title: Case T-323/02: Action brought on 14 October 2002 by Monique Breton against Court of Justice of the European Communities

text:
11.1.2003               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 7/21
      —     ‘water sport tow ropes, water sport tow handles;                     subscribers concerned or’ and ‘the choice between these
            water sport tow floats; inflatable tubes for rec-                    options to be determined by national legislation’ in
            reational use in water; towable water toys designed                  Article 13(3);
            to carry a rider; wake boards; wake board bindings;
            wake board fins; water skis; trick water skis; jump            —     make an appropriate order as to costs.
            skis; water ski bindings; adjustable ski fins; water ski
            boat tow harnesses; water ski gloves; knee boards;
            water sport boards; water sport gear bags; water ski,
            wakeboard and knee board bags; water sport goods;
            dampers for use with water skis; wake boards to                Pleas in law and main arguments
            limit vibration and adjust flex, all meant to be used
            for the practice of wakeboard’ in international
            class 28.                                                      The applicant, a frequent user of direct mailing over the
                                                                           internet and founder of the internet site Internet-libre.net,
—     order the defendant to pay the costs, fees and disburse-             seeks the annulment of the abovementioned provisions of
      ments of this case and of the previous proceedings and               Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the
      appeals before OHIM Examination Division and the Third               Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of
      Board of Appeal respectively.                                        personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic
                                                                           communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic
                                                                           communications) (OJ 2002 L 201, p. 37).
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           In support of its arguments, the applicant alleges lack of legal
                                                                           basis to the contested act insofar as its adoption was not
The pleas in law and main arguments advanced are identical                 necessary for the single market.
to those put forward in Case T-318/02 (H.O. Sports Company,
Inc. / OHIM).
                                                                           Furthermore, the directive in question fails to observe the right
                                                                           to freedom of expression mentioned in Articles 5 of the
                                                                           Declaration of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, 11 of the
                                                                           Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and 10
                                                                           of the European Convention for the Protection of Human
                                                                           Rights and Fundamental Freedom and the principle of free
                                                                           trade recognised by all the Member States and that of free
Action brought on 22 October 2002 by Paul Vannieuwen-                      competition, enshrined in particular in Articles 3 and 4 and
huyze-Morin against European Parliament and Council of                     Title VI of the Treaty.
                       the European Union
                         (Case T-321/02)
                           (2003/C 7/42)
                    (Language of the case: French)                         Action brought on 14 October 2002 by Monique Breton
                                                                             against Court of Justice of the European Communities
An action against the European Parliament and the Council of                                       (Case T-323/02)
the European Union was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 22 October 2002
by Paul Vannieuwenhuyze-Morin, residing in Grigny (France),                                         (2003/C 7/43)
represented by Guy Dupaigne, lawyer.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul Article 13(1) and (2) of Directive 2002/58/EC of
      the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July                An action against the Court of Justice of the European
      2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the              Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
      protection of privacy in the electronic communications               of the European Communities on 14 October 2002 by
      sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communi-                 Monique Breton, residing in Howald (Luxembourg), represent-
      cations), published in the Official Journal on 31 July               ed by Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Étienne Marchal,
      2002, and the words ‘either without the consent of the               avocats.
 ---pagebreak--- C 7/22                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                    11.1.2003
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the Registrar of the Court of Justice         —     annul the decision of 30 January 2002 of the Director
      to award the applicant 0.58 promotion points in respect                   General of Directorate General A of the Council to
      of 1998 and to award only one promotion point per year                    terminate the procedure under Article 29(1)(a) of the
      in respect of 1999 and 2000;                                              Staff Regulations to fill the post of Language Adviser in
                                                                                the English and Irish Language Division and to proceed
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                                     to the next stage, namely the organisation of an internal
                                                                                competition under Article 29(1)(b);
                                                                          —     order the Council to pay to the applicant the sum of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 EUR 10 000 000 by way of compensation for material
                                                                                and non-material damage;
The applicant is challenging the decision of the appointing
authority to award her 0.58 promotion points in respect of                —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
1998 and to award her only one promotion point per year in
respect of 1999 and 2000.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant claims that no staff report has been drawn up
for her throughout the period in which she worked for the
defendant as a member of the temporary staff, that is to say              By judgment of 14 June 2001 in Case T-230/99, the Court
from 1 June to 30 November 1998. Nor was any report                       of First Instance annulled the decisions of the Council of
drawn up in her respect during her probation period (from                 15 December 1998 appointing Ms K to the post of language
1 December 1998 to 31 August 1999). Consequently, only                    adviser in the English Language Division and rejecting the
the analytical assessments in the staff report for the period             candidature of the applicant for the said post. The Council
from 1 September 1999 to 31 December 2000 were taken                      appealed that judgment. The appeal was held manifestly
into consideration, which prevented the appointing authority              inadmissible by order of the Court of Justice of
from taking account of the applicant’s ‘merits’ as set out in the         13 December 2001.
general assessment and in the reporting officer’s observations.
                                                                          The applicant claims that, in consequence of that judgment,
In support of her claims, the applicant alleges:                          the Council was obliged to re-examine his application for the
                                                                          post in question. By failing to carry out such re-examination,
—     infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations;                the Council has, in the applicant’s view, infringed Article 233
                                                                          of the EC Treaty. The applicant further alleges manifest error
—     infringement of paragraph 5 of the ‘Instructions relatives          of assessment and misuse of powers.
      aux promotions’ appended to the decision of the Court
      of 18 October 2000;
—     manifest error of assessment in the present case.
                                                                          Action brought on 30 October 2002 by Nordspedizionieri
                                                                          Danielis Livio & Co., a partnership between Livio Danielis
                                                                          and Domenico D’Alessandro, in liquidation, against Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities
Action brought on 18 October 2002 by Hans Mc Auley
            against Council of the European Union
                                                                                (Case T-332/02)
                        (Case T-324/02)
                                                                                (2003/C 7/45)
                         (2003/C 7/44)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
An action against the Council of the European Union was                   ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European                European Communities on 30 October 2002 by Nordspedi-
Communities on 18 October 2002 by Hans Mc Auley, residing                 zionieri Danielis Livio & Co., a partnership between Livio
in Wezembeek-Oppem (Belgium), represented by Albert Cool-                 Danielis and Domenico D’Alessandro, in liquidation, represent-
en, Jean-Noël Louis and Étienne Marchal, avocats.                         ed by Gregorio Leone, lawyer.


title: Case T-368/05: Action brought on  26 September 2005  — Austria v Commission

text:
               26.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/34

         Action brought on 26 September 2005 — Austria v Commission
   (Case T-368/05)
   (2005/C 296/71)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Republic of Austria (represented by: H. Dossi)

