title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt by order of that court of 29 February 1996 in the administrative proceedings between Kasim Ertanir and Land Hessen (Case C-98/96)

text:
18 . 5 . 96             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       No C 145/5
Action brought on 23 March 1996 by the Commission of                             Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic                 Oberlandesgericht Diisseldorf by decision of that court of
                          ( Case C-91 /96 )                            22 November 1995 in the commercial register proceedings
                                                                            concerning Daihatsu Deutschland GmbH ( appellant:
                            ( 96/C 145/09 )                                      Verband Deutscher Daihatsu-Hàndler e.V. )
                                                                                ( Case C-97/96 )
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before                                          ( 96/C 145/ 10 )
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
23 March 1996 by the Commission of the European                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Communities, represented by Maria Kontou Durande, of its               European Communities by a decision of the Third Civil
Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg at            Chamber of the Oberlandesgericht ( Higher Regional
the office of Carlos Gômez de la Cruz, also of the Legal               Court), Diisseldorf, of 22 November 1995 , which was
Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                     received at the Court Registry on 26 March 1996 , for a
                                                                       preliminary ruling in the commercial register proceedings
                                                                       concerning Daihatsu Deutschland GmbH ( appellant:
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            Verband Deutscher Daihatsu-Hàndler                  e .V. ) on the
                                                                       following question :
1 . Declare that, by failing to bring into force within                Does Article 6 of the First Council Directive 68/ 151 /EEC on
      the prescribed period the laws, regulations and                  company law of 9 March 1 96 8 ( 1 ) have direct effect if under
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with:              German law the ( sole ) penalty to ensure enforcement of the
                                                                       duty to disclose the yearly accounts of a private limited
      ( a ) Council Directive 92/118/EEC of 17 December                company is the imposition by the Registration Court of an
            1992 laying down animal health and public health           administrative fine of up to DM 10 000, but the
            requirements governing trade in and imports into           Registration Court may intervene only on application from
            the Community of products not subject to the said          a partner, a creditor or the company's works council, and
            requirements laid down in specific Community               does any such possible direct effect of that provision mean
            rules referred to in Annex A ( I ) to Directive            that, in addition to the persons entitled under German law
            89/662/EEC and, as regards pathogens, to Directive         to make an application, any person may apply for an
            90/425/EEC ( t ),                                          administrative fine to be imposed or that such a right is
                                                                       available at least to an association of traders which under its
      ( b ) Council Directive 93/52/EEC of 24 June 1993                articles of association must protect the interests of its
            amending Directive 89/556/EEC on animal health             members who have a contractual relationship with the
            conditions governing intra-Community trade in              private limited company which has failed to comply with its
            and importation from third countries of embryos of         duty to disclose those accounts ?
            domestic animals of the bovine species ( 2 ),              (') OJ, English Special Edition 1968 ( I ), p. 41 .
      the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil the obligations
      imposed on it by the Treaty and by those Directives .
                                                                                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the
2 . Order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                      Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt by order of that court of
                                                                            29 February 1996 in the administrative proceedings
                                                                                between Kasim Ertanir and Land Hessen
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                   ( Case C-98/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 145/11 )
The period within which the Member States were to adopt
the measures necessary to transpose Directives 92/118/EEC              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
and 93/52/EEC expired on 1 January 1994 .                              European Communities by an order of the
                                                                       Verwaltungsgericht ( Administrative Court ) Darmstadt —
                                                                       Fifth Chamber — of 29 February 1996 , which was received
The Hellenic Republic has not yet communicated the                     at the Court Registry on 26 March 1996, for a preliminary
adoption of such measures, notwithstanding the formal
                                                                       ruling in the administrative proceedings between Kasim
notice and the reasoned opinion addressed to it by the
Commission .
                                                                       Ertanir and Land Hessen on the following questions :
                                                                       ( a ) What are the consequences, for the maintenance of
Accordingly, it should be declared that it has failed to fulfil               work and residence permits, of breaks in lawful
its obligations .                                                             residence or periods of work without a work permit
                                                                              with regard to claims that have already arisen under
                                                                              Article 6 ( 1 ) of Decision No 1 /80 of the EEC-Turkey
(') OJ No L 62, 15 . 3 . 1993 , p . 49.                                       Association Council on the development of the
( 2 ) OJ No L 175 , 19 . 7. 1993 , p . 21 .                                   Association ( published in the Official Reports of the
                                                                              Federal Institution of Labour [ANBA] 1981 , p . 4 ) —
                                                                              hereinafter abbreviated to ' Decision No 1 /80 ' — in so
                                                                              far as such defective periods are not treated under
 ---pagebreak--- No C 145/6                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      18 . 5 . 96
        Article 6 ( 2 ) of Decision No 1 /80 as periods of legal        If either the first or the second and third questions are
        employment ?                                                    answered in the negative :
 ( b ) Is a Turkish employee who holds work and residence               4 . Does the possibility provided for in Articles 289 to
        permits entitling him to work as a specialist chef duly              297 of the Netherlands Wetboek van Burgerlijke
        registered as belonging to the labour force of a Member              Rechtsvordering ( Code of Civil Procedure ) for
        State within the meaning of Article 6 ( 1 ) of Decision              obtaining a judgment ordering payment of contractual
        No 1 /80 even in the case where he was aware from the
                                                                             consideration through application for an immediate
         beginning of his residence in that Member State that he             interim order by way of an abbreviated procedure ('kort
        would be granted a residence permit only for a total                 geding') constitute a provisional measure within the
        period of validity of three years and only in order                  meaning of Article 24 of the Brussels Convention ?
        to carry out a specified activity with a named
        employer ?
 ( c ) If the Court of Justice should take the view that a
        person as described in question ( b ) is duly registered as
        belonging to the labour force of a Member State, does
        the power under Article 6 ( 3 ) of Decision No 1 /80
        entitle Member States to create rights of residence that        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
        do not from the outset form part of the benefits under         Justice, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of
        Article 6 ( 1 ) of Decision No 1 /80 ?                          3 November 1995 , in the case of The Queen against
                                                                        Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte:
                                                                                British Agrochemicals Association Ltd
                                                                                ( Case C-100/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 145/ 13 )
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesgerichtshof
by order of that court of 29 February 1996 in the appeal on a
point of law brought by Hans-Hermann Mietz against the                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    limited-liability company Intership Yachting Sneek BY               European Communities by an order of the High Court of
                                                                       Justice , Queen's Bench Division, of 3 November 1995 ,
                           ( Case C-99/96 )                             which was received at the Court Registry on 25 March
                             ( 96/C 145/12 )                            1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of The Queen
                                                                       against Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of                     parte: British Agrochemicals Association Ltd, on the
the European Communities by an order of the                             following questions :
Bundesgerichtshof ( Federal Court of Justice ) — Ninth Civil
Chamber — of 29 February 1 996 , which was received at the              1 . Does Council Directive 91 /414/EEC ( ! ) of 15 July 1991
Court Registry on 26 March 1 996 , for a preliminary ruling                 concerning the placing of plant protection products on
in the appeal on a point of law brought by Hans-Hermann                     the market as amended allow a Member State to permit
Mietz against the limited-liability company Intership                       the placing on the market of a plant protection product
Yachting Sneek BV on the following questions :                              imported from another EEA State or from a third
                                                                            country because the Member State considers that
1 . Is there a sale of goods on instalment credit terms within            . product to be identical to a master plant protection
       the meaning of point ( 1 ) of the first paragraph of                 product which has already been authorized by that
       Article 13 of the Brussels Convention in the case where,             Member State pursuant to Articles 4 ( 1 ) or 8 ( 2 ) of the
       in a document described by the parties as a 'contract of             Directive, when the imported product is deemed to be
       sale', one of the parties undertakes to manufacture a                identical to the master product if:
       specific type of motor yacht with nine specified
       alterations and to transfer it to the other party, and the
                                                                              ( i ) the active ingredient in the imported product is
       latter is required to pay DM 250 000 for it in five                          manufactured by the same company ( or by an
       instalments ?
                                                                                associated undertaking or under licence ) as the
If the first question is answered in the negative:                                  active ingredient of the master product and is the
                                                                                same within variations accepted by the registration
2 . Is the contract described under ( 1 ) a contract for the                        authority; and
      supply of goods within the meaning of point ( 3 ) of
      the first paragraph of Article 13 of the Brussels                     ( ii ) the formulation of the imported product is
       Convention ?                                                                 produced by the same company ( or by an
                                                                                associated undertaking or under licence ) as that of
3 . Under the second paragraph of Article 34 of the Brussels                        the master product and any differences in the
      Convention , in conjunction with the second paragraph                         nature, quality and quantity of the components are
      of Article 28 thereof, must account also be taken of new                      deemed by the registration authority to have no
      facts which, according to the debtor, establish that the                      material effect on the safety of humans, domestic
      court of the State of origin breached the provisions of                       animals, livestock, wildlife or the environment
      Section 4 of Title II of that Convention ?                                    generally, or on efficacy ?


