title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Sozialgericht Hannover by order of 12 December 2002 in the case of Silke Gaumain-Cerri against Kaufmännische Krankenkasse-Pflegekasse, additional party Bundesversicherungsanstalt für Angestellte (Case C-502/01)

text:
C 84/50                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         6.4.2002
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Sozialgericht                 1.    Are Articles 49 and 50 EC to be interpreted as precluding
Hannover by order of 12 December 2002 in the case of                          rules of national law (in this case Paragraph 13(3) of
Silke Gaumain-Cerri against Kaufmännische Krankenkas-                         the Allgemeine Verwaltungsvorschrift für Beihilfen in
se-Pflegekasse, additional party Bundesversicherungsan-                       Krankheits-, Pflege-, Geburts- und Todesfällen (General
                       stalt für Angestellte                                  Administrative Provisions concerning Assistance in the
                                                                              Event of Sickness, Treatment, Birth and Death — ‘the
                         (Case C-502/01)                                      Assistance Provisions’) which render the assumption of
                                                                              the costs of a health cure in another Member State
                                                                              conditional on the health cure being absolutely necessary
                          (2002/C 84/86)                                      outside the Federal Republic of Germany on account of
                                                                              greatly increased prospects of success, on this being
                                                                              proven by a report from a medical officer or a medical
                                                                              consultant, and on the spa concerned being listed in the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        Register of Spas?
European Communities by order of the Sozialgericht Hannover
(Social Court, Hanover) of 12 December 2001, received at the
Court Registry on 27 December 2001, for a preliminary ruling            2.    Are Articles 49 and 50 EC to be interpreted as precluding
in the case of Silke Gaumain-Cerri against Kaufmännische                      rules of national law (in this case point 3 in the first
Krankenkasse-Pflegekasse, additional party Bundesversi-                       sentence of Paragraph 13(3) of the Assistance Provisions,
cherungsanstalt für Angestellte [Federal Insurance Office for                 read in conjunction with Paragraph 8(3)(2) thereof) under
Clerical Staff], on the following questions:                                  which advance recognition of a health cure is not possible
                                                                              if the person concerned does not wait for the application
(a)  Can the expressions ‘sickness benefit’ and ‘old-age benefit’             procedure or any subsequent court proceedings to be
     within the meaning of Article 1 of Regulation                            concluded before commencing the health cure and the
     No 1408/71 (1) cover benefits paid by one insurer to                     only matter in dispute is whether the rules of national
     another if the insured derives only an abstract and indirect             law correctly rule out eligibility for assistance in the form
     advantage therefrom (payment of pension insurance                        of a health cure in a Member State of the European
     contributions by the care insurance fund on behalf of a                  Union?
     voluntary carer)? If they can, under what circumstances
     can they do so?
(b) Is there a prohibition of discrimination under primary or
     secondary Community law from which it follows that a
     benefit as described in (a) above is to be granted
     irrespective of whether the activity conferring the
     entitlement to benefit is carried on in Germany or in
     another EU Member State, and irrespective of where the             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bayerisches
     insured or the immediate beneficiary has his residence?            Oberstes Landesgericht by order of 19 December 2001 in
                                                                                criminal proceedings against Marco Grilli
(1) OJ L 149, p. 2.
                                                                                (Case C-12/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 84/88)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungs-                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
gericht Sigmaringen by order of 28 November 2001 in                     European Communities by order of the Bayerisches Oberstes
the case of Ludwig Leichtle against the Bundesanstalt für               Landesgericht (Bavarian Supreme Court) of 19 December
                               Arbeit                                   2001, received at the Court Registry on 16 Janaury 2002, for
                                                                        a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings against Marco
                           (Case C-8/02)                                Grilli on the following question:
                          (2002/C 84/87)
                                                                        Is Article 29 EC to be interpreted as precluding a national rule
                                                                        that makes it a criminal offence for an Italian national to
                                                                        obtain a transit registration mark from the competent Italian
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  authorities, affix licence plates bearing that mark to a vehicle
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht                 offered for sale in Germany, and then drive that vehicle on the
Sigmaringen (Sigmaringen Administrative Court) of 28 Nov-               public highway from Germany to Italy?
ember 2001, received at the Court Registry on 11 January
2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ludwig Leichtle
against the Bundesanstalt für Arbeit on the following questions:


title: Appeal brought on 24 March 1995 by 1. Roger Tremblay, 2. Harry Kestenberg and 3. Syndicat des Exploitants de Lieux de Loisirs (SELL) against the judgment delivered on 24 January 1995 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-5/93 between Roger Tremblay, François Lucazeau and Harry Kestenberg, supported by Syndicat des Exploitants de Lieux de Loisirs (SELL), and Commission of the European Communities (Case C-91/95 P)

text:
No C 189/6                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      22 . 7 . 95
Appeal brought on 24 March 1995 by 1 . Roger Tremblay,                   Reference for a preliminary ruling from the 0stre Landsret
2 . Harry Kestenberg and 3 . Syndicat des Exploitants de                 by decision of that court of 10 April 1995 in the case of Bent
Lieux de Loisirs ( SELL ) against the judgment delivered on              Jensen and Korn- og Foderstofkompagniet A/S v. Ministry
24 January 1995 by the Second Chamber of the Court of                                     of Agriculture EC-Directorate
First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-5/93                                         (Case C- 1 3 2/95 )
between Roger Tremblay, François Lucazeau and Harry
                                                                                ( 95/C 189/12 )
Kestenberg, supported by Syndicat des Exploitants de Lieux
de Loisirs ( SELL), and Commission of the European
                               Communities
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                           ( Case C-91/95 P)                             European Communities by a decision of the 0stre Landsret
                              ( 95/C 189/11 )                            ( Eastern Regional Court) of 10 April 1995 , which was
                                                                         received at the Court Registry on 24 April 1995 , for a
                                                                         preliminary ruling in the case of Bent Jensen and Korn
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 24 January
                                                                         og Foderstofkompagniet A/S v. Ministry of Agriculture
1995 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance
                                                                         EC-Directorate on the following questions :
of the European Communities in Case T-5/93 between
Roger Tremblay, François Lucazeau and Harry Kestenberg,
supported by Syndicat des Exploitants de Lieux de Loisirs                — Question 1 :
( SELL ), and Commission of the European Communities
was brought before the Court of Justice on 24 March 1995
by 1 . Roger Tremblay, 2 . Harry Kestenberg and 3 . Syndicat                 Does Community law in general preclude a Member
                                                                             State from setting off of an amount due to the
des Exploitants de Lieux de Loisirs ( SELL), represented by
Claude Fourgoux, of the Paris and Brussels Bar, with an                      beneficiary of aid under a Community measure against
                                                                             outstanding debts to a Member State ?
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Pierrot Schiltz, 4 Rue Béatrix de Bourbon.
                                                                         — Question 2a :
The appellant claims that the Court should :
                                                                             Is it of any significance for the answer to question 1
 1 , annul the part of the judgment of the Court of First                    whether the amount of aid under Community law is
       Instance of 24 January 1995 which dismissed the                       attached in advance by the Member State which has only
       application for the annulment of the Commission                       a claim to be reimbursed for the aid paid out, provided
       decision of 12 November 1992, which referred the
                                                                             that the rules of Community law on payment are
       matter back to the national courts f 1 );
                                                                             satisfied, and which must itself defray the expenditure
                                                                             involved in the administration of the support system ?
2 , pursuant to Article 54 of the Statute of the Court of
       Justice ,
                                                                          — Question 2b :
       — annul the Commission decision of 12 December
           1994 in so far as it rejects the complaint and refers             Is it of any significance for the answer to question 1 that
           the matter to the national courts ,                                under the Member State's rules on set-off it is a
                                                                             condition for effecting set-off that there be reciprocity
       — hold :                                                               between the debtor under the principal claim and the
                                                                             creditor under the counterclaim ?
           — that the Commission must notify to Sacem the
                 objections which are inexorably to be inferred           — Question 2c :
                 from the conclusions of the report of
                 7 November 1991 ,
                                                                              Is it of any significance for the answer to question 1 that
                                                                              the Member State's practice with regard to certain trade
           — in the alternative, that the Commission must                     and environmental subsidies is established in such a way
                 resume the procedure at the point at which it                as to permit set-off in an amount not exceeding 20 % of
                 discontinued it, with a view to issuing a                    the said State subsidies ?
                 statement of objections at the same time as
                 considering the restrictive agremeent;
                                                                          — Question 2d :
 3 , order the Commission to pay the costs .
                                                                              Is it of any significance for the answer to question 1 what
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                          legal basis exists for the outstanding debt to the State
                                                                              against which set-off is to be effected ?
 Breach of Community law.
                                                                              An answer is desired in particular to the question
 i 1 ) Case T-5/93 ( OJ No C 74 , 25 . 3 . 199 5 , p . 10 ).                  whether the Member States have a further facility to
                                                                              effect set-off if all or part of the sum to be set off
                                                                              constitutes part of the Community's own income ?