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Decision C(2005)2685 of 15 July 2005 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), and order the Commission to bear the costs of the proceedings;

               —

               alternatively, annul Decision C(2005)2685 of 15 July 2005 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) in so far as it concerns the calculation and amount of the financial correction, and order the Commission to bear the costs of the proceedings;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Decision C(2005)2685 of 15 July 2005 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) in so far as it concerns the expenditure of the accredited paying agency Agricultural Market Austria in the animal premia sector for the regions of Steiermark and Kärnten; or, in the further alternative, annul the Decision in relation to Steiermark and Kärnten in so far as it concerns the calculation and the amount of the financial correction, and order the Commission to bear the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In the contested decision the Commission excluded from Community financing the expenditure itemised in the annex to the Decision because it does not comply with Community rules.
   The applicant basis its action on two pleas. First of all, it claims that, in adopting its decision, the Commission infringed the Treaty and the norms applicable when implementing it. In particular, it alleges in this respect, infringement of Article 5(2)(c) of Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 (1) and Article 7(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 (2) since a financial correction at the expense of the Republic of Austria would only have been admissible if the Republic of Austria had not complied with its obligations arising from Community law as regards controlling EAGGF expenditure and if this had had financial consequences for the EAGGF. According to the Republic of Austria, such cumulative conditions should not be applied in the present case. Moreover, with the contested decision, the Commission is in breach of its duty to cooperate in good faith with the Member States, as laid down in Article 10 EC.
   The second plea alleges infringement of essential procedural requirements. The applicant claims that, with the contested decision, the Commission did not comply on important points with its duty to give reasons and it based the underlying arguments for its decision on statements based on insufficient fact finding.

      (1)  Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 of the Council of 21 April 1970 on the financing of the common agricultural policy.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy.


14.7.2001              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 200/55
            destination that the accompanying health certificate                 Removal from the register of Case C-286/00 (1)
            include the said declaration?
                                                                                (2001/C 200/100)
(1) Council Directive 91/68/EEC of 28 January 1991 on animal
    health conditions governing intra-Commuity trade in ovine and         By order of 2 May 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
    caprine animals (OJ L 46, 19.2.1991, p. 19).                          of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
(2) Council Directive 89/662/EEC of 11 December 1989 concerning           the register of Case C-286/00: Italian Republic v Commission
    veterinary checks in intra-Community trade with a view to the         of the European Communities.
    completion of the internal market (OJ L 395, 30.12.1989, p. 13).
(3) Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning
    veterninary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Com-          (1) OJ C 302 of 21.10.2000.
    munity trade in certain live animals and products with a view to
    the completion of the internal market (OJ L 224; 18.8.1990,
    p. 29).
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-367/00 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case C-158/95 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 200/101)
                         (2001/C 200/98)
                                                                          By order of 2 May 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
By order of 23 April 2001 the President of the Court of Justice           of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from                  the register of Case C-367/00: Commission of the European
the register of Case C-158/95: Federal Republic of Germany v              Communities v French Republic.
Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.
(1) OJ C 208 of 12.8.1995.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-428/00 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case         C-102/01 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 200/102)
                         (2001/C 200/99)
By order of 27 April 2001 the President of the Court of Justice           By order of 4 May 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from                  of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-102/01: Italian Republic v Commission              the register of Case C-428/00: (reference for a preliminary
of the European Communities.                                              ruling from Landessozialgericht Nordrhein-Westfalen): Merz +
                                                                          Co. GmbH & Co. v AOK-Bundesverband and Others.
(1) OJ C 118 of 21.4.2001.                                                (1) OJ C 79 of 10.3.2001.


22.1.2000             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 20/29
       Removal from the register of Case T-201/98 (1)                    the register of Case T-98/99, UPS Europe NV/SA v Commission
                                                                         of the European Communities.
                        (2000/C 20/64)
                                                                         (1) OJ C 174 of 19.6.1999.
                   (Language of the case: French)
By order of 8 November 1999, 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-201/98, Rumpstad ATM B.V. v Commission of the
European Communities.                                                           Removal from the register of Case T-107/99 (1)
(1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.                                                                        (2000/C 20/67)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         By order of 8 November 1999, the President of the Second
       Removal from the register of Case T-76/99 (1)                     Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                         Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
                        (2000/C 20/65)                                   Case T-107/99, Maria Soledad Garcia Retortillo v Council of
                                                                         the European Union.
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
By order of 18 November 1999, the President of the First
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Case T-76/99: Jütro Konservenfabrik GmbH & Co KG v
Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 174 of 19.6.1999.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-117/99 (1)
                                                                                (2000/C 20/68)
       Removal from the register of Case T-98/99 (1)                                        (Language of the case: French)
                        (2000/C 20/66)                                   By order of 8 November 1999, the President of the Fifth
                                                                         Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                         Communities has ordered the removal from the register
                  (Language of the case: English)                        of Case T-117/99, Natalia Martinez Paramo and Others v
                                                                         Commission of the European Communities.
By order of 29 October 1999, the President of the Fourth
Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from                 (1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.


title: Action brought on 11 March 1996 by José Gomes de Sá Pereira against the Council of the European Union (Case T-30/96)