C 21/30               EN                     Official Journal of the European Union                                   24.1.2004
       Removal from the register of Case C-308/02 (1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-461/02 (1)
                        (2004/C 21/58)                                                       (2004/C 21/61)
By order of 30 September 2003 the President of the Court of          By order of 17 September 2003 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal              Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-308/02: Commission of the                from the register of Case C-461/02: Commission of the
European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.                    European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
(1) OJ C 247 of 12.10.2002.                                          (1) OJ C 44 of 22.2.2003.
       Removal from the register of Case C-342/02 (1)
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-48/03 (1)
                        (2004/C 21/59)
                                                                                (2004/C 21/62)
By order of 17 September 2003 the President of the First
Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities          By order of 26 September 2003 the President of the Court of
ordered the removal from the register of Case C-342/02:              Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.            from the register of Case C-48/03: Commission of the
                                                                     European Communities v Portuguese Republic.
(1) OJ C 261 of 26.10.2002.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 70 of 22.3.2003.
       Removal from the register of Case C-370/02 (1)
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-190/03 (1)
                        (2004/C 21/60)
                                                                                (2004/C 21/63)
By order of 16 September 2003 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-370/02: Commission of the                By order of 29 September 2003 the President of the Court of
European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.                           Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                     from the register of Case C-190/03: Portuguese Republic v
                                                                     Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 305 of 7.12.2002.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 184 of 2.8.2003.


title: Case F-104/15: Action brought on 17 July 2015 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/71

         Action brought on 17 July 2015 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-104/15)
   (2015/C 302/88)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: F. Moyse, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the decision not to grant a survivor’s pension to the applicant.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decisions of 24 September 2014 and 10 April 2015;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-313/11: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 July 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 — Animal feed — Genetically modified feed — Production, placing on the market or use — National prohibition not yet in force)

text:
               7.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/5

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 July 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-313/11) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 - Animal feed - Genetically modified feed - Production, placing on the market or use - National prohibition not yet in force)
   2013/C 260/08
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi and A. Szmytkowska, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Szpunar, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 16(5), 19, 20 and 34 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed (OJ 2003 L 268, p. 1) — National legislation prohibiting any production, placing on the market or use of genetically modified feed

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.


title: Judgment of the Court of 1 June 1999 in Case C-302/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien): Klaus Konle v Republic of Austria (Freedom of establishment - Free movement of capital - Articles 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) and 56 EC (ex Article 73b) - Authorisation procedure for the acquisition of immovable property - Article 70 of the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Austria - Secondary residences - Liability for breach of Community law)

