title: Case C-159/01: Action brought on 13 April 2001 by the Kingdom of the Netherlands against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
28.7.2001              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 212/9
Action brought on 13 April 2001 by the Kingdom of the                         used on agricultural land. As regards crops grown in
Netherlands against the Commission of the European                            glasshouses, which do come into direct contact with the
                          Communities                                         ground, a very considerable proportion of the phosphate
                                                                              and nitrogen is absorbed through the plants; conse-
                                                                              quently, it cannot be said that the ground is really
                         (Case C-159/01)                                      affected.
                                                                        —     Failure to provide an adequate statement of reasons: the
                         (2001/C 212/14)                                      Commission has wrongfully failed to state any arguments
                                                                              as to why it considers that the input norms of 460 kg
                                                                              phosphate per hectare and 800 kg nitrogen per hectare
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                     are too high to warrant the view that the exemption is
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                  justified by the nature or general scheme of the system.
Communities on 13 April 2001 by the Kingdom of the
Netherlands, represented by H.G. van Sevenster and J. van
Bakel, acting as Agents.                                                (1) OJ 1991 L 375, p. 1.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
(1) annul the Commission’s decision (C(2000) 4404 final) of
      21 December 2000 on the exemption from mineral levies
      under the manure law which the Netherlands intends to
      grant;
(2) order the Commission to pay the costs.                              Action brought on 20 April 2001 by the Commission of
                                                                        the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                  (Case C-173/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 212/15)
—     Infringement of Article 87(1) EC: the exemption does
      confer any advantage but merely removes an unintended
      disadvantage suffered by persons engaged in cultivation           An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
      in glasshouses or on substrate as a result of the fact that       the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 20 April
      the Manure Law does not take account of the actual                2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
      removal of minerals from the holding via plant products           represented by Maria Kondou-Durande, Commission Legal
      grown in glasshouses or on substrate. Moreover, what is           Adviser.
      involved is not an exemption properly so called but
      rather a rectification designed to correct an unfairness          The Commission claims that the Court should:
      affecting certain agricultural operators by virtue of the
      Manure Law; thus, the exemption rules, by their very              —     declare that, by failing to adopt within the time-limit laid
      nature, do not constitute an advantage conferred by the                 down the laws, regulations and administrative measures
      State (or financed from State funds). Furthermore, the                  necessary in order to comply with Council Directive
      levies are not designed to generate income for the State;               99/20/EC (1) of 22 March 1999 amending Directives
      instead, they are intended to regulate the use of manure,               70/524/EEC concerning additives in feedingstuffs,
      and thus the effect on the environment. The exemption                   82/471/EEC concerning certain products used in animal
      does not affect trade between Member States.                            nutrition, 95/53/EC fixing the principles governing the
                                                                              organisation of official inspections in the field of animal
                                                                              nutrition and 95/69/EC laying down the conditions
      It is not open to the Commission, within the framework
                                                                              and arrangements for approving and registering certain
      of the procedure under Article 88 EC, to take into
                                                                              establishments and intermediaries operating in the animal
      consideration the compatibility of the exemption rules
                                                                              feed sector, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its
      with the Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC) (1). This is
                                                                              obligations under the Treaty and that directive;
      because the Commission’s assessment of the compati-
      bility or incompatibility of a measure with the common            —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
      market must be limited to an evaluation of the economic
      aspects. As it is, the Nitrates Directive does not pursue
      any economic objective.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
      The Netherlands Government considers that, in any
      event, there can be no question of the exemption rules            In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 EC,
      being incompatible with the Nitrates Directive. For the           directives are binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
      purposes of cultivation on substrate, minerals are not            each Member State to which they are addressed.


title: Case C-72/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale — di Massa Carrara, Sezione 2, by order of that Court of 11 December 2002 in the case of Carbonati Apuani s.r.l. against Comune di Carrara

text:
5.4.2003                 EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 83/15
Do Regulations (EEC) No 1079/77 (1) and No 1822/77 (2),                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione
which establish a co-responsibility levy on cows’ milk, apply              Tributaria Provinciale — di Massa Carrara, Sezione 2, by
to all transfers of cows’ milk from the producer to third parties,         order of that Court of 11 December 2002 in the case of
regardless of the legal form which such transfers take, or                      Carbonati Apuani s.r.l. against Comune di Carrara
merely to transfers which result in the acquisition of title in
the product by the transferee?                                                                      (Case C-72/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 83/28)
( 1) OJ L 131 of 26.5.1977, p. 6.
( 2) OJ L 203 of 9.8.1977, p. 1.
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities by order of the Commissione Tributa-
                                                                           ria Provinciale — di Massa Carrara, Sezione 2 (Massa Carrara
                                                                           Provincial Tax Court, Second Chamber) of 11 December 2002,
                                                                           received at the Court Registry on 18 February 2003, for a
                                                                           preliminary ruling in the case of Carbonati Apuani s.r.l. against
                                                                           Comune di Carrara on the following question:
Action brought on 18 February 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                                                           whether the Italian rules in question, Laws No 749 of 15 July
                                Belgium
                                                                           1911 and No 449 of 23 December 1997 and Decree-Law
                                                                           No 8 of 26 January 1999 as converted, with amendments,
                            (Case C-71/03)                                 into Law No 75.99 — establishing a marble tax in the Comune
                                                                           di Carrara — are compatible with Articles 23, 81, 85 and 86
                                                                           of the EC Treaty as amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam,
                            (2003/C 83/27)                                 ratified in Italy by Law No 209.1998.
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
18 February 2003 by the Commission of the European                         Action brought on 20 February 2003 by the Commission
Communities, represented by Wouter Wils, acting as Agent,                  of the European Communities against the Republic of
with an address for service in Luxembourg.                                                             Austria
                                                                                (Case C-76/03)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (2003/C 83/29)
—     Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      Directive 98/71/EC ( 1) of the European Parliament and of
      the Council of 13 October 1998 on the legal protection               An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
      of designs and, in any event, by failing to communicate              before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
      them to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has                   20 February 2003 by the Commission of the European
      failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;               Communities, represented by Claudia Schmidt, of the Euro-
                                                                           pean Commission’s Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an
                                                                           address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Luis Escobar
—     order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                       Guerrero, also of the European Commission’s Legal Service,
                                                                           Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           1.    Declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws,
                                                                                regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
The period prescribed for implementation of the directive                        comply with Directive 98/71/EC of the European Parlia-
expired on 28 October 2001.                                                      ment and of the Council of 13 October 1998 on the legal
                                                                                protection of designs ( 1) and/or by failing to forward
                                                                                those provisions to the Commission, the Republic of
( 1) OJ L 289 of 28.10.1998, p. 28.                                              Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
                                                                                directive;
                                                                           2.    Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Ufficio del Giudice di Pace di Genova, by order of that court of 28 March 1998 in the case of Eridania SpA against Azienda Agricola San Luca (Case C-160/98)