title: Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 February 1999 in Case C-313/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Köln): administrative fine imposed on Arnold Claasen (Application for interpretation of an agreement concluded between certain Member States under Article 8 of Directive 93/89/EEC - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

text:
C 121/8                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       1.5.1999
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                     Instance, Ghent), received at the Court Registry on 5 Februa-
                                                                           ry 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Public
                        (Fourth Chamber)                                   Prosecutor against J. M. G. H. Verdonck, R. A. A. Everaert and
                                                                           E. M. De Baedts on the following questions:
                       of 11 February 1999
in Case C-313/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                  1. Does Article 6 of Council Directive 89/592/EEC (1) of
the Oberlandesgericht Köln): administrative fine imposed                       13 November 1989 coordinating regulations on insider
                      on Arnold Claasen (1)                                    dealing, which reads as follows: ‘Each Member State may
                                                                               adopt provisions more stringent than those laid down by
(Application for interpretation of an agreement concluded                      this Directive or additional provisions, provided that such
between certain Member States under Article 8 of Directive                     provisions are applied generally ...’ allow a Member State
       93/89/EEC — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)                          to provide for a more stringent definition in its legislation,
                                                                               whilst denying a given category, namely holding compa-
                          (1999/C 121/14)                                      nies, a specific exemption from that more stringent
                                                                               definition.
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                           2. Is the implementation of Directive 89/592/EEC, transposed
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published         in Belgium by Article 181 of the law of 4 December 1990
                   in the European Court Reports)                              on financial transactions and financial markets, compatible
                                                                               with Article 6 of the Directive. Article 181 reads as follows:
In Case C-313/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                  Privileged information, for the application of this code,
the EC Treaty from the Oberlandesgericht Köln (Germany) for                    means information not know to the public which is
a preliminary ruling, in the appeal against an administrative                  sufficiently clear and relates to one or more issuers of
fine brought before that court by Arnold Claasen, on the                       shares or other financial instruments, or to one or more
interpretation of Article 8(1) of the Agreement of 9 February                  shares or other financial instruments, and which, if made
1994 on the levying of charges for the use of certain roads by                 public, may have an appreciable influence on the price of
heavy commercial vehicles, concluded between the Govern-                       such share(s) or of other financial instruments.
ments of the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of
Belgium, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Grand Duchy of                            Privileged information does not include information avail-
Luxembourg and the Kingdom of the Netherlands (Bundesge-                       able to holding companies by virtue of their role in the
setzblatt 1994, Part II, p. 1768) — the Court (Fourth Chamber),                management of companies which they own in part, unless
composed of P. J. G.Kapteyn (Rapporteur), President of the                     it constitutes information which must be made public
Chamber, J. L. Murray and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; D. Ruiz-                       pursuant to the legislative and regulatory provisions con-
Jarabo Colomer, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has                     cerning the obligations arising from the official listing of
made an order on 11 February 1999, the operative part of                       shares on the stock exchange.
which is as follows:                                                           The provisions of this code shall apply to shares and other
                                                                               financial instruments within the meaning of Article 1.
The Court manifestly lacks jurisdiction to reply to the reference for a
preliminary ruling made by the Oberlandesgericht Köln by order of
4 August 1998.
                                                                           3. If the Member State has implemented Directive
                                                                               89/592/EEC of 13 November 1989 coordinating regu-
(1) OJ C 327, 24.10.1998.                                                      lations on insider dealing, as the Belgian legislature has
                                                                               done in Article 181 of the Law of 4 December 1990 on
                                                                               financial transactions and financial markets, and such
                                                                               implementation is contrary to the Directive, does this
                                                                               mean that the more stringent provisions are deemed not
                                                                               to form part of national legislation, or that they remain
                                                                               fully applicable in the case of holding companies as well?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Rechtbank van
Eerste Aanleg te Gent by judgment of that court of
27 January 1999 in the case of Public Prosecutor against
J. M. G. H. Verdonck, R. A. A. Everaert and E. M. De
                               Baedts
                                                                           (1) OJ L 334, 18.11.1989, p. 30.
                           (Case C-28/99)
                          (1999/C 121/15)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of 27 January 1999 of
the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg te Gent (Court of First


title: Case C-260/05 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 November 2007 — Sniace SA v Commission of the European Communities — Republic of Austria, Lenzing Fibers GmbH, Land Burgenland (Appeal — State aid — Admissibility — Measure of individual concern to the applicant)

text:
               12.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 8/2

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 November 2007 — Sniace SA v Commission of the European Communities — Republic of Austria, Lenzing Fibers GmbH, Land Burgenland
   (Case C-260/05 P) (1)

   (Appeal - State aid - Admissibility - Measure of individual concern to the applicant)
   (2008/C 8/03)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Appellant: Sniace SA (represented by: J. Baró Fuentes, abogado)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Kreuschitz and J.L. Buendía Sierra, Agents), Republic of Austria (represented by: H. Dossi, Agent), Lenzing Fibers GmbH (formerly Lenzing Lyocell GmbH & Co. KG) (represented by U. Soltész, Rechtsanwalt), Land Burgenland (represented by U. Soltész, Rechtsanwalt)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber (Extended Composition)) of 14 April 2005 in Case T-88/01 Sniace SA v Commission declaring inadmissible the appellant's action for annulment of Commission Decision 2001/102/EC of 19 July 2000 on State aid granted by Austria to Lenzing Lyocell GmbH & Co. KG (OJ 2001 L 38, p. 33)
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Sniace SA to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Republic of Austria to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 193, 6.8.2005.