text:
17.7.1999                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 204/17
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 1 June 1999
                            of 1 June 1999
                                                                            in Case C-302/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                            the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien): Klaus
in Case C-126/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                    Konle v Republic of Austria (1)
the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Eco Swiss China Time
               Ltd v Benetton International NV (1)
                                                                            (Freedom of establishment — Free movement of capital —
                                                                            Articles 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article
(Competition — Application by an arbitration tribunal, of                   43 EC) and 56 EC (ex Article 73b) — Authorisation
its own motion, of Article 81 EC (ex Article 85) — Power of                 procedure for the acquisition of immovable property —
          national courts to annul arbitration awards)                      Article 70 of the Act concerning the conditions of accession
                                                                            of the Republic of Austria — Secondary residences —
                                                                                Liability for breach of Community law)
                           (1999/C 204/32)
                                                                                (1999/C 204/33)
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)                                             (Language of the case: German)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                          in the European Court Reports)
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                            In Case C-302/97: reference to the Court under Article 234
                                                                            EC (ex Article 177) from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssach-
In Case C-126/97: reference to the Court under Article 234                  en Wien (Regional Civil Court), Vienna, for a preliminary
EC (ex Article 177) by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden                        ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
(Netherlands) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                   Klaus Konle and Republic of Austria — on the interpretation
before that court between Eco Swiss China Time Ltd and                      of Articles 10 EC (ex Article 5), 6 of the EC Treaty (now, after
Benetton International NV on the interpretation of Article 81               amendment, Article 12 EC), 52, 54, 56 and 57 of the EC
EC (ex Article 85) — the Court, composed of G.C. Rodrı́guez                 Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 43 EC, 44 EC, 46 EC
Iglesias, President, P.J.G. Kapteyn, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch            and 47 EC), 53 of the EC Treaty (repealed by the Treaty of
and P. Jann (Presidents of Chambers), G.F. Mancini, J.C. Moitin-            Amsterdam), 45 EC and 48 EC (ex Articles 55 and 58), 56 EC
ho de Almeida (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann, J.L. Murray,                        to 60 EC (ex Articles 73b to 73d, 73f and 73g), 73e and 73h
D.A.O. Edward, H. Ragnemalm, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet,                     of the EC Treaty (repealed by the Treaty of Amsterdam), and
Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy                Article 70 of the Act concerning the conditions of accession
Registrar, has given a judgment on 1 June 1999, in which it                 of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the
has ruled:                                                                  Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments to the Treaties on
                                                                            which the European Union is founded (OJ 1994 C 241, p. 21,
                                                                            and OJ 1995 L 1, p. 1) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́-
1. A national court to which application is made for annulment of           guez Iglesias, President, P.J.G. Kapteyn, J.-P. Puissochet (Rap-
     an arbitration award must grant that application if it considers       porteur), G. Hirsch and P. Jann (Presidents of Chambers),
     that the award in question is in fact contrary to Article 81 EC        G.F. Mancini, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann, J.L. Mur-
     (ex Article 85), where its domestic rules of procedure require it to   ray, D.A.O. Edward, H. Ragnemalm, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet,
     grant an application for annulment founded on failure to observe       Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal
     national rules of public policy.                                       Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                            1 June 1999, in which it has ruled:
2. Community law does not require a national court to refrain from
     applying domestic rules of procedure according to which an             1. Article 56 EC (ex Article 73b) and Article 70 of the Act
     interim arbitration award which is in the nature of a final award          concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Austria,
     and in respect of which no application for annulment has been              the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the
     made within the prescribed time-limit acquires the force of res            adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is
     judicata and may no longer be called in question by a subsequent           founded:
     arbitration award, even if this is necessary in order to examine,
     in proceedings for annulment of a subsequent arbitration award,            — do not preclude a scheme for acquiring land such as that
     whether an agreement which the interim award held to be valid                   introduced by the Tiroler Grundverkehrsgesetz 1993, unless
     in law is nevertheless void under Article 81 EC (ex Article 85).                that Law was deemed not to form part of the domestic legal
                                                                                system of the Republic of Austria on 1 January 1995;
                                                                                — preclude a scheme such as that introduced by the Tiroler
(1) OJ C 166 of 31.5.1997.                                                           Grundverkehrsgesetz 1996;
                                                                            2. It is in principle for the national courts to assess whether a breach
                                                                                of Community law is sufficiently serious for a Member State to
                                                                                incur non-contractual liability vis-à-vis an individual;
 ---pagebreak--- C 204/18                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            17.7.1999
3. In Member States with a federal structure, reparation for damage        2. The direct effect of a directive, where the deadline for its
     caused to individuals by national measures taken in breach of              transposition into national law has expired, is not affected by the
     Community law need not necessarily be provided by the federal              notification made by a Member State pursuant to Article
     State in order for the obligations of the Member State concerned           100a(4) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment Article 95(4)
     under Community law to be fulfilled.                                       to (9) EC) seeking confirmation of provisions of national law
                                                                                derogating from the directive, even where the Commission fails
                                                                                to respond to that notification.
(1) OJ C 318 of 18.10.1997.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 318 of 18.10.1997.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                            of 1 June 1999                                                              of 3 June 1999
                                                                           in Case C-33/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
in Case C-319/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                  the Rechtbank van Koophandel te Hasselt): Colim NV v
the Landskrona Tingsrätt): Criminal proceedings against                                      Bigg’s Continent Noord NV (1)
                          Antoine Kortas (1)
                                                                           (Approximation of laws — Procedure for the provision of
(Article 100a(4) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,                   information in the field of technical standards and regu-
Article 95(4) to (9) EC) — Directive 94/36/EC on colours                   lations — Directive 83/189/EEC — Labelling and presen-
for use in foodstuffs — Notification of national legislation                  tation of products — Consumer protection — Language)
derogating therefrom — No confirmation from the Com-
                          mission — Effect)                                                            (1999/C 204/35)
                           (1999/C 204/34)                                                       (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    (Language of the case: Swedish)                                             in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           In Case C-33/97, Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
                                                                           (ex Article 177) by the Rechtbank van Koophandel (Commer-
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     cial Court), Hasselt, Belgium, for a preliminary ruling in the
                    in the European Court Reports)                         proceedings pending before that court between Colim NV and
                                                                           Bigg’s Continent Noord NV — on the interpretation of Council
                                                                           Directive 83/189/EEC of 28 March 1983 laying down a
In Case C-319/97: reference to the Court under Article 234                 procedure for the provision of information in the field of
EC (ex Article 177) by the Landskrona Tingsrätt, Sweden, for               technical standards and regulations (OJ 1983 L 109, p. 8), as
a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings pending before            amended by Council Directive 88/182/EEC of 22 March 1988
that court against Antoine Kortas — on the interpretation of               (OJ 1988 L 81, p. 75), and of the principles applicable to
Article 100a(4) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,                    product labelling — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
Article 95(4) to (9) EC) and European Parliament and Council               J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, J.C. Moitinho de
Directive 94/36/EC of 30 June 1994 on colours for use in                   Almeida, C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur) and
foodstuffs (OJ 1994 L 237, p. 13) — the Court, composed of                 L. Sevón, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,
G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P.J.G. Kapteyn, G. Hirsch             Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
and P. Jann (Rapporteur), (Presidents of Chambers), G.F. Manci-            3 June 1999, in which it held:
ni, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, D.A.O. Edward, H. Ragnemalm
and M. Wathelet; Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate General; H. von
                                                                           1. The obligation to give mandatory labelling particulars, instruc-
Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a
                                                                                tions for use and guarantee certificates for products at least in the
judgment on 1 June 1999, in which it has ruled:
                                                                                language or languages of the area in which those products are
                                                                                placed on the market does not constitute a ‘technical regulation’
1. A directive can have direct effect even though its legal basis is            within the meaning of Council Directive 83/189/EEC of 28
     Article 100a of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article               March 1983 laying down a procedure for the provision of
     95 EC) and Article 100a(4) allows Member States to request a               information in the field of technical standards and regulations,
     derogation from the implementation of that directive.                      as amended by Council Directive 88/182/EEC of March 1988.


