OJ C 3, 05.01.2002.


title: Case T-709/14: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2016 — Tri-Ocean Trading v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Syria — Freezing of funds — Error of assessment)

text:
               24.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/28

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2016 — Tri-Ocean Trading v Council
   (Case T-709/14) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Syria - Freezing of funds - Error of assessment))
   (2016/C 392/34)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Tri-Ocean Trading (George Town, Cayman Islands) (represented by: B. Kennelly, Barrister, P. Saini QC, and N. Sheikh, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and A. Vitro, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Council Implementing Decision 2014/488/CFSP of 22 July 2014 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2014 L 217, p. 49) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 793/2014 of 22 July 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2014 L 217, p. 10), insofar as those measures concern the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Council Implementing Decision 2014/488/CFSP of 22 July 2014 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 793/2014 of 22 July 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, in so far as they concern Tri-Ocean Trading;

               2.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Tri-Ocean Trading.

      (1)  OJ C 448, 15.12.2014.


title: Case C-214/00: Action brought on 30 May 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

text:
C 211/14                 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        22.7.2000
that the unemployed person lives with certain members of the                      whose administrative, management or supervisory
family, and not solely to the condition that they are actually or                 body is made up of members of whom more than one-
mainly dependant on the unemployed person?                                        half are appointed by the State, or territorial bodies or
                                                                                other bodies governed by public law;
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996
                                                                              — allow review to be sought of all decisions adopted by
    amending and updating Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the                      the contracting authorities, including all procedural
    application of social security schemes to employed persons, to                measures, during the procedure for the award of public
    self-employed persons and to members of their families moving                 contracts;
    within the Community, and of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72
    laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC)
    No 1408/71 (OJ L 28 of 30 January 1997, p. 1).                            — provide for the possibility of appropriate interim
                                                                                measures being granted in relation to decisions adopted
                                                                                by the contracting authorities, including measures
                                                                                suspending administrative decisions, removing for that
                                                                                purpose all difficulties and obstacles and in particular
                                                                                the need first to bring an action against the decision of
                                                                                the contracting authority,
                                                                              the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                              under Community law;
Action brought on 30 May 2000 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain                    2. Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
                          (Case C-214/00)
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
                          (2000/C 211/24)
                                                                         The national measures which transpose into Spanish law
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before                Directive 89/665/EEC and which, as such, have been notified
Court of Justice on 30 May 2000 by the Commission of                     to the Commission from time to time, namely Law 29/1998
the European Communities, represented by Gregorio Valero                 of 23 July 1998 governing contentious-administrative jurisdic-
Jordana, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address          tion, Law 30/1992 of 26 November 1992 on the legal
for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la           provisions governing public administrations and ordinary
Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                          administrative procedure, as amended by Law 4/1999 of
                                                                         13 January 1999, Law 13/1995 of 18 May 1995 governing
                                                                         contracts of public administrations, and the Spanish Consti-
The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:                   tution, are of more limited scope than Directive 89/665/EEC.
                                                                         The measures which are subject to appeal under the said
                                                                         legislation do not include all procedural measures. And in
1. Declare that, by failing to adopt the measures needed to              most cases Spanish law requires an action to be commenced
     give full effect to Articles 1 and 2 of Council Directive           before any application for interim measures can be made.
     89/665/EEC (1) of 21 December 1989 on the coordination
     of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
     relating to the application of review procedures to the
     award of public supply and public works contracts, and in
     particular by failing to:
                                                                         (1) OJ L 395 of 30.12.1989, p. 33.
                                                                         (2) Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the
     — extend the system of review procedures provided for                   coordination of procedures for the award of public service
          by that directive to decisions adopted by all contracting          contracts (OJ L 209 of 24.7.1992, p. 1).
          authorities, within the meaning of Article 1(1) of             (3) Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating
          Directives 92/50/EEC (2), 93/36/EC (3) and 93/37/EC (4),           procedures for the award of public supply contracts (OJ L 199 of
          including companies governed by private law set up                 9.8.1993, p. 1).
          specifically to meet needs in the general interest which       (4) Council Directive 93/3/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the
          are not of an industrial or commercial character, have             coordination of procedures for the award of public works
                                                                             contracts (OJ L 199 of 9.8.1993, p. 54).
          legal personality, and whose business is for the most
          part financed by the State, territorial bodies and
          other bodies governed by public law, or those whose
          operations are subject to supervision by the latter, or