text:
C 209/22               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      4.7.98
of the European Communities in Case T-105/96 between                 Ð the finding of the Court of First Instance that the
Pharos SA and Commission of the European Communities                     Commission was entitled to seek a further opinion
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                  from the Committee for Veterinary Medicinal
Communities on 17 April 1998 by Pharos SA, represented                   Products: the procedure provided for by Articles 6 and
by Alexandre Vandencasteele, of the Brussels Bar, with an                8 of the regulation is clear, precise and unconditional.
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                     It examines all possible situations exhaustively and
Ernest Arendt, 8Ð10 Rue Mathias Hardt.                                   leaves the Commission no room to act otherwise than
                                                                         as laid down by the regulation.
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                     (1) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990, p. 1.
Ð set aside the judgment of the Third Chamber of the
    Court of First Instance of the European Communities
    of 17 February 1998 in Case T-105/96 between Pharos
    SA and the Commission of the European
    Communities;                                                     Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der
                                                                     Nederlanden of 22 April 1998 in the case of
                                                                     Staatssecretaris van FinancieÈn against V.O.F. Coffeeshop
and
                                                                                SiberieÈ'
                                                                                (Case C-158/98)
Ð declare that the case should proceed to judgment and
    give judgment for the applicant in the terms sought by                                    (98/C 209/43)
    it at first instance, that is to say:
                                                                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    Ð declare that, in breach of its obligations, the                European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad
         Commission failed to pursue the procedure for the           der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of
         inclusion of somatosalm produced by the applicant           22 April 1998, received at the Court Registry on 24 April
         in the list of substances not subject to an MRL in          1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
         Annex II of Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 (1),                Staatssecretaris van FinancieÈn against V.O.F. Coffeeshop
                                                                     SiberieÈ', on the following question:
    Ð order the Commission to pay the applicant
         damages provisionally estimated at BFR 512                  Must Article 2 of the Sixth Directive (77/388/EEC) (1)
         million or, at least, and again provisionally, at BFR       therefore be interpreted as meaning that no liability to
         353 million,                                                turnover tax arises in respect of a person who, for
                                                                     consideration, offers another person the opportunity to
    Ð order the defendant to pay the costs both of the               deal in cannabis products?
         proceedings before the Court of First Instance and
         of those before the Court of Justice;                       (1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.
or
    Ð refer the case back to the Court of First Instance
         so that it can give judgment.                               Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Ufficio del
                                                                     Giudice di Pace di Genova, by order of that court of
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  28 March 1998 in the case of Eridania SpA against
                                                                                Azienda Agricola San Luca
                                                                                (Case C-160/98)
Errors in law as regards
                                                                                (98/C 209/44)
Ð the finding of the Court of First Instance that the
    Commission did not breach the principles of legal                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    certainty and legitimate expectations in not proposing           European Communities by order of 28 March 1998 of the
    measures to the Council as required by Article 8(3)(b)           Ufficio del Giudice di Pace di Genova, received at the
    of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 for 11                    Court Registry on 22 April 1998, for a preliminary ruling
    months because the expression without delay' used in            in the case of Eridania SpA v. Azienda Agricola San Luca
    that regulation allowed it a certain margin for                 on the following questions:
    manoeuvre': both the expressions used in the various
    language versions and the general scheme of the                  1. Is Regulation (EC) No 1188/97 of 25 June 1997 (1), in
    regulation support the view that the Commission has                  particular Article 1(f) thereof, valid, especially in the
    no deadline by which it must propose measures to the                 light of Article 3(4) and (5) of Regulation (EEC)
    Council regarding a new pharmacologically active                     No 1785/81 (2) and Article 190 of the EC Treaty?
    substance which, as such, does not benefit from the
    provisional authorisation provided for in Article 14 of          2. If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative,
    the regulation,                                                      is Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 of 30 June 1981, as
 ---pagebreak--- 4.7.98                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 209/23
     subsequently amended, and in particular Articles 3(1),         presumption in respect of the war years if the person
     5(3) and 6(2) thereof, valid, in the light of Article 40       concerned can claim a pension under a foreign scheme for
     and Articles 30 to 36 of the EC Treaty?                        those periods of employment) constitute a clause for
                                                                    reduction, suspension or withdrawal declared inapplicable
(1) OJ L 170, 28.6.1997, p. 3.                                      by the new provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92?
(2) OJ L 177, 1.7.1981, p. 4.
                                                                    (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92 of 30 April 1992
                                                                        amending Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of
                                                                        social security schemes¼ (OJ L 136, 19.5.1992, p. 7).
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Third Chamber
of the Tribunal de Travail, Mons, by judgment of that
court of 21 April 1998, in the case of Georges Platbrood            Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
           v. Office National des Pensions (ONP)                    Oberlandesgericht Köln, by order of that court of
                       (Case C-161/98)                              13 March 1998 in proceedings concerning an
                                                                       administrative fine imposed on Hans-Jürgen Hartmann
                         (98/C 209/45)
                                                                                (Case C-162/98)
                                                                                (98/C 209/46)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Third
                                                                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Chamber of the Tribunal de Travail (Labour Tribunal),
                                                                    European Communities by order of the Oberlandesgericht
Mons, of 21 April 1998, which was received at the Court
                                                                    Köln (Higher Regional Court, Cologne) of 13 March
Registry on 27 April 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                    1998, received at the Court Registry on 27 April 1998, for
case of Georges Platbrood v. Office National des Pensions
                                                                    a preliminary ruling in the proceedings concerning an
(ONP), on the following questions:
                                                                    administrative fine imposed on Hans-Jürgen Hartmann,
                                                                    on the following question (1):
Do the new provisions in Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92
requiere Belgium to grant a beneficiary the right to a              Does the exemption from charges afforded to motor
retirement pension calculated on the basis of a work                vehicles belonging to road maintenance and operation
record comprising in part years in the course of which              services' apply only to vehicles belonging to regional and/
presumed or notional contributions must be taken into               or local authorities, or does it also apply to vehicles
account Ð unless the person concerned can claim a                   belonging to private contractors acting on behalf of such
pension under a foreign scheme for those periods of                 authorities?
employment (principle that there is a legal presumption in
respect of the war years, as laid down by Article 32(1) of          In the latter case:
the Royal Decree of 21 December 1967 establishing
general rules for the retirement and survival pension               does the exemption from charges apply only in respect of
scheme for employees prior to its repeal by the Royal               journeys undertaken for that purpose, or does it apply
Decree of 14 December 1990 Ð although it remains                    generally to all journeys made using such vehicles, thus
applicable to retirement pensions which became payable              including those undertaken on business relating to the
for the first time before 1 January 1991) in circumstances          contractor's manufacturing operations?
where, specifically, the person concerned has been
awarded a retirement pension payable by Germany on the              (1) Concerning the interpretation of Article 4(1) of the Agreement
basis of actual contributions corresponding to the                      of 9 February 1994 on the levying of charges for the use of
presumed or notional contributions which may be taken                   certain roads by heavy commercial vehicles (Bundesgesetzblatt
                                                                        [Federal Gazette], Part II, p. 1768).
into account under the Belgian legislation?
In other words, must the new provisions of Regulation
(EEC) No 1248/92 (1) be interpreted as authorising
overlapping, without reduction, suspension or withdrawal
of a retirement pension awarded to a Belgian, payable by            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Seventh
Belgium and calculated on the basis of presumed or                  Chamber of the Tribunal Correctionel, Arlon, by
notional contributions by virtue of the principle that there        judgment of that court of 2 April 1998 in the case of
is a legal presumption in respect of the war years, as laid         MinisteÁre Public against AndreÂ Mazzoleni Ð parties
down by Article 32(1) of the Royal Decree of 21 December            claiming damages: Eric Guillaume, Michel Pedon,
1967 (subject to the reservation contained in that                  Christian Fondeur, Christian Simonin, JeÂrôme Canini;
provision whereby the person concerned may not,                      liable under civil law: Inter Surveillance Assistance SARL
however, claim a pension under a foreign scheme for those                                    (Case C-165/98)
periods of employment) with the benefit of a retirement
pension payable by Germany calculated on the basis of                                         (98/C 209/47)
actual contributions covering the same period or, on the
contrary, might the exception provided for by Article 32(1)         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
of the Royal Decree of 21 December 1967 (no legal                   European Communities by judgment of the Seventh


