title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) 14 May 2002 in Case C-383/00: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 96/82/EC — Failure to implement within the prescribed period)

text:
13.7.2002                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 169/9
market (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 13) and in that resulting from                     ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Council Directive 91/497/EEC of 29 July 1991 amending and                    Prefetto Provincia di Cuneo and Silvano Carbone, in his
consolidating Directive 64/433 to extend it to the production                capacity as sole director of the company Expo Casa Manta Srl,
and marketing of fresh meat (OJ 1991 L 268, p. 69), the Court                on the interpretation of Council Regulation (EC) No 519/94
(Second Chamber), composed of: N. Colneric, President of the                 of 7 March 1994 on common rules for imports from certain
Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and V. Skouris, Judges;                   third countries and repealing Regulations (EEC) Nos 1765/82,
P. Léger, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Administrator, for                 1766/82 and 3420/83 (OJ 1994 L 67, p. 89) and Council
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 May 2002, in which                 Regulation (EC) No 3285/94 of 22 December 1994 on the
it has ruled:                                                                common rules for imports and repealing Regulation (EC)
                                                                             No 518/94 (OJ 1994 L 349, p. 53), the Court (Second
Costs of bacteriological examinations and examinations for trichinae         Chamber), composed of: N. Colneric (Rapporteur), President
carried out in accordance with Council Directive 64/433/EEC of               of the Chamber, R. Schintgen and V. Skouris, Judges; L.A. Geel-
26 June 1964 on health problems affecting intra-Community trade              hoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
in fresh meat, both in the version resulting from Council Directive          judgment on 30 May 2002, in which it has ruled:
89/662/EEC of 11 December 1989 concerning veterinary checks in
intra-Community trade with a view to the completion of the internal          Council Regulation (EC) No 519/94 of 7 March 1994 on
market and in that resulting from Council Directive 91/497/EEC of            common rules for imports from certain third countries and repealing
29 July 1991 amending and consolidating Directive 64/433 to                  Regulations (EEC) Nos 1765/82, 1766/82 and 3420/83 and
extend it to the production and marketing of fresh meat, are covered         Council Regulation (EC) No 3285/94 of 22 December 1994 on
by the Community fee levied by the Member States for health                  common rules for imports and repealing Regulation (EC) No 518/
inspections and controls in respect of fresh meat pursuant to, first,        94 do not affect a Member State’s rules as regards the placing on the
Council Directive 85/73/EEC of 29 January 1985 on the financing              market of products imported from third countries.
of health inspections and controls of fresh meat and poultrymeat and
Council Decision 88/408/EEC of 15 June 1988 on the levels of the
fees to be charged for health inspections and controls of fresh meat         (1) OJ C 302 of 21.10.2000.
pursuant to Directive 85/73 and, secondly, Directive 85/73 as
amended by Council Directive 93/118/EC of 22 December 1993.
(1) OJ C 302 of 21.10.2000.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Second Chamber)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                                  14 May 2002
                         (Second Chamber)                                    in Case C-383/00: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Federal Republic of Germany(1)
                             30 May 2002
                                                                             (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
in Case C-296/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                    Directive 96/82/EC — Failure to implement within the
the Corte suprema di cassazione): Prefetto Provincia di                                               prescribed period)
                   Cuneo v Silvano Carbone (1)
                                                                                (2002/C 169/15)
(Regulations (EC) Nos 519/94 and 3285/94 — Scope —
Placing on the market of cordless telephones coming from
                            third countries)                                                    (Language of the case: German)
                           (2002/C 169/14)                                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                     (Language of the case: Italian)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       In Case C-383/00, Commission of the European Communities
                    in the European Court Reports)                           (Agent: G. zur Hausen) v Federal Republic of Germany (Agents:
                                                                             W.-D. Plessing and B. Muttelsee-Schön): Application for a
                                                                             declaration that, by failing to take, within the prescribed
                                                                             period, all the measures necessary to comply with Council
In Case C-296/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234                   Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of
EC by the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) for a preliminary              major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances
 ---pagebreak--- C 169/10                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                          13.7.2002
(OJ 1997 L 10, p. 13) and, in particular, Article 11 thereof, the           composed of: N. Colneric, President of the Chamber,
Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations            R. Schintgen and V. Skouris (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs,
under the EC Treaty, the Court (Second Chamber), composed                   Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
of: N. Colneric, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen                     on 16 May 2002, in which it has ruled:
(Rapporteur) and V. Skouris, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment                 The words ‘producers ... who have received the holding through ...
on 14 May 2002, in which it:                                                similar means’ in the second indent of the second subparagraph of
                                                                            Article 3a(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 March
1.    Declares that, by failing to take, within the prescribed period,      1984 adopting general rules for the application of the levy referred
      all the measures necessary to comply with Council Directive 96/       to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and
      82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident             milk products sector, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC)
      hazards involving dangerous substances, the Federal Republic          No 1639/91 of 13 June 1991, must be interpreted as meaning that
      of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that            they refer to a producer who is the spouse of the designated heir and
      directive;                                                            to whom the holding has been let on conditions more favourable than
                                                                            market conditions, following the expiry of the non-marketing
2.    Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.              undertaking entered into by the lessor (the deviser) under Council
                                                                            Regulation (EEC) No 1078/77 of 17 May 1977 introducing a
(1) OJ C 372 of 23.12.2000.                                                 system of premiums for the non-marketing of milk and milk products
                                                                            and for the conversion of dairy herds, provided that it follows from
                                                                            all the elements of fact and of law which characterise the letting that:
                                                                            —     the main intention of the arrangement is that the holding
                                                                                should continue to be exploited for the benefit of the designated
                                                                                heir and not that the market value of the holding should be
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                            realised by the deviser, and that
                        (Second Chamber)                                    —     the terms of the legal relations between the parties to the
                                                                                contract are such that the advantage which the deviser intends
                            16 May 2002                                           to confer on his heir is guaranteed in the long term, even if the
                                                                                spouses should separate or the marriage be dissolved.
in Case C-384/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Niedersächsisches Oberverwaltungsgericht): Heinrich                     (1) OJ C 372 of 23.12.2000.
    Bredemeier v Landwirtschaftskammer Hannover (1)
(Common agricultural policy — Milk quota scheme — Grant
of a special reference quantity — Beneficiaries — Producers
who take over a holding by similar means to inheritance
after the expiry of the non-marketing undertaking entered
into by their predecessors — Interpretation of Article 3a of
Regulation (EEC) No 857/84, as amended by Regulation                                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        (EEC) No 1639/91)
                                                                                (First Chamber)
                          (2002/C 169/16)
                                                                                30 May 2002
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                            in Case C-441/00: Commission of the European Communi-
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      ties v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
                   in the European Court Reports)                                                          Ireland (1)
                                                                            (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
In Case C-384/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234                  Directive 96/48/EC — Interoperability of the trans-Euro-
EC by the Niedersächsisches Oberverwaltungsgericht (Ger-                                       pean high-speed rail system)
many) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Heinrich Bredemeier and Landwirts-
chaftskammer Hannover, joined parties: Wilhelm Wieggrebe                                              (2002/C 169/17)
and Irmtraut Bredemeier, on the interpretation of Article 3a(1)
of Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984                                          (Language of the case: English)
adopting general rules for the application of the levy referred
to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and
milk products sector (OJ 1984 L 90, p. 13), as amended by
Council Regulation (EEC) No 1639/91 of 13 June 1991                         In Case C-441/00, Commission of the European Communities
(OJ 1991 L 150, p. 35), the Court (Second Chamber),                         (Agent: M. Wolfcarius) v United Kingdom of Great Britain and