title: Designation of Presidents of Chambers and assignment of Judges to Chambers

text:
C 289/22              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 13.10.2001
                                                     COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
   Election of the President of the Court of First Instance           b)  to assign the Members of the Court of First Instance
                                                                          to Chambers as follows:
                        (2001/C 289/56)
                                                                           to the First Chamber:
The Judges of the Court of First Instance, meeting on 19 Sep-
tember 2001, elected Judge Bo Vesterdorf as President of the
Court of First Instance, pursuant to Article 7 of the Rules of             Mr Vesterdorf (President), Mr Forwood and Mr Legal,
Procedure, for the period from 19 September 2001 to                        Judges;
31 August 2004.
                                                                           to the First Chamber, Extended Composition:
                                                                           Mr Vesterdorf (President), Mr Lenaerts, Mr Azizi, Mr For-
                                                                           wood and Mr Legal, Judges;
                                                                           to the Second Chamber:
Appointment of the Registrar of the Court of First
                            Instance                                       Mr Moura Ramos (President of Chamber), Mr Pirrung and
                                                                           Mr Meij, Judges;
                        (2001/C 289/57)
                                                                           to the Second Chamber, Extended Composition:
At its meeting on 19 September 2001 the Court of First
Instance appointed Hans Jung as Registrar of the Court of                  Mr Moura Ramos (President of Chamber), Ms Tiili,
First Instance, pursuant to Article 20 in conjunction with                 Mr Pirrung, Mr Mengozzi and Mr Meij, Judges;
Article 7(3) of the Rules of Procedure, for the period from
27 September 2001 to 26 September 2007.                                    to the Third Chamber:
                                                                           Mr Jaeger (President of Chamber), Mr Lenaerts and
                                                                           Mr Azizi, Judges;
                                                                           to the Third Chamber, Extended Composition:
Designation of Presidents of Chambers and assignment of                    Mr Jaeger (President of Chamber), Mr Garcı́a-Valdecasas,
                     Judges to Chambers                                    Mr Lenaerts, Ms Lindh and Mr Azizi, Judges;
                        (2001/C 289/58)                                    to the Fourth Chamber:
                                                                           Mr Vilaras (President of Chamber), Ms Tiili and Mr Men-
At its plenary conference held on 20 September 2001 the                    gozzi, Judges;
Court of First Instance decided, pursuant to Article 2(4) of the
Council Decision of 24 October 1988 and Articles 10 and 15
of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, in               to the Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition:
respect of the period from 20 September 2001 to 30 Septem-
ber 2002:                                                                  Mr Vilaras (President of Chamber), Ms Tiili, Mr Pirrung,
                                                                           Mr Mengozzi and Mr Meij, Judges;
a)    to designate as Presidents of Chambers:                              to the Fifth Chamber:
      —    Judge Moura Ramos                                               Mr Cooke (President of Chamber), Mr Garcı́a-Valdecasas
                                                                           and Ms Lindh, Judges;
      —    Judge Cooke
                                                                           to the Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition:
      —    Judge Jaeger
                                                                           Mr Cooke (President of Chamber), Mr Garcı́a-Valdecasas,
      —    Judge Vilaras                                                   Ms Lindh, Mr Forwood and Mr Legal, Judges.
 ---pagebreak--- 13.10.2001            EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 289/23
Cases pending before the present Chambers have been reallo-                   c)   the other cases referred to in paragraph 1(b) shall be
cated with effect from 20 September 2001 to the Chamber,                           assigned to the First, Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth
composed of the same number of Judges, of which the Judge-                         Chambers. Such assignment is to be effected on the
Rapporteur in each particular case is a member.                                    basis of three separate rotas, reflecting the order in
                                                                                which the cases are registered at the Court Registry:
                                                                                —     for the cases referred to in Article 236 of the
However, for cases in which the written procedure was                                    EC Treaty and Article 152 of the EAEC Treaty,
completed and a hearing in the oral procedure was held or
fixed before 20 September 2001, the Chambers shall continue
to sit with the same composition as before for the oral                            —     for the cases concerning the implementation
procedure, the deliberation and the judgment.                                            of the rules on competition applicable to
                                                                                undertakings,
                                                                                —     for the other cases covered by paragraph 1(b).
Criteria for assigning cases to the Chambers                            For the purposes of the rota referred to in the first indent of
                                                                        paragraph 2(c) above, the assignment of cases concerning
                                                                        intellectual property to the Second and Fourth Chambers on
                                                                        the basis of the rota referred to in paragraph 2(b) shall be
                                                                        compensated for by the assignment of cases to the First, Third
At its plenary conference held on 20 September 2001 the                 and Fifth Chambers on a pro rata basis.
Court of First Instance established the following criteria for the
assignment of cases to the Chambers for the period from
20 September 2001 to 30 September 2002, pursuant to
Article 12 of the Rules of Procedure:                                   For the purposes of the rotas referred to in paragraphs 2(a)
                                                                        and 2(c), the First Chamber and the First Chamber, Extended
                                                                        Composition, presided over by the President of the Court of
                                                                        First Instance, shall not be included in those lists every third
1.   a)   Actions concerning the implementation of the rules            time the end of a rota is reached.
          on State aid or the rules on trade protection
          measures shall be assigned, with effect from the
          lodging of the application and without prejudice to
          any subsequent application of Articles 14 and 51 of           The President of the Court of First Instance may derogate from
          the Rules of Procedure, to Chambers with an                   that order on the ground that cases are related or with a view
          extended composition of five Judges.                          to ensuring an even spread of the workload.
     b)   All other cases shall be assigned, with effect from
          the lodging of the application and without prejudice
          to any subsequent application of Articles 14 and 51           Plenary session
          of the Rules of Procedure, to Chambers composed
          of three Judges.
                                                                        At its plenary conference held on 20 September 2001, the
                                                                        Court of First Instance decided pursuant to the second
2.   The cases referred to in paragraphs 1(a) and 1(b) shall be         subparagraph of Article 32(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the
     allocated between the Chambers as follows:                         Court of First Instance that where, following the designation
                                                                        of an Advocate General pursuant to Article 17 of the Rules of
                                                                        Procedure, there is an even number of Judges in the Court of
     a)   the cases referred to in paragraph 1(a) shall be              First Instance sitting in plenary session, the rota established in
          assigned in turn, according to the order in which             advance in accordance with which the President of the Court
          they are registered at the Court Registry, to the First,      is to designate the Judge who will not take part in the judgment
          Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Chambers, Extended            of the case shall be in reverse order to that in which the Judges
          Composition;                                                  rank according to their seniority in office under Article 6 of
                                                                        the Rules of Procedure unless the Judge who would thus be
                                                                        designated is the Judge-Rapporteur. In that event, it shall be
                                                                        the Judge ranking immediately above him who shall be
     b)   cases concerning intellectual property, as referred to        designated.
          in Article 130(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the
          Court of First Instance, shall be assigned, according
          to the order in which they are registered at the Court
          Registry, to the Second and Fourth Chambers;