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Vienna) by order of that court of 12 August 1997 in the case of Wiener Städtische Allgemeine Versicherungs AG, Romed Karl Kleissl, Streiter KG Gasthof 'Post', Alfred Eiter, Stefan Riml, Mag. Josef Nothdurfter Treuhand- und Steuerberatungsgesellschaft mbH (formerly Rasputin Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH), Tiroler Röhren- und Metallwerke AG, Elmar Kurz, Elisabeth Schüller, Anton Gschwentner GesmbH 'Hotel Schwarzbrunn', Allgemeine Wirtschaftstreuhand- und Beratungsges. mbH, Kaiserwerke Elektrizitätsversorgungs GesmbH, Miller Optik GesmbH, Michael Khuen-Belasi, DM Drogeriemarkt GmbH, and Flic Flac Kinderbekleidungs-Handelsgesellschaft mbH against Tiroler Landesregierung (Case C-344/97)

text:
22 . 11 . 97              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 357/21
      comply with Council Directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April              DM        Drogeriemarkt            GmbH,    and    Flic    Flac
       1990 on the deliberate release into the environment of           Kinderbekleidungs-Handelsgesellschaft           mbH     against
      genetically modified organisms ('), and Commission                Tiroler Landesregierung ( Government of Tirol ) on the
      Directive 94/5 1/EC of 7 November 1994 adapting to                following questions :
      technical progress Council Directive 90/219/EEC on
      the contained use of genetically modified micro                  Is Article 33 ( 1 ) of the sixth Council Directive 77/388/
       organisms ( 2), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to             EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of
       fulfil its obligations under those Directives,                   the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common
                                                                        system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (')
                                                                        to be interpreted with regard to the description
— order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                        'characterized as turnover taxes' as precluding the
                                                                        imposition on traders by a Member State of a tourism levy
                                                                        ( contribution ) which has the following features :
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                        — it is payable by traders with a direct or indirect
                                                                             interest in the tourist industry and therefore by a large
Pleas in law and main arguments correspond to those set                      number of, but not all, traders,
out in Case C-320/97 ('); the period prescribed for
transposition expired on 23 October 1991 ( Directive 90/
220/EEC) and 30 April 1995 (Directive 94/5 1 /EC ).                     — it goes to a local tourist association to finance the
                                                                             development of the tourist industry or to a fund to be
                                                                             used for the whole region ( Land),
(>) OJ L 117, 8 . 5 . 1990 , p . 15 .
( 2 ) OJ L 297, 18 . 11 . 1994, p . 29 .
(•') OJ C 331 , 1 . 11 . 1997, p. 13 .                                  — the basis of assessment is the yearly turnover with
                                                                             certain exceptions, in particular turnover related to
                                                                             services to customers whose place of residence (seat) is
                                                                             outside the area covered by the legislation, in so far as
                                                                             the services are not for a business situated within the
                                                                             area covered by the legislation (a Bundesland of a
                                                                             Member State composed of federal States ) and not
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungs                       services to final consumers, and turnover related to
gerichtshof (Vienna) by order of that court of 12 August                     other services in so far as they are not supplied
1997 in the case of Wiener Städtische Allgemeine                             exclusively or primarily within the area covered by the
Versicherungs AG, Romed Karl Kleissl, Streiter KG                            legislation ( the Bundesland of the Member State ),
Gasthof 'Post', Alfred Eiter, Stefan Riml, Mag. Josef
Nothdurfter Treuhand- und Steuerberatungsgesellschaft                   — the amount of the levy varies according to the benefit
mbH ( formerly Rasputin Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH ),                         deemed by the legislature to be derived from tourism
Tiroler Röhren- und Metallwerke AG, Elmar Kurz,                              by the sector to which the taxpayer belongs,
Elisabeth Schüller, Anton Gschwentner GesmbH 'Hotel
Schwarzbrunn', Allgemeine Wirtschaftstreuhand- und
Beratungsges. mbH, Kaiserwerke Elektrizitätsversorgungs                 — the amount of the levy is higher in tourist areas than
GesmbH, Miller Optik GesmbH, Michael Khuen-Belasi,                           in others, and
DM Drogeriemarkt GmbH, and Flic Flac Kinder
bekleidungs-Handelsgesellschaft mbH against Tiroler                     — no provision is made for deduction of input tax ?
                            Landesregierung
                           ( Case C-344/97 )                            (') OJ L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 .
                             ( 97/C 357/37 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsge                     Action brought on 2 October 1997 by the Federal
richtshof ( Administrative Court), Vienna, of 12 August                 Republic of Germany against the Council of the European
1997, received at the Court Registry on 2 October 1997,                                                   Union
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Wiener Städtische
Allgemeine Versicherungs AG, Romed Karl Kleissl, Streiter                                          (Case C-345/97 )
KG Gasthof ' Post', Alfred Eiter, Stefan Riml, Mag. Josef                                           ( 97/C 357/38 )
Nothdurfter Treuhand- und Steuerberatungsgesellschaft
mbH         ( formerly   Rasputin Vertriebsgesellschaft    mbH ),
Tiroler Röhren- und Metallwerke AG , Elmar Kurz,                        An action against the Council of the European Union was
Elisabeth Schüller, Anton Gschwentner GesmbH ' Hotel                    brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Schwarzbrunn ', Allgemeine Wirtschaftstreuhand- und                     Communities on 2 October 1997 by the Federal Republic
Beratungsges . mbH, Kaiserwerke Elektrizitätsversorgungs                of Germany, represented by Ernst Roder and Claus-Dieter
GesmbH, Miller Optik GesmbH, Michael Khuen-Belasi,                      Quassowski, Federal Economics Ministry, D-53107 Bonn.


