title: Case C-511/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberste Gerichtshof, Austria by order of that court of 9 November 1999 in the case of Margrith Petersilge née Lackner against Sozialversicherungsanstalt der gewerblichen Wirtschaft

text:
4.3.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 63/17
Appeal brought on 21 December 1999 by Irish Sugar plc                   2) Regarding the second limb of the applicant’s first plea, the
against the judgment delivered on 7 October 1999 by the                     Court of First Instance errs in law by holding that no
Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                         infringement of the applicant’s defence rights occurred.
European Communities in case T-228/97 (1) between Irish
Sugar plc and the Commission of the European Communi-
                               ties                                         Because the definition of the relevant markets in the legal
                                                                            assessment of the Decision differed from the statement of
                                                                            objections and from previous decisional practice, the
                       (Case C-497/99 P)                                    abuses were not assessed in their proper context and the
                                                                            applicant was deprived of its right to comment fully
                                                                            thereon during the administrative procedure.
                         (2000/C 63/31)
                                                                        3) With respect to the third limb of the applicant’s first plea,
                                                                            the Court of First Instance applied the wrong test, viz. the
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 7 October 1999                  collective dominance test developed under the merger
by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                  regulation where a structural assessment, using a prospec-
European Communities in case T-228/97 between Irish Sugar                   tive analysis of the reference market, is required. This is
plc and the Commission of the European Communities,                         not the correct test for retrospective behavioural assess-
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                     ment under Article 86 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81
Communities on 21 December 1999 by Irish Sugar plc, a                       EC).
company incorporated under Irish law, represented by Alex-
ander Böhlke, of the Brussels and Frankfurt am Main Bars,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Victor Elvinger, 31, Rue d’Eich.                                        (1) OJ C 318 of 18.10.1997, p. 29.
The Appellant asks the Court:
— that the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
    7 October 1999 in Case T-228/97 Irish Sugar v. Com-
    mission be set aside in so far as it dismisses the applicant’s
    action (paragraph 3 of the operative part) and orders the
    applicant to pay its own costs and two thirds of the
    Commission’s costs (paragraph 4 of the operative part);             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberste Ge-
                                                                        richtshof, Austria by order of that court of 9 November
                                                                        1999 in the case of Margrith Petersilge née Lackner against
— that Commission Decision 97/624/EC of 14 May 1997                      Sozialversicherungsanstalt der gewerblichen Wirtschaft
    relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 86 of the EC
    Treaty (IV/34.621, 35.059/F-3 — Irish Sugar plc), (OJ
    1997 L 258, p. 1), in its form following from the                                           (Case C-511/99)
    aforementioned judgment, be annulled;
                                                                                (2000/C 63/32)
— that the Commission pay the remainder of the costs of
    Case T-228/97 and those of this appeal.
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by order of the Oberste Gerichtshof,
                                                                        Austria (Supreme Court, Austria) of 9 November 1999,
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         received at the Court Registry on 28 December 1999, for a
                                                                        preliminary ruling in the case of Margrith Petersilge née
                                                                        Lackner against Sozialversicherungsanstalt der gewerblichen
1) In dealing with the first limb of the applicant’s first plea,        Wirtschaft on the following question:
    the Court of First Instance, at one and the same time,
    rejected the argument that the operative part of the
    Commission Decision of 14 May 1997 was incomplete                   On a proper construction, does Article 10(a) of Council
    and the Commission’s defence that the Decision, for                 Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) on the application of social
    the period before February 1990, established both an                security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed
    individual dominant position of the applicant and, in               persons and to members of their families moving within the
    the alternative, a joint dominant position with Sugar               Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation
    Distributors Ltd (SDL).                                             (EEC) No 2001/83 (2) of 2 June 1983, as subsequently amended
                                                                        by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1247/92 (3) of 30 April 1992,
                                                                        read in conjunction with Annex IIa, encompass the care
    The rejected arguments being mutually exclusive, the                allowance provided for by the Bundespflegegeldgesetz (Austri-
    Court’s position lacks in logic and breaches the rule of law.       an Federal Care Allowance Act) and does such care allowance
 ---pagebreak--- C 63/18                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         4.3.2000
therefore constitute a special non-contributory benefit within          The French Government maintains that, by merely citing the
the meaning of Article 4(2a) of that regulation, with the result        conclusions of the SSC without even examining the need for
that where a person — as in the plaintiff’s case — meets the            fresh measures, and by confusing ‘the assessment of the risk’
conditions for that allowance after 1 June 1992, only the               with ‘the management of the risk’, the Commission has failed
coordination rules created by Article 10(a) of the Regulation           to observe the precautionary principle. It claims that the
are applicable?                                                         Commission has not analysed the scientific opinions relating
                                                                        to bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), even the minority
                                                                        opinions, fuelling the uncertainty regarding the existence or
(1) OJ L 149 of 5.7.1971, p. 2.                                         extent of risk to human health (in particular, the opinion of
(2) OJ L 230 of 22.8.1983, p. 6.                                        the Agence française pour la sécurité sanitaire des aliments
(3) OJ L 136 of 19.5.1992, p. 1.                                        (French Food Safety Agency) and the experts’ document on
                                                                        transmissible subacute spongiform encephalopathies (TSSE)
                                                                        annexed thereto); that the Commission has failed to take the
                                                                        protection measures needing to be implemented before the
                                                                        reality and gravity of those risks become fully apparent; and
                                                                        that, by refusing to modify and, indeed, to cancel its decision
                                                                        lifting the ban on British beef from 1 August 1999, the
                                                                        Commission has infringed the precautionary principle as
                                                                        established by the Treaty and the case-law of the Court. The
                                                                        Commission’s decision is thus vitiated by an infringement of
Action brought on 29 December 1999 by the French
                                                                        the Treaties, by procedural irregularities and by the absence of
Republic against the Commission of the European Com-
                                                                        a statement of reasons.
                             munities
                        (Case C-514/99)                                 (1) OJ L 195 of 28.7.1999: Commission Decision 1999/514/EC of
                                                                             23 July 1999 setting the date on which dispatch from the United
                                                                             Kingdom of bovine products under the date-based export scheme
                         (2000/C 63/33)                                      may commence by virtue of Article 6(5) of Council Decision
                                                                             98/256/EC (OJ 1998 L 113, p. 33).
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 29 December 1999 by the French Republic,
represented by Ronny Abraham, Director of Legal Affairs in
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Kareen Rispal-Bellanger and
Régine Loosli-Surrans, respectively Head of Subdirectorate and
Chargée de Mission in that Ministry, acting as Agents, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the French Embassy,                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d’Appel
8b Boulevard Joseph II.                                                 de Bruxelles by judgment of that court of 22 December
                                                                        1999 in the case of Richard Gaillard against Alaya Chekili
The French Republic claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Case C-518/99)
— annul the Commission’s decision refusing to modify or
      cancel Decision 1999/514/EC (1).                                                             (2000/C 63/34)
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         European Communities by judgment of the Cour d’Appel de
                                                                        Bruxelles (Court of Appeal, Brussels) of 22 December 1999,
                                                                        received at the Court Registry on 31 December 1999, for a
The action has been brought against a decision of the                   preliminary ruling in the case of Richard Gaillard against Alaya
Commission which was revealed by a statement made on                    Chekili on the following question:
29 October 1999 by Mr Commissioner Byrne, in which he
expressed the view that, following the issue on the same day
of the opinion of the Scientific Steering Committee (SSC),              Does an action for rescission of a contract for the sale of land
there was no longer any need to ‘re-examine the decision to             and consequential damages amount to proceedings ‘which
lift the ban on exports of British beef’, and in particular by the      have as their object rights in rem in immovable property’
decision dated 17 November 1999 by which the college of                 within the meaning of Article 16 of the Convention of
Commissioners gave formal notice to France requiring it to              27 September 1968 between the Member States of the
comply with Decision 1999/514/EC and to lift its ban.                   European Economic Community on jurisdiction and the
The action is principally based on an allegation that the               enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters,
Commission has infringed the precautionary principle and,               signed in Brussels on 27 September 1968?
secondarily, on a claim that the procedure followed was
inadequate and that the insufficient reasons have been given
for the contested decision.