text:
 18 . 5 . 96           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 145/9
      affords undertakings, to a certain extent, flexibility in        and the appointment of another candidate of Portuguese
      the way in which they draw up their accounts .                   nationality .
 The contested decision of the Commission infringes                    In support of his application the applicant alleges in
 Article 92 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty; the assumption as to               particular that the contested decisions are vitiated by the
 the existence of favourable treatment which distorts                  following defects :
 competition and restricts trade at the expense of the State's
 finances is founded on errors of law, alternatively manifest          — breach of the rights of the defence, inasmuch as the
 errors in the assessment of the facts of the case . In                    administration did not take into account his right to be
 considering the question whether paragraph 82 f of the                    heard before taking the abovementioned decisions,
 EStDV may afford taxpayers an advantage in respect of
 interest, the Commission applied an erroneous standard of             — inadequate statement of reasons,
 comparison . The Commission's conclusions regarding the               — misuse of powers, inasmuch as, at least in so far as
 distortion of competition and restrictions on trade are
                                                                           concerns the Portuguese candidate finally selected, the
 illogical ; they are not based on verifiable findings of fact.            Council exceeded the criteria for filling the posts at issue .
                                                                           The applicant considers in this respect that the selected
                                                                           candidate does not possess the requisite experience,
                                                                      — misuse of powers , inasmuch as the appointment of the
                                                                           higher ranking officials of the Office for Harmonization
 Action brought on 11 March 1996 by José Gomes de Sa                       in the Internal Market, including the members of the
     Pereira against the Council of the European Union                     Boards of Appeal , was made in the context of a political
                         ( Case T-30/96 )                                  compromise .
                           ( 96/C 145/ 18 )
               (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                                                                      Action brought on 13 March 1996 by Lars Bo Rasmussen
An action against the Council of the European Union was                 against the Commission of the European Communities
 brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
 Communities on 11 March 1996 by José de Sa Pereira,                                              ( Case T-35 /96 )
residing at S. Joâo de Ver, represented by Augusto Cardoso,                                         ( 96/C 145/ 19 )
of the Oporto Bar, with an address for service at his
Chambers, 16-1 Dt° Rua Jornal Correio da Feira , P-4520                               (Language of tbe case: Frencb)
Santa Maria da Feira .
                                                                      An action against the Commission of the European
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                      Instance of the European Communities on 13 March 1996
— annul the three decisions adopted by the Council of the             by Lars Bo Rasmussen, residing at Dalheim ( Grand Duchy
     European Union on 25 October 1 995 appointing the                of Luxembourg ), represented by Carlo Revoldini, of the
     two presidents and the members of the Boards of Appeal           Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in
     of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal                  Luxembourg at his Chambers, 180 , Route de Longwy .
     Market,
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should :
— in the alternative, annul the decision appointing the
     members of the First Board of Appeal in its entirety or, if      annul :
     appropriate, in so far as concerns Dr Luis Manuel
     Chaves Fonseca Ferrâo,                                           — the Commission's decision cancelling the procedure
                                                                           under vacancy notice COM/ 116/94 in accordance with
— order the Council of the European Union to pay the                       Article 29 ( 1 ) ( a ) of the Staff Regulations,
     costs ,
                                                                      and, in so far as may be necessary,
— order the Council of the European Union to compensate
     the applicant for the damage caused to him by the                — the Commission's decision to reserve the post forming
     contested decisions in an amount to be decided by the                the subject-matter of vacancy notice COM/ 1 16/94 for a
     Court .                                                              national of a new Member State and to publish notice of
                                                                          open competition COM/A/929 ( Head of Unit V/F/3 ) in
                                                                          the C Series of the Official Journal of 1 June 1995 ,
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                      — the Commission's response, adopted on 14 December
The applicant, a Portuguese national, applied for the post of              1995 , rejecting the applicant's complaint of 14 July
member of one of the Boards of Appeal of the Office for                    1995 ;
Harmonization in the Internal Market. He challenges the
rejection of his candidature for the abovementioned post              order the defendant :


title: Case T-335/13: Order of the General Court of 9 December 2015 — BT Limited Belgian Branch v Commission

text:
               29.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/35

         Order of the General Court of 9 December 2015 — BT Limited Belgian Branch v Commission
   (Case T-335/13) (1)

   (2016/C 078/48)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 245, 24.8.2013.


title: Case C-269/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 25 May 2000 in the case of Wolfgang Seeling against Finanzamt Starnberg

text:
9.9.2000                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 259/7
How are the words ‘managed and administered on an essen-                 of the European Communities, represented by G. Valero
tially voluntary basis by persons who have no direct or indirect         Jordana and C. Van Der Hauwaert, of its Legal Service, acting
interest, either themselves or through intermediaries, in the            as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
results of the activities concerned’ in the second indent to             office of C. Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner
Article 13 A (2) (a) of Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1) of              Centre, Kirchberg.
17 May 1977 to be interpreted, having regard to the facts of
the present case? In particular:
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
(a)   what are the criteria for determining by whom a body is
      managed and administered for the purposes of the                   (1) declare that, by failing to comply, within the time-
      provision; do these words refer                                          limits laid down in Council Directive 76/160/EEC of
                                                                               8 December 1975 (1) concerning the quality of bathing
      (i)   only to the members of the senior controlling organs               water, with the obligations imposed by Articles 4(1) and
            of the body, or                                                    6(1) of the directive, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has
                                                                               failed to fulfil its obligations under Community law;
      (ii) to any individuals involved in any managerial or
            administrative function whatsoever? If so, what are          (2) order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
            the criteria for determining whether a person is
            involved in a relevant managerial or administrative
            function?
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
(b) what are the criteria for determining whether manage-
      ment and administration of a body is conducted on an
      essentially voluntary basis; do these words refer                  Well over 14 years after the expiry of a ten-year time-
                                                                         limit following the publication of Directive 76/160/EEC, the
      (i)   to the extent to which the management and adminis-           obligation to achieve certain results with regard to the
            tration of the body is conducted by remunerated              minimum quality of bathing water has still not been complied
            and unremunerated persons respectively, and if so,           with in the Kingdom of the Netherlands in respect of 8 % of
            how is the test to be applied; or                            the fresh water bathing areas and 1,3 % of coastal waters
                                                                         (1999 bathing season).
      (ii) to the individual financial basis upon which each
            of the persons conducting the management and
            administration of the body performs that role (for           During that season, no samples whatever had yet been taken
            example, none of those persons must receive more             in four of the 528 fresh water bathing areas (0,7 %).
            than nominal remuneration); or
      (iii) to some other test or criterion, and if so, what is          (1) OJ 1976 L 31, p. 1.
            that test or criterion?
(1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
    harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
    turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
    basis of assessment (OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1).
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-
                                                                         hof by order of that court of 25 May 2000 in the case of
                                                                                Wolfgang Seeling against Finanzamt Starnberg
Action brought on 3 July 2000 by Commission of the                                                  (Case C-269/00)
European Communities against the Kingdom of the
                            Netherlands
                                                                                (2000/C 259/12)
                          (Case C-268/00)
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                          (2000/C 259/11)                                European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof
                                                                         (Federal Finance Court) of 25 May 2000, received at the Court
                                                                         Registry on 3 July 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought             Wolfgang Seeling against Finanzamt (Tax Office) Starnberg on
before the Court of Justice on 3 July 2000 by the Commission             the following question:
 ---pagebreak--- C 259/8                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         9.9.2000
May a Member State treat the use for private residential                 Action brought on 6 July 2000 by the Commission of the
purposes of a dwelling in business premises forming as a                    European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
whole part of the assets of the business — which is equated to
a supply of services for consideration under Article 6(2)(a) of
Directive 77/388/EEC (1) — as tax-exempt (in accordance with                                      (Case C-272/00)
Article 13B(b) of that directive, but without the possibility of
waiving the exemption), with the result that deduction under
Article 17(2)(a) of the directive of the value added tax which                                    (2000/C 259/14)
arose in connection with the construction of the premises is
precluded to that extent?
                                                                         An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
( 1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.                                          the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 6 July
                                                                         2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                         represented by Maria Patakia, of its Legal Service, and Frank
                                                                         Benyon, Legal Adviser in the same Service, with an address for
                                                                         service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
                                                                         Cruz, also of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                         The Commission claims that the Court should:
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van
Beroep, sitting in Antwerp, by judgment of that court of
27 June 2000 in the case of Gemeente Steenbergen (NL)                    1.    declare that, since Article 40 of Law No 2065/92 provides
                         against L. Baten                                      that flights from Greece of a distance in excess of 750 km
                                                                               are subject to a higher tax than flights of a distance below
                         (Case C-271/00)                                       750 km, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its
                                                                               obligations under Article 49 EC (ex Article 59 of the
                                                                               Treaty) and Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EEC)
                         (2000/C 259/13)                                       No 2408/92 (1);
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Hof van Beroep                   2.    order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
(Court of Appeal), sitting in Antwerp, of 27 June 2000,
received at the Court Registry on 5 July 2000, for a preliminary
ruling in the case of Gemeente Steenbergen (NL) against
L. Baten on the following questions:                                     Pleas in law and main arguments
1.    Is an action concerning a claim for recovery under the
      Netherlands Algemene Bijstandswet (General Law on
      Social Assistance) brought by a municipality entitled to           The Greek legislation is inconsistent with the freedom to
      seek recovery against a person liable to pay maintenance,          provide services laid down in the EC Treaty, with Council
      as referred to in Article 93 of the Algemene Bijstandswet,         Regulation No 2408/92 on access for Community air carriers
      a civil matter within the meaning of Article 1, first              to intra-Community air routes and with the exercise of the
      paragraph, of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on               right to move freely within the territory of the Member States
      Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil             which is granted to the citizens of the European Union under
      and Commercial Matters, and can a judicial decision                Article 8a of the Treaty (now Article 18 EC). It is stated in the
      delivered in such an action come for that reason within            letter of formal notice that the freedom to provide services
      the scope of that Convention?                                      enacted in Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2408/92 must be
                                                                         interpreted in direct conjunction with the general principles
2.    Is an action concerning a claim for recovery under                 concerning the freedom to provide services and, finally, it is
      the Netherlands Algemene Bijstandswet brought by a                 stated that the regulation is infringed where air routes between
      municipality entitled to seek recovery against a person            Member States are accorded less favourable treatment, particu-
      liable to pay maintenance, as referred to in Article 93 of         larly as regards their taxation, than comparable air routes in
      the Algemene Bijstandswet, a case relating to social               the same Member State.
      security within the meaning of Article 1, second para-
      graph, point 1, of the Convention of 27 September 1968
      on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil
      and Commercial Matters, and does a judicial decision               (1) OJ L 240, 24.8.1992, p. 8.
      delivered in such an action fall for that reason outside the
      scope of that Convention?