               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/61

         Removal from the Register of Case T-50/97 (1)

   (2005/C 217/121)

      (Language of the case: Dutch)

   By order of 16 June 2005, the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-50/97, H. Buwalda v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 142 of 10.5.1997.


title: Case T-76/00: Action brought on 3 April 2000 by Bruno Farmaceutici S.p.A. and seven other companies against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 149/42                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   27.5.2000
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                Action brought on 3 April 2000 by Bruno Farmaceutici
                                                                           S.p.A. and seven other companies against the Commission
— annul the Commission Decision of 9 March 2000 (K(2000)                                   of the European Communities
     453);
                                                                                (Case T-76/00)
— in the alternative, annul the decision in so far as Article 1
     in conjunction with Annex I requires the Federal Republic
     of Germany to withdraw authorisation for the applicant’s                                      (2000/C 149/78)
     preparation containing amfepramon ‘Tenuate Retard’;
— order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
The applicant possesses a German authorisation for the                     European Communities on 3 April 2000 by Bruno Farmaceut-
medicinal product containing amfepramon ‘Tenuate Retard’.                  ici S.p.A., of Rome, and seven other companies, represented
By the present application it seeks annulment of the Com-                  by Burkhard Sträter, Rechtsanwalt, Bonn, Germany.
mission’s decision addressed to the Member States on with-
drawal of authorisation for medicinal products for human use
which contain that substance.                                              The applicants claim that the Court should:
The application is based in particular on the following grounds:           — annul Commission Decision K (2000) 453 of 9 March
                                                                               2000;
— The defendant was not entitled to adopt the contested
     decision. It wrongly bases its decision on Articles 14 and            — in the alternative, annul the decision in so far as Article 1
     15a of Directive 75/319 (1). The conditions under Article                 in conjunction with Annex I thereof requires the Member
     15a of the directive are not satisfied.                                   States Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy,
                                                                               Luxembourg, Spain and the United Kingdom to withdraw
— The European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal                          the authorisations for the applicants’ medicinal products
     Products altered the subject-matter of the procedure under                containing amfepramon;
     Article 15a of Directive 75/319, in breach of the directive.
                                                                           — order the Commission to pay the applicants’ necessary
— The conditions for withdrawal of authorisation under                         costs.
     Article 14 of Directive 75/319 and Article 11 of Directive
     65/65 (2) are not satisfied. Neither the harmfulness nor the
     lack of therapeutic efficacy of amfepramon has been
     established.                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
— The decision is furthermore disproportionate. The Com-
     mittee for Proprietary Medicinal Products regarded long-              The applicants are pharmaceutical undertakings which market
     term studies of the efficacy and side-effects of amfepramon           medicinal products containing amfepramon in various Mem-
     as necessary. Such studies could, however, also be carried            ber States. By the present application they seek annulment of
     out while the preparations continued, to be marketed.                 the Commission’s decision addressed to the Member States on
     Withdrawal of authorisation, on the other hand, is an                 withdrawal of authorisation for medicinal products for human
     irreparable measure and the one which burdens the holder              use which contain that substance. The application is based in
     of the authorisation most severely.                                   particular on the following grounds:
                                                                           — The initiation of the procedure under Article 15a of
(1) Second Council Directive 75/319/EEC of 20 May 1975 on the                  Directive 75/319/EEC (1) by Belgium was ineffective. The
    approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or
                                                                               Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products and the
    administrative action relating to proprietary medicinal products
    (OJ 1975 L 147, p. 13).                                                    Commission were therefore not entitled to carry out the
(2) Council Directive 65/65/EEC of 26 January 1965 on the approxi-             procedure and adopt the decision.
    mation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrat-
    ive action relating to proprietary medicinal products (OJ, English     — The excessive length of the procedure breached essential
    Special Edition 1965-1966, p. 20).
                                                                               procedural requirements.
                                                                           — The procedure on which the decision was based and the
                                                                               decision itself infringe provisions of Directive
                                                                               65/65/EEC (2).
 ---pagebreak--- 27.5.2000                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 149/43
— The evaluation carried out of the safety and efficacy of                 — The Commission based its conclusions on an incorrect
     amfepramon has no valid scientific basis. Criteria were used              analysis of the relevant market, contrary to its own
     for assessment which are applicable only in procedures for                decisional practice.
     new authorisations or extensions. Such procedures are,
     however, within the competence of the Member States.                  — Contrary to the findings in the contested decision, Telecom
     The decision is therefore also void on the ground of misuse               Éireann abused its dominant position by refusing to
     of powers.                                                                provide proper access to the applicant, by offering bundled
                                                                               access conditions on a retail basis and by discriminating
                                                                               between the access conditions granted to the applicant and
(1) Second Council Directive 75/319/EEC of 20 May 1975 on the                  other telecommunications operators.
    approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or
    administrative action relating to proprietary medicinal products
    (OJ 1975 L 147, p. 13).                                                — Basing itself on the assumption that the available evidence
(2) Council Directive 65/65/EEC of 26 January 1965 on the approxi-             was insufficient to prove that Telecom Éireann abused
    mation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrat-          its dominant position, the applicant submits that the
    ive action relating to proprietary medicinal products (OJ, English         Commission misused its powers by refusing to conduct the
    Special Edition 1965-1966, p. 20).                                         additional proceedings required to establish this evidence.
Action brought on 3 April 2000 by Esat Telecommuni-                        Action brought on 3 April 2000 by Sumitomo Metal
cations Ltd., against the Commission of the European                       Industries Limited against the Commission of the Euro-
                             Communities                                                         pean Communities
                            (Case T-77/00)                                                          (Case T-78/00)
                           (2000/C 149/79)                                                         (2000/C 149/80)
                     (Language of the case: English)                                         (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 3 April 2000 by Esat Telecom-                      European Communities on 3 April 2000 by Sumitomo Metal
munications Ltd., Dublin, represented by Bernard Amory and                 Industries Limited, Osaka (Japan), represented by Christopher
Alexandre Verheyden of Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, Brussels.               Vajda QC and David Aitman, Solicitor.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                The applicant claims that the Court should:
— declare the defendant’s decision of 18 January 2000 to be                — annul Articles 1 to 5 of the decision in so far as they are
     void;                                                                     addressed to the applicant;
— order the defendant to pay the costs.                                    — alternatively, annul Article 4 of the decision in so far as it
                                                                               imposes a fine of 13.5 million euro on SMI and fix a
                                                                               substantially lower fine;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           — order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.
The applicant is a licensed provider of telecommunications
services in Ireland. In 1996 it lodged an application for the
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
initiation of a procedure to establish the existence of an
infringement of Article 86 of the EC Treaty (now Article 82
EC) by Telecom Éireann (now called Eircom). The alleged                   According to the applicant, the contested decision finds two
infringement related to the withdrawal by Telecom Éireann of              sets of agreements that infringe Article 81 EC. The first set was
the standard discounts, which it made available to its large-              found to exist between four European producers of seamless
volume end users and to its failure to provide the applicant               standard OCTG and line pipe and four Japanese producers,
with equitable interconnection tariffs. The applicant seeks at             including the applicant (‘EU/Japan agreement’). The second
present the annulment of the Commission decision rejecting                 agreement was found to exist between the European producers
its complaint in particular on following grounds:                          (‘EU Agreement’).