title: Case C-323/01: Action brought on 24 August 2001 by Commission of the European Communities against Italian Republic

text:
C 317/12              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       10.11.2001
     meaning of Article 1(1) of that directive, including the           Action brought on 24 August 2001 by Commission of the
     exercise of the powers referred to in Article 2(1)(c)                    European Communities against Italian Republic
     thereof, is precluded from dismissing an application by a
     tenderer that is indirectly aimed at obtaining damages,                                       (Case C-323/01)
     where the contract award procedure is already tainted by
     a material legal infringement attributable to a decision
     taken by the contracting authority, other than the decision                                   (2001/C 317/20)
     being contested by that tenderer, on the ground that if
     the contested decision had not been taken the tenderer             An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
     would none the less have been harmed for other reasons?            Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 August
                                                                        2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
3.   If Question 1 is answered in the negative: Is Council              represented by Richard Wainwright and Roberto Amorosi,
     Directive 93/36/EEC (2) of 14 June 1993 coordinating               acting as Agents.
     procedures for the award of public supply contracts, in
     particular Articles 15 to 26 thereof, to be interpreted as         The applicant claims that the Court should:
     prohibiting a public contracting authority conducting
     contract award procedures from taking account of refer-            1.    Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
     ences relating to the products offered by tenderers not as               within the prescribed period the laws, regulations or
     proof of the tenderers’ suitability but to satisfy an award              administrative provisions necessary to comply with Com-
     criterion, such that the fact that those references are given            mission Directive 98/101/EC (1) of 22 December 1998
     a negative evaluation would not exclude the tenderer                     adapting to technical progress Council Directive
     from the contract award procedure but would merely                       91/157/EEC (2) on batteries and accumulators containing
     result in the tender receiving a lower evaluation, for                   certain dangerous substances, the Italian Republic has
     example under a points system in which a poor evaluation                 failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
     of references might be offset by a lower price?
                                                                        2.    Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
4.   If Questions 1 and 3 are answered in the negative: Is it
     compatible with the relevant provisions of Community
     law, including Article 26 of Directive 93/36/EEC, the
     principle of equal treatment and the obligations of the            Pleas in law and main arguments
     Communities under international law for an award
     criterion to provide that product references are to be             The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third paragraph
     evaluated on the basis of the number of references alone,          of Article 249 and the first paragraph of Article 10 of the EC
     there being no substantive examination as to whether               Treaty requires Member States to adopt the measures necessary
     contracting authorities’ experiences of the product have           to transpose directives addressed to them into their domestic
     been good or bad, and, moreover, that only references              law before the expiry of the period prescribed for doing so.
     from the geographical area comprising the part of the              That period expired on 1 January 2000 without Italy having
     Alps within the European Union are to be taken into                brought into force the necessary provisions.
     account?
                                                                        (1) OJ 1999 L 1, p. 1.
5.   Is it compatible — with Community law, in particular               (2) OJ 1991 L 78, p. 38.
     the principle of equal treatment, for an award criterion to
     permit opportunities to inspect examples of the subject
     of the invitation to tender to receive a positive evaluation
     only if available within a 300 kilometre radius of the
     authority issuing the invitation to tender?
6.   If Question 3 is answered in the affirmative, or Question 4        Appeal brought on 29 August 2001 (by fax on 27 August
     or 5 answered in the negative: Is Article 2(1)(c) of               2001) by Telefon & Buch Verlagsgesellschaft mbH, against
     Directive 89/665/EEC, if necessary considered in conjunc-          the judgment delivered on 14 June 2001 by the Fourth
     tion with other principles of Community law, to be                 Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
     interpreted as meaning that if the contracting authority’s         Communities in Joined Cases T-357/99 and T-358/99
     infringement consists in imposing an unlawful award                between Telefon & Buch VerlagsgmbH and the Office for
     criterion, the tenderer will be entitled to damages only if        Harmonisation in the Internat Market (Trade Marks and
     he can actually prove that, but for the unlawful award                                        Designs) (OHIM)
     criterion, he would have submitted the best tender?
                                                                                (Case C-326/01 P)
(1) OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33.
                                                                                (2001/C 317/21)
(2) OJ 1993 L 199, p. 1.
                                                                        An appeal against the judgment delivered on 14 June 2001 by
                                                                        the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the


title: Case T-331/11: Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2013 — Besselink v Council (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Draft Council Decision authorising the Commission to negotiate the Accession Agreement of the European Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms — Exception relating to the protection of the public interest as regards international relations — Partial access — Obligation to state reasons — Application for measures of organisation of procedure or inquiry — Inadmissible)

text:
               26.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2013 — Besselink v Council
   (Case T-331/11) (1)

   (Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Draft Council Decision authorising the Commission to negotiate the Accession Agreement of the European Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms - Exception relating to the protection of the public interest as regards international relations - Partial access - Obligation to state reasons - Application for measures of organisation of procedure or inquiry - Inadmissible)
   2013/C 313/42
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Leonard Besselink (Utrecht, Netherlands) (represented by: O. Brouwer, J. Blockx and E. Raedts, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented: initially by C. Fekete, P. Plaza García and J. Herrmann, and subsequently by P. Plaza García, J. Herrmann and B. Driessen, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. Paasivirta and P. Costa de Oliveira, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Council Decision of 1 April 2011 refusing access in full to document 9689/10, containing a draft Council Decision authorising the Commission to negotiate the Accession Agreement of the European Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the Council Decision of 1 April 2011 refusing full access to document 9689/10 in that it refuses access to Negotiating Directive No 5 and to the undisclosed parts of the requested document, which set out the principles laid down in the EU Treaty that should govern negotiations for the accession of the European Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950, or which only set out the questions to be addressed in the negotiations;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.