title: Case C-92/04: Action brought on 24 February 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/28

         Action brought on 24 February 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
   (Case C-92/04)
   (2004/C 94/60)
   An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 February 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by C. Cattabriga, acting as Agent.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2001/102/EC (1) of 27 November 2001 amending Directive 1999/29/EC (2) on the undesirable substances and products in animal nutrition, or by not communicating those provisions to the Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) of that directive;

               —

               Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The time-limit for the transposition of the directive expired on 1 July 2002.

      (1)  OJ 2002 L 6 of 10.01.2002, p. 45.

      (2)  OJ 1999 L 115 of 4.5.1999, p. 32.


title: Action brought on 17 December 1998 by Gisela Stodtmeister against Council of the European Union (Case T-200/98)

text:
27.3.1999              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 86/21
Ð the Commission has erroneously disregarded the                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     applicants' immunity from fines in respect of the
     alleged restrictions on the availability and contents of
     service contracts;                                              In this application, the applicant, an official in Grade A 4,
                                                                     step 8, assigned to DG C2 of the Secretariat General of
                                                                     the Council, is seeking compensation for the loss suffered
Ð the Commission has failed to apply a rational and                  as a result of the numerous erros committed by the
     coherent methodology to its calculation of the fines,           defendant which left her without a post for a long period
     contrary to fundamental principles of Community law;            in her career and committed errors and faults in drawing
                                                                     up her Staff Report for the period 1993 to 1995.
Ð the Commission's assessment of the gravity and
     duration of the alleged infringements is flawed;
                                                                     According to the applicant, the defendant discriminated
                                                                     against her with regard to colleagues who were in
Ð the Commission has failed to take into account the                 situations identical to, or even less favourable than, her
     individual positions of each applicant and various              own (and were promoted), thus adversely affecting the
     mitigating factors.                                             proper progress of her career and, in particular, the
                                                                     promotion she was entitled to expect by virtue both of her
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4056/86 of 22 December 1986          ability and her length of service. The defendant also
    laying down detailed rules for the application of Articles 85    disregarded the principles governing the Council Decision
    and 86 of the Treaty to maritime transport (OJ L 378,            of 18 October 1981 laying down the general provisions
    31.12.1986, p. 4).                                               for implementation of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations
                                                                     of Officials concerning Staff Reports.
                                                                     The harm suffered by the applicant results both from the
                                                                     absence of her 1993 to 1995 Staff Report at the time of
                                                                     the 1996 promotion procedure, and from the adverse
Action brought on 17 December 1998 by Gisela                         effect on her career progress, in particular the fact that she
    Stodtmeister against Council of the European Union               was not promoted.
                        (Case T-200/98)
                         (1999/C 86/40)
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     Action brought on 24 December 1998 by Lea
An action against the Council of the European Union was              Tessaro-Treibenreif against the Commission of the
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European                              European Communities
Communities on 17 December 1998 by Gisela
Stodtmeister, residing in Tervuren (Belgium), represented                                   (Case T-210/98)
by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of the Brussels
                                                                                (1999/C 86/41)
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Offices of the Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de
Cessange.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                     An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
Ð award her compensation for her loss, in the sum of                 Instance of the European Communities on 24 December
     BEF 500 000, resulting from the absence of her Staff            1998 by Lea Tessaro-Treibenreif, residing in Luxembourg,
     Report for the period 1993 to 1995, on the occasion             represented by Carlo Revoldini, of the Luxembourg Bar,
     of the 1996 promotion procedure;                                with an address for service in Luxembourg at 180 Route
                                                                     de Longwy.
Ð award her a sum, by way of damages, equivalent to
     the difference in her salary between Grade A 3, to
     which she could legitimately have hoped to have been            The applicant claims that the Court should:
     appointed in January 1996, and Grade A 4, step 8,
     which she currently holds, and restoration of her
     career path together with the financial implications            Ð annul the decision of the European Commission
     thereof;                                                            suspending with retroactive effect from 1 January
                                                                         1997 the double dependent child allowance paid to