title: Case F-56/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 24 April 2013 — Lebedef v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Disciplinary proceedings — Disciplinary measure — Downgrading)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/84

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 24 April 2013 — Lebedef v Commission
   (Case F-56/11) (1)

   (Civil service - Officials - Disciplinary proceedings - Disciplinary measure - Downgrading)
   2013/C 225/192
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Giorgio Lebedef (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid and J. Banquero Cruz, Agents)

      Re:

   Civil service — Application for annulment of the decision downgrading the applicant by two grades in the same function group.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Lebedef is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 226, 30.7.2011. p. 31.


title: Case C-412/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart (Germany) lodged on 10 October 2006 — Annelore Hamilton v Volksbank Filder eG

text:
               16.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 310/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart (Germany) lodged on 10 October 2006 — Annelore Hamilton v Volksbank Filder eG
   (Case C-412/06)
   (2006/C 310/12)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Annelore Hamilton

      Defendant: Volksbank Filder eG
   Question referred

               1.

               May the first paragraph of Article 4 and Article 5(1) of Council Directive 85/577/EEC of 20 December 1985 (1) be interpreted as meaning that the national legislature is not precluded from placing a time-limit on the right of cancellation given by Article 5 of the Directive, despite the consumer having been given defective notice, so that it expires one month after both parties have performed their obligations under the agreement in full?
               In the event that the Court answers the first question referred in the negative:

               2.

               Should Directive 85/577/EEC be interpreted as meaning that the right of renunciation cannot be forfeited by the consumer — in particular after the completion of the contract — if he has not been given notice in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 4 of the Directive?

      (1)  OJ L 372, p. 31.


title: Case C-139/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe (Germany) lodged on 7 April 2008 — Criminal proceedings against Rafet Kqiku

text:
               19.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe (Germany) lodged on 7 April 2008 — Criminal proceedings against Rafet Kqiku
   (Case C-139/08)
   (2008/C 183/17)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants:

               1.

               Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Karlsruhe

               2.

               Staatsanwaltschaft Konstanz

      Defendant: Rafet Kqiku
   Questions referred
   Are the provisions of Articles 1 and 2 of Decision No 896/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 establishing a simplified regime for the control of persons at the external borders based on the unilateral recognition by the Member States of certain residence permits issued by Switzerland and Liechtenstein for the purpose of transit through their territory (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the residence permits issued by the Swiss Confederation and Liechtenstein listed in the Annex acquire, by virtue of the unilateral recognition by the Member States fully implementing the Schengen acquis of those residence permits as equivalent to their uniform or national visas, directly the effect of a residence document allowing transit through the common area;
   Or
   are the provisions of Articles 1 and 2 of Decision No 896/2006/EC to be interpreted as meaning that third-country nationals holding one of the residence permits issued by the Swiss Confederation and Liechtenstein listed in the Annex unilaterally recognised by the Member States fully implementing the Schengen acquis are exempt, for the purpose of transit through the common area, from the requirement to be in possession of a visa under Article 1(1) of Regulation (EC) No 539/2001?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 167, p. 8.


title: Case C-124/06: Order of the President of the Court of 15 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/35

         Order of the President of the Court of 15 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-124/06) (1)

   (2007/C 95/69)

      Language of the case: Greek

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

      (1)  OJ C 96, 22.4.2006.


title: Case T-476/11 P: Judgment of the General Court of 25 October 2013 — Commission v Moschonaki (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Notice of vacancy — Rejection of application — Action for annulment — Legal interest in bringing proceedings — Admissibility — Rule that the application corresponds to the complaint — Article 91(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials — Action for damages)

text:
               7.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 359/8

         Judgment of the General Court of 25 October 2013 — Commission v Moschonaki
   (Case T-476/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Notice of vacancy - Rejection of application - Action for annulment - Legal interest in bringing proceedings - Admissibility - Rule that the application corresponds to the complaint - Article 91(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials - Action for damages)
   2013/C 359/12
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and B. Eggers, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Chrysanthe Moschonaki (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: N. Lhoëst, lawyer)

      Intervener in support of the appellant: Court of Auditors of the European Union (represented by: T. Kennedy and I. Ní Riagáin Düro, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 28 June 2011 in Case F-55/10 AS v Commission (not yet published in the ECR), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 28 June 2011 in Case F-55/10 AS v Commission (not yet published in the ECR), in so far as it declares the plea in law alleging infringement of Article 7 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union to be admissible, in so far as it annuls the decision of 30 September 2009 whereby the European Commission rejected Ms Chrysanthe Moschonaki’s application on the basis of that plea in law, and in so far as it ordered the Commission to pay Ms Moschonaki the sum of EUR 3 000;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the appeal;

               3.