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 June 1999 in Case T-10/98: E-Quattro Snc v Commission of the European Communities (Arbitration clause - Obligation of payment - Non-performance)

text:
28.8.1999               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 246/27
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                Brussels, represented by Georgios Sakellaropoulos, of the
                                                                           Athens Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                          of 15 June 1999                                  Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue, v Commission of the
                                                                           European Communities (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and Maria
                                                                           Condu Durante) — application for annulment of the decision
in Case T-288/97: Regione Autonoma Friuli Venezia Giulia                   of the Commission of 12 March 1997 rejecting the application
    v the Commission of the European Communities (1)                       for the award of an invalidity pension — the Court of First
                                                                           Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: R.M. Moura Ramos,
(Action for annulment — Commission decision — State aid                    President, and V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; B. Pastor,
    — Action brought by a sub-State body — Admissible)                     Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
                                                                           on 3 June 1999, in which it:
                          (1999/C 246/54)
                                                                           1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible as regards the first plea and
                                                                                as unfounded as regards the second plea;
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                           2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
In Case T-288/97: Regione Autonoma Friuli Venezia Giulia,
represented by Renato Fusco, of the Trieste Bar, and Maurizio              (1) OJ C 26 of 24.1.1998.
Maresca, of the Genoa Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at 36 Rue Wiltz, against Commission of the
European Communities (Agents: Paul Nemitz and Paolo Stan-
canelli and Massimo Moretto) — application for the annulment
of Commission Decision 98/182/EC of 30 July 1997 concern-
ing aid granted by the Friuli-Venezia Giulia Region (Italy) to
road haulage companies in the Region (OJ 1997 L 66, p. 18)
— the Court of First Instance (First Chamber, extended                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
composition), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, C.W.
Bellamy, R.M. Moura Ramos, J. Pirrung and P. Mengozzi,
Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar,                                     of 10 June 1999
gave a judgment on 15 June 1999, in which it:
                                                                           in Case T-10/98: E-Quattro Snc v Commission of the
1. Dismisses the objection of inadmissibility raised by the Com-                             European Communities (1)
     mission of the European Communities;
2. Orders that the action on the merits shall proceed;                     (Arbitration clause — Obligation of payment — Non-
                                                                                performance)
3. Orders that the costs be reserved.
                                                                                (1999/C 246/56)
(1) OJ 1998 C 7.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                           In Case T-10/98: E-Quattro Snc, established in Laveno-
                                                                           Mombello (Italy), represented by Giuseppe Marchesini, advo-
                                                                           cate with rights of audience before the Corte di Cassazione,
                                                                           with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                Ernest Arendt, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt, against Commission
                                                                           of the European Communities (Agents: José Luis Iglesias
                           of 3 June 1999                                  Buhigues, Barry Doherty and Alberto Dal Ferro) — application,
                                                                           pursuant to Article 153 EA, for compensation for damage
                                                                           allegedly suffered in connection with a contract concluded
in Case T-295/97: Dimitrios Coussios v Commission of                       with the Community — the Court of First Instance (Second
                 the European Communities (1)                              Chamber), composed of A. Potocki, President, C.W. Bellamy
                                                                           and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator,
(Officials — Award of an invalidity pension — Relationship                 for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 June 1999, in
between the procedures provided for in Articles 73 and 78 of               which it:
                       the Staff Regulations)
                                                                           1. Dismisses the action;
                          (1999/C 246/55)
                                                                           2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                     (Language of the case: Greek)                         (1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.
In Case T-295/97: Dimitrios Coussios, a former official of
the Commission of the European Communities, residing in


title: Case T-105/01: Action brought on 14 May 2001 by Società Lavori Impianti Metano Sicilia SpA (SLIM SICILIA) against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 212/26               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      28.7.2001
Action brought on 14 May 2001 by Società Lavori                           —     breach of the principle of sound administration and of
Impianti Metano Sicilia SpA (SLIM SICILIA) against the                          the rights of the defence in so far as, in the present case,
         Commission of the European Communities                                 neither the Commission nor the Italian administrative
                                                                                authorities have seen fit to allow the applicant an
                                                                                opportunity effectively to express its point of view; failure
                        (Case T-105/01)                                         also to respect the applicant’s rights of defence as regards
                                                                                access to documents;
                        (2001/C 212/49)
                                                                          —     Breach of the principle of sound administration, on
                                                                                account of the delay in adopting the contested decision;
                                                                                the applicant emphasises that the decision was taken
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                              more than six years after the application for an extension
                                                                                and four years after Community financial aid was paid
                                                                                (end of December 1996/January 1997) in an amount
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                       which implied that the request for an extension had been
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                      granted. On the basis of that last factor, the applicant
European Communities on 14 May 2001 by Società Lavori                           argues that the principle of the protection of legitimate
Impianti Metano Sicilia SpA (SLIM SICILIA), represented by                      expectations has been contravened also;
Nazareno Saitta, Fabio Saitta, Mario Siragusa, Francesca Maria
Moretti and Cesare Lanciani, lawyers, against the Commission              —     Infringement of Article 12 of Regulation No 4258/88 in
of the European Communities.                                                    that the contested decision — bearing in mind that it has
                                                                                not been demonstrated in the present case that work on
                                                                                the project had been suspended for reasons relating to
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                     judicial proceedings — refuses to apply that provision to
                                                                                a situation the facts of which have been misunderstood
—     annul the contested decision in so far as it concerns the                 and/or misinterprets that provision in deeming the situ-
      applicant;                                                                ation to fall outside its scope.
—     in the alternative, annul the contested decision in so far
      as it states that the applicant’s ‘declared expenditure’
      before      31      March       1995         amounted       to
      ITL 23 930 772 264 instead of ITL 24 110 190 502 or                 (1) OJ L 193 of 31.7.1993, p. 34.
      more;
—     order the Commission to pay costs and fees.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant contests Decision D(2000)810575 of
12 December 2000 by which the Commission reduced the                      Action brought on 25 May 2001 by P&O European
Community funding initially granted in respect of the project             Ferries (Vizcaya) S.A. against the Commission of the
for the methanation of the city of Syracuse from ITL 11 billion                                European Communities
to ITL 9 572 308 905, that is to say, by ITL 1 427 691 095.
In so deciding, the Commission rejected the application for an
extension submitted by the Ministero del Bilancio e della                                          (Case T-116/01)
Programmazione Economica (Ministry of Economic Budgeting
and Planning) on the basis of an interpretation — which the
applicant does not accept — of Article 12 of Regulation                                            (2001/C 212/50)
(EEC) No 4254/88 laying down provisions for implementing
Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards the European
Regional Development Fund, as amended by Regulation (EEC)
No 2083/93 (1), and regarded as irrelevant the statements of                                 (Language of the case: English)
expenditure communicated after 31 March 1995.
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
The applicant has carried out and managed the project under               ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
licence for the Comune of Syracuse and has received the                   European Communities on 25 May 2001 by P&O European
Community funding affected by the contested decision. In                  Ferries (Vizcaya) S.A., a company incorporated under the laws
support of its claims, the applicant argues:                              of Spain, represented by Jeremy Lever QC and Daniel Beard,
                                                                          Barristers, Jaime Folguera Crespo and Julian Ellison, Solicitor,
—     breach of the obligation to state reasons;                          of Ashurst Morris Crisp, Brussels (Belgium).