title: Case C-262/05: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 June 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2001/19/EC — Mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other qualifications — Nurse, dentist, veterinary surgeon, midwife, architect, pharmacist and doctor — Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

text:
               30.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 237/1

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 June 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-262/05) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2001/19/EC - Mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other qualifications - Nurse, dentist, veterinary surgeon, midwife, architect, pharmacist and doctor - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)
   (2006/C 237/02)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Manville and H. Støvlbæk, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: E. Riedl, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to transpose, within the prescribed period, Directive 2001/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2001 amending Council Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC on the general system for the recognition of professional qualifications and Council Directives 77/452/EEC, 77/453/EEC, 78/686/EEC, 78/687/EEC, 78/1026/EEC, 78/1027/EEC, 80/154/EEC, 80/155/EEC, 85/384/EEC, 85/432/EEC, 85/433/EEC and 93/16/EEC concerning the professions of nurse responsible for general care, dental practitioner, veterinary surgeon, midwife, architect, pharmacist and doctor (OJ 2001 L 206, p. 1)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2001 amending Council Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC on the general system for the recognition of professional qualifications and Council Directives 77/452/EEC, 77/453/EEC, 78/686/EEC, 78/687/EEC, 78/1026/EEC, 78/1027/EEC, 80/154/EEC, 80/155/EEC, 85/384/EEC, 85/432/EEC, 85/433/EEC and 93/16/EEC concerning the professions of nurse responsible for general care, dental practitioner, veterinary surgeon, midwife, architect, pharmacist and doctor, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 205, 20.08.2005.


title: Case C-166/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Judicial de Comarca de Alcácer do Sal by order of that Court of 26 April 2002 in the case of Daniel Fernando Messejana Viegas against Companhia de Seguros Zurich S.A. and Mitsubishi Motors de Portugal S.A., CGU International Insurance plc — Agência Geral em Portugal, intervener

text:
29.6.2002              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 156/9
Action brought on 2 May 2002 by the Kingdom of the                            views on future developments within that sector. By so
Netherlands against the Commission of the European                            doing, the Commission has created legitimate expec-
                          Communities                                         tations.
                        (Case C-164/02)
                                                                        (1) Even though this is compatible with the common market under
                        (2002/C 156/16)                                     Article 87(3)(c) EC, with reference to point 38 of the Guidelines
                                                                            on State aid for environmental protection (OJ 2001 C 37, p. 3).
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 2 May 2002 by the Kingdom of the
Netherlands, represented by H.G. Sevenster, acting as Agent.
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Judicial
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             de Comarca de Alcácer do Sal by order of that Court of
                                                                        26 April 2002 in the case of Daniel Fernando Messejana
1.    Annul Commission Decision SG (2002) D/228533 of                   Viegas against Companhia de Seguros Zurich S.A. and
      15 February 2002 relating to Aid Measure No N 812/                Mitsubishi Motors de Portugal S.A., CGU International
      2001 (the Decision, Annex 1) in so far as the Commission            Insurance plc — Agência Geral em Portugal, intervener
      takes the view therein that the contributions paid to
      port authorities pursuant to the Stimuleringsregeling
      verwerking baggerspecie (Rules on incentives to encour-                                      (Case C-166/02)
      age the recycling of dredging silt) constitute State aid
      within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC (1);                                                  (2002/C 156/17)
2.    Order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by order of the Tribunal Judicial de
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Comarca de Alcácer do Sal of 26 April 2002, received at the
                                                                        Court Registry on 2 May 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the
—     Breach of Article 87 EC: the Netherlands Government               case of Daniel Fernando Messejana Viegas against Companhia
      considers that the Commission errs in taking the view             de Seguros Zurich S.A. and Mitsubishi Motors de Portugal
      that, in the administration of waterways and the mainten-         S.A., CGU International Insurance plc — Agência Geral em
      ance of general infrastructures in port areas, port auth-         Portugal, intervener.
      orities may be regarded as being undertakings within the
      meaning of Article 87(1) EC. In the opinion of the
      Netherlands Government, the administration of shipping            The Tribunal Judicial de Comarca de Alcácer do Sal requests
      channels (including dredging) must be regarded in this            the Court of Justice to give a ruling on the interpretation of
      connection as being a public responsibility and not an            Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC (1) of 30 December 1983
      economic activity. Investments in infrastructures of this         on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating
      kind are, under normal circumstances, regarded by the             to third-party liability insurance in respect of the use of motor
      Commission as constituting general measures, expendi-             vehicles (2), having regard to Article 508 of the Civil Code.
      ture on which is borne by the State as part of its
      responsibilities within the area of planning and develop-
      ment of a transport system serving the general public
      interest, on condition that the infrastructures, in accord-       (1) OJ 1984 L 8, p. 17.
      ance with Community legislation, are de jure and de facto         (2) Which, in the applicant’s view, fixes the minimum capital
      open to all actual or potential users.                                for compulsory third-party insurance without establishing any
                                                                            dichotomy of schemes or limits to strict liability, with the result
                                                                            that, if the accident had taken place in any other country within
—     Infringement of the principle that reasons must be given.             the Community, the person responsible would have had to pay
                                                                            compensation up to the amount compulsorily insured (which
—     Infringement of the principles of the protection of                   now is EUR 600 000). Moreover, the limit imposed by that
      legitimate expectations and of legal certainty: the Com-              directive is a minimum amount, which implies the repeal of
                                                                            Article 508 of the Civil Code which sets the maximum amount of
      mission has, in a number of documents, made known its
                                                                            compensation in the case of a road traffic accident at ‘the amount
      views on State aid within the ports sector. In these                  equal to twice the maximum value of actions which may be
      documents, which consist of a variety of decisions, the               decided on appeal’ (that is to say, EUR 29 927,88).
      Commission has, on the one hand, detailed and clarified
      the Treaty provisions relating to, inter alia, State aid
      within the ports sector, and, on the other, set out its


title: Case C-171/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Fra.bo SpA v Deutsche Vereinigung des Gas- und Wasserfaches eV (DVGW) — Technisch-Wissenschaftlicher Verein (Free movement of goods — Measures having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction — National certification procedure — Presumption of compliance with national law — Applicability of Article 28 EC to a private-law certification body)

text:
               22.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/12

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Fra.bo SpA v Deutsche Vereinigung des Gas- und Wasserfaches eV (DVGW) — Technisch-Wissenschaftlicher Verein
   (Case C-171/11) (1)

   (Free movement of goods - Measures having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction - National certification procedure - Presumption of compliance with national law - Applicability of Article 28 EC to a private-law certification body)
   2012/C 287/20
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Fra.bo SpA

      Defendant: Deutsche Vereinigung des Gas- und Wasserfaches eV (DVGW) — Technisch-Wissenschaftlicher Verein

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Interpretation of Articles 34, 101 and 106(2) TFEU — Application of those provisions to the activity of a private-law association (Technisch-Wissenschaftlicher Verein), approved by a Member State as a certification body for certain products — Horizontal direct effect of Article 34 TFEU

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 28 EC must be interpreted as meaning that it applies to standardisation and certification activities of a private-law body, where the national legislation considers the products certified by that body to be compliant with national law and that has the effect of restricting the marketing of products which are not certified by that body.