               Refers the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal;

               4.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 319, 29.10.2011.


title: Case T-682/15 P: Appeal brought on 26 November 2015 by Patrick Wanègue against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 15 September 2015 in Case F-21/15, Wanègue v Committee of the Regions

text:
               15.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 59/24

         Appeal brought on 26 November 2015 by Patrick Wanègue against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 15 September 2015 in Case F-21/15, Wanègue v Committee of the Regions
   (Case T-682/15 P)
   (2016/C 059/27)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Patrick Wanègue (Dilbeek, Belgium) (represented by M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Committee of the Regions of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the order of 15 September 2015 in Case F-21/15 by which the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) dismissed, as being in part manifestly unfounded in law and in part manifestly inadmissible, the appellant’s action brought on 5 February 2015 against the Committee of the Regions;

               —

               rule on the action and grant the appellant the form of order sought in his application;

               —

               order the Committee of the Regions to pay the costs of both proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on five pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 51(1) and 53(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) and of the principle of the equality of the parties in the proceedings, in that the period of two months laid down for lodging the defence, extended by ten days on account of distance, was calculated from the date of service of the notification that the application was in order, and not the date of service of the application, so that the defence lodged by the Committee of the Regions (CoR) was placed on the case file for the proceedings even though it had been lodged out of time; the CST then relied on that defence in order to dismiss the action by way of an order on the basis of Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure, and the appellant was thus deprived of the possibility of applying for judgment by default of the basis of Article 121 of the Rules of Procedure.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging (i) infringement of the principle that the provisions of EU law are to be interpreted having regard to their context and of the obligation to state reasons, in that the CST, in paragraphs 64 to 70 of its order, interpreted Article 56 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union without having regard either to Article 55 of those regulations or to the decisions adopted by the CoR on that basis, and failed to respond to the appellant’s arguments derived from those provisions; and (ii) errors of law, in that the CST thus misinterpreted the scope and purpose of Articles 55 and 56 of the Staff Regulations and Article 3 of Annex VI to those regulations, and Articles 2 and 4 of Decision No 048/03 on the detailed rules for granting flat-rate allowances for overtime worked by certain officials in categories C and D who are required to work overtime on a regular basis (‘Decision No 48/03’).

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging (i) infringement of the principles that the provisions of the Staff Regulations are to be interpreted in accordance with the European Charter of Fundamental Rights and that Article 31 of the Charter is to be interpreted in accordance with Decision No 48/03; and (ii) infringement of the obligation to state the reasons on which judgments are based and the requirement that pleadings are to be construed in accordance with their actual terms, in that the CST, in paragraphs 71 to 74 of its order, did not have regard to Article 6 of Decision No 48/03 for the purposes of interpreting Article 31(2) of the Charter, failed to respond to the requisite legal standard to the appellant’s arguments based on those provisions, and misinterpreted the subject matter and cause of his action.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging (i) infringement of the requirement that pleadings are to be construed in accordance with their actual terms and of the principle that actions are to be assessed on the basis of the information existing at the time the contested measure was adopted, in that the CST took the view, in paragraph 77 of its order, that the appellant based his arguments, derived from the principle of equal treatment, on the consequences of the contested decision and rejected them in any event on the basis of those consequences; and (ii) infringement of the obligation to state reasons, the principle that the provisions of the Staff Regulations are to be interpreted in accordance with the principle of equality and the principle of equality itself, in that the CST, in paragraphs 77 and 78 to 80 of its order, failed to respond to the requisite legal standard to the appellant’s arguments.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging (i) infringement of the requirement that pleadings are to be construed in accordance with their actual terms and of Article 50(1)(e) of the Rules of Procedure of the CST, in that the CST took the view, in paragraph 82 of its order, that the plea of illegality raised by the appellant was not supported by any arguments, contrary to the requirements of that provision, and was therefore manifestly inadmissible; and (ii) illegality as a consequence of paragraphs 54 to 57 of the order under appeal.


title: Case F-122/10: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 11 December 2012 — Cocchi and Falcione v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Pension — Transfer of pension rights acquired under a national pension — Withdrawal of a transfer proposal — Measure not having conferred subjective rights or other similar benefits)

text:
               16.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/27

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 11 December 2012 — Cocchi and Falcione v Commission
   (Case F-122/10) (1)

   (Civil service - Officials - Pension - Transfer of pension rights acquired under a national pension - Withdrawal of a transfer proposal - Measure not having conferred subjective rights or other similar benefits)
   2013/C 46/49
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Giorgio Cocchi (Wezembeek-Oppem, Belgium) and Nicola Falcione (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Martin and J. Baquero Cruz, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Civil service — Annulment of the decision to withdraw a proposal relating to transfer of the applicants’ pension rights when already accepted by them

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               The European Commission’s decisions of 12 and 23 February 2010 are annulled in so far as they withdraw the proposals put to Mr Cocchi and Mr Falcione indicating the result in additional pension annuities to be generated by a potential transfer of rights;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Order the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay one-third of those incurred by Mr Cocchi and Mr Falcione;

               4.

               Orders Mr Cocchi and Mr Falcione to bear two-thirds of their costs.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 26.2.11, p. 34.


title: Case C-414/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof by order of that Court of 6 November 2002 in the case of Spedition Ulustrans, Uluslararasi Nakliyat ve. Tic. A.S. Istanbul against Finanzlandesdirektion Oberösterreich

text:
C 19/16                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      25.1.2003
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsger-                     new securities issued when a company or investment
ichtshof by order of that Court of 6 November 2002 in                         fund is being set up or following the completion of an
the case of Spedition Ulustrans, Uluslararasi Nakliyat ve.                    increase in capital or during a loan issue,
Tic. A.S. Istanbul against Finanzlandesdirektion Oberös-
                             terreich                                         the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                              under Article 11 of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of
                        (Case C-414/02)                                       17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of
                                                                              capital (1);
                         (2003/C 19/27)
                                                                        —     Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgerichtsh-
of (Administrative Court) of 6 November 2002, received at the
Court Registry on 19 November 2002, for a preliminary ruling            Pleas in law and main arguments
in the case of Spedition Ulustrans, Uluslararasi Nakliyat ve.
Tic. A.S. Istanbul against Finanzlandesdirektion Oberösterreich
(Regional Finance Directorate for Upper Austria) on the                 The taxes referred to in the forms of order sought are at
following questions:                                                    variance with Article 11 of the Directive in so far as they are
                                                                        imposed on the delivery to the subscriber and/or the issue of
Does Paragraph 79(2) of the Zollrechtsdurchführungsgesetz               new securities. In those cases, the derogation provided for in
(Act to implement customs law, under which an employer or               Article 12(1)(a) of the Directive, which allows Member States
undertaking incurs liability for a customs debt at the same             to charge duties on the transfer of securities, is not applicable
time as the employee or other person contracted by the                  because such a ‘transfer’ presupposes the existence of a
undertaking incurs liability for the debt, if that person has, in       previous owner of the securities in question.
the discharge of his employer’s or the undertaking’s affairs,
acted unlawfully with regard to customs obligations), widen
the meaning of the term ‘customs debtor’ in a manner that is            (1 ) OJ English Special Edition 1969(II), p. 412.
contrary to Article 202(3) of the Customs Code and therefore
incompatible with Community law?
Action brought on 19 November 2002 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities against the
                      Kingdom of Belgium                                Action brought on 19 November 2002 by the
                                                                        Commission of the European Communities against the
                        (Case C-415/02)                                                          Hellenic Republic
                         (2003/C 19/28)
                                                                                (Case C-417/02)
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                                               (2003/C 19/29)
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
19 November 2002 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by R. Lyal and Ch. Giolito, acting
as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                        An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                  the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 No-
the Court should:                                                       vember 2002 by the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties, represented by Maria Patakia, Legal Adviser in its Legal
—     Rule that:                                                        Service.
      by imposing the ‘tax on stock-exchange transactions’ on
      applications made in Belgium for new securities issued
      when a company or investment fund is being set up or              The Commission claims that the Court should:
      following the completion of an increase in capital or
      during a loan issue;                                              (a)   declare that,
      by imposing the ’tax on the delivery of securities to the
      holder’ on the substantive issue to the holder of securities            —     by enacting and retaining in force Article 3(1)(c) and
      relating to Belgian or foreign public funds, in the case of                   (2) of Presidential Decree 107/93, and


title: Case T-668/11: Action brought on 30 December 2011 — VIP Car Solutions v Parliament

text:
               14.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 109/14