title: Case T-114/00: Action brought on 2 May 2000 by Aktionsgemeinschaft Recht und Eigentum e.V. (ARE) against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
8.7.2000               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 192/19
product, not smokable without further processing, and there-             — Infringement of Article 37 of the EC Treaty: the notification
fore not excisable. There is no published decision determining               system provided for by the regulation in issue disregards
the issue and giving reasons for the classification chosen.                  the objectives of Article 37, inasmuch as its implemen-
Consequently, it requested access to complete minutes of the                 tation will lead to the disappearance of a considerable
meeting of the Excise Duty Committee of 29 and 30 April                      number of economic operators and will result, at the same
1998 and of the subsequent meeting of 28 and 29 October                      time, in the sources of supply of plant protection products
1999 at which the duty treatment of expanded tobacco was                     being concentrated amongst a few multinational under-
apparently determined. This request was definitively refused                 takings, thus enabling the latter to limit supplies and,
by letter of the Secretary General of 8 March 2000.                          consequently, to raise prices.
The applicant contests the validity of this decision. The pleas          — Failure to have regard to Directive 91/414/EEC: the
in law and main arguments are similar to those put forward in                contested regulation alters the criteria governing appli-
Case T-41/00.                                                                cations for authorisation to market plant protection prod-
                                                                             ucts, so that they differ from those laid down in the
                                                                             abovementioned directive, which constitutes the legal basis
(1) OJ 1995 L 291, p. 40.                                                    of the regulation.
                                                                         — Infringement of the principles of legal certainty, the
                                                                             protection of legitimate expectations and sound manage-
                                                                             ment: the new notification system prevents the applicants
                                                                             from marketing certain substances in respect of which they
                                                                             held marketing authorisations under the system provided
                                                                             for by Directive 91/414/EEC, without that situation being
Action brought on 2 May 2000 by Iberotam S.A. and                            justified on any public-interest grounds.
7 others against the Commission of the European Com-
                             munities                                    — Infringement of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects
                                                                             of Intellectual Property Rights (WTO) (3): the contested
                         (Case T-112/00)                                     regulation confers on persons holding the confidential
                                                                             information which must be provided in order to obtain
                                                                             authorisation to market plant protection products an
                         (2000/C 192/35)
                                                                             exclusive protection exceeding that arising from the prin-
                                                                             ciples underlying the provisions of the abovementioned
                   (Language of the case: French)                            Agreement, in particular Articles 8(2) and 39(3) thereof.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               (1) OJ 2000 L 55, p. 25.
                                                                         (2) OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1.
European Communities on 2 May 2000 by Iberotam S.A.,                     (3) OJ L 336 of 23.12.1994, p. 214.
established in Barcelona (Spain), and 7 others, represented by
Miquel Roca Junyent and Joan Roca Sagarra, of the Barcelona
Bar.
The applicants claim that the Court should:
— declare null and void Commission Regulation (EC)
     No 451/2000 of 28 February 2000 laying down the
     detailed rules for the implementation of the second                 Action brought on 2 May 2000 by Aktionsgemeinschaft
     and third stages of the work programme referred to in               Recht und Eigentum e.V. (ARE) against the Commission
     Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC;                                       of the European Communities
— order the European Commission to pay the costs.                                                 (Case T-114/00)
Pleas in law and principal arguments                                                              (2000/C 192/36)
The applicants contest Commission Regulation (EC)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
No 451/2000 of 28 February 2000(1) laying down the detailed
rules for the implementation of the second and third stages of
the work programme referred to in Article 8(2) of Council                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protec-             ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
tion products on the market (2), the object of which is a gradual        European Communities on 2 May 2000 by Aktionsgemein-
examination of active substances placed on the market with a             schaft Recht und Eigentum e.V. (ARE), of Borken (Federal
view to their possible inclusion in Annex I to that directive.           Republic of Germany), represented by Prof. Matthias Pechstein,
The pleas put forward are as follows:                                    of Berlin.
 ---pagebreak--- C 192/20                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        8.7.2000
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               Action brought on 3 May 2000 by Benthe Hørbye-Möller
                                                                            against the Commission of the European Communities
— annul, pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 231 EC,
     Decision SG (2000) D/100623 of the Commission of
     22 December 1999 (1);                                                                         (Case T-116/00)
— order the Commission to reimburse to the applicant the
     costs necessarily incurred by the latter.
                                                                                (2000/C 192/37)
Pleas in law and principal arguments
By the contested decision, the Commission categorised the
draft law amending the legislation on property rights, as                                    (Language of the case: French)
notified to it by the German Government, as aid compatible
with the EC Treaty. The draft modifies the programme for the
acquisition of land provided for by the German Ausgleichslei-             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
stungsgesetz (Indemnification and Compensation Act), pursu-               ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
ant to which parcels of State-owned land in the new Federal               European Communities on 3 May 2000 by Benthe Hørbye-
Länder are to be sold to various groups of purchasers at prices           Möller, residing at Igel (Federal Republic of Germany), rep-
lower than their market value.                                            resented by Louis Tinti, of the Luxembourg Bar.
The applicant states that it represents several hundred former
owners who are not entitled to any restitution and whose                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
entitlement to assert their rights is subordinated, under the
Ausgleichsleistungsgesetz, to that of other groups of pur-
chasers. The contested decision is of direct and individual
concern to the applicant and/or to its members.                           — annul the appointing authority’s decision dated 16 January
                                                                              2000 rejecting her complaint No 516/99 concerning the
                                                                              refusal to include her name on the list of officials proposed
The application is based, in particular, on the following pleas
                                                                              by the Official Publications Office for promotion to
in law:
                                                                              grade B2 in the 1999 promotions procedure;
— The decision in issue does not comply with the obligation,
     imposed by Article 253 EC, to provide a statement of
     reasons.                                                             — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision promot-
                                                                              ing officials of the Official Publications Office to grade B2
     The reasons given by the Commission by way of justifi-                   in the 1999 promotions procedure;
     cation for its finding that the discrimination on grounds of
     nationality to which it had itself objected in its Decision
     C (1999) 42 of 20 January 1999 (2) is eliminated by                  — take note of the fact that she reserves the right in due
     the draft law are not in themselves conclusive. The                      course to claim compensation for the material and non-
     Commission’s main assertion, to the effect that that                     material loss suffered by her.
     discrimination has been eliminated by the deletion of the
     rules relating to the reference date, is not sufficiently borne
     out.
— The decision infringes the EC Treaty. The Commission has                Pleas in law and main arguments
     not taken full account of the scope of the prohibition of
     discrimination on grounds of nationality.
     Contrary to the view expressed by the Commission,                    The applicant contests the refusal by the appointing authority
     Paragraph 3a of the Ausgleichsleistungsgesetz, in the                to include her name on the list of officials proposed for
     amended version thereof, is not in conformity with                   promotion to grade B2 in the 1999 promotions procedure.
     Community law. A supplementary purchase price claim
     cannot be regarded as equivalent to a claim for restitution
     of aid. On the contrary, Community law required that all
     the parcels of land released in consequence of the invalidity        In support of her claims, he pleads infringement of
     of the allocation decisions adopted in contravention of the          Articles 5(3), 25 and 45 of the Staff Regulations. She considers
     implementation prohibition provided for in the third                 in that regard that the appointing authority has committed a
     sentence of Article 88(3) EC should be re-allocated in their         manifest error of assessment and has acted in a manner
     entirety.                                                            contrary to the interests of the service.
(1) OJ C 46 of 19.2.2000, p. 2.
(2) OJ L 107 of 24.4.1999, p. 21.