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 17 February 1998 in Case T-91/96: Nicole Hankart v. Council of the European Union (Officials - Open competition - Detailed practical organisational arrangements - Loss of a written test - Non-admission to the next test)

text:
11.4.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 113/11
2. orders the Commission to pay the costs.                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 17 February 1998
( ) OJ C 180, 22.6.1996.
 1
                                                                        in Case T-105/96: Pharos SA v. Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
                                                                   (Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 Ð Inclusion of
                                                                   somatosalm in the list of substances not subject to
                                                                   maximum residue limits Ð Action for failure to act Ð
                                                                                Action for damages)
                                                                                (98/C 113/28)
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                     of 17 February 1998
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
in Case T-91/96: Nicole Hankart v. Council of the
                      European Union (1)
(Officials Ð Open competition Ð Detailed practical                 In Case T-105/96: Pharos SA, having its registered office
organisational arrangements Ð Loss of a written test Ð             in Seraing (Belgium), represented by Alexandre
                Non-admission to the next test)                    Vandencasteele, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
                                                                   service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt,
                         (98/C 113/27)                             8Ð10 rue Mathias Hardt, against Commission of the
                                                                   European Communities (Agents: Fernando Castillo de la
                                                                   Torre and Michel Nolin) Ð application, first, pursuant to
                                                                   Article 175 of the EC Treaty, for a declaration that the
                                                                   Commission unlawfully failed to pursue the procedure for
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                   including somatosalm produced by the applicant in the list
                                                                   of substances not subject to maximum residue levels in
                                                                   Annex II to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 of
                                                                   26 June 1990 laying down a Community procedure for
In Case T-91/96: Nicole Hankart, an official of the                the establishment of maximum residue limits of veterinary
Commission of the European Communities, residing at                medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin (2), and,
Rhode-Saint-GeneÁse (Belgium), represented by Jean-NoeÈl           second, within the meaning of Articles 178 and 215
Louis, Thierry Demaseure, Ariane Tornel and VeÂronique             (second paragraph) of the Treaty for an order that the
Leclercq, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in      Commission make good the damage which the applicant
Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30             considers itself to have suffered through such inaction Ð
rue de Cessange, v. Council of the European Union                  the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of:
(Agent: TheÂreÁse Blanchet) Ð application for annulment of         B. Vesterdorf, President, C. P. BrieÈt and A. Potocki,
the decision of 13 March 1996 of the selection board in            Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the
open competition Council/C/360 not to admit the                    Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 February 1998, in
applicant to the second part of the written tests in that          which it:
competition Ð the Court of First Instance (First
Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili, President, and C. P. BrieÈt
and A. Potocki, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 February             1. declares that there is no need to grant                the
1998, in which it:                                                     Commission's request for evidence to be heard,
                                                                   2. declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the
1. annuls the decision of 13 March 1996 of the selection               application for a declaration of failure to act,
     board in open competition Council/C/360 not to
     admit Ms Hankart to the second part of the written
     tests in that competition,
                                                                   3. dismisses the claim for damages as unfounded,
2. orders the Council to pay the costs.                            4. orders the applicant to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 233, 10.8.1996.                                           (1) OJ C 269, 14.9.1996.
                                                                   (2) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990, p. 1.


25 . 3 . 95         | EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                             No C 74/17
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              Removal from the register of Case T-248/94 ( 1 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 74/35 )
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
Case T-20/94 .                                                                       (Language of the case: German)
                                                                      By order of 6 February 1995 the President of the Third
                                                                      Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                      Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                      T-248/94 : Hema B.V. v. Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities .
Action brought on 13 February 1995 by Hans-Christian
Jacobsen against Council of the European Union and                    (!) OJ No C 288 , 15 . 10 . 1994 .
         Commission of the European Communities
                         ( Case T-24/95 )
                           ( 95/C 74/33 )
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case T-249/94 ( )
               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                ( 95/C 74/36 )
An action against the Council of the European Union and                               (Language of the case: Dutch)
Commission of the European Communities was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European                    By order of 6 February 1995 the President of the Third
Communities on 13 February 1995 by Hans-Christian                     Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Jacobsen, Jarplund-Weding ( Federal Republic of Germany),             Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
represented by Dr. Lukanow, Rechtsanwalt, Euskirchen,                 T-249/94: Hema B.V. v. Commission of the European
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers             Communities .
of Dupong & Associes, 14a Rue des Bains.
                                                                      f 1 ) OJ No C 288 , 15 . 10 . 1994 .
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— order the defendants to pay compensation to the
     applicant for the period of five milk years from 1 April
     1988 in the amount of DM 24 540, together with                          Removal from the register of Case T-250/94 ( )
     interest of 8% from 17 December 1983 .                                                       ( 95/C 74/37 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                      By order of 6 February 1995 the President of the Third
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in           Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Case T-20/94 .
                                                                      Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                      T-250/94 : M & S Mode Nederland B.V. v. Commission of
                                                                      the European Communities.
                                                                      (!) OJ No C 288 , 15 . 10 . 1994 .
       Removal from the register of Case T-l 24/93 ( )
                            ( 95/C 74/34 )
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case T-251/94 ( x )
               (Language of the case: German)                                                     ( 95/C 74/38 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
By order of 20 January 1995 the President of the First
Chamber (extended composition) of the Court of First                  By order of 6 February 1995 the President of the Third
Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal              Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
from the register of Case T-l 24/9 3 : Georg Werner v.                Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
Commission of the European Communities .                              T-251 /94 : M & S Mode Nederland B.V. v. Commission of
                                                                      the European Communities.
 (M OJ No C 34, 9 . 2 . 1991 .
                                                                      (!) OJ No C 288 , 15 . 10 . 1994 .


title: Case T-161/02: Action brought on 17 May 2002 by Naipes Heraclio Fournier, S.A. against Office for the Harmonization of the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)

text:
C 180/30              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     27.7.2002
Action brought on 17 May 2002 by Naipes Heraclio                         Decision of the Board of      Annulment of the decision of the
Fournier, S.A. against Office for the Harmonization of the               Appeal:                       Cancellation Division
     Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)
                                                                         Grounds of claim:             Misapplication of Article 7(1)(b)
                                                                                and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/
                        (Case T-160/02)                                                                94
                        (2002/C 180/51)
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                         Action brought on 17 May 2002 by Naipes Heraclio
                                                                         Fournier, S.A. against Office for the Harmonization of the
                                                                             Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)
An action against Office for Harmonization in the Internal
Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) was brought before                                       (Case T-161/02)
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
17 May 2002 by Naipes Heraclio Fournier, established in
                                                                                (2002/C 180/52)
Alava (Spain), represented by Enrique Armijo Chavarri.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the            An action against Office for Harmonization in the Internal
      OHIM of 28 February 2002;                                          Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) was brought before
                                                                         the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                         17 May 2002 by Naipes Heraclio Fournier, established in
—     Order the OHIM to pay the costs.                                   Alava (Spain), represented by Enrique Armijo Chavarri.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         —     annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                OHIM of 28 February 2002;
                                                                         —     order the OHIM to pay the costs.
The Community trade           Figurative mark for the ace of
mark concerned:               spades depicting a single sword
                              pointing upwards — Figurative
                              mark         registered       under
                              No 000089565 for products                  Pleas in law and main arguments
                              within Class 16 (playing cards)
                                                                         The Community trade           Figurative mark depicting a
Proprietor of the right to    The applicant                              mark concerned:               ‘caballo de bastos’ (mounted jack
the trade mark or sign                                                                                of clubs) — Registered trade mark
whose cancellation is                                                                                No 0000089961 for goods
sought:                                                                                within Class 16 (playing cards)
Applicant for cancel-         Société France Cartes
lation:                                                                  (See the information for Case T-160/02 Heraclio Fournier v
                                                                         OHIM)
Decision of the Cancel-       Application dismissed
lation Division:


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 6 April 1995 in Case C-439/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the French Cour de Cassation): Lloyd's Register of Shipping v. Société Campenon Bernard (Brussels Convention - Article 5 (5) - Dispute arising out of the operations of a branch)

text:
3 . 6 . 95             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 137/5
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                        classify the benefits in question in accordance with the
                       ( Second Chamber)                                    applicable national legislation, taking into account the
                                                                            rules relating to conflict of laws, since the Community
                         of 6 April 1995                                    rules are not relevant.
in Case C-325/93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal du Travail de Bruxelles ): Union Nationale des
         Mutualités Socialistes v. Aldo Del Grosso (M                 H OJ No C 211 , 5 . 8 . 1993 .
                                                                      ( 2 ) OJ No L 149 , 5 . 7 . 1971 , p . 2 .
(Cumulation of benefits — Interpretation of Regulation
                      (EEC) No 1408/71)
                          ( 95/C 137/09
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                                      of 6 April 1995
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                      in Case C-439/93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                      the French Cour de Cassation ): Lloyd's Register of Shipping
                                                                                v. Societe Campenon Bernard f1 )
In Case C-325/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                       (Brussels Convention — Article 5 (5) — Dispute arising out
of the EEC Treaty by the Tribunal du Travail de Bruxelles                               of the operations of a branch)
( Labour Court, Brussels ) for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                                ( 95/C 137/10 )
proceedings pending before that court between Union
Nationale des Mutualites Socialistes and Aldo Del Grosso,
with the Institut National d'Assurance Maladie-Invalidite,
intervener in the main proceedings, on the interpretation of                            (Language of the case: French)
Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on
the application of social security schemes to employed
persons and their families moving within the Community ( 2 )           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
— the Court ( Second Chamber ) composed of F. A.                                 published in the European Court Reports)
Schockweiler, President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini and
J. L. Murray ( Rapporteur ), Judges ; Advocate-General; W.
Van Gerven, Registrar, D. Louterman-Hubeau, has given a               In Case C-439/93 : reference to the Court pursuant to the
judgment on 6 April 19 95 , in which it rules :                       Protocol of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court
                                                                      of Justice of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on
                                                                      Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and
                                                                       Commercial Matters by the French Cour de Cassation
 1 . an invalidity benefit such as the Italian 'invalidity             ( Court of Cassation ) for a preliminary ruling in the
      pension ' is not an independent benefit within the               proceedings pending before that court between Lloyd 's
      meaning of Article 46 (1 ) of Council Regulation (EEC)           Register of Shipping and Societe Campenon Bernard, on the
      No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application ofsocial           interpretation of Article 5 ( 5 ) of the said Convention ( 2 ), as
      security schemes to employed persons and their families          amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the
      moving within the Community inasmuch as it is                    Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the
      calculated in accordance with the system ofaggregation          United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ( 3 )
      of insurance periods and apportionment of benefits;             — the Court, composed of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias,
                                                                       President, F. A. Schockweiler (Rapporteur ), P. J. G.
                                                                       Kapteyn, C. Gulmann ( Presidents of Chambers ), C. N.
 2 . Article 12 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 , cited             Kakouris, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, J. L. Murray, D. A. O.
      above, does not preclude the application of a national           Edward and J. -P. Puissochet, Judges; M. B. Elmer,
      rule against overlapping benefits where a migrant                Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, gave
      worker receives in a Member State benefits intended to           a judgment on 6 April 1995 , the operative part of which is as
                                                                       follows :
      compensate for loss of income as a result of incapacity
      for work due to sickness and in another Member State
      an invalidity benefit calculated by aggregating insurance
      periods and apportioning benefits, increased by a                The expression 'dispute arising out of the operations of a
      pension supplement intended to guarantee him the                 branch, agency or other establishment' in Article 5 (5) of the
      minimum national pension;                                        Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the
                                                                       Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial
                                                                       Matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978
                                                                       on the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and
 3 . for the purposes of applying national rules against the           the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
      overlapping of benefits it is for the national court to          does not presuppose that the undertakings in question
 ---pagebreak--- No C 137/6                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       3 . 6 . 95
entered into by the branch in the name of its parent body are                input VAT paid, even if the ultimate purpose of the
to be performed in the Contracting State in which the                        transaction is the carrying out of a taxable transaction.
branch is established.
                                                                             (') OJ No C 43 , 12 . 2 . 1994 .
(M OJ No C 338 , 15 . 12 . 1993 .                                            ( 2 ) OJ No 71 , 14 . 4 . 1967, p . 1301 .
( z ) OJ No L 229 , 7 . 10 . 1992 , p . 32 .                                 (>) OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 .
(-') O J No L 304 , 30 . 1 0 . 1 978 , p. 1 and — the amended version —
      P - 77.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( Sixth Chamber )
                                                                                of 6 April 1995
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                             in Case        C-147/94 : Commission of the            European
                             ( Fifth Chamber )                                            Communities v. Kingdom of Spain ( 1 )
                             of 6 April 1995                                 (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure
in Case C-4/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from the                                       to transpose a directive)
Queen 's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice ): BLP                                                ( 95/C 137/12 )
   Group pic v. Commissioners of Customs and Excise (')
 ( Value added tax — Interpretation ofArticle 2 ofDirective
67/22 7/EEC and Article 17(2) ofDirective 77/388/EEC —
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
Deduction of input tax on goods or services relating to
                         exempt transactions)                                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                               ( 95/C 137/ 11 )                                         published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             In Case C-147/94 : Commission of the European
                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                             Communities ( Agents : Dimitrios Gouloussis and F. Enrique
                                                                             Gonzalez Diaz ) against the Kingdom of Spain (Agents :
In Case C-4/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177 of                 Alberto Jose Navarro Gonzalez and Gloria Calvo Diaz ) —
the EC Treaty from the Queen 's Bench Division of the High                   application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt and
Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                 bring into force the laws , regulations or administrative
pending before that court between BLP Group pic and                          provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
Commissioners         of      Customs        and  Excise   —   on    the     90/61 8/EEC of 8 November 1990 amending, particularly as
interpretation of Article 2 of the First Council Directive                   regards motor vehicle liability insurance, Directive
                                                                             73/239/EEC and Directive 88 /357/EEC which concern the
67/227/EEC of 11 April 1967 on the harmonization of
legislation of Member States concerning turnover taxes ( 2 )                 coordination of laws , regulations and administrative
and Article 17 ( 2 ) of the Sixth Council Directive                          provisions relating to direct insurance other than life
77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the                        assurance (2 ) and by not informing the Commission thereof,
laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —                       the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations
Common system of value added tax : uniform basis of                          under the EC Treaty — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ),
assessment ( 3 ) — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of                  composed of F. A. Schockweiler, President of the Chamber,
C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de                      P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. N. Kakouris ( Rapporteur ) J. L. Murray
Almeida ( Rapporteur ) and D. A. O. Edward , Judges; C. O.                   and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; F. G. Jacobs,
Lenz , Advocate-General ; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the                 Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on
Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 April 1995 , in which it                6 April 1995 , the operative part of which is as follows :
rules :
                                                                             1 . by failing to adopt and bring into force within the
                                                                                prescribed period the laws, regulations or administrative
Article 2 of the First Council Directive 67/227/EEC of                             provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
11 April 1967 on the harmonization of legislation of                               90/618/EEC of 8 November 1990 amending,
Member States concerning turnover taxes and Article 17 of                          particularly as regards motor vehicle liability insurance,
the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on                           Directive    73 /239/EEC        and Directive 88/357/EEC
the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating                        which concern the coordination oflaws, regulations and
to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax:                              administrative provisions relating to direct insurance
uniform basis ofassessment, must be interpreted as meaning                         other than life assurance, the Kingdom of Spain has
that, except in the cases expressly provided for by those                          failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty;
Directives, where a taxable person supplies services to
another taxable person who uses them for an exempt
transaction, the latter person is not entitled to deduct the                 2 . the remainder of the application is dismissed;