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 May 2003 in Case C-483/01: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 96/29/Euratom — Protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation — Incomplete implementation)

text:
5.7.2003                 EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                               C 158/7
1.    Article 73b(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 56(1) EC)                 1.    Declares that, by failing to identify sensitive areas in the
      precludes an administrative authorisation procedure prior to                 intracommunal catchment area of the Autonomous Community
      acquisition of land, such as that established by the Vorarlberger            of Catalonia and the coastal waters of the Autonomous
      Grundverkehrsgesetz (Vorarlberg Land Transfer Law) of                        Communities of the Basque Country, Catalonia, Valencia, the
      23 September 1993, as amended in LGBl. 1997/85. It is for                    Balearic Islands and the Canary Islands, and of the autonomous
      the national court to determine whether such a procedure is                  city of Ceuta, the Kingdom of Spain failed to fulfil its
      covered by the derogation established by Article 70 of the Act               obligations under Article 5 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC
      concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of                    of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment;
      Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden
      and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European              2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;
      Union is founded.
                                                                             3.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
2.    The Court of Justice of the European Communities has no
      jurisdiction to answer the third question submitted.
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 348 of 8.12.2001.
( 1) OJ C 303 of 27.10.2001.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                                (Fourth Chamber)
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                                               of 15 May 2003
                           of 15 May 2003                                    in Case C-483/01: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v French Republic ( 1)
in Case C-419/01: Commission of the European Communi-                        (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
                    ties v Kingdom of Spain ( 1)
                                                                             96/29/Euratom — Protection of the health of workers and
                                                                             the general public against the dangers arising from ionising
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                                   radiation — Incomplete implementation)
Directive 91/271/EEC — Article 5 — Urban waste water
        treatment — Failure to identify sensitive areas)                                                (2003/C 158/11)
                           (2003/C 158/10)                                                        (Language of the case: French)
                    (Language of the case: Spanish)                          (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-483/01, Commission of the European Communities
                                                                             (Agent: R. Tricot) v French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues
                                                                             and C. Isidoro): Application for a declaration that by failing to
In Case C-419/01, Commission of the European Communities                     adopt and, in any event, by failing to communicate to
(Agent: G. Valero Jordana) v Kingdom of Spain (Agent:                        the Commission the laws, regulations and administrative
L. Fraguas Gadea): Application for a declaration that, by                    provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 96/29/
identifying sensitive areas in only some regions of its territory,           Euratom of 13 May 1996 laying down basic safety standards
the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under              for the protection of the health of workers and the general
Article 5 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991                     public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation (OJ
concerning urban waste water treatment (OJ 1991 L 135,                       1996 L 159, p. 1), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
p. 40), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puisso-                obligations under that directive, the Court (Fourth Chamber),
chet, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen, C. Gulmann,                    composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), President of
F. Macken (Rapporteur) and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges;                     the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and A. La Pergola, Judges;
F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a              A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 15 May 2003, in which it has ruled:                              judgment on 15 May 2003, in which it:
 ---pagebreak--- C 158/8                    EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                               5.7.2003
1.    Declares that by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,              of ionising radiation in relation to medical exposure, and
      the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to              repealing Directive 84/466/Euratom, the French Republic has
      comply with Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May                         failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
      1996 laying down basic safety standards for the protection of
      the health of workers and the general public against the dangers        2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
      arising from ionising radiation, the French Republic has failed
      to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
                                                                              (1 ) OJ C 84 of 6.4.2002.
2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
( 1) OJ C 84 of 6.4.2002.
                                                                              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-
                                                                              hof by order of that Court of 13 November 2002 in the
                                                                              case of Hans-Jürgen and Monique Ritter-Coulais against
                                                                                Finanzamt Gersheim
                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                                  (Case C-152/03)
                            (Fourth Chamber)                                                               (2003/C 158/13)
                             of 15 May 2003
                                                                              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
in Case C-484/01: Commission of the European Communi-                         European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof
                        ties v French Republic ( 1)                           (Federal Tax Court) of 13 November 2002, received at the
                                                                              Court Registry on 2 April 2003, for a preliminary ruling in
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive                  the case of Hans-Jürgen and Monique Ritter-Coulais against
97/43/Euratom — Health protection of individuals against                      Finanzamt Gersheim on the following questions:
the dangers of ionising radiation in relation to medical
                                                                              1.    Is it contrary to Article 43 and Article 56 of the
            exposure — Incomplete implementation)
                                                                                Treaty establishing the European Community if, when
                                                                                determining his taxable income, a natural person who
                             (2003/C 158/12)                                        has full tax liability in Germany and who receives
                                                                                employment income there is not allowed to deduct in
                       (Language of the case: French)                               Germany losses incurred in another Member State from
                                                                                leasing and letting property?
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published        2.    If that question is answered in the negative: is it contrary
                      in the European Court Reports)                                to Article 43 and Article 56 of the Treaty establishing the
                                                                                European Community if such losses cannot be taken into
                                                                                account for the purposes of the negative tax progression
                                                                                clause (negativer Progressionsvorbehalt)?
In Case C-484/01, Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: R. Tricot) v French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues
and C. Isidoro): Application for a declaration that by failing to
adopt and, in any event, by failing to communicate to
the Commission the laws, regulations and administrative
provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 97/43/
Euratom of 30 June 1997 on health protection of individuals                   Action brought on 10 April 2003 by the Commission of
against the dangers of ionising radiation in relation to medical              the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
exposure, and repealing Directive 84/466/Euratom (OJ 1997
L 180, p. 22), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
obligations under that directive, the Court (Fourth Chamber),                                              (Case C-167/03)
composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), President of
the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and A. La Pergola, Judges;                                                      (2003/C 158/14)
A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 15 May 2003, in which it:
                                                                              An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
1.    Declares that by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,        the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 10 April
      the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to        2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
      comply with Council Directive 97/43/Euratom of 30 June                  represented by M. Van Beek and M. Konstandinidi, of its Legal
      1997 on health protection of individuals against the dangers            Service.