title: Case C-449/02: Action brought on 11 December 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

text:
C 31/14                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                         8.2.2003
—     Lump-sum financial corrections have already been                   Pleas in law and main arguments
      imposed in respect of the crop years 1994, 1995 and
      1996 for the same reason; lack of a statement of reasons,
      or otherwise an insufficient statement of reasons, because
      of an error as to the facts, of misappraisal of the facts and      The time-limit for transposition expired on 31 July 2001.
      of a failure to take account of relevant matters.
—     In the alternative: the Commission lacked competence
      ratione temporis; incorrect interpretation and application         (1 ) OJ 1999 L 201, p. 77.
      of Article 5(2)(c) of Regulation No 729/70 and
      Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1663/95.
( 1) OJ No L 61, 10.3.1999, p. 37.
( 2) OJ No L 280, 18.10.2002, p. 88.
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Penale
                                                                         di Terni (Italy) by order of that court of 20 November
                                                                             2002 in criminal proceedings against Antonio Niselli
Action brought on 11 December 2002 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                               Spain                                                              (Case C-457/02)
                         (Case C-449/02)
                                                                                (2003/C 31/21)
                          (2003/C 31/20)
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by order of the Tribunale Penale di
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before the
                                                                         Terni (Italy) of 20 November 2002, which was received at the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 11 December
                                                                         Court Registry on 18 December 2002, for a preliminary
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,                      ruling in criminal proceedings against Antonio Niselli on the
represented by Maria Patakia, Legal Adviser, and Isabel Martí-
                                                                         following questions to determine whether the definition of
nez del Peral, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents.
                                                                         ‘waste’ introduced by Directive 75/442/EEC (1), as amended by
                                                                         Directive 91/156/EEC (2), must continue to be understood and
                                                                         interpreted for the time being in Italy in the light of the case-
The applicant claims that the Court should :                             law of the Court of Justice cited above or in the light of
                                                                         Article 14 of Legislative Decree No 138 of 8 July 2002,
                                                                         converted into Law No 178 of 8 August 2002:
—     Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
      within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      Directive 1999/42/EC ( 1) of the European Parliament and
      of the Council of 7 June 1999 establishing a mechanism             Must the concept of waste be strictly subject to the following
                                                                         conditions: that the words ‘discards’, ‘intends to discard’ or ‘is
      for the recognition of qualifications in respect of the
      professional activities covered by the Directives on liberal-      required to discard’, introduced into Italian law by
                                                                         Article 6(1)(a) of Legislative Decree No 22 of 5 February 1997,
      isation and transitional measures and supplementing the
      general systems for the recognition of qualifications or,          are to be interpreted as follows:
      in any event, by failing to communicate them, the
      Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      that directive;                                                    (a)   ‘discards’: any conduct whereby, directly or indirectly,
                                                                               substances, materials or goods are disposed of or subject-
                                                                               ed to disposal or recycling, in accordance with Annexes B
—     Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.                             and C to Legislative Decree No 22;


title: Case T-90/01: Action brought on 23 April 2001 by Christine Janusch against the European Central Bank

text:
C 227/20               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     11.8.2001
Action brought on 23 April 2001 by Christine Janusch                     Action brought on 23 April 2001 by BioID AG against
              against the European Central Bank                          the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
                                                                                (Trade Marks and Designs)
                          (Case T-90/01)
                                                                                (Case T-91/01)
                         (2001/C 227/39)
                                                                                (2001/C 227/40)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
An action against the European Central Bank was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities           An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
on 23 April 2001 by Christine Janusch, residing in Dreieich              Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
(Germany), represented by Boris Karthaus, Rechtsanwalt, with             Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
an address for service in Luxembourg.                                    23 April 2001 by BioID AG, of Berlin (Germany), represented
                                                                         by Axel Nordemann, Lawyer.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the defendant addressed to the
      applicant of 5 February 2001;                                      —     annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the
                                                                               Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
—     order the defendant to make a number of payments plus                    Marks and Designs) of 20 February 2001 (Appeal
      interest to the applicant;                                               R 538/1999-2) and the decision of the examiner Robert
                                                                               Kliyn Brinkema of the Office for Harmonisation in the
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                                    Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 June
                                                                               1999 (concerning application file number 873943);
                                                                         —     order the defendant to admit for publication trade mark
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                873943, logo: BioID.®
                                                                         —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
The applicant was employed by the defendant from July 1998
and assigned to salary band C. In August 2000, she applied for
confirmation of her classification and of assignment to salary
band D, with retrospective effect from 1 January 2000. She               Pleas in law and main arguments
left her employment with the defendant in September 2000.
                                                                         Applicant for the Com-        BioID AG (formerly D.C.S. Dialog
On 28 November 2000, the Executive Board of the defendant                munity trade mark:            Communication Systems AG)
decided to carry out a reclassification of certain posts, whereby
the applicant’s post of ‘Administrative Assistant in the Protocol        The trade mark applied        the word mark and figurative
and Conferences Division’ was assigned to salary band D as               for:                          mark BioID.®
‘Meeting and Conference Assistant’.
                                                                         Goods or services con-        goods and services in Classes 9,
                                                                         cerned:                       38 and 42
By a letter of 5 February 2001, the defendant decided that,
although the applicant’s post as ‘Meeting and Conference                 Decision        contested     refusal of registration by the
Assistant’ had been assigned to salary band D, the defendant             before the Board of           examiner
was not in a position to make the applicant’s new classification         Appeal:
in salary band D retrospective, as the Executive Board had
decided not to apply the decision of 28 November 2000                    Decision of the Board of      dismissal of the applicant’s appeal
retrospectively to employees who had left the defendant in the           Appeal:
meantime.
                                                                         Grounds of claim:             — misapplication of Article
                                                                                7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC)
The applicant makes three pleas in law against the decision,
                                                                                No 40/94 (1)
namely that it was not sufficiently reasoned, infringed the
general principle of equal treatment, and was contrary to the                                          — the trade mark applied for
principles of good faith and fair dealing.                                                                 is, simply on account of its
                                                                                graphic configuration, not a
                                                                                descriptive indication and it
                                                                                has distinctive and indepen-
                                                                                dent graphics