title: Case C-452/06: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 October 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom)) — The Queen, on the application of: Synthon BV v Licensing Authority of the Department of Health (Community code relating to medicinal products for human use — Marketing authorisation — Essentially similar medicinal products — Abridged procedure — Procedure for mutual recognition — Grounds for refusal — Liability of a Member State — Serious breach of Community law)

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/4

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 October 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom)) — The Queen, on the application of: Synthon BV v Licensing Authority of the Department of Health
   (Case C-452/06) (1)

   (Community code relating to medicinal products for human use - Marketing authorisation - Essentially similar medicinal products - Abridged procedure - Procedure for mutual recognition - Grounds for refusal - Liability of a Member State - Serious breach of Community law)
   (2008/C 313/05)
   Language of the case: English
   Referring court
   High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Synthon BV

      Defendant: Licensing Authority of the Department of Health

      Interested party: SmithKline Beecham plc
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) — Interpretation of Articles 8, 10(1)(a)(iii) and 28 of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67) — Abridged procedure for obtaining marketing authorisation — Proprietary medicinal product ‘essentially similar’ to an authorised product — Refusal to accept an application for recognition of marketing authorisation for a medicinal product granted by another Member State — Obligation to recognise the authorisation granted by the reference Member State, except where the procedure laid down by the directive for examining whether there exists a risk to public health is invoked — Sufficiently serious breach of Community law giving rise to an obligation to redress the damage caused
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 28 of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use precludes a Member State to which an application is made for mutual recognition of a marketing authorisation of a medicinal product for human use granted by another Member State under the abridged procedure provided for in Article 10(1)(a)(iii) of that directive from refusing that application on the ground that the medicinal product in question is not essentially similar to the reference product;

               2.

               The failure on the part of a Member State to recognise, pursuant to Article 28 of Directive 2001/83, a marketing authorisation of a medicinal product for human use granted by another Member State under the abridged procedure provided for in Article 10(1)(a)(iii) of that directive, on the ground that the relevant medicinal product either is not essentially similar to the reference product or belongs to a category of medicinal products for which the Member State concerned has a general policy which does not allow it to be considered as essentially similar, constitutes a sufficiently serious breach of Community law, capable of rendering that Member State liable in damages.

      (1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of  10 November 2005  in Case C-385/04: Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2001/16/EC — Trans-European Networks — Interoperability of the trans-European conventional rail system — Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

text:
               14.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 10/4

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fourth Chamber)
   of 10 November 2005
   in Case C-385/04: Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2001/16/EC - Trans-European Networks - Interoperability of the trans-European conventional rail system - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)
   (2006/C 10/08)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case C-385/04, Commission of the European Communities (Agent: W. Wils) v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: C. White) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 7 September 2004 — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Schiemann, President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts and E. Levits (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 10 November 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt within the period prescribed all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/16/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2001 on the interoperability of the trans-European conventional rail system, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 262, 23.10.2004.


title: Case T-344/16: Action brought on 27 June 2016 — Blackmore v EUIPO — Paice (DEEP PURPLE)

text:
               29.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/28

         Action brought on 27 June 2016 — Blackmore v EUIPO — Paice (DEEP PURPLE)
   (Case T-344/16)
   (2016/C 314/39)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Richard Hugh Blackmore (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: A. Edwards-Stuart, Barrister)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ian Paice (London, United Kingdom)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘DEEP PURPLE’ — Application for registration No 11 772 721

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 March 2016 in Case R 736/2015-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               overturn the contested decision and allow the appeal;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the applicant’s costs of and occasioned by this appeal.