         Action brought on 30 December 2011 — VIP Car Solutions v Parliament
   (Case T-668/11)
   2012/C 109/33
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: VIP Car Solutions SARL (Hoenheim, France) (represented by: G. Welzer, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               order the European Parliament to pay EUR 1 408 000 to SARL VIP CAR SOLUTIONS;

               —

               order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant seeks compensation for the material and non-material damage which it claims to have suffered as a result of the Parliament’s decision of 24 January 2007 to reject its tender submitted in the context of a tender procedure relating to transport for Members of the European Parliament in chauffeur-driven cars and minibuses during part-sessions in Strasbourg (PE/2006/06/UTD/1). (1) That decision was annulled by the judgment in Case T-89/07 VIP Car Solutions v Parliament. (2)

   In support of the action, the applicant alleges serious fault on the part of the Parliament as follows, giving rise to loss:

               —

               a breach of the obligation to notify the price offered by the successful tenderer;

               —

               a breach of the obligation to state reasons, since the Parliament failed to give any information on the characteristics and relative advantages of the successful tender, and

               —

               a manifest error of assessment, since the Parliament did not base its refusal decision on selection and award criteria defined in advance in the documents relating to the call for tenders.

      (1)  OJ 2006/S 177-187988.

      (2)  [2009] ECR II-1403.


title: Judgement of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 November 2000 in Case C-217/99: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure to fulfil obligations — Free movement of goods — Measures having equivalent effect — Nutrients and foodstuffs containing nutrients — Obligation to submit a notification file — Obligation to include notification number on labelling)

text:
10.2.2001                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 45/5
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                     JUDGEMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Sixth Chamber)                                                            (Sixth Chamber)
                        of 16 November 2000                                                        of 16 November 2000
in Case C-37/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                    in Case C-217/99: Commission of the European Communi-
the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands): criminal                                         ties v Kingdom of Belgium (1)
          proceedings against Roelof Donkersteeg (1)
(Directive 83/189/EEC — Technical standards and regu-                       (Failure to fulfil obligations — Free movement of goods
lations — Obligation to notify — Footwear disinfecting                      — Measures having equivalent effect — Nutrients and
   facilities on agricultural holdings — Vaccination of pigs)               foodstuffs containing nutrients — Obligation to submit a
                                                                            notification file — Obligation to include notification number
                                                                                on labelling)
                            (2001/C 45/09)
                                                                                (2001/C 45/10)
                      (Language of the Case: Dutch)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
In Case C-37/99, reference to the Court under Article 177 of                                    in the European Court Reports)
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden (Netherlands), for a preliminary ruling in the                  In Case C-217/99, Commission of the European Communities
criminal proceedings pending before the court the against                   (Agent: H. van Lier) v Kingdom of Belgium (Agents: initially
Roelof Donkersteeg — on the interpretation of Article 1 of                  Y. Houyet and then P. Rietjens) — application for a declaration
Council Directive 83/189/EEC of 28 March 1983 laying down                   that, by laying down in Article 6(1)(1) of the Royal Decree of
a procedure for the provision of information in the field of                3 March 1992, concerning the placing on the market of
technical standards and regulations (OJ 1983 L 109, p. 8), as               nutrients and foodstuffs to which nutrients have been added
amended by Council Directive 88/182/EEC of 22 March 1988                    (Moniteur Belge of 15 April 1992, p. 8467), an obligation to
(OJ 1988 L 81, p. 75) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed                 indicate on the labelling of the products to which the decree
of: C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber,                      applies the notification number provided for by Article 4
J.-P. Puissochet and F. Macken, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate               thereof, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Administrator, for the Regis-                 obligations under Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after
trar, has given a judgment on 16 November, in which it has                  amendment, Article 28 EC) et seq. — the Court (Sixth
ruled:                                                                      Chamber), composed of C. Gulmann, President of the Chamb-
                                                                            er, V. Skouris (Rapporteur) and J.-P. Puissochet, Judges; N. Fen-
1.     A provision such as that in issue in the main proceedings,           nely, Advocate General: H.A. Rühl, Registrar, has given a
       which requires there to be one or more disinfectant containers       judgment on 16 November 2000 in which it:
       or appropriate cleaning facilities for disinfecting footwear on
       pig farms, is not, for the purposes of Council Directive
       83/189/EEC of 28 March 1983 laying down a procedure for              1.    Declares that, by laying down in Article 6(1)(1) of the Royal
       the provision of information in the field of technical standards           Decree of 3 March 1992, concerning the placing on the market
       and regulations, as amended by Council Directive 88/182/EEC                of nutrients and foodstuffs to which nutrients have been added,
       of 22 March 1988, a technical regulation which ought to have               an obligation to indicate on the labelling of the products to
       been notified to the Commission before being adopted.                      which the decree applies the notification number provided for
                                                                                by Article 4 thereof, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil
2.     A provision such as that in issue in the main proceedings which            its obligations under Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after
       requires every farmer to have the pigs on his holding vaccinated           amendment, Article 28 EC) et seq.;
       Aujeszky’s disease is not, for the purposes of Directive as
       amended by Directive 88/182, a technical regulation which            2.    Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
       ought to have been notified to the Commission before being
       adopted.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
(1) OJ C 121 of 1.5.1999.


title: Case C-93/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden (Germany) lodged on 6 March 2009 — Hartmut Eifert v Land Hessen, interested party: Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/24

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden (Germany) lodged on 6 March 2009 — Hartmut Eifert v Land Hessen, interested party: Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung
   (Case C-93/09)
   2009/C 113/46
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Hartmut Eifert

      Defendant: Land Hessen

      Interested party: Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are point 8b of Article 42(1) and Article 44a of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2005 L 209, p. 1), inserted by Council Regulation (EC) No 1437/2007 of 26 November 2007 amending Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2007 L 322, p. 1), invalid?

               2.

               Is Commission Regulation (EC) No 259/2008 of 18 March 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 as regards the publication of information on the beneficiaries of funds deriving from the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2008 L 76, p. 28)

                           (a)

                           invalid, or

                           (b)

                           valid by reason only of the fact that Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC (OJ 2006 L 105, p. 54) is invalid?

         If the provisions mentioned in the first and second questions are valid:

               3.