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di Pescara - Sezione Distaccata di San Valentino in A.C. - by order of 15 December 1994 in the criminal proceedings against Anselmo Savini (Case C-224/95)

text:
No C 229/ 12             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      2 . 9 . 95
Question 4 :                                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
                                                                       Hamburg by order of 7 June 1995 in the case of A. Moksel
Is Article 12 ( 1 ) ( e ) in conjunction with Article 10 ( 1 ) of                  AG v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
Directive 69/335/EEC to be interpreted as meaning that the                                      Case C-223 /95
amount charged as consideration for a specific service —                                           95 /C 229/22 )
such as for example registration of the formation or increase
in capital of a public limited company or a private limited
company — is to be calculated on the basis of the actual cost          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
of the specific service — registration — or can the duty for           European Communities by an order of the Finanzgericht
the individual registration be fixed at for example a basic            ( Finance Court) Hamburg of 7 June 1995 , which was
charge together with 4 per mille of the nominal capital                received at the Court Registry on 27 June 1995 , for a
subscribed, so that the amount of the duty is independent of           preliminary ruling in the case of A. Moksel AG v.
the registration authority's time used and other costs                 Hauptzollamt ( Principal Customs Office ) Hamburg Jonas
necessary for effecting the registration ?                             on the following question :
                                                                       Is Article 8 ( 1 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 3665/87 ( ] ) in the
Question 5:
                                                                       version of 27 November 1987, as rectified on 8 December
                                                                       1988 , in conjunction with Article 9 ( 2 ) of the EC Treaty to
Is Article 12 ( 1 ) ( e ) in conjunction with Article 10 ( 1 ) of      be interpreted as meaning that those provisions also cover
Directive 69/335/EEC to be interpreted as meaning that the             products which were imported into the Federal Republic of
Member State in calculating any amount to be recovered                 Germany from the former German Democratic Republic in
must work on the basis that the duty must reflect the cost of          the period from 24 May to 22 June 1990 pursuant to an
the specific service at the time at which the service is               exceptional authorization for the processing of transit-trade
performed, or is the Member State entitled to make a                   goods and exported to a third country on 10 January
comprehensive assessment over a longer period, for example             1991 ?
an accounting year or within the period in which it will
be possible under national law to assert a claim for
                                                                       (') OJ No L 351 , 14 . 12 . 1987, p. 1 .
recovery ?
Question 6:
If national law contains a general principle that, in
determining claims for recovery of charges made without                Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura
the requisite authority, importance should be attached to              Circondariale di Pescara — Sezione Distaccata di San
the fact that the charge was made in pursuance of rules                Valentino in A.C. — by order of 15 December 1994 in the
which have been in force over a long period without either                     criminal proceedings against Anselmo Savini
the authorities or other parties having been aware that the                                    ( Case C-224/95
charge was unauthorized, will Community law preclude
dismissal on those grounds of an action for recovery of                                           ( 95/C 229/23 )
charges levied contrary to Directive 69/335/EEC ?
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
 Question 7:                                                           European Communities by an order of the Pretura
                                                                        Circondariale di Pescara — Sezione Distaccata di San
                                                                       Valentino in A.C. ( Magistrate's Court, Pescara; Separate
Does Community law make it impossible under national                    Division of San Valentino in AC ) of 15 December 1994,
law for the authorities of a Member State, in cases of claims          which was received at the Court Registry on 27 June 1995 ,
for recovery concerning charges made contrary to Directive              for a preliminary ruling in criminal proceedings against
 69/335/EEC , to contend and establish that national                    Anselmo Savini on the following questions :
 limitation periods start to run from a time at which
 an unlawful implementation of Directive 69/335/EEC
 occurred ?                                                             1 . Does EEC legislation provide for the exclusion from the
                                                                            definition of waste and the relevant rules relating to the
                                                                            protection of health ( and ) of the environment of
 Question 8:                                                                substances and objects which are capable of economic
                                                                            reutilization ?
 Does Article 10 ( 1 ) in conjunction with Article 12 ( 1 ) ( e ) of
 Directive 69/335/EEC as interpreted in the foregoing                   2 . Does the concept of waste arising out of Council
 questions result in rights on which citizens in the individual             Directive 156/91 /EEC of 18 March 1991 amending
 Member States may rely before the national courts ?                        Directive 75/442/EEC on waste (') and Council
                                                                            Directive     689/91 /EEC     of  12  December   1991     on
 (') OJ No L 249 , 3 . 10 . 1969 , p . 25 .                                 dangerous waste ( 2 ) and Council Regulation ( EEC )
                                                                            No 259/93 ( 3 ) cover any substance which the addressee
                                                                            disposes of, has decided to dispose of or is under a duty
                                                                            to dispose of, regardless of the fact that the substance to
 ---pagebreak--- 2. 9. 95              I EN |                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 229/13
      be reutilized may be the subject of a legal transaction or        Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
      quoted on public or private commercial lists ?                    Correctionnel, Liege, by judgment of that court of 7 June
                                                                        1995 in criminal proceedings against Bent Erik Carlsen, the
(!) OJ No L 78 , 26 . 3 . 1991 , p . 32 .                               civil party to the proceedings being Georges Vanhalle, in his
( 2 ) OJ No L 377, 31 . 12 . 1991 , p . 20 .                            capacity as President of the Association Pharmaceutique
( 3 ) OJ No L 30, 6 . 2 . 1993 , p . 1 .                                                                Beige
                                                                                Case C-231 /95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 229/26 )
References for a preliminary ruling by the Diikitiko                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Protodikio ( Administrative Court of First Instance ), Athens,          European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal
by a decision of that court of 30 March 1995 in the cases of            Correctionnel ( Criminal Court), Liege, of 7 June 1995 ,
A. Kapasakalis, D. Skiathitis and A. Kouyangas v. Greek                 which was received at the Court Registry on 5 July 1995 , for
                                  State
                                                                        a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings against Bent
          ( Cases C-225/95 , C-226/95 and C-227/95 )                    Erik Carlsen, the civil party to the proceedings being
                            ( 95/C 229/24 )                             Georges Vanhalle, in his capacity as President of the
                                                                        Association Pharmaceutique Beige, on the following
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  question :
European Communities by decisions of the Administrative
Court of First Instance, Athens, of 30 March 1995 , which               Do the pharmacists' statutory monopoly to supply sterile
were received at the Court Registry on 28 June 1995 , for               articles, and the correspondig prohibition forbidding
a preliminary ruling in the cases of A. Kapasakalis,                    distributors of such articles to sell them directly to doctors,
D. Skiathitis and A. Kouyangas v. Greek State on the                    dentists, veterinary surgeons and midwives or to scientific
following questions :                                                   establishments or hospitals — a prohibition not applying to
                                                                        such sales to private individuals — which are the result of
1 . Does the result to be achieved by Council Directive                 the application of Articles 1 and 44 of the Royal Decree of
      89/48/EEC ( ] ) entail the recognition of rights in favour        6 June 1960 in conjunction with Royal Decree No 78 of
      of the individuals to whom it relates ?                           10 November 1967, constitute a measure having equivalent
                                                                        effect to a quantitative restriction, contrary to Articles 30
2 . Is the content of those rights sufficiently precise to              and 36 of the Treaty of Rome of 25 March 1957 ?
      enable them to be deduced solely on the basis of the
      framework laid down in the provisions of that
      Directive ?
3 . Is there a causal link between the infringement of the
      obligation flowing from the provisions of Article 12 of           Action brought on 5 July 1995 by the Commission of the
      the Directive by the Greek State and the demage which                 European Communities against the French Republic
      the applicant claims to have suffered ?                                                   ( Case C-234/95 )
(') OJ No L 19 , 24 . 1 . 1989 , p . 16 .                                                          ( 95/C 229/27 )
                                                                        An action against the French Republic was brought before
                                                                        the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 July
                                                                        1995 by the Commission of the European Communities,
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht              represented by Hendrik van Lier, Legal Adviser, acting as
Wiesbaden by order of 18 April 1995 in the case of Simone               Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                   Moll v. Berhane Mesghena                             office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Center,
                          ( Case C-229/95 )                             Kirchberg.
                             ( 95/C 229/25 )
                                                                        The Commission claims that the Court should :
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Arbeitsgericht                   1 . declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
 ( Labour Court) Wiesbaden of 18 April 1995 which was                        administrative measures needed to comply with Council
received at the Court Registry on 3 July 1995 , for a                        Directive 92/50/EEC ( J ) relating to the coordination of
preliminary ruling in the case of Simone Moll v. Berhane                     procedures for the award of public service contracts, the
Mesghena on the following question :                                         French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                             that Directive, in particular Article 44 thereof;
 May a cleaning contract relating to specific premises
constitute a part of a business within the meaning of                   2 . in the alternative, declare that in any event, by failing
 Directive 77/187/EEC ( M ?                                                  forthwith to inform the Commission of such measures,
                                                                             the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
 (') OJ No L 61 , 5 . 3 . 1977, p . 26 .                                     under those same provisions;
                                                                         3.  order the French Republic to pay the costs .