title: Case T-508/16: Judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2017 — Bodson and Others v EIB (Civil service — EIB staff — Contractual nature of the employment relationship — Remuneration — Reform of the bonus scheme — Legitimate expectations — Legal certainty — Manifest error of assessment — Proportionality — Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff — Article 11(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the EIB — Equal treatment)

text:
               21.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/45

         Judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2017 — Bodson and Others v EIB
   (Case T-508/16) (1)

   ((Civil service - EIB staff - Contractual nature of the employment relationship - Remuneration - Reform of the bonus scheme - Legitimate expectations - Legal certainty - Manifest error of assessment - Proportionality - Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff - Article 11(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the EIB - Equal treatment))
   (2017/C 277/67)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Jean-Pierre Bodson (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) and the 450 other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Investment Bank (EIB) (represented by: initially, C. Gómez de la Cruz, G. Nuvoli and T. Gilliams, and, subsequently, T. Gilliams and G. Faedo, acting as Agents, assisted by P.-E. Partsch, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decisions, contained in the bonus statements for April 2013, applying to the applicants the decision of the EIB Board of Directors of 14 December 2010 and the decisions of the EIB Management Committee of 9 November 2010, 29 June 2011, 16 November 2011 and 20 February 2013; and, secondly, an order that the EIB pay to the applicants a sum corresponding to the difference between the amount of remuneration paid in application of the abovementioned decisions and the amount of remuneration due under the previous system, or, in the alternative, the amount of remuneration due under the new scheme when correctly implemented, as well as compensation for the material damage resulting from loss of purchasing power and for the non-material damage which the applicants claim to have suffered.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Jean-Pierre Bodson and the other members of the staff of the European Investment Bank (EIB) whose names are listed in the annex to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 274, 21.9.2013 (case initially registered before the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union under number F-61/13 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1 September 2016).


title: Case T-783/14: Judgment of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — SolarWorld v Commission (Dumping — Subsidies — Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (cells) originating in or consigned from China — Approval of a downward adjustment of the minimum import price pursuant to an undertaking accepted in connection with anti-dumping and anti-subsidy proceedings — Union industry — Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009)

text:
               3.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/43

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — SolarWorld v Commission
   (Case T-783/14) (1)

   ((Dumping - Subsidies - Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (cells) originating in or consigned from China - Approval of a downward adjustment of the minimum import price pursuant to an undertaking accepted in connection with anti-dumping and anti-subsidy proceedings - Union industry - Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009))
   (2017/C 104/60)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: SolarWorld AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: L. Ruessmann, lawyer, and J. Beck, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the Commission’s decision, contained in a letter of 15 September 2014 addressed to the Chinese Chamber of Commerce for the Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic Products, bearing the reference TRADE/H4 (2014) 3328168, on the downward adjustment of the minimum import price for imports of photovoltaic modules and cells manufactured by Chinese exporting producers subject to a price undertaking with effect from 1 October 2014 for the last quarter of 2014.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders SolarWorld AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 73, 2.3.2015.


title: Case T-117/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 December 2007 — DeTeMedien v OHIM (suchen.de) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark suchen.de — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Domain name — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/44

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 December 2007 — DeTeMedien v OHIM (suchen.de)
   (Case T-117/06) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark suchen.de - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Domain name - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2008/C 22/81)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: DeTeMedien Deutsche Telekom Medien GmbH ((Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented initially by J. Fesenmair and I. Gehring, and subsequently by J. Fesenmair and T.M. Müller, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 January 2006 (Case R 287/2005-1) concerning an application for registration of the word sign suchen.de as a Community trade mark.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders DeTeMedien Deutsche Telekom Medien GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 143, 17.6.2006.


               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/67

         Removal from the register of Case T-270/03 (1)

   (2004/C 94/172)

      (Language of the Case: Italian)

   By order of 9 February 2004 the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case T-270/03:Ghiotto srl v Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 239 of 04.10.2003.


title: Case C-336/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Pordenone — Second Chamber — by order of that court of 14 July 2004 in the case of Banca Popolare Friuladria SpA against Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Pordenone

text:
               9.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/5

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Pordenone — Second Chamber — by order of that court of 14 July 2004 in the case of Banca Popolare Friuladria SpA against Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Pordenone
   (Case C-336/04)
   (2004/C 251/10)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Pordenone (Provincial Tax Commission of Pordenone) (Italy) of 14 July 2004, received at the Court Registry on 2 August 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Banca Popolare Friuladria SpA against Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Pordenone on the following questions:

               1.

               Is Commission Decision 2002/581/EC (1) of 11 December 2001 (OJ 2002 L 184, p. 27) invalid and incompatible with Community law, in that the provisions of Law 461/98 and the related Legislative Decree 153/99 regarding banks are compatible with the Common Market, contrary to the opinion of the European Commission, or do they in any case fall within the scope of the derogations provided for by Article 87(3)(b) and (c) of the EC Treaty?

               2.

               In particular, is Article 4 of the above-mentioned decision invalid and incompatible with Community law, in that the Commission:

                           (a)

                           failed in its duty to provide adequate reasons in accordance with Article 253 of the EC Treaty; and/or

                           (b)

                           infringed the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations; and/or

                           (c)

                           infringed the principle of proportionality?

               3.

               In any event, does a correct interpretation of Article 87 et seq. of the EC Treaty, Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (2) and the general principles of Community law, in particular those mentioned in the grounds of the order for reference, preclude the application of Article 1 of Decree Law 282 of 24 December 2002 (converted into Law 27 of 21 February 2003)?