      Pleas in law

               —

               The Board of Appeal erred in admitting the evidence filed on 5 November 2014;

               —

               The Board of Appeal erred in finding that there was sufficient evidence of goodwill on the basis of the evidence filed in time;

               —

               The Board of Appeal erred in holding that the evidence was sufficient to establish that the Opponent is entitled to a share in any goodwill;

               —

               The Board of Appeal erred in accepting the findings of the R880 Judgment;

               —

               The Board of Appeal erred in admitting the evidence filed on 13 April 2015;

               —

               The Board of Appeal erred by refusing registration of the mark for a greater range of goods and services than was justified by that evidence. The Board of Appeal erred in their application of the law of passing off by concluding there was a misrepresentation with respect to these goods and/or the Opponent’s goodwill extended to these goods.


title: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 November 2001 in Case C-223/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo): Director-Geral do Departamento para os Assuntos do Fundo Social Europeu v Partex — Companhia Portuguesa de Serviços SA (Preliminary references — Inadmissibility)

text:
C 84/32                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           6.4.2002
                     ORDER OF THE COURT                                                        ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
                          (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 23 October 2001
                       of 22 November 2001
                                                                           in Case C-281/00 P: Una Film ‘City Revue’ GmbH v
                                                                                European Parliament and Others (1)
in Case C-223/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo): Director-Geral do                    (Directive 98/43/EC concerning the advertising and sponsor-
Departamento para os Assuntos do Fundo Social Europeu                      ship of tobacco products — Appeal — No need to adjudicate
   v Partex — Companhia Portuguesa de Serviços SA (1)                                                    — Costs)
                                                                                (2002/C 84/53)
          (Preliminary references — Inadmissibility)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                           (2002/C 84/52)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                  (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                                                                           In Case C-281/00 P: appeal by Una Film ‘City Revue’ GmbH,
                                                                           established in Vienna (Austria), represented by R. Borgelt,
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                           Rechtsanwalt, assisted by Professor M. Dauses, against the
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                           Communities (Third Chamber) of 27 June 2000 in Joined
                                                                           Cases T-172/98 and T-175/98 to T-177/98 Salamander and
                                                                           Others v Parliament and Council [2000] ECR II-2487, seeking
                                                                           to have that judgment set aside and the claims made by the
                                                                           applicant at first instance upheld, the other parties to the
In Case C-223/00: reference to the Court under Article 234                 proceedings being: European Parliament (Agents: C. Pennera
EC from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Supreme                       and M. Berger), Council of the European Union (Agents:
Administrative Court) for a preliminary ruling in the proceed-             R. Gosalbo Bono and S. Marquardt), Commission of the
ings pending before that court between Director-Geral do                   European Communities (Agents: U. Wölker and I. Martı́nez
Departamento para os Assuntos do Fundo Social Europeu and                  del Peral), Markenverband eV, established in Wiesbaden (Germ-
Partex- Companhia Portuguesa de Serviços SA — on the                       any), Manifattura Lane Gaetano Marzotto & Figli SpA, estab-
interpretation of Council Decision 83/516/EEC of 17 October                lished in Valdagno (Italy), Lancaster BV, established in Amster-
1983 on the tasks of the European Social Fund (OJ 1983                     dam (Netherlands), French Republic, Republic of Finland,
L 289, p. 38) and of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2950/83 of                United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
17 October 1983 on the implementation of Decision 83/516                   Salamander AG, established in Kornwestheim (Germany), Zino
— the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: F. Macken,                       Davidoff SA, established in Fribourg (Switzerland), Davidoff &
President of the Chamber, N. Colneric, C. Gulmann,                         Cie SA, established in Geneva (Switzerland), Alma Media
J.-P. Puissochet and R. Schintgen, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate             Group Advertising SA & Co. Partnership, Panel Two and Four
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 22 Novem-               Advertising SA, Rythmos Outdoor Advertising SA and Media
ber 2001, in which it has ruled:                                           Center Advertising SA, established in Athens (Greece) — the
                                                                           Court (Third Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, acting
                                                                           for the President of the Third Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet
                                                                           (Rapporteur) and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo
The reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Supremo Tribunal        Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an
Administrativo, by decision of 10 May 1999, is inadmissible.               order on 23 October 2001, the operative part of which is as
                                                                           follows:
(1) OJ 2000 C 233.                                                         1.    There is no need to adjudicate on the appeal brought by Una
                                                                                Film ‘City Revue’ GmbH.
                                                                           2.    Una Film ‘City Revue’ GmbH, the European Parliament and
                                                                                the Council of the European Union shall bear their own costs.


title: Case T-20/04: Action brought on 20 January 2004 by María Pilar Aguar Fernández and 126 others against Commission of the European Communities

text:
20.3.2004               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 71/39
Grounds of claim:               —    The mark ‘PAPERLAB’ is                 2)    order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                     registrable in Class 9 because
                                     it does not directly describe
                                     the goods in any manner;
                                —    The trade mark ‘PAPERLAB’              Pleas in law and main arguments
                                     can serve as a mark in trade
                                     to distinguish goods of the
                                     applicant from goods of
                                     other traders;                         The applicants in the present case, all officials and servants
                                                                            posted to the Food and Veterinary Office, Dublin, contest the
                                —    The Office for Harmonis-               pay slips and the back pay slips concerning them for the
                                     ation in the Internal Market           period since 1 July 2002.
                                     has accepted several similar
                                     trademarks.
                                                                            In support of their application, the applicants put forward a
                                                                            single plea in law challenging the validity of the weighting
(1) Decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonis-       fixed for Ireland by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom)
    ation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of               No 2265/2002 of 16 December 2002 (1) inasmuch as, contrary
    17 November 2003 (Case R 842/2002-1).
                                                                            to Article 64 of the Staff Regulations which lays down
                                                                            the principle of equal purchasing power between officials
                                                                            irrespective of their place of work does, that weighting does
                                                                            not offset the difference between the actual cost of living at
                                                                            their place of work and that in Brussels. Specifically, they state
                                                                            that setting the weighting at 124,8 does not meet such a
                                                                            requirement.
                                                                            (1) OJ 2002 L 347, p. 1.
Action brought on 20 January 2004 by María Pilar Aguar
Fernández and 126 others against Commission of the
                     European Communities
                           (Case T-20/04)
                           (2004/C 71/68)
                                                                            Action brought on 21 January 2004 by Fusion Electronics
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                          Limited against the Office for Harmonisation in the
                                                                                Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
                                                                                (Case T-21/04)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 20 January 2004 by María Pilar                                                (2004/C 71/69)
Aguar Fernández and 126 others, all residing in Ireland,
represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël
Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service             (Language of the case: to be determined pursuant to article 131(2)
in Luxembourg.                                                              of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the case was
                                                                                submitted: English)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
1)    annul the decisions of the Commission establishing the                An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
      pay slips and the back pay slips in respect of the applicants         Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
      since 1 July 2002 pursuant to Council Regulation (EC,                 the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
      Euratom) No 2265/2002 of 16 December 2002 adjusting                   21 January 2004 by Fusion Electronics Limited, Auckland,
      with effect from 1 July 2002 the remuneration and                     New Zealand, represented by Mr A. Roughton Barrister. Ford
      pensions of officials and other servants of the European              Motor Company was also a party to the proceedings before
      Communities and the weightings applied thereto;                       the Board of Appeal.