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 17 June 1997 in Case C-70/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia): Sodemare SA, Anni Azzurri Holding SpA, Anni Azzurri Rezzato Srl, supported by Fédération des Maisons de Repos Privées de Belgique (Femarbel) ASBL v. Regione Lombardia (Freedom of establishment - Freedom to provide services - Old people's homes - Non-profit-making)

text:
16 . 8 . 97          I EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 252/5
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         ( Sixth Chamber)                                                     of 17 June 1997
                                                                      in Case C-70/95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
                         of 12 June 1997                              the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la
                                                                      Lombardia): Sodemare SA, Anni Azzurri Holding SpA,
in    Case C-138/96: Commission of the European
                                                                      Anni Azzurri Rezzato Srl, supported by Fédération des
       Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany (')
                                                                      Maisons de Repos Privées de Belgique (Femarbel) ASBL v.
(Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 92/116/EEC —                                    Regione Lombardia (')
       Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)             (Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services
                                                                              — Old people 's homes — Non-profit-making)
                           ( 97/C 252/08 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 252/09 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                 (Language of the case: German)
                                                                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
           published in the European Court Reports)                   In Case C-70/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                      of the EC Treaty from the Tribunale Amministrativo
                                                                      Regionale per la Lombardia (Administrative Court for the
                                                                      Lombardy Region ) ( Italy ) for a preliminary ruling in the
In Case C-138/96 : Commission of the European                         proceedings pending before that court between Sodemare
Communities ( Agent: Klaus-Dieter Borchardt) v. Federal               SA, Anni Azzurri Holding SpA, Anni Azzurri Rezzato Sri,
Republic of Germany ( Agents: Ernst Röder and Bernd                   supported by Federation des Maisons de Repos Privées de
Kloke ) — application for a declaration that, by failing to           Belgique (Femarbel ) ASBL and Regione Lombardia — on
adopt within the prescribed period the laws, regulations              the interpretation of Articles 3 (g), 5 , 52, 58 , 59, 85 , 86 ,
and administrative provisions necessary to comply with                90 and 190 of the EC Treaty — the Court, composed
Council Directive 92/116/EEC of 17 December 1992                      of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, G. F. Mancini,
amending and updating Directive 71/118/EEC on health                  J. C. Moitinho de Almeida and L. Sevón (Presidents
problems affecting trade in fresh poultrymeat ( OJ No L 62,           of Chambers ), C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G. Kapteyn
15 . 3 . 1993 , p. 1 ), the Federal Republic of Germany has           ( Rapporteur), C. Gulmann, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm, M.
failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive and the         Wathelet and R. Schintgen, Judges : N. Fennelly, Advocate
EC Treaty — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of:                 General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
G. F. Mancini, President of the Chamber, J. L. Murray,                given a judgment on 17 June 1997, in which it has ruled :
C. N. Kakouris ( Rapporteur ), P. J. G. Kapteyn and H.
Ragnemalm, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate                   1 . Community law, and Article 190 of the EC Treaty in
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on                      particular, does not lay down conditions concerning
12 June 1997, in which it:                                                 the statement of reasons for national rules of general
                                                                           scope which fall within the sphere of Community law.
1 . declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed          2 . Articles 52 and 58 of the EC Treaty do not preclude a
      period the laws, regulations and administrative                      Member State from allowing only non-profit-making
      provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive                private operators to participate in the running of its
      92/116/EEC of 17 December 1992 amending and                          social welfare system by concluding contracts which
      updating Directive 71 /118/EEC on health problems                    entitle them to be reimbursed by the public authorities
      affecting trade in fresh poultrymeat, the Federal                    for the costs of providing social welfare services of a
      Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations             health-care nature.
      under that Directive;
                                                                       3 . Article 59 of the EC Treaty does not cover the
                                                                           situation of a company which, having established itself
                                                                           in a Member State in order to run old people 's homes
2 . orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the                      there, provides services to residents who, for that
      costs.
                                                                           purpose, reside in those homes permanently or for an
                                                                           indefinite period.
 (') OJ No C 180, 22 . 6 . 1996 .
                                                                       4 . Articles 85 and 86, read in conjunction with
                                                                           Articles 3 (g), 5 and 90 of the EC Treaty, do not apply
                                                                           to national rules which allow only non-profit-making
                                                                           private operators to participate in the running of a
 ---pagebreak--- No C 252/6            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     16 . 8 . 97
     social welfare system by concluding contracts which              (EEC) No 2658/87, must be interpreted as including
     entitle them to be reimbursed by the public authorities          grated cheese which, when imported, is, by reason of the
     for the costs of providing social welfare services of a          method of packaging and preservation used, in an
     health-care nature.                                              agglomerated form and, after unpacking and exposure to
                                                                      the surrounding air, breaks down into irregular granules.
O OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 .
                                                                      H OJ No C 189, 22 . 7. 1995 .
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       ( Fourth Chamber)                                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         of 17 June 1997                                                     (First Chamber)
in Case C-164/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling made                                    of 17 June 1997
by the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo ): Fábrica de                  in Case C-105/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling made
Queijo Eru Portuguesa Ld® v. Alfândega de Lisboa                      by the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo): Codiesel —
       (Tribunal Técnico Aduaneiro de 23. Instância) (')              Sociedade de Apoio Técnico à Indústria Ld? v. Conselho
(Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification —                      Técnico Aduaneiro; also represented: Ministério
                          Grated cheese)                                                         Público H
                          ( 97/C 252/ 10 )                            (Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Electrical
                                                                      apparatus constituting an 'uninterruptible power supply'
                                                                      — Classification in the nomenclature of the Common
               (Language of the case: Portuguese)                                             Customs Tariff)
                                                                                ( 97/C 252/ 11 )
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
           published in the European Court Reports)                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
In Case C- 164/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty by the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
( Supreme Administrative Court) for a preliminary ruling                       published in the European Court Reports)
in the proceedings pending before that court between
Fabrica de Queijo Eru Portuguesa Ld? and Alfandega de
Lisboa ( Tribunal Tecnico Aduaneiro de 2*. Instancia )                In Case C-105/96 : reference to the Court under Article 177
( Lisbon Customs Authority ( Specialized Customs Court of             of the EC Treaty by the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo
Second Instance )) — on the interpretation of subheadings             ( Supreme Administrative Court) for a preliminary ruling
0406 20 90 and 0406 90 11 of Council Regulation ( EEC )               in the proceedings pending before that court between
No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical              Codiesel — Sociedade de Apoio Tecnico a Industria Ld?
nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff ( OJ No                 and Conselho Tecnico Aduaneiro ( Customs Examination
L 256 , 7. 9 . 1987, p. 1 ), as amended by Commission                 Board ); also represented: Ministerio Publico — on the
Regulation ( EEC ) No 3174/88 of 21 September 1988                    interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC ) No 950/68 of
amending Annex I to Regulation ( EEC ) No 2658/87 ( OJ                28 June 1968 on the Common Customs Tariff ( OJ,
No L 298 , 31 . 10 . 1988 , p. 1 ) and by Commission                  English Special Edition 1968 ( I ), p. 275 ), as amended by
Regulation ( EEC ) No 316/91 of 7 February 1991                       Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3331 /85 of 5 December
concerning the classification of certain goods in the                  1985 ( OJ No L 331 , 9 . 12 . 1985 , p. 1 ) — the Court ( First
combined nomenclature ( OJ No L 37, 9 . 2 . 1991 , p. 25 )            Chamber ), composed of: L. Sevon, President of the
— the Court ( Fourth Chamber ), composed of: J. L.                    Chamber, D. A. O. Edward ( Rapporteur) and P. Jann,
Murray, President of the Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn and                Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate-General; R. Grass,
H. Ragnemalm ( Rapporteur), Judges; G. Cosmas,                        Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 June 1997, the
Advocate-General : H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for             operative part of which is as follows:
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 June 1997, the
operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                       Council Regulation (EEC) No 950/68 of 28 June 1968 on
                                                                       the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Council
Subheading 0406 20 90 of Council Regulation (EEC)                      Regulation (EEC) No 3331 /85 of 5 December 1985, must
No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical               be interpreted as meaning that an electrical apparatus
nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as                      which is an 'uninterruptible power supply ' consisting, on
amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3174/88                      the one hand, of a cabinet containing a rectifier/charger,
 of 21 September 1988 amending Annex I to Regulation                  an inverter and a static bypass switch and, on the other, of