6.4.2002                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 84/53
Terza Sezione (Rome District Court, Third Employment                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
Chamber) of 24 January 2002, received at the Court Registry
on 8 February 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Sante Pasquini against INPS (Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza            —     Declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations
Sociale [National Social Welfare Institution]) on the following                   and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
questions:                                                                        Commission Directive 1999/48/EC(1) of 21 May 1999
                                                                                adapting for the second time to technical progress
                                                                                Council Directive 96/49/EC (2) on the approximation of
                                                                                the laws of the Member States with regard to the transport
Is a provision of national law, which provides, without any                       of dangerous goods by rail or in any event by not
time-limit and thus, in breach of the principle of legal certainty,               notifying the same to the Commission, the Italian Repub-
for the recovery of an undue payment arising from the                             lic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
application of Community legislation, compatible with the
objectives of Council Regulations No 1408/71 (1) and
574/72 (2)?                                                                 —     Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
Are the Community provisions cited in (1) to be interpreted as
precluding the application of a provision of national law which             Pleas in law and main arguments
does not lay down time-limits for the recovery of undue
payments arising from the belated or improper application of
the relevant Community provisions?
                                                                            Article 189 of the EC Treaty (now Article 249 EC), which
                                                                            provides that a directive is to be binding as to the result to be
                                                                            achieved on each Member State to which it is addressed,
Is it possible, given that the transitional rules for the application       implies an obligation that the Member States comply with the
of the social security regulations provide for a time-limit of              time-limits for transposition prescribed by directives. In the
two years in which to claim, with retrospective effect, the                 present case the prescribed period expired on 1 July 1999
rights conferred by those regulations, to apply a contrario the             without the Italian Republic having adopted the provisions
same time-limit of two years from notification of recovery of               necessary to comply with the directive referred to in the
undue payment in cases of reduction of rights previously                    Commission’s claim.
conferred, except where more favourable time-limits are laid
down by national law, and provided that the person concerned
is not guilty of improper conduct?
                                                                            (1) OJ 1999 L 169, p. 58.
                                                                            (2) OJ 1996 L 235, p. 25.
(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416.
(2) OJ, English Special Edition 1972 (I), p. 159.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-18/99 (1)
Action brought on 19 February 2002 by the Commission                                                   (2002/C 84/94)
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                           (Case C-50/02)
                                                                            By order of 6 November 2001 the President of the Fourth
                                                                            Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                           (2002/C 84/93)                                   ordered the removal from the register of Case C-18/99:
                                                                            Commission of the European Communities v Aiolika Parka
                                                                            Siteias AE.
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 February                 (1) OJ C 86 of 27.3.1999.
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by M. Wolfcarius and R. Amorosi, acting as
Agents.


title: References for preliminary rulings from the Tribunale di Genova - Prima Sezione Civile - by orders of that court of 1 February and 7 March 1996 in the cases of (1) Palmera SpA, (2) Cesare Rognoli & Figlio Srl and (3) Igino Mazzola v. Ministero delle Finanze dello Stato (Cases C-86/96, C-87/96 and C-88/96)