title: Case T-114/02: Action brought on 15 April 2002 by BaByliss SA against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
15.6.2002              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 144/57
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        Fourthly, the applicant considers that the Commission erred
                                                                       in law by failing to examine the extent to which the derisory
                                                                       sum paid and the financial aid provided by the French State
                                                                       was likely to strengthen even further SEB’s position on the
                                                                       relevant markets.
SEB and Moulinex are active in the design, manufacture and
sale of domestic electric appliances worldwide. A proposed
merger of the two companies was notified to the Commission.
The applicant in this case informed the Commission of its
reservations in regard to the merger. The Commission none
the less declared the transaction compatible with the common
market and with the EEA Agreement, subject to compliance
with the undertakings given. The applicant is challenging that
decision. In support of its application the applicant relies first
of all on an infringement of essential procedural requirements         Action brought on 15 April 2002 by BaByliss SA against
in accepting the undertakings proposed by SEB late. Undertak-                 the Commission of the European Communities
ings must be submitted within three weeks from notification
of a transaction. The Commission allowed SEB to submit new
phase one undertakings five weeks after the transaction was                                    (Case T-114/02)
notified. The applicant claims that those undertakings could in
no circumstances be regarded as enhancing the original
undertakings but constituted new undertakings.                                                (2002/C 144/112)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: French)
Secondly, the applicant claims that the Commission erred in
law in deciding to authorise the operation without carrying            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
out an in-depth investigation. The applicant claims that the           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
conditions for authorisation in phase one were not met. The            European Communities on 15 April 2002 by BaByliss SA, of
undertakings proposed did not definitively resolve any serious         Montrouge (France), represented by Jacques-Philippe Gunther,
doubts as to the compatibility of the transaction with the             lawyer.
common market, as required by the Commission Notice on
remedies.
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                       —     annul the decision adopted by the Commission on
                                                                             8 January 2002 in the case of COMP/M.2621 SEB v
                                                                             MOULINEX;
Thirdly, the applicant considers that the Commission made a
manifest error of assessment in that the undertakings imposed          —     order the Commission to pay all the costs.
on SEB are insufficient to remove the competition concerns.
The Commission therefore authorised the transaction without
any undertakings on certain markets where there were serious
competition concerns. Moreover, an undertaking to grant a
trade mark licence is not by its nature sufficient to resolve the
competition concerns that the transaction raises. The period           Pleas in law and main arguments
for which the licence is granted is also insufficient for the
licensee to switch Moulinex’s products to its own brand in a
market characterised by strong brand loyalty. Furthermore, the
undertaking to supply the German market will have the effect           SEB and Moulinex are active in the design, manufacture and
of strengthening SEB/Moulinex’s position on that market.               sale of domestic electric appliances worldwide. A proposed
Finally, the fact that the Commission agreed to the same trade         merger of the two companies was notified to the Commission.
mark being used by different companies within the European             The applicant in this case informed the Commission of its
Union is liable to lead to coordinated behaviour by SEB/               reservations in regard to the merger. The Commission none
Moulinex and the licensees.                                            the less declared the transaction compatible with the common
 ---pagebreak--- C 144/58               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                         15.6.2002
market and with the EEA Agreement, subject to compliance               was likely to strengthen even further SEB’s position on the
with the undertakings given. The applicant is challenging that         relevant markets.
decision.
                                                                       (1) Commission Notice on remedies acceptable under Council Regu-
                                                                           lation (EEC) No 4064/89 and under Commission Regulation (EC)
                                                                           No 447/98 (text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2001 C 68, p. 3).
In support of its application the applicant relies first of all
on an infringement of essential procedural requirements in
accepting the undertakings proposed by SEB late. Undertakings
must be submitted within three weeks from notification of a
transaction. The Commission allowed SEB to submit new
phase one undertakings five weeks after the transaction was            Action brought on 12 April 2002 by Avex Inc. against the
notified. The applicant claims that those undertakings could in        Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
no circumstances be regarded as enhancing the original                                         Marks and Designs)
undertakings but constituted new undertakings.
                                                                                (Case T-115/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 144/113)
Secondly, the applicant claims that the Commission erred in                               (Language of the case: German)
law in deciding to authorise the operation without carrying
out an in-depth investigation. The applicant claims that the
conditions for authorisation in phase one were not met. The
undertakings proposed did not definitively resolve any serious         An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
doubts as to the compatibility of the transaction with the             Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
common market, as required by the Commission Notice on                 Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
remedies (1).                                                          12 April 2002 by Avex Inc., Tokyo (Japan), represented by
                                                                       J. Hofmann, lawyer. Adolf Ahlers AG, Herford (Germany) was
                                                                       an additional party to the proceedings before the Board of
                                                                       Appeal.
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
Thirdly, the applicant considers that the Commission made a
manifest error of assessment in that the undertakings imposed          —      annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the
on SEB are insufficient to remove the competition concerns.                   Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of
The Commission therefore authorised the transaction without                   11 February 2002 (Case No R 634/2001-1) on the
any undertakings on certain markets where there were serious                  registration of the word/figurative sign ‘a’ as a Community
competition concerns. Moreover, an undertaking to grant a                     trade mark;
trade mark licence is not by its nature sufficient to resolve the
competition concerns that the transaction raises. The period           —      order the defendant to pay the costs.
for which the licence is granted is also insufficient for the
licensee to switch Moulinex’s products to its own brand in a
market characterised by strong brand loyalty. Furthermore, the
undertaking to supply the German market will have the effect           Pleas in law and main arguments
of strengthening SEB/Moulinex’s position on that market.
Finally, the fact that the Commission agreed to the same trade
mark being used by different companies within the European             Applicant seeking Com-         Avex Inc.
Union is liable to lead to coordinated behaviour by SEB/               munity trade mark:
Moulinex and the licensees.
                                                                       Community trade mark           The figurative mark ‘a’ for goods
                                                                       sought:                        in Classes 9, 16, 25, 35 and 41
                                                                                (inter alia, clothing, shoe-related
                                                                                items, shoes and boots) — appli-
                                                                                cation no 863142
Fourthly, the applicant considers that the Commission erred            Proprietor of mark or          Adolf Ahlers AG
in law by failing to examine the extent to which the derisory          sign right cited in the
sum paid and the financial aid provided by the French State            opposition proceedings:


title: Case T-41/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 10 April 2008 — Republic of Poland v Commission

text:
               21.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 158/22