25.11.2000            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 335/41
       Removal from the register of Case C-265/98 (1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-268/98 (1)
                       (2000/C 335/72)                                                      (2000/C 335/75)
By order of 12 July 2000 the President of the Court of Justice       By order of 12 July 2000 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-265/98 (reference for a preliminary           the register of Case C-268/98 (reference for a preliminary
ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 35 de                ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 35 de
Barcelona): Salvat Editores SA v José Compañ Calbuig.               Barcelona): Planeta Océano Grupo Editorial SA v Marı́a Casas
                                                                     Minguélez.
(1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.
       Removal from the register of Case C-266/98 (1)
                       (2000/C 335/73)                                      Removal from the register of Case C-269/98 (1)
By order of 12 July 2000 the President of the Court of Justice                              (2000/C 335/76)
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-266/98 (reference for a preliminary           By order of 12 July 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 35 de                of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
Barcelona): Salvat Editores SA v Gianfranco Caminati.                the register of Case C-269/98 (reference for a preliminary
                                                                     ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 35 de
(1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.                                            Barcelona): Planeta Crédito SA v Antonio Villar Castelao.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.
       Removal from the register of Case C-267/98 (1)
                       (2000/C 335/74)
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-270/98 (1)
By order of 12 July 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from                                    (2000/C 335/77)
the register of Case C-267/98 (reference for a preliminary
ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 35 de                By order of 12 July 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
Barcelona): Planeta Océano Grupo Editorial SA v Rafael Bogas         of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
Cardeñosa.                                                          the register of Case C-270/98 (reference for a preliminary
                                                                     ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 35 de
(1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.                                            Barcelona): Salvat Artel SA v Pilar López Aznar.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.


title: Case T-341/05: Action brought on 8 September 2005 — Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               29.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 271/25

         Action brought on 8 September 2005 — Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-341/05)
   (2005/C 271/49)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: J.M. Rodríguez Cárcamo, abogado del Estado)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the inclusion of Ceuta and Melilla in the L01 category in the Annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 909/2005 of 16 June 2005 fixing the export refunds on milk and milk products;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   This action is brought against Commission Regulation (EC) No 909/2005 of 16 June 2005 fixing the export refunds on milk and milk products, (1) in so far as it excludes Ceuta and Melilla as destinations qualifying for export refunds for milk products in general. The objective of such an exclusion is to put an end to certain unlawful commercial transactions consisting in exporting certain products to those two destinations and collecting the relevant refund, before processing the products and re-importing them into Community territory without paying any customs duties.
   In support of its claims, the Kingdom of Spain invokes:

               —

               infringement of Article 31(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products, (2) either because there is no justification for the contested measure in any of the reasons stated in Article 31 or, in the alternative, because the measure is based on facts which have not been proved.

               —

               infringement of Article 31(2) of that regulation on the ground that account has not been taken of the nature of the product. It is stated in that regard that, even supposing that the elimination of fraud could justify the abolition of refunds for a specific destination, the measure was adopted with account being taken only of the destination of the export, affecting without distinction all products whose export to Ceuta and Melilla was eligible for a refund. It is also claimed that there is an infringement of the same provision on account of the discrimination between producers to which the contested measure is said to give rise.

               —

               infringement of the principle of non-discrimination.

               —

               misuse of powers.

      (1)  OJ L 154 of 17.6.2005, p. 10.

      (2)  OJ L 160 of 26.6.1999, p. 48.