      (1)  OJ C 226, 30.7.2011.


title: Action brought on 12 October 1998 by Giuseppe Carraro against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-164/98)

text:
C 378/22              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   5.12.98
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicants, who import bananas from third countries,             Ð annul the decision of 18 January 1988 downgrading
contest the Commission's decision to disregard, for the                  him from grade A 3 to grade A 7;
purposes of calculating the quantity of bananas which the
applicants may import in 1998, part of the quantity of
imported bananas declared by the applicants for the 1996             Ð order the European Parliament to pay the costs of the
reference year.                                                          present proceedings and of all proceedings concerning
                                                                         that decision;
They seek annulment of that decision on the following
grounds:                                                             Ð order the European Paliament:
Ð infringement of the second paragraph of Article 6 of                   Ð to pay over the guarantee fund relating to the
     Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1442/93: the                             person concerned;
     Commission did not inform the applicants prior to
     1 November 1997 of the quantity of bananas allocated                Ð to pay the applicant the difference in emoluments
     to them;                                                                between grade A 3 and grade A 7, together with
                                                                             the difference in pension;
Ð infringement of Article 190 of the EC Treaty: the
     contested decision is not supported by a statement of               Ð to pay compensation for the non-material loss
     reasons;                                                                suffered by him.
Ð breach of the applicants' procedural rights:                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     Ð breach of the rights of the defence, the right to a
         fair hearing and the right of access to the                 The applicant states that, in the course of proceedings
         documents in the file: the applicants were not              brought by the Parliament against the Royale Belge
         given access to the documents; the Commission               insurance company before the Tribunal d'Arrondissement,
         wrongly imposed on the applicants the burden of             Luxembourg, in which it sought indemnification in respect
         proof concerning the type of certificate used by            of an alleged loss of funds, the Parliament's representative
         their consignees in order to secure customs                 stated that the applicant was not responsible for the loss
         clearance of the bananas; and the Commission                of supporting documents Ð that being the main complaint
         disregarded the evidential weight attaching to the          on the basis of which the disciplinary measure was taken
         contractual obligations to which the applicants'            against him on 18 January 1988 Ð but for the loss of
         consignees were subject;                                    cash sums.
     Ð infringement of Article 2 of Regulation No 1
                                                                     The applicant maintains that that statement amounts to
         regulating the use of languages in the European
                                                                     a withdrawal of the main accusation which resulted
         Economic Community;
                                                                     in the imposition of the disciplinary measure by the
                                                                     administrative authority which made that accusation. He
Ð breach of the principle of sound management and of                 considers, therefore, that that measure should be annulled.
     the principle prohibiting arbitrary acts.
                                                                     Action brought on 12 October 1998 by Giuseppe Carraro
Action brought on 5 October 1998 by Henri de Compte                    against the Commission of the European Communities
               against the European Parliament
                                                                                (Case T-164/98)
                       (Case T-161/98)
                                                                                (98/C 378/41)
                         (98/C 378/40)
                (Language of the case: French)                                      (Language of the case: Italian)
An action against the European Parliament was brought                An Action against the Commission of the European
before the Court of First Instance of the European                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
Communities on 5 October 1998 by Henri de Compte,                    Instance of the European Communities on 12 October
residing at Gravelotte (France), represented by Henri                1998 by Giuseppe Carraro, represented by Giuseppe
Ferretti, of the Thionville Bar, with an address for service         Marchesini, of the Vicenza Bar, with an address for service
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of AndreÂ Lutgen, 1 Rue                in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, Rue
J.-P. Brasseur.                                                      Mathias Hardt.
 ---pagebreak--- 5.12.98              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 378/23
The applicant claims that the Court should:                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                    Ð annul, pursuant to Article 173 of the EC Treaty, the
Ð annul the applicant's staff report for the period 1993                decision of 24 September 1998 by which the
     to 1995;                                                           Commission fixed the minimum price for the sale of
                                                                        barley held by the Austrian intervention agency within
                                                                        the context of the invitation to tender opened by
Ð order the Commission to pay compenation for non-                      Commission Regulation (EC) No 1666/98;
     material damage in the amount of ECU 10 000.
                                                                    Ð order the Commission to pay compensation for the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     damage suffered in the interim by the applicant, in
                                                                        accordance with Articles 178 and 215 of the EC
                                                                        Treaty;
The applicant, an official on the technical and scientific
staff assigned to the Joint Research Centre at Ispra, states        Ð order the Commission to pay the costs of the
that at least until some time ago, his staff reports were               proceedings.
favourable, consistently acknowledging, in particular, his
professional abilities. However, as from the 1991 to 1993           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
staff report there began to appear negative comments with
regard to his character and his relations in the department,        The applicant company, which participated in the above
which were all the more serious in the overall assessment           invitation to tender and whose bid was rejected, takes
at the end of the staff report for the period 1993 to 1995.         issue with the fact that the Commission, through the
                                                                    contested decision, awarded the entire quantity subject to
                                                                    tender exclusively on the basis of the criterion of the
He claims that, moreover, the abovementioned report was
                                                                    lowest price', without, according to a fax sent by the
forwarded to him after the expiry of the period prescribed
                                                                    defendant on 29 September 1998, transport costs having
by the general provisions for giving effect to Article 43 of
                                                                    been taken into account in assessment of the tenders
the Staff Regulations.
                                                                    submitted.
In support of his claims, the applicant alleges, first of all,      In support of its contentions, the applicant argues that
that the general provisions for giving effect to Article 43         there has been a breach of Article 1(2) of Commission
of the Staff Regulations were infringed inasmuch as the             Regulation (EEC) No 2131/93 (1) along with an
report was late and the rules governing the complaints              infringement of the principle of non-discrimination and
procedure were not followed.                                        distortion of competition by reason of the illegality of
                                                                    Article 3(4) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1666/
                                                                    98 (2), under which the defendant opened a standing
Secondly, the assessment contained in the report was                invitation to tender for the export of barley held by the
vitiated, in the applicant's view, by its manifest unfairness       Austrian intervention agency.
and by misuse of powers.
                                                                    It must be pointed out in this regard that under Article 7
                                                                    of Regulation (EEC) No 2131/93, transport costs are
                                                                    reimbursed by the intervention agency, which then charges
                                                                    them to the Community. The most favourable bid referred
                                                                    to in Article 1 cannot be represented solely by the price
                                                                    offered by those participating in the call for tenders for
  Action brought on 12 October 1998 by Grandi Molini                obtaining the cereals in question, but rather by that price
        SpA against the Commission of the European                  less transport costs in so far as both of these have an
                         Communities                                effect on Community finances. The applicant stresses in
                                                                    this regard that if, in the case of the consignment of barley
                       (Case T-165/98)
                                                                    in question, the Commission has subtracted the transport
                        (98/C 378/42)                               costs incurred for transport to Trieste from the price
                                                                    which the applicant had tendered, its actual bid would
                                                                    have been reduced by more than half. This means that if,
               (Language of the case: Italian)                      in respect of the price tendered by whoever was ultimately
                                                                    to be the successful tenderer, the transport costs were to
                                                                    be calculated to Rotterdam, as lies within the entitlement
An action against the Commission of the European                    of the successful tenderer, the bid accepted would be much
Communities was brought before the Court of First                   less favourable than that of the applicant company.
Instance of the European Communities on 12 October                  Consequently, the applicant, on the basis of the matters of
1998 by Grandi Molini SpA, represented by Wilma                     which it has cognisance, concludes that the contested
Viscardini DonaÁ, assisted by Mariano Paolin and                    decision was taken on the basis of bids which are not
Simonetta DonaÁ, of the Padua Bar, with an address for              comparable and thus allowed the contract to be awarded
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt,             without being certain that the successful bid was the most
Rue Mathias Hardt.                                                  favourable.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 June 2001 in Case C-178/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bezirksgericht Bregenz), concerning the application for land registration made by Doris Salzmann (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Registration of real property transactions in the land register — Administrative not judicial proceeding — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