                                                                         the applicant pursuant to Article 67(3) of the Staff
Ð order the Council to pay all the costs.                                Regulations of Officials until June 1998;


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Helsingborgs Tingsrätt by order of that court of 28 April 1997 in the case of Public Prosecutor v. Gunnar Nilsson, Per Olov Hagelgren and Solweig Arrborn (Case C-162/97)

text:
14 . 6 . 97               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 181 /9
       Spain during the calculation period preceding                       reasoned opinion, the Commission has decided to bring
       materialization of the risk provided for on a general               the matter before the Court .
       basis by Spanish legislation ?
                                                                           (') OJ No L 216 , 12 . 9 . 1995 , p . 8 .
H OJ No L 149 , 5 . 7. 1971 , p . 2 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 136 , 19 . 5 . 1992 , p. 7.
                                                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Helsingborgs
                                                                           Tingsratt by order of that court of 28 April 1997 in the
Action brought on 23 April 1997 by the Commission of                       case of Public Prosecutor v. Gunnar Nilsson, Per Olov
the European Communities against the Kingdom of                                              Hagelgren and Solweig Arrborn
                                 Belgium                                                             ( Case C-162/97 )
                             Case C-155/97 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 181 / 17 )
                             ( 97/C 181 / 16 )
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                       European Communities by an order of the Helsingborgs
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                    Tingsratt ( District Court, Helsingborg ) of 28 April 1997,
on 23 April 1997 by the Commission of the European                         which was received at the Court Registry on 30 April
Communities, represented by Wouter Wils, of its Legal                      1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Public
Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in                   Prosecutor v. Gunnar Nilsson, Per Olov Hagelgren and
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,                       Solweig Arrborn on the following questions :
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                           1 . Do Article 30 of the EC Treaty and Directive 87/328/
The Commission of the European Communities claims                               EEC (') allow a national authority to scrutinize, for
that the Court should :
                                                                                authorization purposes, insemination operations using
                                                                                cattle sperm, that is to say the gathering of sperm,
— declare that,                                                                 handling and distribution of sperm and insemination ,
                                                                                in the way indicated above ?
      — by failing to bring to an end the infringement
           described    in Article      1  of the  abovementioned          2 . Do Article 30 of the Treaty of Rome and Directive 87/
           decision within the prescribed period, and                           328/EEC allow a Member State to prohibit, or lay
                                                                                down conditions for, insemination and breeding of
                                                                                cattle :
      — in the alternative, in any event, by failing to
           inform the Commission within the prescribed
           period of the measures adopted to that end,                          ( a ) for a purpose which, according to a national
                                                                                authority, can entail suffering for animals or affect
                                                                                their natural behaviour ?
      the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
       obligations under Article 2 of the Commission's
       decision of 28 June 1995 (') relating to a proceeding                    ( b ) using a certain breed which is regarded by a
       pursuant to Article 90 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty;                                 national authority as having genetic defects ?
— order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .                          3 . ( a ) Does interpretation of the preamble to Directive
                                                                                87/328/EEC allow national exceptions from
                                                                                approval for artificial insemination in its territory
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                   as far as concerns animals with an undesirable
                                                                                pedigree — even where those exceptions entail a
                                                                                prohibition in relation to animals which fulfil the
The Commission's decision of 28 June 1995 referred to in                              requirements laid down in Article 2 of the
the applicant's submissions requires the Kingdom of                                   Directive ?
Belgium to take the measures necessary to bring to an end
the system of discounts on landing fees at Brussels
National Airport ( Zaventem ) which infringes Article 90                        ( b ) If so, can the individual Member State be left to
( 1 ) of the Treaty, read in conjunction with Article 86                              define 'impairment of the pedigree' and 'hereditary
thereof.                                                                              defects '?
                                                                           (') OJ No L 167, 26 . 6 . 1987, p . 54 .
Since it has received no information from the Belgian
Government regarding the adoption of measures bringing
the infringement to an end within the time-limit set by the