text:
No C 133/ 18          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      4 . 5 . 96
Reference for a preliminary ruling by order of the Civil             Action brought on 19 March 1996 by the Kingdon of the
Division of the Tribunale Civile e Penale, Trento, of                Netherlands against the Commission of the European
15 February 1996 in the case of Grundig Italiana v.                                             Communities
                   Ministero delle Finanze
                                                                                Case C-84/96 )
                       ( Case C-68/96 )                                                        ( 96/C 133/39 )
                         ( 96/C 133/37 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the               An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Civil Division of the
Tribunale Civile e Penale ( Civil and Criminal District              European Communities on 19 March 1996 by the Kingdom
Court ), Trento, of 15 February 1996 , which was received at         of the Netherlands, represented by J. S. van den Oosterkamp
                                                                     and M. A. Fierstra , acting as Agents, with an address for
the Court Registry on 14 March 1996 , for a preliminary
                                                                     service in Luxembourg at the Netherlands Embassy, 5 Rue
ruling in the case of Grundig Italiana SpA against Ministero
                                                                     C. M. Spoo .
delle Finanze ( Ministry of Finance ) on the following
question :
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should :
Must Article 95 of the EC Treaty by interpreted as
prohibiting a Member State from introducing and collecting
a national consumption tax of the kind provided for by               — annul the debit note of 15 January 1996 and the
Article 4 of the Decree-Law of 30 December 1982,                         Commission decisions of 16 February 1996 concerning
converted into law by Law No 53 of 28 February 1983 , and                the completion of projects ERDF No 80.07.03.002
                                                                         ( Veendam-Musselkanaal ) and ERDF No 84.07.03.004
further governed by the Decree of the Ministry of Finance of
23 March 1983 , in so far as different taxable amounts are               (Weg Veendam ), which were co-financed prior to 1989
                                                                         by the European Regional Development Fund;
determined for domestic products and for those imported
from other Member States and different procedures are laid
down for collection of the tax on the same products ?                — order the defendant to pay the costs .
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                     The pleas in law and mains arguments adduced in support
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Netherlands Raad           are the same as those in Case C-308/95(M .
van State, by judgment of that court of 12 March 1996 in the
case of Mayor and Aldermen of Haarlemmerliede and
                                                                     (') OJ No C 299 , 11 . 11 . 1995 , p . 13 .
Spaarnwoude and Others v. Gedeputeerde Staten of
                       Noord-Holland
                       ( Case C-81 /96 )
                         ( 96/C 133/38 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communites by judgment of the Netherlands                   References for preliminary rulings from the Tribunale di
Raad van State ( State Council ) of 12 March 1996, which             Genova — Prima Sezione Civile — by orders of that court of
was received at the Court Registry on 18 March 1996 , for            1 February and 7 March , 1996 in the cases of ( 1 ) Palmera
a preliminary ruling in the case of Mayor and Aldermen               SpA, ( 2 ) Cesare Rognoli & Figlio Srl and ( 3 ) Igino Mazzola
of Haarlemmerliede and Spaarnwoude and Others v.                                  v. Ministero delle Finanze dello Stato
Gedeputeerde Staten ( Provincial Executive ) of Noord
Holland on the following question :                                             ( Cases C-86/96, C-87/96 and C-88/96 )
                                                                                96/C 133/40 )
Does Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the
assessment of the effects of certain public and private
projects on the environment ( 1 ) permit consent to be granted       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
for a project mentioned in Annex I to the Directive where , in       European Communities by orders of the Tribunale di
the course of the preparation of the consent, no                     Genova — Prima Sezione Civile — ( District Court, Genoa,
environmental impact assessment within the meaning of the            First Civil Section ) of 1 February and 7 March 1996,
Directive was conducted in a case in which the consent               received at the Court Registry on 21 March 19 96 , for a
relates to a project for which consent had been granted              preliminary ruling in the cases of ( 1 ) Palmera SpA, ( 2 )
before 3 July 1988 , no use was made of that consent and             Cesare Rognoli & Figlio Sri and ( 3 ) Igino Mazzola v .
no environmental impact assessment satisfying the                    Ministero delle Finanze dello Stato on the questions
requirements of the Directive was conducted in the course of         identical to those in Joined Cases C-47/95 and others ( J ).
the preparation of that consent ?
                                                                     (') OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 , p . 5 .