text:
28.7.2001               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 212/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 14 June 2001
                          of 14 June 2001
in Case C-178/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                    in Case C-191/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling
the Bezirksgericht Bregenz), concerning the application                      from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Kvaerner plc v
      for land registration made by Doris Salzmann (1)                                      Staatssecretaris van Financïen (1)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Registration of real
property transactions in the land register — Administrative                  (Non-life insurance — Directive 88/357/EEC — Definition
 not judicial proceeding — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)                  of establishment and the State where the risk is situated)
                          (2001/C 212/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 212/02)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-178/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Bezirksgericht                                      in the European Court Reports)
(District Court) Bregenz (Austria) for a preliminary ruling in
the context of examination of an application for land regis-
tration made by Doris Slazmann — on the interpretation of                    In Case C-191/99: reference to the Court under Article 234
Article 73b of the EC Treaty (now Article 56 EC) and of                      EC) from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) for a
point 1(e) of Annex XII to the Agreement on the European                     preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
Economic Area — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:                      court between Kvaerner plc and Staatssecretaris van Financïen
C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, V. Skouris,                            — on the interpretation of Articles 2(c) and (d) and 3 of the
J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen and J.N. Cunha                   Second Council Directive (88/357/EEC) of 22 June 1988
Rodrigues, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General;                          on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative
H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given             provisions relating to direct insurance other than life assurance
a judgment on 14 June 2001, in which it has ruled:                           and laying down provisions to facilitate the effective exercise
                                                                             of freedom to provide services and amending Directive
The Court of Justice of the European Communities has no jurisdiction         73/239/EEC (OJ 1988 L 172, p. 1) — the Court, composed of:
to answer the questions raised by the Bezirksgericht Bregenz in its          C. Gulmann, President of the Third and Sixth Chambers, acting
order of 29 December 1998.                                                   for the President, A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur)
                                                                             and V. Skouris (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward,
(1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.
                                                                             J.P. Puissochet, P. Jann, L. Sevón, R. Schintgen, F. Macken
                                                                             and N. Colneric, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General;
                                                                             D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of Division, for the Registrar, has
                                                                             given a judgment on 14 June 2001, in which it has ruled:


title: Case F-140/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 27 October 2015 — Ameryckx v Commission (Civil service — Member of the contract staff — Function group — Grading — Plea of inadmissibility — Concept of an act adversely affecting the applicant — Confirmatory decision — New and substantial fact — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               7.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 406/45

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 27 October 2015 — Ameryckx v Commission
   (Case F-140/14) (1)

   ((Civil service - Member of the contract staff - Function group - Grading - Plea of inadmissibility - Concept of an act adversely affecting the applicant - Confirmatory decision - New and substantial fact - Manifest inadmissibility))
   (2015/C 406/47)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Marianella Ameryckx (Rhode-Saint-Genèse, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Tymen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Berscheid, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision refusing to ‘reconstruct’ the applicant’s career by re-grading her, from 1 March 2005, in a higher function group, and an application for compensation in respect of the material and non-material harm allegedly incurred.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Ms Ameryckx is to bear her own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 65, 23.2.2015, p. 55.