title: Case C-83/02: Action brought on 12 March 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
C 118/18               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     18.5.2002
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsger-              The Commission claims that the Court should:
icht Sigmaringen by order of that Court of 10 December
2001 in the case of Ms Erika Steinicke against Bundesan-               —     declare that, by failing to adopt and to communicate
                          stalt für Arbeit                                   to the Commission within the time-limit laid down
                                                                             (16 September 1999) the plans, outlines and summaries
                                                                             required under Articles 11 and 4(1) of Council Directive
                          (Case C-77/02)                                     96/59/EC (1) of 16 September 1996 on the disposal of
                                                                             polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated ter-
                                                                             phenyls (PCB/PCT), the Hellenic Republic has failed to
                         (2002/C 118/28)                                     fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty;
                                                                       —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht                Pleas in law and main arguments
Sigmaringen (Administrative Court, Sigmaringen) of
10 December 2001, received at the Court Registry on 7 March
2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ms Erika Steinicke       In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 EC,
against Bundesanstalt für Arbeit on the following question:            directives are binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
                                                                       each Member State to which they are addressed.
Do Articles 141 of the EC Treaty, Directives 75/117/EEC (1),
76/207/EEC (2) and/or Directive 97/81/EC (3) preclude the rule         Under the first paragraph of Article 10 EC, Member States are
in Paragraph 72(b)(1)(1)(2) of the Bundesbeamtengesetz (Law            to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular,
on public servants), in the 3 March 1999 version that was in           to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty
force until 30 June 2000, to the effect that part-time status on       or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the
grounds of old age may be accorded only to public servants             Community.
who have worked full-time for a total of at least three of the
five years preceding their conversion to such part-time status,
if significantly more women than men work part-time, and               It is not disputed by the Hellenic Republic that it must adopt
are consequently excluded under that provision from being              measures to comply with the abovementioned directive.
accorded part-time status on grounds of old age?
                                                                       The Commission records that until now the Hellenic Republic
                                                                       has not adopted the appropriate measures for the full incorpor-
(1) OJ L 45, p. 19.                                                    ation of the directive at issue into Greek law.
(2) OJ L 39, p. 40.
(3) OJ 1998 L 14, p. 9.
                                                                       (1) OJ L 243, 24.9.1996, p. 31.
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by De Arbeidsrecht-
                                                                       bank van het Arrondissement Tongeren by order of that
Action brought on 12 March 2002 by the Commission of                   Court of 11 March 2002 in the case of Nina Kristiansen
the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic                         against Rijksdienst voor Arbeidsvoorziening
                                                                                (Case C-92/02)
                          (Case C-83/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 118/30)
                         (2002/C 118/29)
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by order of De Arbeidsrechtbank
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before             van het Arrondissement Tongeren (Tongeren District Labour
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 12 March           Court) of 11 March 2002, received at the Court Registry on
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,                    15 March 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Nina
represented by Hans Stovlbaek and Minas Konstantinidis, Legal          Kristiansen against Rijksdienst voor Arbeidsvoorziening on
Advisers.                                                              the following questions:


title: Judgment of the Court of 12 May 2000 in Case C-388/95: Kingdom of Belgium v Kingdom of Spain (Article 34 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 29 EC) — Regulation (EEC) No 823/87 — Quality wines produced in a specified region — Designations of origin — Obligation to bottle in the region of production — Justification — Consequences of an earlier judgment giving a preliminary ruling — Article 5 of the EC Treaty (now Article 10 EC))