(') OJ No L 175 , 1985 , p . 40 .


title: Removal from the register of Case T-550/93

text:
No C 299/20           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    11 . 11 . 95
Limited, Effem Management Services Limited, Vickers                        ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Public Limited Company v. Council of the European Union                                       of 9 August 1995
and Commission of the European Communities .
                                                                      in Case T-541/93 : Sean Coughlan and Others v. Council of
                                                                                the European Union (')
(') OJ No C 24 , 31 . 1 . 1992 .
                                                                                (Partial removal from register)
                                                                                ( 95/C 299/40 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
     Removal from the register of Case T-5 11 /93 ( )
                                                                      In Case T-541 /93 : Sean Coughlan , James Connaughton,
                          ( 95/C 299/37 )                             Gregory Walsh, Patrick Heffernan , Thomas Fitzsimons,
                                                                      Patrick Wall, Patrick Griffin and John Harris, represented
              (Language of the case: English)                         by James O'Reilly SC , of the Bar of Ireland, and by Philippa
                                                                      Watson, Barrister, of the Bar of Ireland , instructed by Oliver
By order of 9 August 1995 the President of the First                  Ryan-Purcell, Solicitor, with an address for service in
Chamber ( extended composition ) of the Court of First                Luxembourg at the Fyfe Business Centre , 29 Rue Jean-Pierre
Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal              Brasseur, v. Council of the European Union ( Agents : Arthur
from the register of Case T-5 11 /93 : Freda Elsie Locke and          Brautigam and Michel Bishop ), supported by Commission
Others v. Council of the European Union and Commission                of the European Communities ( Agents : Gerard Rozet and
of the European Communities .                                         Xavier Lewis ) and United Kingdom of Great Britain and
                                                                      Northern Ireland ( Agents : initially J. D. Colahan, then S. T.
(') OJ No C 277, 15 . 10 . 1993 .                                     Braviner ) — application under Article 173 of the EEC
                                                                      Treaty for the annulment of Council Regulation ( EEC )
                                                                      No 2187/93 of 22 July 1993 providing for an offer of
                                                                      compensation to certain producers of milk and milk
                                                                      products temporarily prevented from carrying on their trade
                                                                      ( OJ 1993 L 196 , p. 6 ), and in particular Articles 8 and 14
     Removal from the register of Case T-529/93 ( )                   thereof — the President of the Court of First Instance has
                                                                      made an order on 9 August 1995 , the operative part of
                          ( 95/C 299/38 )                             which is as follows :
              (Language of the case: English)
                                                                      1 . the names Sean Coughlan, Gregory Walsh, Patrick
                                                                           Heffernan, Patrick Wall and John Harris shall be
By order of 10 August 1995 the President of the First                      removed from the list of applicants in Case
Chamber ( extended composition ) of the Court of First                     T-541 /93 ;
Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case T-529/93 : Wallace A. Rodgers,              2 . the parties shall bear their own costs including those
Teresa McVeigh, John Rogan, Patrick O'Brien v. Council of                  relating to the interlocutory proceedings;
the European Union and Commission of the European
Communities .
                                                                      3.   the interveners shall bear their own costs .
(') OJ No C 312 , 18 . 11 . 1993 .
                                                                      (') OJ No C 319 , 26 . 11 . 1993 .
     Removal from the register of Case T-540/93 ( )
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case T-5 5 0/93 ( )
                           ( 95/C 299/39 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 299/41 )
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
By order of 10 August 1995 the President of the First
Chamber ( extended composition ) of the Court of First                By order of 12 September 1995 the President of the Fourth
Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal              Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
from the register of Case T-540/93 : Kathleen Early v.                Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
Council of the European Union and Commission of the                   T-550/93 : Dimitrios Benecos v.           Commission of the
European Communities .                                                European Communities .
(') OJ No C 312 , 18 . 11 . 1993 .                                     (') OJ No C 334, 9 . 12 . 1993 .