               Must the second indent of Article 18(2) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31) be interpreted as meaning that publication in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 259/2008 of 18 March 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 as regards the publication of information on the beneficiaries of funds deriving from the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) may be effected only following implementation of the procedure — in lieu of notification to a supervisory authority — established by that article?

               4.

               Must Article 20 of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31) be interpreted as meaning that publication in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 259/2008 of 18 March 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 as regards the publication of information on the beneficiaries of funds deriving from the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) may be effected only following exercise of the prior check required by national law in that case?

               5.

               If the fourth question is answered in the affirmative: Must Article 20 of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31) be interpreted as meaning that no effective prior check has been performed, if it was effected on the basis of a register established in accordance with the second indent of Article 18(2) of that directive which lacks an item of information prescribed?

               6.

               Must Article 7 — and in this case, in particular, subparagraph (e) — of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31) be interpreted as precluding a practice of storing the IP addresses of the users of a homepage without their express consent?


title: Case C-519/08: Order of the Court of 24 April 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Monomeles Protodikio Athinon — Greece.) — Arkontia Koukou/Elliniko Dimosio. (Article 104(3), first paragraph, of the Rules of Procedure — Social Policy — Directive 1999/70/EC — Clauses 5 and 8 of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work — Public sector fixed-term employment contracts — Successive contracts — Reduction in the general level of protection of workers — Measures intended to prevent abuse — Penalties — Absolute prohibition on conversion of fixed-term employment contracts to contracts of indefinite duration in the public sector — Consequences of incorrect transposition of a directive — Interpretation in conformity with Community law)

text:
               29.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/17

         Order of the Court of 24 April 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Monomeles Protodikio Athinon — Greece.) — Arkontia Koukou/Elliniko Dimosio.
   (Case C-519/08) (1)

   (Article 104(3), first paragraph, of the Rules of Procedure - Social Policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Clauses 5 and 8 of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work - Public sector fixed-term employment contracts - Successive contracts - Reduction in the general level of protection of workers - Measures intended to prevent abuse - Penalties - Absolute prohibition on conversion of fixed-term employment contracts to contracts of indefinite duration in the public sector - Consequences of incorrect transposition of a directive - Interpretation in conformity with Community law)
   2009/C 205/31
   Language of the case: Greek

      Referring court

   Monomeles Protodikio Athinon (Court of First Instance, Athens (single judge)).

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Arkontia Koukou

      Defendant: Elliniko Dimosio (Greek State)

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Monomeles Protodikeio Athinon — Interpretation of Clauses 5 and 3 of the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43) — Objective reasons justifying the renewal without restriction of successive fixed-term employment contracts — Obligation, imposed by national legislation, to enter into such contracts — Prohibition on adoption of transposing legislation reducing the level of protection — Meaning of reduction

      Operative part

               1.

               Clause 5(1)(a) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as precluding the use of successive fixed-term employment contracts on the sole ground that such use is founded on provisions in the general laws or regulations of a Member State. On the contrary, the concept of ‘objective reasons’, within the meaning of that clause, requires that the use of that particular type of employment relationship, as provided for by the national legislation, must be justified by the existence of specific factors connected inter alia with the activity in question and the conditions under which it is carried out.

               2.

               Clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings which, while imposing the requirement, as a measure to prevent the abuse of successive fixed-term employment contracts, that a maximum total duration of such contracts must not be exceeded, provides that certain categories of workers are excepted from the latter restriction, provided that those workers have the protection of at least one of the measures set out in that clause to prevent the abuse of successive fixed-term employment contracts

               3.

               Clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings which makes provision, as a measure to curb the abuse of successive fixed-term employment contracts, for payment of salary and compensation and for criminal and disciplinary penalties, to the extent that, as the referring court must determine, the conditions for the application and effective implementation of the relevant provisions of domestic law constitute adequate measures to penalise the abuse by the public authorities of successive fixed-term employment contracts.

               4.

               Clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work must be interpreted as meaning that, where the domestic legal order of the Member State concerned does not contain, in the public sector, other measures which can effectively ensure that the abuse of successive fixed-term employment contracts is avoided and, when appropriate, penalised, which it is for the referring court to determine, national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings is precluded, since it is not applicable ratione temporis to successive fixed-term employment contracts which have been entered into or renewed after expiry of the period laid down in Directive 1999/70 for its transposition where those contracts were no longer current at the date when that legislation entered into force or at any time during the period of three months preceding that date.

               5.

               In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, Clause 5(1)(a) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work must be interpreted to mean that, where the domestic legal order of the Member State concerned contains, in the sector under consideration, other measures which are effective to avoid and, when appropriate, penalise the abuse of successive fixed-term employment contracts within the meaning of Clause 5(1), it is not precluded that a rule of national law may impose an absolutely prohibition, in the public sector alone, on conversion into a contract of indefinite duration of a succession of fixed-term employment contracts which, when intended to cover fixed and permanent needs of the employer, must be regarded as an abuse. It is however for the referring court to assess the extent to which the conditions for the application and actual implementation of the relevant provisions of domestic law constitute adequate measures to prevent and, when appropriate, penalise the abuse by the public authorities of successive fixed-term employment contracts.

               6.

               Clause 5(1)(a) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work must be interpreted as not precluding the possibility that, as a general rule, legal disputes concerning the abuse of fixed-term employment contracts in the public sector fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the administrative courts. It is however for the referring court to ensure that the right to effective legal protection is safeguarded with due regard to the principles of effectiveness and equivalence.

               7.

               Clause 8(3) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work must be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings which lays down, for the purposes of determining whether there is abuse of fixed-term employment contracts, additional conditions beyond those laid down by the earlier domestic law, such as, in particular, Article 8(3) of Law 2112/1920 on the obligatory termination of the employment contract of private sector employees, provided that such conditions, this being for the referring court to determine, either affect a restricted category of workers who have entered into a fixed-term employment contract or are balanced by the adoption of measures to prevent the abuse of fixed-term employment contracts within the meaning of Clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement.

               8.

               It is for the national court to interpret the relevant provisions of national law, so far as possible, in conformity with clauses 5(1) and 8(3) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work, and also to determine, in that context, whether a provision of domestic law such as that provided for in Article 8(3) of Law No 2112/1920, must be applied to the main proceedings in place of certain other provisions of domestic law.