text:
C 211/4                  EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      22.7.2000
1. Declares that, by maintaining in force the combined provisions            declaration that by maintaining in force Real Decreto
     of Article L. 310-8 and Article A. 310-1 of the Insurance Code,         157/1988, por el que se establece la normativa a que deben
     which provide that insurance or capitalisation undertakings             ajustarse las denominaciones de origen y las denominaciones
     which market for the first time in France a standard form contract      de origen calificadas de vinos y sus respectivos Reglamentos
     of insurance must systematically send the Minister for Economic         (Royal Decree No 157/88 laying down the rules governing
     and Financial Affairs an information sheet containing infor-            designations of origin and controlled designations of origin
     mation on the general conditions of insurance policies, the French      for wines and regulations implementing it, BOE No 47 of
     Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 6, 29      24 February 1988, p. 5864)) and in particular Article 19(1)(b)
     and 39 of Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the            thereof, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations
     coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions         under Article 34 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
     relating to direct insurance other than life assurance and              Article 29 EC), as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the
     amending Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (third non-               European Communities in its judgment of 9 June 1992 in
     life insurance directive) and Articles 5, 29 and 39 of Council          Case C-47/90 Delhaize v Promalvin [1992] ECR I-3669, and
     Directive 92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992 on the coordi-                  Article 5 of the EC Treaty (now Article 10 EC — the Court,
     nation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating      composed of G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho
     to direct life assurance and amending Directives 79/267/EEC             de Almeida, D.A.O. Edward, L. Sevón, R. Schintgen (Presidents
     and 90/619/EEC (third life assurance directive);                        of Chambers), C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet,
                                                                             G. Hirsch, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet, Judges,
2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.                              Advocate General: A. Saggio, D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal
                                                                             Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 16 May
                                                                             2000, in which it:
(1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.
                                                                             1. Dismisses the action;
                                                                             2. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium and the Kingdom of Spain to
                                                                                bear their own costs;
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                             3. Orders the Kingdom of Denmark, the Italian        Republic, the
                                                                                Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Portuguese       Republic, the
                           of 12 May 2000
                                                                                Republic of Finland, the United Kingdom of       Great Britain
                                                                                and Northern Ireland and the Commission of       the European
in Case C-388/95: Kingdom of Belgium v Kingdom of                                Communities to bear their own costs.
                                Spain (1)
(Article 34 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
                                                                             (1) OJ C 46 of 14.2.1996.
Article 29 EC) — Regulation (EEC) No 823/87 — Quality
wines produced in a specified region — Designations of
origin — Obligation to bottle in the region of production —
Justification — Consequences of an earlier judgment giving
a preliminary ruling — Article 5 of the EC Treaty (now
                            Article 10 EC))
                           (2000/C 211/06)
                     (Language of the case: Spanish)                         Action brought on 21 February 2000 by the Commission
                                                                             of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
(Provisional translation: the definitive translation will be published
                in the Reports of Cases before the Court)                                               (Case C-54/00)
In Case C-388/95, Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: J. Devadder),
supported by Kingdom of Denmark (Agent: P. Biering), the                                               (2000/C 211/07)
Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents: M. Fierstra and J. van
den Oosterkamp), the Republic of Finland (Agents: H. Rotkirch,
T. Pynna and K. Castrén) and by the United Kingdom of Great                  An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: S. Ridley, assisted by                  Court of Justice of the European Communities on 21 February
E. Sharpston), v Kingdom of Spain (R. Silva de la Puerta),                   2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
supported by the Italian Republic (Agent: Professor U. Leanza,               represented by Richard Wainwright, of its Legal Service, and
assisted by I. M. Braguglia), the Portuguese Republic (Agents:               Giacinto Bisogni, appeal court judge on secondment to the
L. Fernandes, Â. Cortesão Seiça Neves and L. Bigotte Chorão)              Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
and the Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                      Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner
J.L. Iglesias Buhigues and H. van Lier) — application for a                  Centre, Kirchberg.


title: Case C-112/05: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 23 October 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 56 EC — Legislative provisions concerning the public limited company Volkswagen)

text:
               22.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/5

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 23 October 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-112/05) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 56 EC - Legislative provisions concerning the public limited company Volkswagen)
   (2007/C 315/08)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Benyon and G. Braun, Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and A. Dittrich, Agents, assisted by H. Wissel, Lawyer)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 43 EC and 56 EC — Conditions for the privatisation of Volkswagenwerk GmbH — Allocation of special rights to certain shareholders — Mandatory State representation on the supervisory board of the company, irrespective of the numbers of shares held
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1)

               Declares that, by maintaining in force Paragraph 4(1), as well as Paragraph 2(1) in conjunction with Paragraph 4(3), of the Law of 21 July 1960 on the privatisation of equity in the Volkswagenwerk limited company (Gesetz über die Überführung der Anteilsrechte an der Volkswagenwerk Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung in private Hand), in the version applicable to the present dispute, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56(1) EC;

               2)