title: Action brought on 16 October 1998 by Schiocchet SARL against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-169/98)

text:
5.12.98              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 378/25
Action brought on 12 October 1998 by Luc Verheyden                the course of, the performance by the applicant of his
  against the Commission of the European Communities              duties and, second, that the damage suffered did not
                      (Case T-167/98)                             result, either wholly or in part, from any fault or
                                                                  negligence whatever on the applicant's part.
                       (98/C 378/44)
               (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                 Action brought on 16 October 1998 by Schiocchet SARL
Instance of the European Communities on 12 October                  against the Commission of the European Communities
1998 by Luc Verheyden, residing at Angera (Italy),
represented by Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an                              (Case T-169/98)
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                                     (98/C 378/45)
Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                  An action against the Commission of the European
Ð annul the refusal by the Financial Controller, Mr               Communities was brought before the Court of First
    Hartkamp, to sanction the payment of reimbursement            Instance of the European Communities on 16 October
    for the loss of two pairs of trousers belonging to the        1998 by Schiocchet SARL, the registered office of which is
    applicant and having a total value of ITL 370 000, the        at Beuvillers (France), representd by Pascal Barbier, of the
    said refusal, dated 27 November 1997 having been              Thionville Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
    communicated to the applicant by a note of                    at the Chambers of Faltz and AssocieÂs, 6 Rue Heinrich
    19 February 1998 signed by G. Brugnoni (ref. PO 2-A/          Heine.
    No 068/98);
                                                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
Ð annul the decision implicitly rejecting the complaint
    submitted by the applicant on 4 March 1998, which             Ð annul the provisions of Article 4(2) of Council
    was registered as having been received on 10 March                Regulation (EEC) No 684/92, inasmuch as its effect is
    1998;                                                             to promote unfair competition to the disadvantage of
                                                                      existing regular services, in particular, those provided
Ð order the defendant to pay compensation for the                     by Schiocchet SARL;
    material damage suffered in the sum of ITL 370 000
    together with interest from 23 July 1997, the date of         Ð annul classification Decision D(98)ab/g/plainte/
    the accident;                                                     Schiocchet/class-2 90176 of the Commission of
                                                                      19 August 1998.
Ð order the defendant to pay the sum of ITL 5 000 000
    by way of compensation for the non-material damage            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    suffered by the applicant;
                                                                  The applicant, a company incorporated under French law,
Ð order the Commission to pay all the costs in any                has since 1990 been operating regular international
    event.                                                        services between France and Luxembourg, having been
                                                                  authorised by the competent French authorities so to do.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                  On 4 December 1996 the applicant submitted to the
The applicant suffered damage to his clothing in the              Commission a complaint concerning, first, unlawful
course of carrying out the work entrusted to him. Two             conduct on the part of SocieÂteÂ Mousset, a competitor
new pairs of trousers (each pair having a value of ITL            which had started to operate a cross-border service
185 000) were successively damaged, without any lack of           without authorisation, and, second, the development since
care or fault whatever on the applicant's part.                   1990 of anti-competitive practices as a result of the
                                                                  application of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 684/
According to the applicant, the present case does not             92. It requested the Commission, pursuant to the Treaty,
involve normal wear and tear to the trousers; instead, it         to intervene in order to ensure, first, that Community law,
concerns an accident connected with the normal                    in particular Regulation (EEC) No 684/92, was complied
performance of his duties. He pleads infringement of              with and, second, that infringements of competition rules
Articles 71 and 73 of the Staff Regulations, breach of the        of the type contained in Council Regulation (EEC)
duty to have regard for the welfare and interests of              No 1017/68 were identified and dealt with.
officials and breach of general principles of law, such as
the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations        By letter of 19 August 1998, the Commission informed,
and of the principle of equal treatment. The applicant            inter alia, the applicant that it did not regard it as
claims that the defendant wrongly refused, in breach of           appropriate to apply the safeguard clause contained in
the rules and principles referred to in his plea, to              paragraph 1.3 of Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 684/
compensate him for the damage suffered by him as a                92, inasmuch as that clause cannot be applied between
result of an accident at work, since it is apparent, first,       regular services and special regular services. To apply the
that the accident indeed occurred on the occasion of, or in       safeguard clause in that way would be tantamount to
 ---pagebreak--- C 378/26             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     5.12.98
limiting the effects of the liberalisation of special regular           promote unfair competition with regard to existing
services which was introduced by that regulation.                       regular services, and, in particular, to the disadvantage
Consequently, according to the Commission, the French                   of those provided by Schiocchet SARL;
State has not breached Community law.
                                                                    Ð annul classification Decision D(98)ab/g/plainte/
The applicant maintains that the exemption provision laid
                                                                        Schiocchet/class-2 90176 of the Commission of
down in Article 4(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 684/92 is
                                                                        19 August 1998.
unlawful, inasmuch as that provision is itself incompatible
with the Treaty and, in particular, with Article 75(1)(a) of
the Treaty of Rome. In the present case, the exemption              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
provision at issue has enabled SocieÂteÂ Mousset, since the
entry into force of Article 4(2) of the regulation in               The present case concerns allegedly unlawful conduct on
question, to continue to compete with the existing regular          the part of the company known as Taxi Gaby Colarelli, a
service provided by the applicant, which was established            competitor of the applicant.
prior to that regulation, and has the effect of distorting
competition in the common market.                                   The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as
                                                                    those relied on by the applicant in Case T-169/98
According to the applicant, the Commission wrongly                  Schiocchet v. Commission.
considered SocieÂteÂ Mousset to have been exempt from the
authorisation requirement since the entry into force of
Regulation (EEC) No 684/92. In addition, the
Commission erred in law in considering that paragraph
1.3 of Article 2 of that regulation was not intended to
restrict the scope of Article 4(2) thereof.
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case T-159/97 (1)
The Commission has also engaged in unlawful                                                  (98/C 378/47)
discrimination, inasmuch as it applied different treatment
to comparable situations, thereby placing the applicant at                         (Language of the case: French)
a disadvantage by comparison with other providers of
regular services. That difference in treatment was not              By order of 9 October 1998 the President of the Third
justified by the existence of any other objectives to which         Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
any weight attaches.                                                Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                    Case T-159/97: Luis Manuel Chaves Fonseca FerraÄo v.
                                                                    Office for the Harmonisation of the Internal Market
                                                                    (trade marks and designs).
Action brought on 16 October 1998 by Schiocchet SARL                (1) OJ C 212, 12.7.1997.
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                       (Case T-170/98)
                        (98/C 378/46)
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case T-297/97 (1)
An action against the Commission of the European                                             (98/C 378/48)
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 16 October                                 (Language of the case: English)
1998 by Schiocchet SARL, the registered office of which is
at Beuvillers (France), represented by Pascal Barbier, of the       By order of 9 October 1998 the President of the Third
Thionville Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg           Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
at the Chambers of Faltz and AssocieÂs, 6 Rue Heinrich              Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Heine.                                                              Case T-297/97: David T. Keeling v. Office for the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                         Harmonisation of the Internal Market (trade marks and
                                                                    designs).
Ð annul the provisions of Article 4(2) of Council
    Regulation No 684/92, inasmuch as its effect is to              (1) OJ C 26, 24.1.1998.