      (1)  On the tax measures for banks and banking foundations implemented by Italy.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty, OJ L 83 of 27.03.1999, p. 1.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 26 October 2000 in Case T-345/99: Harbinger Corporation v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — The term TRUSTEDLINK — Absolute ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
C 108/18               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                    7.4.2001
4.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
5.    Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market                                 of 26 October 2000
      (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.
                                                                          in Case T-360/99: Community Concepts AG v Office for
                                                                          Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and
(1) OJ C 6 of 8.1.2000.                                                                          designs) (OHIM) (1)
                                                                          (Community trade mark — ‘Investorworld’ — Absolute
                                                                                ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character)
                                                                                (2001/C 108/31)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                          In Case T-360/99: Community Concepts AG, formerly Touch-
                                                                          down Gesellschaft für erfolgsorientiertes Marketing mbH,
                       of 26 October 2000                                 established in Munich, Germany, represented by F. Bahr and
                                                                          F. Cordt-Terzi, of the Munich Bar, with an address for service
                                                                          in Luxembourg at the Chambers of N. Decker, 16 Avenue
in Case T-345/99: Harbinger Corporation v Office for                      Marie-Thérèse, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and                     Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) (Agents: A. von
                       Designs) (OHIM) (1)                                Mühlendahl, D. Schennen, and E. Joly) — application for
                                                                          annulment of the decision of the third Board of Appeal of the
(Community trade mark — The term TRUSTEDLINK —                            Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks
Absolute ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation               and designs) of 15 October 1999 (Case R 204/1999-3) refusing
                          (EC) No 40/94)                                  registration of the word ‘Investorworld’ as a Community trade
                                                                          mark — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),
                                                                          composed of: V. Tiili, President, R.M. Moura Ramos and
                         (2001/C 108/30)                                  P. Mengozzi, Judges; G. Herzig, Administrator, for the Regis-
                                                                          trar, has given a judgment on 26 October 2000 in which it:
                   (Language of the case: English)                        1.    Dismisses the application;
                                                                          2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
In Case T-345/99: Harbinger Corporation, established in
Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America, represented by
                                                                          (1) OJ C 102 of 8.4.00.
R. Collin, M.-C. Mitchell and É. Logeais, of the Paris Bar, with
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Decker and Braun, 16 Avenue Marie-Thérèse, against Office
for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: J. Miranda de Sousa and A. Di Carlo
) — application for annulment of the decision of 17 September
1999 of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and                           ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Designs) (Case R 163/1998-3) refusing the registration of the
term TRUSTEDLINK as a Community trade mark — the Court                                         of 28 November 2000
of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili,
President, R.M. Moura Ramos and P. Mengozzi, Judges;                      in Case T-172/99: Francesca Pentericci v Commission of
G. Herzig, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a                                  the European Communities (1)
judgment on 26 October 2000, in which it:
                                                                          (Competition — Non-admission to the tests — Conditions
1.    Dismisses the application;                                          of admission — Professional experience — Candidate’s file
                                                                                — Action manifestly unfounded in law)
2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                                                                                (2001/C 108/32)
(1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.                                                                     (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                          In Case T-172/99: Francesca Pentericci, residing at Jesi (Italy),
                                                                          represented by M. Pentericci, of the Ancona Bar, with an


title: Case F-111/05: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 15 March 2007 — Sanchez Ferriz v Commission (Officials — Appraisal — Career development report — 2001-2002 appraisal procedure)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/57

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 15 March 2007 — Sanchez Ferriz v Commission
   (Case F-111/05) (1)

   (Officials - Appraisal - Career development report - 2001-2002 appraisal procedure)
   (2007/C 95/113)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Carlos Sanchez Ferriz (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and H. Kraemer, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of the applicant's career development report for the period 2001-2002
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               dismisses the application;

               2.

               orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 48, 25.2.2006, p. 36 (case initially registered before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under number T-413/05 and transferred to the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union by order of 15.12.2005).


title: Case C-253/05: Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of 19 May 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/32

         Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of 19 May 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-253/05) (1)

   (2006/C 224/64)

      Language of the case: Dutch

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

      (1)  OJ C 229, 17.09.2005.


title: Action brought on 10 February 1995 by Efthimia Bitha, Vasiliki Bitha and Georgios Bitha against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-23/95)

text:
8 . 4 . 95          I EN |                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 87/15
Instance of the European Communities on 7 February 1995              ( Gabon), represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar,
by SA Adia Interim, the head office of which is in Brussels,         with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
represented by Vincent Thiry, of the Liege Bar, with an              Myson Sari, 1 Rue Glesener.
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Tom
Gilliams, 47 Grand Rue.                                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:                          — annul the decision of the Commission of 4 May 1994
                                                                         refusing the applicant full reimbursement of his medical
— declare the application admissible and well-founded,                   expenses in accordance with Article 24 of Annex X to
                                                                         the Staff Regulations,
— annul the decisions taken,
                                                                     — order the defendant to pay in full the difference between
                                                                         the expenditure actually incurred and payments from
— order the Commission of the European Communities to
                                                                         the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme,
     pay the applicant all the costs of the proceedings,
     including, in particular, travel and subsistence expenses       — declare that the General Provisions implementing the
     and the fees of the applicant's adviser.                             first and second paragraphs of Annex X to the Staff
                                                                          Regulations are unlawful,
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                     — order the defendant to pay all the costs.
The applicant, a company incorporated under Belgian law
which has been engaged for nine years in contractual                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
relations with the Commission involving the placing of
temporary workers at the latter's disposal with a view to the        The applicant pleads, first, infringement of Article 24 of
performance by them of miscellaneous duties in the                   Annex X to the Staff Regulations. He points out that that
premises of the Commission, contests the Commission's                Article contains no mention of any restriction or ceiling on
decision, adopted in the context of the invitation to tender         reimbursement, regardless of the expenditure actually
issued in that field on 13 July 1994, to award the contract to       incurred, and that, as a result, as soon as an official becomes
other undertakings.                                                  eligible under Article 24 of Annex X to the Staff
                                                                     Regulations, he is entitled to reimbursement of all expenses
It maintains that the contested decision is vitiated by the          not covered by the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme.
absence of any express statement of reasons, to which
particular importance attaches in public contract matters by         The applicant also maintains that the General Provisions
virtue of Article 12 of Directive 92/50/EEC relating to the          implementing the first and second paragraphs of Annex X to
coordination of procedures for the award of public service           the Staff Regulations are unlawful, inasmuch as they
contracts, which obliges the contracting authority to inform         provide for an 'excessiveness threshold' beyond which
any eliminated tenderer who so requests of the reasons for           medical expenses are not reimbursed. He considers that
rejection of his tender and of the name of the successful            limitation to be contrary to Article 24 of Annex X, which
tenderer.                                                            provides for cover in respect of the full difference between
                                                                     expenditure actually incurred and payments from the Joint
In the applicant's view, the contested decision breaches the          Sickness Insurance Scheme, and that, consequently, the
principles of equality and impartiality, inasmuch as the              General Provisions are unlawful .
 defendant institution failed to apply the criterion of the most
economically advantageous tender, in the light of the
conditions laid down in the specification.
                                                                     Action brought on 10 February 1995 by Efthimia Bitha,
                                                                     Vasiliki Bitha and Georgios Bitha against the Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities
Action brought on 8 February 1995 by Marco                                                   (Case T-23/95 )
 Mazzocchi-Alemanni against the Commission of the                                             ( 95/C 87/34 )
                    European Communities
                        (Case T-21/95 )                                              (Language of the case: French)
                          ( 95/C 87/33 )
                                                                     An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities was brought before the Court of First
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                      Instance of the European Communities on 10 February
                                                                      1995 by Efthimia Bitha, Vasiliki Bitha and Georgios Bitha,
An action against the Commission of the European                     residing in Thessaloniki ( Greece), represented by Jean-Noel
 Communities was brought before the Court of First                    Louis, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Instance of the European Communities on 8 February 1995               Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 1 Rue
by Marco Mazzocchi-Alemanni, residing in Libreville                   Glesener .
 ---pagebreak---  No C 87/16          | EN |               Official Journal of the European Communities                                     8 . 4 . 95
The applicant claims that the Court should:                          1995 by Nicolas Wegter, residing in Brussels, represented by
                                                                     Georges Vandersanden, of the Brussels Bar.
— annul the decision of the Commission of 26 April 1994
    refusing the applicants the benefits payable pursuant to         The applicant claims that the Court should:
    Article 73 (2 ) of the Staff Regulations in the event of the
    accidental death of an official,                                 — declare the action admissible and well-founded,
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                             — consequently, annul the decision rejecting the
                                                                         applicant's application for the vacant post COM/030/94
                                                                         of Director in Directorate A — Information and
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                         Communication Strategy (DG X/A), and the resulting
                                                                         decision to appoint another candidate to that post,
The applicants plead in support of their action
infringements of Article 73 of the Staff Regulations and of          — order the defendant to pay all the costs .
Articles 2 and 4 of the Rules on the Insurance of Officials of
the European Communities against the risk of Accident and
of Occupational Disease ('the Rules'), together with a               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
manifest error of assessment.
                                                                     The applicant, a Grade A 3 official in the Spokesman's
The applicants, being the persons entitled under Krinio              Service of the Commission, contests the rejection of his
Bitha deceased, a former official of the Commission, state           application for the post of Director of Directorate A —
that she was the victim of a fatal underwater diving accident.       Information and Communication Strategy.
The applicants applied for the benefits payable under the
Staff Regulations on the accidental death of a Community             Having submitted his application for the post in question
official. The application was rejected on the ground that,           and received confirmation from the appointing authority
according to the third indent of Article 4 (1 ) ( b) of the Rule's,  that two other applications 'may be taken into
accidents resulting from underwater exploration are not              consideration in this instance', he learned that the post had
covered by Article 73 of the Staff Regulations .                     been allocated to an external candidate .
The applicants maintain that, under Article 73 of the Staff          He maintains that the decisions at issue are vitiated by the
Regulations, officials of the European Communities are               absence of a statement of reasons, or, at the very least, by
insured, from the date of their entering the service, against        inadequate and erroneous reasoning. He contends that the
the risk of occupational disease and of accident. Inasmuch           Commission completely failed to show, in its response to his
as the risks excluded from insurance under Article 4 ( 1 ) ( b)      complaint, that it had compared the merits, abilities and
of the Rules, including accidents resulting from underwater          experience of the successful candidate with those of the
exploration, derogate from the general principle of cover,           other candidates, having regard to the requirements set out
they are to be strictly interpreted .                                in the notice of vacancy, despite the fact that such
                                                                     comparative analysis was particularly necessary in the
                                                                     circumstances, since the successful candidate did not have a
The accident which cost Miss Bitha her life occurred during
a diving exercise and not in the course of underwater                university degree.
exploration.
                                                                    With regard to the filling of an A 2 post, there has also been
                                                                     an infringement of Article 5 of the Staff Regulations, in that
Consequently, the contested decision is vitiated by a                the defendant institution failed to show that the professional
manifest error of assessment and was adopted in breach of            experience of the successful candidate can be regarded as
the provisions of Article 73 of the Staff Regulations and            experience equivalent to a university degree.
Articles 2 and 4 of the Rules .
                                                                    The applicant further pleads an infringement of the
                                                                     appointment procedure. He complains that the appointing
                                                                     authority departed on two occasions from the opinion of the
                                                                    Advisory Committee on Staff Reports ( CCN) by favouring
                                                                    the sole external candidate instead of the internal candidates
                                                                    regarded as meritorious, and that it took the second opinion
Action brought on 15 February 1995 by Nicolas Wegter                of the CCN as the basis for its view that it was only the
  against the Commission of the European Communities                external candidate who fulfilled the criteria set out in the
                         (Case T-27/95 )                            notice of vacancy and had the requisite professional
                          ( 95/C 87/35 )                            experience.
                                                                    Finally, the applicant asserts that the exceptional nature of
               (Language of the case: French)                       the procedure provided for in Article 29 ( 2) of the Staff
                                                                    Regulations has been disregarded, and that there has been a
                                                                     breach of the principle of non-discrimination.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 15 February