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3)

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 143, 11.6.2005.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 14 May 1998 in Case T-165/95: Arnaldo Lucaccioni v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Action for damages - Occupational disease - Damage - Taking into account benefits received under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations - Duration of the procedure for recognising an occupational disease - Fault)

text:
4.7.98                EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 209/37
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        of 14 May 1998                                                   of 14 May 1998
in Case T-352/94: Mo och Domsjö AB v. Commission of                in Case T-165/95: Arnaldo Lucaccioni v. Commission of
                the European Communities (1)                                      the European Communities (1)
(Competition Ð Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty Ð                    (Officials Ð Action for damages Ð Occupational disease
Liability for unlawful conduct Ð Relevant product market           Ð Damage Ð Taking into account benefits received under
Ð Information exchange Ð Order Ð Fine Ð                            Article 73 of the Staff Regulations Ð Duration of the
Determination of the amount Ð Statement of reasons Ð               procedure for recognising an occupational disease Ð
                   Mitigating circumstances)                                                   Fault)
                         (98/C 209/77)
                                                                                (98/C 209/78)
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-352/94: Mo och Domsjö AB, established at
Örnsköldsvik, Sweden, represented by Antony Woodgate,
Martin Smith and Vincent Smith, Solicitors, London, with           In Case T-165/95: Arnaldo Lucaccioni, a former official of
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of            the Commission of the European Communities, residing in
Arendt & Medernach, 8Ð10 Rue Mathias Hardt v.                      Paris, represented by Georges Vandersanden, Laure Levi
Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                    and Olivier Eben, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
Richard Lyal and Rosemary Caudwell) Ð application for              service in Luxembourg at the office of Fiduciaire Myson
annulment of Commission Decision 94/601/EC of 13 July              SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange, v. Commission of the
1994 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC           European Communities (Agents: Julian Currall and Jean-
Treaty (IV/C/33.833 Ð Cartonboard, OJ L 243 of                     Luc Fagnart) Ð application for compensation for the
19.9.1994, p. 1) Ð the Court (Third Chamber, Extended              material and non-material damage allegedly suffered by
Composition), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President of the          the applicant as a result of the disease affecting him and
Chamber, C. P. BrieÈt, P. Lindh, A. Potocki and J. D.              for the award of compensatory interest on the capital sum
Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for the        paid under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations of officials
Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 May 1998 in which            of the European Communities Ð the Court of First
it:                                                                Instance    (Second      Chamber),    composed     of:  A.
                                                                   Kalogeropoulos, President, and C. W. Bellamy and J.
1. Annuls, as regards the applicant, the first to fourth           Pirrung, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar,
    paragraphs of Article 2 of Commission Decision 94/             has given a judgment on 14 May 1998, in which it:
    601/EC of 13 July 1994 relating to a proceeding under
    Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/C/33.833 Ð
                                                                   1. Dismisses the action.
    Cartonboard) save and except for the following
    passages:
                                                                   2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
    The undertakings named in Article 1 shall forthwith
    bring the said infringement to an end, if they have not
                                                                   (1) OJ C 268, 14.10.1995.
    already done so. They shall henceforth refrain in
    relation to their cartonboard activities from any
    agreement or concerted practice which may have the
    same or a similar object or effect, including any
    exchange of commercial information:
    (a) by which the participants are directly or
                                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
          indirectly informed of the production, sales, order
          backlog, machine utilisation rates, selling prices,                            of 28 May 1998
          costs or marketing plans of other individual
                                                                   in Joined Cases T-78/96 and T-170/96: W v. Commission
          producers.
                                                                                of the European Communities (1)
    Any scheme for the exchange of general information             (Officials Ð Actions for annulment and for compensation
    to which they subscribe, such as the Fides system or its       Ð Admissibility Ð Reassignment Ð Interests of the
    successor, shall be so conducted as to exclude any             service Ð Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials
    information from which the behaviour of individual             Ð Misuse of power Ð Statement of reasons Ð Liability
    producers can be identified'.                                                     Ð Administrative fault)
2. Dismisses the application as regards the remaining                                      (98/C 209/79)
    claims.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
3. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 392, 31.12.1994.                                          In Joined Cases T-78/96 and T-170/96: W, an official of
                                                                   the Commission of the European Communities, residing in
                                                                   Luxembourg, represented by Georges Vandersanden and