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 10 April 2008 — Republic of Poland v Commission
   (Case T-41/06) (1)

   (2008/C 158/37)

      Language of the case: Polish

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

      (1)  OJ C 96, 22.4.2006.


title: Case C-192/06: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 October 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Matthias Kruck v Landkreis Potsdam-Mittelmark (Agricultural structures — Community aid schemes — Article 7(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 1765/92 — Article 9(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 — Set-aside of land — Reduction of compensatory payments)

text:
               8.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/11

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 October 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Matthias Kruck v Landkreis Potsdam-Mittelmark
   (Case C-192/06) (1)

   (Agricultural structures - Community aid schemes - Article 7(6) of Regulation (EEC) No 1765/92 - Article 9(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 - Set-aside of land - Reduction of compensatory payments)
   (2007/C 297/16)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesverwaltungsgericht
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Matthias Kruck

      Defendant: Landkreis Potsdam-Mittelmark
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Interpretation of Article 9(2) to (4) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 of 23 December 1992 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes (OJ 1992 L 391, p. 36), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1648/95 of 6 July 1995 amending Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes (OJ 1995 L 156, p. 27), and Article 7(6), second and fourth sentences, of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1765/92 of 30 June 1992 establishing a support system for producers of certain arable crops (OJ 1992 L 181, p. 12), as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2989/95 of 19 December 1995 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1765/92 establishing a support system for producers of certain arable crops (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 5) — Determination of maximum area giving rise to compensatory payments for set-aside on the basis of the area actually determined rather than the area applied for in the application for compensatory payment.
   Operative part of the judgment
   On a proper construction of Article 9 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 of 23 December 1992 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1648/95 of 6 July 1995, is to be interpreted as meaning that the maximum area to be considered for compensatory payments for set-aside in accordance with the second and fourth sentences of Article 7(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1765/92 of 30 June 1992 establishing a support system for producers of certain arable crops, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2989/95 of 19 December 1995, should be calculated on the basis of the area applied for provided that that area is actually under arable crops and does not contain land excluded from compensatory payments by Article 9 of Regulation No 1765/92, as amended by Regulation No 2989/95.

      (1)  OJ C 154, 1.7.2006.


title: Case T-95/00: Action brought on 19 April 2000 by Tamara Zaur-Gora against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
10.6.2000             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 163/33
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Action brought on 19 April 2000 by Tamara Zaur-Gora
                                                                          against the Commission of the European Communities
The applicant contests the decision of the appointing authority
to reduce the amount of the daily allowance in respect of a                                       (Case T-95/00)
mission to Dublin.
                                                                                (2000/C 163/66)
In support of his claims, the applicant puts forward two pleas
in law:
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
— breach of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations on recovery
     of undue payment. The appointing authority has not                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
     proved that the applicant had been aware that there was            ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
     no due reason for paying the expenses of his mission;              European Communities on 19 April 2000 by Tamara Zaur-
                                                                        Gora, residing at Lodelinsart (Belgium), represented by Jean-
— incorrect interpretation of Point VIII of the Guide on                Noël Louis and Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar.
     Missions.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        — annul the decision of the selection board in competition
                                                                             COM/C/2/99 rejecting the application submitted by the
                                                                             applicant;
Action brought on 19 April 2000 by the Territorio                       — order the defendant to pay the costs.
Histórico de Alava, Arabako Foru Aldundia — Diputación
Foral de Alava against the Commission of the European                   Pleas in law and main arguments
                          Communities
                                                                        The applicant has worked for the Commission since 1 October
                         (Case T-92/00)                                 1997, initially as a member of the auxiliary staff, then as a
                                                                        member of the interim staff and then once again as a member
                        (2000/C 163/65)                                 of the auxiliary staff. During the period when she was working
                                                                        as a member of the interim staff, she submitted her application
                                                                        as a candidate in open competition COM/2/99. The annex to
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)                       the notice of competition provided that the age limit laid down
                                                                        in it was not applicable to candidates who had possessed, for
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               an uninterrupted period of more than one year, the status of
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              an official or servant of the European Communities as at the
European Communities on 19 April 2000 by the Territorio                 date marking the deadline for submission of applications. On
Histórico de Alava, Arabako Foru Aldundia — Diputación                that basis, her application to take part in the competition was
Foral de Alava, established in Vitoria, Spain, represented by           rejected.
Antonio Creus Carreras and Begoña Uriarte Valiente, lawyers.
                                                                        In support of her claims, the applicant puts forward the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             following pleas:
— annul the Commission’s decision of 22 December 1999                   — infringement of the principles of sound administration and
     inasmuch as it declares the fiscal measures provided for in             proper staff management;
     Normas Forales de Alava Nos 22/1994 and 24/1996 to be
     incompatible with the common market and requires the               — the commission in the present case of a manifest error of
     Spanish State to effect recovery in respect thereof;                    assessment, as well as abuse of process.
— order the Commission to pay all the costs.                            In the applicant’s view, the duties performed by her may be
                                                                        regarded as permanent tasks to be carried out in the public
                                                                        service of the Community, since the formal nature of the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         contracts concluded by her with the Commission and the
                                                                        classification applied to them by the parties had no effect on
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put            those de facto circumstances. Consequently, the contracts
forward in Case T-127/99 Diputación Foral de Alava v                   concluded since 22 May 1997 must be regarded, according to
Commission (1).                                                         the applicant, as having been entered into with a member of
                                                                        the temporary staff, having regard to the nature of the tasks to
                                                                        be carried out and the circumstances in which she has
(1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999, p. 41.                                        performed her duties since that date.