title: Case T-379/16: Action brought on 18 July 2016 — Basicmed Enterprises a.o. v Council a.o.

text:
               17.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/14

         Action brought on 18 July 2016 — Basicmed Enterprises a.o. v Council a.o.
   (Case T-379/16)
   (2016/C 383/20)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Basicmed Enterprises Ltd (Limassol, Cyprus) and 19 others (represented by: P. Tridimas, Barrister, K. Kakoulli, P. Panayides and C. Pericleous, lawyers)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Central Bank, Eurogroup, European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               order the defendants to pay the applicants the sums shown in the Schedule annexed to the application plus interest accruing from 16 March 2013 until the judgment of the Court; and

               —

               order the defendants to pay the costs.

         In the alternative, by way of subsidiary claim, the applicants request the Court to:

               —

               find that the European Union and/or the defendant institutions have incurred non-contractual liability;

               —

               determine the procedure to be followed in order to establish the recoverable loss actually suffered by the applicants; and

               —

               order the defendants to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicants seek compensation pursuant to Articles 268, 340(2) and 340(3) TFEU, governing the extra-contractual liability of the EU and the ECB, for damage suffered by the diminution of the applicants’ deposits as a result of the bail-in scheme for the Republic of Cyprus adopted by the defendants.
   The applicants consider that the bail-in measures adopted by the Republic of Cyprus were introduced solely in order to implement measures adopted by the defendants and were also approved by the defendant institutions. The applicants consider that the bail-in scheme is a serious violation and in support of their action, they rely on four pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging violation of the right to property, as protected by Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention for the Protection of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of proportionality.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging violation of the principle of non-discrimination.


title: Case C-528/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — Policie ČR, Krajské ředitelství policie Ústeckého kraje, odbor cizinecké policie v Salah Al Chodor, Ajlin Al Chodor, Ajvar Al Chodor, (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection — Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 (Dublin III) — Article 28(2) — Detention for the purpose of transfer — Article 2(n) — Significant risk of absconding — Objective criteria — Absence of a legal definition)

text:
               15.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/8

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — Policie ČR, Krajské ředitelství policie Ústeckého kraje, odbor cizinecké policie v Salah Al Chodor, Ajlin Al Chodor, Ajvar Al Chodor,
   (Case C-528/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection - Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 (Dublin III) - Article 28(2) - Detention for the purpose of transfer - Article 2(n) - Significant risk of absconding - Objective criteria - Absence of a legal definition))
   (2017/C 151/11)
   Language of the case: Czech

      Referring court

   Nejvyšší správní soud

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Policie ČR, Krajské ředitelství policie Ústeckého kraje, odbor cizinecké policie

      Defendants: Salah Al Chodor, Ajlin Al Chodor, Ajvar Al Chodor

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 2(n) and Article 28(2) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person, read in conjunction, must be interpreted as requiring Member States to establish, in a binding provision of general application, objective criteria underlying the reasons for believing that an applicant for international protection who is subject to a transfer procedure may abscond. The absence of such a provision leads to the inapplicability of Article 28(2) of that regulation.

      (1)  OJ C 16, 18.1.2016.