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Briey by judgment of that court of 8 August 1996 in the case of Didier Tabouillot v. Directeur des Services Fiscaux de Meurthe et de Moselle (Case C-284/96)

text:
 26 . 10 . 96            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 318/3
 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches                 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di
 Landesarbeitsgericht by order of that court of 1 July 1996 in          Genova by orders of 27 June 1996 ( Case C-279/96 ) and
 the case of Hans-Jorg Dick v. EB-Schulungs-Gesellschaft                19 July 1996 ( Cases C-280/96 and C-281/96 ) in the cases
                       mbH ( in liquidation )                           of: 1 . Ansaldo Energia SpA v. Amministrazione Finanziaria
                          ( Case C-277/96 )                             dello Stato, 2 . Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v.
                                                                        Marine Insurance Consultants SRL, and 3 . G. M. B. SRL
                             ( 96/C 318/02 )                             and Others v . Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      (Joined Cases C-279/96 , C-280/96 and C-281 /96 )
 European Communities by a judgment of the Hessisches                                             ( 96/C 318 /04 )
 Landesarbeitsgericht ( Higher Labour Court, Hesse ) of
 1 July 1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on
 20 August 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
 Hans-Jorg Dick v. EB-Schulungs-Gesellschaft mbH ( in                   European Communities by orders of 27 June 1996 and
 liquidation ) on the following question :                              21 August 1996 of the Tribunale di Genova ( Genoa District
                                                                        Court ), which were all received at the Court Registry on
 Does Council Directive 77/ 187/EEC ( l ) apply where :                 21 August 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the cases of
                                                                        1 . Ansaldo Energia SpA v. Amministrazione Finanziaria
 — an undertaking, engaged in vocational training and                   dello Stato, 2 . Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v.
     retraining, whose trainees are on courses sponsored by             Marine Insurance Consultants SRL, and 3 . G. M. B. SRL
     the employment authorities that lead to qualification              and Others v. Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato on
     as an industrial clerical officer, terminates , because            the following questions :
     of its insolvency, its agreements with the employment
     authorities, whereupon a legally independent
     competitor undertaking, that has previously run only               1 . Is national legislation which sets, in respect of the
     courses of other kinds, some independently financed and                 initiation of proceedings to safeguard a right arising
     some sponsored likewise by the employment authorities,                  under Community law, a time limit which starts to run
     takes over under an agreement with those authorities                    before the correct and complete transposition into
     the running of the courses begun by the first                           national law of the Directive conferring that right
     undertaking;                                                            compatible with Community law ?
 — at about the same time the second undertaking enters
     into new contracts of employment with a significant                2 . Is it compatible with Community law to provide a party
     proportion of the teaching staff of the insolvent                       whose rights are recognized as having been infringed,
     undertaking, in order to reinforce its own personnel, and               and to whom repayment of the sums claimed is granted ,
     uses them to teach the courses that it has taken over;                  with a remedial procedure under which the rules as to
     and                                                                     quantum differ from, and compare unfavourably with ,
                                                                             those laid down in respect of actions for repayment
 — the second undertaking is subsequently appointed by the                   between private individuals, and are substantially
     employment authorities to run new courses as well , like                determined by a measure enacted by the same State as
     those previously run by the insolvent undertaking ?                     that which infringed the injured party's rights by failing
                                                                             to fulfil its obligations ?
 (') OJ No L 61 , 5 . 3 . 1977, p . 26 .
 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
 Genova — Sezione l a Civile by order of that court of 23 May
 1996 in the dispute pending before it between Vezza SpA                Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de
                  and Ministero delle Finanze                           Grande Instance de Briey by judgment of that court of
                                                                        8 August 1996 in the case of Didier Tabouillot v. Directeur
                          ( Case C-278/96                                       des Services Fiscaux de Meurthe et de Moselle
                            ( 96/C 318/03 )
                                                                                Case C-284/96 )
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                           ( 96/C 318 /05 )
 European Communities by order of the Tribunale di
 Genova — Sezione l a Civile ( Genoa District Court, First
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
 Section ) of 23 May 1996 , which was received at the Court             European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal de
 Registry on 21 August 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the           Grande Instance de Briey ( Regional Court, Briey ) of
 dispute pending before it between Vezza SpA and Ministero              8 August 1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on
-delle Finanze .
                                                                        22 August 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                        Didier Tabouillot v. Directeur des Services Fiscaux de
 The questions referred by the Tribunale di Genova —
 Sezione l a Civile to the Court of Justice for a preliminary           Meurthe et de Moselle ( Chief Tax Inspector for Meurthe et
 ruling are identical with those in Case C-47/95 ( 1 ).                 Moselle ) on the following questions :
 (') OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 , p . 5 .                              1 . Is Article 95 of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as
                                                                             precluding the application of a method for establishing
 ---pagebreak--- No C 318/4               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      26 . 10 . 96
     the fiscal horsepower value of vehicles which results in a          Action brought on 30 August 1996 by the Government of
     higher such value being conferred on certain vehicles,              the Kingdom of Denmark against the Commission of the
     which consumers are therefore deterred from buying,                                     European Communities