      (1)  OJ C 44, 21.02.2009.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 May 2003 in Case C-335/02: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Incomplete transposition of Directive 89/391/EEC — Safety and health of workers)

text:
C 171/8                  EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                              19.7.2003
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (First Chamber)
                                                                                (Fourth Chamber)
                           of 22 May 2003
                                                                                of 22 May 2003
in Case C-56/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Bundesfinanzhof): IHW Rebmann GmbH v
                     Hauptzollamt Weiden (1)                                 in Case C-335/02: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg ( 1)
(Free movement of goods — Trade with third countries —
Procedure for returned goods — Article 187 of Regulation                     (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Incomplete
(EEC) No 2913/92 — Reimportation of compensating                             transposition of Directive 89/391/EEC — Safety and health
products originally re-exported subsequent to an inward                                                    of workers)
processing procedure — Determination of the import duty
legally owed — Burden of proof in respect of the proportion
of the value of the reimported products corresponding to
                                                                                (2003/C 171/11)
                         inward processing)
                           (2003/C 171/10)                                                        (Language of the case: French)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             In Case C-335/02, Commission of the European Communities
In Case C-56/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC                 (Agents: H. Kreppel and D. Martin) v Grand Duchy of
by the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in                 Luxembourg (Agent: S. Schreiner): Application for a declar-
the proceedings pending before that court between IHW                        ation that, by failing to define the necessary capabilities and
Rebmann GmbH and Hauptzollamt Weiden, on the interpret-                      aptitudes for persons designated to carry out activities related
ation of the second paragraph of Article 187 of Council                      to protection against and prevention of occupational risks, the
Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing                  Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations
the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1), the                        under Articles 10 EC and 249 EC and Article 7(8) of Council
Court (First Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of                Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of
the Chamber, P. Jann and A. Rosas (Rapporteur), Judges;                      measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health
D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Princi-                of workers at work (OJ 1989 L 183, p. 1), the Court (Fourth
pal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of
22 May 2002, in which it has ruled:                                          the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and S. von Bahr (Rapporteur),
                                                                             Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,
The second paragraph of Article 187 of Council Regulation (EEC)              has given a judgment on 22 May 2003, in which it:
No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community
Customs Code must be interpreted as meaning that, where an
importer has provided proof that the imported goods are compensating         1.    Declares that, by failing to define the necessary capabilities and
products qualifying for application of the procedure for returned                  aptitudes for persons designated to carry out activities related to
goods under Article 848 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/                    protection against and prevention of occupational risks, the
93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of                 Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations
Regulation No 2913/92, but is unable to provide all the information                under Article 7(8) of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of
necessary for calculating the duty legally owed, the administrative                12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage
cooperation procedure provided for in Articles 611(2)(b) and 613 of                improvements in the safety and health of workers at work.
Regulation No 2454/93 must be used by the customs authorities
responsible for accepting the declaration. Those authorities must
                                                                             2.    Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
therefore ask the supervising customs office, using the INF 1 sheet, to
communicate to them the amount of duty legally owed.
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 261, 26.10.2002.
( 1) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.


title: Case T-177/00: Action brought on 30 June 2000 by Koninklĳke Philips Electronics N.V. against the Council of the European Union.

text:
23.9.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 273/13
dorf, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                     Action brought on 30 June 2000 by Koninklijke Philips
Chambers of Bonn and Schmidt, 7 Val Sainte-Croix, v                        Electronics N.V. against the Council of the European
Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                                                         Union.
H. Støvlbæk and B. Wägenbaur) — application for suspension
of operation of the Commission’s decision of 9 March 2000
on withdrawal of authorisation for medicinal products for                                          (Case T-177/00)
human use which contain ‘amfepramon’ (C(2000) 453) — the
President of the Court of First Instance made an order on                                          (2000/C 273/23)
28 June 2000, the operative part of which is as follows:
1.    Operation of the Commission’s decision of 9 March 2000 on                               (Language of the case: English)
      withdrawal of authorisation for medicinal products for human
      use which contain ‘amfepramon’ (C(2000) 453) is suspended
      with regard to the applicant.                                        An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                           brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
2.    Costs are reserved.                                                  Communities on 30 June 2000 by Koninklijke Philips Elec-
                                                                           tronics N.V., represented by Clive Stanbrook Q.C. and Filip
                                                                           Ragolle of Stanbrook-Hooper, Brussels.
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           —     declare void, pursuant to Articles 230 and 231 EC, the
                                                                                Council’s decision to reject the Commission proposal for
                                                                                a Council Regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                                     duty on imports of certain parts of television camera
                              INSTANCE                                           systems originating in Japan;
                                                                           —     order, pursuant to Articles 235 and 288(2) EC, the
                          of 18 May 2000
                                                                                Council to make good any damage caused to the applicant
                                                                                by its unlawful rejection of the Commission’s proposal
in Case T-75/00 R: Augusto Fichtner v Commission of the                          for a Regulation or, alternatively, its failure to impose
                     European Communities                                        adequate protective measures before the expiry of the
                                                                                15 month deadline;
     (Proceedings for interim relief — Urgency — None)                     —     order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the
                                                                                Council.
                          (2000/C 273/22)
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                           The present application arises out of the fact that the Council
In Case T-75/00 R: Augusto Fichtner, an official of the                    did not adopt the Commission’s proposal of 7 April 2000 for
Commission of the European Communities, in service at the                  a Council Regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty
Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, residing at Besozzo (Italy),           on imports of certain parts of television camera systems
represented by V. Salvatore, of the Pavia Bar, of Via Speroni 14,          originating in Japan (COM(2000) 195 final). According to the
Varese, v Commission of the European Communities (Agent:                   applicant, the Council’s failure to achieve a simple majority in
G. Valsesia) — application for interim measures in the form of             support of the Commission’s proposal combined with the
suspension of operation of the decision removing him from                  expiry of the 15-month time limit of Article 6(9) of the Basic
his post, adopted by the Commission on 30 September 1999                   Regulation (1) amounts to a definitive negative decision, which
— the President of the Court of First Instance made an order               it challenges in the present case.
on 18 May 2000, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                           The applicant’s case for annulment falls basically into two
1.    The application for interim measures is dismissed.                   alternative parts. On the one hand, the applicant argues that,
                                                                           at the end of the 15-month time limit, the Council ultimately
2.    The costs are reserved.                                              had no power to reject the Commission’s proposal, since it
                                                                           had previously failed to involve itself in the fact finding and
                                                                           procedural aspects of the case. Under the current Basic
                                                                           Regulation, the Council has limited itself to the possibility of
                                                                           amending some of the modalities of the proposal, while
 ---pagebreak--- C 273/14                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     23.9.2000
remaining within the limits of the findings of fact made by the           —     annul the Commission’s decision to appoint another
Commission. On the other hand, in the assumption that the                       person to fill that post;
Council did have power to reject the proposal, such rejection
was illegal in the present case, because it constituted
                                                                          —     in so far as may be necessary, annul the implicit decision
                                                                                of the appointing authority rejecting the pre-litigation
—     a wilful disregard or manifest error of appreciation of the               claim made by the applicant;
      facts found by the Commission
—     a denial of procedural rights and legitimate expectations           —     award the sum of 120 000 euro, subject to increase or
      of the complainants                                                       decrease during the course of the proceedings, by way of
                                                                                compensation for the non-material damage suffered by
                                                                                the applicant as a result of the irregular or incomplete
—     a failure to state adequate reasons as required by
                                                                                information gathered by the defendant in relation to the
      Article 253 EC
                                                                                applicant’s personal file and the state of uncertainty and
                                                                                worry in which he has been placed with regard to his
Finally, the applicant claims that the Council is liable under                  future career;
Article 288(2) EC because its failure to adopt protective
measures amounts to unlawful conduct which caused and
continues to cause damage to the applicant.                               —     award the sum of 25 000 euro, subject to increase or
                                                                                decrease during the course of the proceedings, by way of
                                                                                compensation for the material damage suffered by the
                                                                                applicant as a result of his having been rejected as a
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on                    candidate for the post to be filled and of his having thus
    protection against dumped imports from countries not members                lost an opportunity of promotion;
    of the European Community, OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1, as last amended
    by Council Regulation (EC) No 905/98 of 27 April 1998, OJ
    L 128, p. 18.                                                         —     order the Commission to pay all the costs.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
                                                                          Cases T-135/00, T-136/00 and T-164/00.
Action brought on 6 July 2000 by Carmelo Morello
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                         (Case T-181/00)
                         (2000/C 273/24)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          Action brought on 13 July 2000 by S.A. Strabag Benelux
                                                                                N.V. against the Council of the European Union
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 6 July 2000 by Carmelo Morello,                                            (Case T-183/00)
residing in Brussels, represented by Jacques Sambon and Pierre
Paul Van Gehuchten, of the Brussels Bar.
                                                                                (2000/C 273/25)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the Commission’s decision rejecting his application                              (Language of the case: French)
      for post COM/090/99 IV/C/1 as head of unit with
      responsibility for directing and coordinating the work of
      the ‘Telecommunications and Postal Services’ unit within            An action against the Council of the European Union was
      the Information, Communications and Multimedia Direc-               brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
      torate, and annul all preparatory acts adopted in antici-           Communities on 13 July 2000 by S.A. Strabag Benelux
      pation of that decision which may themselves prove to               N.V., established at Stabroek (Belgium), represented by André
      be irregular;                                                       Delvaux, of the Brussels Bar.