title: Case C-98/03: Action brought on 28 February 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

text:
21.6.2003              EN                     Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 146/15
2.    Does Directive 85/511/EEC (1), as amended by Directive          Action brought on 28 February 2003 by the Commission
      90/423/EEC (2), afford the Member States scope to (order        of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-
      or) take supplementary national measures to control foot-                                lic of Germany
      and-mouth disease?
3.    What limits does Community law place on a Member                                          (Case C-98/03)
      State with regard to taking supplementary national
      measures other than those provided for in Directive 85/
      511/EEC, as amended by Directive 90/423/EEC?                                            (2003/C 146/26)
( 1) OJ L 315 [1985], p. 11.
( 2) OJ L 224 [1990], p. 13.
                                                                      An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
                                                                      brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                      ties on 28 February 2003 by the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities, represented by Ulrich Wölker, Legal Adviser of
                                                                      the Commission of the European Communities, with an
                                                                      address for service in Luxembourg.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van
Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven by judgment of that Court               The applicant claims that the Court should:
of 7 January 2003 in the proceedings between Mr and
Mrs T.H.J.M. van Schaijk and Directeur van de Rijksdienst
               voor de keuring van Vee en Vlees                       1.    Declare that
                           (Case C-97/03)                                   —    by not providing for the duty to carry out an
                                                                                assessment of the implications in the case of certain
                                                                                projects outside special areas of conservation, as
                          (2003/C 146/25)                                        referred to in Article 4(1) of Council Directive 92/
                                                                                43/EEC ( 1) of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of
                                                                                natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, which
                                                                                pursuant to Article 6(3) and (4) of the directive are
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                           to be subject to such an assessment irrespective of
European Communities by judgment of the College van Beroep                       whether those projects are likely to have a significant
voor het Bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court for Trade and                       effect on an area of special conservation;
Industry) of 7 January 2003, received at the Court Registry on
4 March 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                   —    by authorising emissions in a special area of conser-
between Mr and Mrs T.H.J.M. van Schaijk and Directeur van                        vation, irrespective of whether they are likely to
de Rijksdienst voor de keuring van Vee en Vlees on the                           have a significant effect on that area;
following questions:
1.    May a Member State derive from Community law the                      —    by derogating from the scope of the provisions
      power to decide to kill animals which are suspected of                     concerning the protection of species in the case of
      being infected or contaminated with the foot-and-mouth                     certain non-deliberate effects on protected animals;
      virus?
                                                                            —    by failing to ensure compliance with the criteria for
2.    Does Directive 85/511/EEC (1), as amended by Directive                     derogation set out in Article 16 of the directive in
      90/423/EEC (2), afford the Member States scope to (order                   the case of certain activities which are supposed to
      or) take supplementary national measures to control foot-                  be compatible with conservation of an area;
      and-mouth disease?
                                                                            —    by retaining provisions on the application of pestic-
3.    What limits does Community law place on a Member                           ides which do not take sufficient account of the
      State with regard to taking supplementary national                         protection of species;
      measures other than those provided for in Directive 85/
      511/EEC, as amended by Directive 90/423/EEC?
                                                                            —    by failing to notify fishery catch legislation and/or
                                                                                to ensure that such legislation contains adequate
( 1) OJ L 315 [1985], p. 11.                                                     bans on fishing,
( 2) OJ L 224 [1990], p. 13.
                                                                            the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its
                                                                            obligations under the directive.
 ---pagebreak--- C 146/16                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                      21.6.2003
2.    Order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
                                                                           Firenze by order of that Court of 3 February 2003 in the
                                                                                criminal proceedings against Maria Pupino
                                                                                (Case C-105/03)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (2003/C 146/27)
—     Provisions designed to transpose Article 6(3) of the
      directive are to be evaluated in terms of whether they
      require an assessment of the implications in the case of
      all projects likely to have a significant effect on special
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      areas of conservation. Whether a particular effect may be
      significant cannot be decided solely by reference to                 European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Firenze
      the project, but only by taking into consideration the               (District Court, Florence) — Office of the Magistrate in charge
                                                                           of preliminary enquiries — of 3 February 2003, received at
      conservation aims of each individual area of conservation
      which may be affected and the nature and extent of the               the Court Registry on 5 March 2003, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                           in the criminal proceedings against Maria Pupino on the
      habitats and species present in each individual area.
      However, the definition of ‘projects’ contained in Para-             following question:
      graph 10(1)(11)(b) and (c) of the Bundesnaturschutzge-
      setz (Federal Law on Nature Conservation) does not take
      into account areas of conservation. Even if theoretical              Are Articles 2, 3 and 8 of Council Framework Decision 220
      evidence is produced to show that, despite the restrictions          of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal
      contained in the definition, all conceivable projects likely         proceedings to be interpreted as precluding national legislation
      to have a significant effect on special areas of conservation        such as that in Articles 392(1a) and 398(5a) of the Italian
      are in fact covered, there would still be no guarantee that          Code of Criminal Procedure, which do not provide that, in
      projects with atypical effects of, in principle, a less              respect of offences other than sexual offences or those with a
      apparent nature would be covered if they were likely to              sexual background, the testimony of witnesses who are minors
      be significant in an actual individual case. In particular,          under 16 may be heard at the stage of the preliminary
      small habitats containing unusual species may react much             enquiries, in a Special Inquiry (‘incidente probatorio’) and
      more sensitively to influences than may be anticipated               under special arrangements, for example for the recording of
      by provisions concerning projects, which standardise                 testimony using audiovisual and sound recording equipment.
      categories.
—     It is contrary to Article 6(3) and (4) of the directive for
      regard not to be had to pollution by noxious substances
      outside a (not clearly defined) area where the effects of a
      project are felt, which is the position under Paragraph 36
      of the Bundesnaturschutzgesetz.
                                                                           Appeal brought on 27 February 2003 by fax, confirmed
                                                                           by original lodged on 7 March 2003, by Védial SA against
—     Restricting the protection of sites where animals nest,              the judgment delivered on 12 December 2002 by the
      breed, live or find refuge to cases where there are                  Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
      deliberate effects (Paragraph 43(4) of the Bundesnatur-              European Communities in Case T-110/01 between Védial
      schutzgesetz) is not consistent with Article 12(1)(d) of             SA and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
      the directive, the clear wording of which indicates that             Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), the other
      intention is not necessary in the context of the prohibition                       party being France Distribution
      concerning deterioration or destruction of breeding sites
      or resting places.
                                                                                (Case C-106/03 P)
—     Paragraph 43(4) of the Bundesnaturschutzgesetz also
      provides for derogations from the provisions concerning                                      (2003/C 146/28)
      the protection of species in favour of intervention or
      measures already authorised, without taking into account
      the fact that at the time of authorisation it may not yet
      have been known that a protected species is affected.                An appeal against the judgment delivered on 12 December
                                                                           2002 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                           the European Communities in Case T-110/01 between Védial
                                                                           SA and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
( 1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.
                                                                           (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), the other party being
                                                                           France Distribution, was brought before the Court of Justice of
                                                                           the European Communities on 27 February 2003 by fax,
                                                                           confirmed by original lodged on 7 March 2003, by Védial SA.