4.5.2002              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 109/41
       Removal from the register of Case C-115/01 (1)                ruling by the Employment Tribunal, Leeds (United Kingdom)):
                                                                     P. Breckon and M. Barrett v Secretary of State for Employment.
                        (2002/C 109/78)
                                                                     (1) OJ C 173 of 16.6.2001.
By order of 17 January 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-115/01: Commission of the
European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland.
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-183/01 (1)
(1) OJ C 150 of 19.5.2001.
                                                                                (2002/C 109/81)
                                                                     By order of 8 January 2002 the President of the Court of
       Removal from the register of Case    C-127/01 (1)             Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                     from the register of Case C-183/01: Commission of the
                        (2002/C 109/79)                              European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 200 of 14.7.2001.
By order of 30 January 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-127/01: Commission of the
European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
(1) OJ C 150 of 19.5.2001.                                                  Removal from the register of Case C-382/01 (1)
                                                                                (2002/C 109/82)
       Removal from the register of Case C-137/01 (1)                By order of 6 February 2002 the President of the Court of
                                                                     Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                        (2002/C 109/80)                              from the register of Case C-382/01: Commission of the
                                                                     European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain
                                                                     and Northern Ireland.
By order of 16 January 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-137/01 (Reference for a preliminary      (1) OJ C 331 of 24.11.2001.


title: Case T-408/03: Action brought on 12 December 2003 by the Regione Siciliana against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 47/32                EN                            Official Journal of the European Union                                            21.2.2004
Action brought on 12 December 2003 by the Regione                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
Siciliana against the Commission of the European Com-
                              munities
                                                                             —     Annul Commission Decision BUDG/C5/ME/jlsD(2003)
                                                                                358046 of 6 October 2003 on the detailed rules for the
                          (Case T-408/03)                                          recovery of the contribution paid by the European
                                                                                Regional Development Fund (ERDF) for the ‘Messina
                           (2004/C 47/62)                                          Palermo Motorway major project’ partially cancelled by
                                                                                Commission         Decision        No       109206       (ERDF
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                                 No 93.05.03.001 — Arinco No 93.IT.16.009) of 5 Sep-
                                                                                tember 2002 and the Debit Note No 3240406591 of
                                                                                25 September 2002 and the other acts resulting from it;
                                                                                Order the Commission of the European Communities to
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                          pay the costs.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 12 December 2003 by the Regione
Siciliana, represented by A. Cingolo, avvocato dello Stato.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  Pleas in law and main arguments
—     Annul       Commission           Decision       BUDG/C5/ME/
      jlsD(2003)358046 of 6 October 2003 on the detailed
      rules for the recovery of the contribution paid by the                 The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as
      European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) for the                      those put forward in Case T-392/03 Regione Siciliana v
      ‘Aragona Favara’ and ‘Piana di Catania’ projects, Debit                Commission (1).
      Notes No 3240304871 of 14 August 2003 and
      No 3240303927 of 13 August 2003, and the other acts
      resulting from it; Order the Commission of the European                (1) Not yet published in the Official Journal of the European Union.
      Communities to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as
those put forward in Case T-392/03 Regione Siciliana v
Commission (1).
(1) Not yet published in the Official Journal of the European Union.         Action brought on 18 December 2003 by Cofradía de
                                                                             Pescadores San Pedro de Bermeo, Vizcaya, and Others
                                                                                against the Council of the European Union
                                                                                (Case T-415/03)
Action brought on 11 December 2003 by the Regione
Siciliana against the Commission of the European Com-                                                   (2004/C 47/64)
                              munities
                          (Case T-414/03)                                                       (Language of the case: Spanish)
                           (2004/C 47/63)
                   (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                             An action was brought before the Court of First Instance of
                                                                             the European Communities on 18 December 2003 against
                                                                             Council of the European Union by Cofradía de Pescadores San
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                    Pedro de Bermeo,Vizcaya, and Others established at Guipúzcoa
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                   and Vizcaya, Spain, represented by the lawyers Emiliano
European Communities on 11 December 2003 by the Regione                      Garayar Gutiérrez, Gervasio Martínez-Villaseñor, Anna García
Siciliana, represented by G. Aiello, avvocato dello Stato.                   Casatillo and Miguel Troncoso Ferrer.