title: Case T-122/13: Action brought on 21 February 2013 — Laboratoires Polive/OHIM — Arbora & Ausonia (dodie)

text:
               27.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 123/20

         Action brought on 21 February 2013 — Laboratoires Polive/OHIM — Arbora & Ausonia (dodie)
   (Case T-122/13)
   2013/C 123/33
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Laboratoires Polive (Levallois Perret, France) (represented by: A. Sion, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Arbora & Ausonia, SL (Barcelona, Spain)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the contested decision rendered by the second Board of Appeal on 28 November 2012;

               —

               Order the OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark (in colour) ‘dodie’, for goods in classes 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 18, 21, 25 and 28 — Community trade mark application No 9 037 821

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish and Portuguese trade marks of the word mark ‘DODOT’ for goods in classes 3, 5, 10, 12, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 28, 44

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision, upheld the opposition and rejected the trade mark applied for in relation to certain goods in classes 3, 5, 8, 10, 11, 16, 18, 21, 25 and 28

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-355/06: Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2012 — Koninklijke BAM Groep v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Netherlands market in road pavement bitumen — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Imputability of the unlawful conduct — Duration of the infringement)

text:
               17.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2012 — Koninklijke BAM Groep v Commission
   (Case T-355/06) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Netherlands market in road pavement bitumen - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Imputability of the unlawful conduct - Duration of the infringement)
   2012/C 355/31
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Koninklijke BAM Groep NV (Bunnik, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Biesheuvel and J. de Pree, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet, A. Nijenhuis and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 4090 final of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.456 — Bitumen (Netherlands)), in so far as it concerns the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Koninklijke BAM Groep NV to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 20, 27.1.2007.


title: Case T-649/11: Action brought on 15 December 2011 — Cham v Council of the European Union

text:
               11.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/20

         Action brought on 15 December 2011 — Cham v Council of the European Union
   (Case T-649/11)
   2012/C 39/38
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Cham Holding Co. SA (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               declare the applicant’s action to be admissible, and consequently:

               —

               annul Council Decision 2011/628/CFSP of 23 September 2011 amending Decision 2011/273/CFSP of 9 May 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria and Council Regulation (EU) No 950/2011 of 23 September 2011 amending Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 of 9 May 2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, in so far as those measures relate to the applicant, in that they add its name to the list of entities covered by Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 of 9 May 2011 and Articles 3 and 4 of Decision 2011/273/CFSP of 9 May 2011;

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-433/11 Makhlouf v Council. (1)

      (1)  OJ 2011 C 290, p. 14.


title: Case C-121/10: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 December 2013 — European Commission v Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — State aid — Article 108(1) and (2) TFEU — Aid granted by Hungary for the purchase of agricultural land — Competence of the Council of the European Union — Existing aid scheme — Appropriate measures — Two indissolubly connected aid schemes — Change of circumstances — Exceptional circumstances — Economic crisis — Manifest error of assessment — Principle of proportionality)

text:
               15.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/3

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 December 2013 — European Commission v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-121/10) (1)

   (Action for annulment - State aid - Article 108(1) and (2) TFEU - Aid granted by Hungary for the purchase of agricultural land - Competence of the Council of the European Union - Existing aid scheme - Appropriate measures - Two indissolubly connected aid schemes - Change of circumstances - Exceptional circumstances - Economic crisis - Manifest error of assessment - Principle of proportionality)
   2014/C 45/05
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, L. Flynn, A. Stobiecka-Kuik and K. Walkerová, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: É. Sitbon and F. Florindo Gijón, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas and L. Liubertaitė, acting as Agents), Hungary (represented by: G. Koós, M. Fehér and K. Szíjjártó, acting as Agents), Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Szpunar, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Action for annulment — Annulment of Council Decision 2009/1017/EU of 22 December 2009 on the granting of State aid by the authorities of the Republic of Hungary for the purchase of agricultural land between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2013 (OJ 2009 L 348, p. 55) — Lack of competence — Misuse of powers — Infringement of the principle of sincere cooperation between Member States and institutions — Manifest error of assessment.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Republic of Lithuania, Hungary and the Republic of Poland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 134, 22.5.2010.


title: Case F-112/12: Action brought on 4 October 2012 — ZZ and Others v Commission

text:
               8.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 379/35

         Action brought on 4 October 2012 — ZZ and Others v Commission
   (Case F-112/12)
   2012/C 379/59
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ and Others (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal and S. Orlandi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of decisions on the transfer of the applicants’ pension rights under the European Union pension scheme which applies the new general implementing provisions concerning Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decisions transferring the applicants’ pension rights under Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations acquired before entry into service with the European Commission;

               —

               where necessary, annul the decisions rejecting their complaints, which are identical, directed against the decisions transferring their pension rights;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T -330/02: Order of the Court of First Instance of 13 July 2006 — Wagenborg v Commission

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/53

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 13 July 2006 — Wagenborg v Commission
   (Case T -330/02) (1)

   (2006/C 224/113)

      Language of the case: Dutch

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

      (1)  OJ C 323, 21.12.2002.


title: Case C-689/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Giustizia Amministrativa per la Regione Siciliana (Italy) lodged on 24 December 2013 — PFE v Airgest

text:
               14.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/22

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Giustizia Amministrativa per la Regione Siciliana (Italy) lodged on 24 December 2013 — PFE v Airgest
   (Case C-689/13)
   2014/C 112/28
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Giustizia Amministrativa per la Regione Siciliana

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Puligienica Facility Esco SpA (PFE)

      Defendant: Airgest SpA

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do the principles laid down by the Court of Justice in its judgment of 4 July 2013 in Case C-100/12 Fastweb, concerning the specific set of circumstances forming the subject-matter of the request for a preliminary ruling in that case, in which only two undertakings participated in a public procurement procedure, also apply — given the considerable similarities between those circumstances and the facts in the present case — to the case currently before this Council, in which the undertakings participating in the tendering procedure, even though more than two undertakings were admitted, were all excluded by the contracting authority without those exclusion decisions being challenged by undertakings other than those involved in the present proceedings, with the result that, in the dispute currently before this Council, only two undertakings are concerned?

               2.

               In respect solely of issues which can be settled through the application of European Union law, is it the case that, upon a proper construction of European Union law and, in particular, of Article 267 TFEU, Article 99(3) of the Italian Code of Administrative Procedure is precluded to the extent that it makes all principles of law stated by the plenary session of the Council of State binding upon all Chambers and Divisions of the Council of State, even where it is clearly the case that the plenary session has stated, or may have stated, a principle that is contrary to or incompatible with European Union law?

               3.

               Specifically, in the event that doubts arise as to whether a principle of law already stated by the Council of State in plenary session is in conformity with or is compatible with European Union law, is the Chamber or Division of the Council of State to which the case is assigned under an obligation to make a reasoned order referring the decision on the appeal back to the plenary session, even before it is able to make a request to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling as to whether the principle of law in question is in conformity with or is compatible with European Union law; or, instead, may — or, rather, must — the Chamber or Division of the Council of State, being national courts against whose decisions no appeal lies, independently refer — as ordinary courts applying European Union law — a question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling so as to obtain the correct interpretation of European Union law?

               4.

               In the event that the answer to [Question 3] is that each Chamber and Division of the Council of State is recognised as having the power or the obligation to refer questions directly to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling, or in every case in which the Court of Justice has taken a position — especially if it has done so at a time subsequent to the plenary session of the Council of State — to the effect that the principle of law stated in the plenary session is not in conformity or not wholly in conformity with the correct interpretation of European Union law, may or must each Chamber and each Division of the Council of State, being ordinary courts applying European Union law and against whose decisions no appeal lies, immediately apply the correct interpretation of European Union law as provided by the Court of Justice or, instead, are they under an obligation, even in such cases, to make a reasoned order referring the decision on the appeal back to the plenary session of the Council of State, thereby deferring to the authority of the plenary session of the Council of State and to its discretion all assessment of the application of European Union law already declared binding by the Court of Justice?

               5.

               Lastly, is it not the case that an interpretation of the administrative procedure rules of the Italian Republic as meaning that any potential decision relating to a request to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling — or even merely the resolution of the case whenever that flows directly from the application of European Union legal principles already set out by the Court of Justice — is a matter exclusively for the plenary session of the Council of State constitutes an obstacle, not only to the principles that proceedings are to be concluded within a reasonable period and that a review is to be available speedily in relation to procedures for the award of public contracts, but also to the requirement that European Union law is to be promptly applied in full by all courts in all Member States, in a manner which must be consistent with its proper interpretation as provided by the Court of Justice, and moreover for the purposes of ensuring the broadest possible application of the principle of ‘effectiveness’ (effet utile) and the principle of the primacy (in terms not only of substance but also of procedure) of European Union law over the national law of every single Member State (in the present case: over Article 99(3) of the Italian Code of Administrative Procedure)?


18.3.2000             EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 79/43
       Removal from the register of Case T-196/98 (1)                            Removal from the register of Case T-208/99 (1)
                        (2000/C 79/91)                                                             (2000/C 79/93)
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)                                            (Language of the case: German)
By order of 26 November 1999, the President of the Third                  By order of 27 January 2000, the President of the First
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                    Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities has ordered the removal from the register                     Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
of Case T-196/98: Eduardo Peña Abizanda and Others v                     Case T-208/99, Martin Bangemann v Council of the European
Commission of the European Communities.                                   Union.
(1) OJ C 48 of 20.2.1999.                                                 (1) OJ C 314 of 30.10.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case T-101/99 (1)                            Removal from the register of Case T-324/99 (1)
                        (2000/C 79/92)                                                             (2000/C 79/94)
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                                            (Language of the case: French)
By order of 25 January 2000, the President of the Second                  By order of 11 January 2000, the President of the First
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                    Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of                  Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Case T-101/99: Adolfo Kind v Commission of the European                   Case T-324/99: Association des Fonctionnaires Indépendants
Communities.                                                              pour la Défense de la Fonction Publique Européenne (TAO/AFI)
                                                                          and Rosario De Simone v Commission of the European
(1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.                                                Communities.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.


title: Case T-326/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 July 2007 — Total v OHIM — Peterson (Beverly Hills Formula TOTAL PROTECTION)

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/57

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 July 2007 — Total v OHIM — Peterson (Beverly Hills Formula TOTAL PROTECTION)
   (Case T-326/06) (1)

   (2007/C 211/106)

      Language of the case: English

   The President of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.


title: Case C-595/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 December 2015 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union (Actions for annulment — Replacement of the contested decision in the course of the proceedings — Purpose of the action — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — New psychoactive substance subjected to control measures — Legal framework applicable after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon — Transitional provisions — Consultation of the European Parliament)

text:
               22.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 68/18

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 December 2015 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-595/14) (1)

   ((Actions for annulment - Replacement of the contested decision in the course of the proceedings - Purpose of the action - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - New psychoactive substance subjected to control measures - Legal framework applicable after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon - Transitional provisions - Consultation of the European Parliament))
   (2016/C 068/21)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: F. Drexler, A. Caiola and M. Pencheva, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: K. Pleśniak and K. Michoel, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Council Implementing Decision 2014/688/EU of 25 September 2014 on subjecting 4-iodo-2,5-dimethoxy-N-(2-methoxybenzyl)phenethylamine (25I-NBOMe), 3,4-dichloro-N-[[1-(dimethylamino)cyclohexyl]methyl]benzamide (AH-7921), 3,4-methylenedioxypyrovalerone (MDPV) and 2-(3-methoxyphenyl)-2-(ethylamino)cyclohexanone (methoxetamine) to control measures;

               2.

               Orders that the effects of Implementing Decision 2014/688 be maintained in force;

               3.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.