     where all the vehicles in the highest tax categories are                                     Case C-289/96 )
     imported vehicles standing in direct competition with
     similar vehicles sold in France which are in more                                              96/C 318/07 )
     favourable tax categories ?
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European
2 . Is Article 95 of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as                  Communities was brought before the Court of Justice on
     precluding the simultaneous use of two sets of rules for            30 August 1996 by the Government of the Kingdom of
     establishing the fiscal horsepower value of vehicles                Denmark, represented by Peter Biering, Head of
     where the more unfavourable set is applied in particular            Department, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
     to vehicles imported from other Member States which                 the Danish Embassy, 4 boulevard Royal .
     French consumers are consequently deterred from
     buying, to the advantage of similar vehicles sold in
     France ?
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                        — partially annul Commission Regulation ( EC )
                                                                             No 1107/96 , of 12 June 1996 on the registration of
                                                                             geographical indications and designations of origin
                                                                             under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of Council
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                                  Regulation ( EEC ) No 208 1 /92 ( ] ), in so far as the
Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 4 July 1 996 in the                designation 'feta ' is listed in the Annex to the Regulation
 case of Kyritzer Starke GmbH v. Hauptzollamt Potsdam                        under point A ' Cheeses', ' GREECE',
                           Case C-287/96
                            ( 96/C 318/06 )                             •— order the Commission to pay the costs .
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof
( Federal Finance Court ) of 4 July 1996 , which was received
at the Court Registry on 26 August 1996 , for a preliminary             — The registration of ' feta ' as a protected designation of
ruling in the case of Kyritzer Starke GmbH v. Hauptzollamt                   origin is contrary to the provisions of Council
( Principal Customs Office ) Potsdam on the following                        Regulation ( EEC ) No 2081 /92 of 14 July 1992 on the
questions :                                                                  protection of geographical indications and designations
                                                                             of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs ( 2 ). The
                                                                             designation ' feta ' does not fulfil the conditions laid
1 . Does the use prescribed in Article 10 ( 1 ) in conjunction               down in the Regulation in order to be considered a
     with Article 14 ( 2 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1722/93 ( 1 )            designation of origin .
     for processed goods falling within CN code 3505 10 50
     constitute a primary requirement within the meaning of
     Article 20 ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) of Regulation ( EEC )                        Pursuant to Article 2 ( 2 ), designation of origin means the
     No 2220/85 ( 2 ), evidence of the fulfilment of which is to             name of a region, a specific place or, in exceptional cases ,
     be produced within the period prescribed by Article 28                  a country, used to describe an agricultural product or a
     ( 2 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2220/85 , so that, in any                foodstuff originating there , the quality or characteristics
     other case , security provided pursuant to Article 22 ( 1 )             of which are due to a particular geographical
     and ( 2 ) of that regulation becomes forfeit ?                          environment with its inherent natural and human
                                                                             factors and the production, processing and preparation
                                                                             of which take place there . 'Feta ' is not, however, the
2 . If the answer to question 1 is in the negative :                         name of a region, place or country . Nor does ' feta '
                                                                             originate from Greece, as a region for protection, but
     is some other prescribed period to be inferred from the                 from all over the Balkans , and its quality or
     applicable Community legislation, within which                          characteristics cannot be due to a particular
     evidence of use is to be produced in accordance with                    geographical environment.
     Article 10 ( 1 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1722/93 , so that
     the security becomes wholly or partially ( to what
     extent ?) forfeit if the evidence is not produced within the            Pursuant     to   Article     2    ( 3 ), certain traditional
     prescribed period ?                                                     geographical or non-geographical names designating an
                                                                             agricultural product or a foodstuff originating in a
                                                                             region or a specific place, the quality or characteristics of
(') OJ No L 159 , 1 . 7 . 1993 , p . 112 .
(-) OJ No L 205 , 3 . 8 . 1995 , p . 5 .
                                                                             which fulfil the above conditions, are also to be
                                                                             considered designations of origin . Under that provision
                                                                             the product's origin may only be a specific place or
                                                                             region , not an entire country .


title: Case C-547/10 P: Appeal brought on 23 November 2010 by Schweizerische Eidgenossenschaft against the judgment delivered on 9 September 2010 in Case T-319/05 Schweizerische Eidgenossenschaft v European Commission, other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Federal Republic of Germany, Landkreis Waldshut

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/26

         Appeal brought on 23 November 2010 by Schweizerische Eidgenossenschaft against the judgment delivered on 9 September 2010 in Case T-319/05 Schweizerische Eidgenossenschaft v European Commission, other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Federal Republic of Germany, Landkreis Waldshut
   (Case C-547/10 P)
   ()
   2011/C 30/43
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Schweizerische Eidgenossenschaft (represented by: S. Hirsbrunner, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Federal Republic of Germany, Landkreis Waldshut

      Forms of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2010 in Case T-319/05, in accordance with Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice;

               —

               should the Court decide that the state of the proceedings permits a decision by the Court, annul Commission Decision 2004/12/EC of 5 December 2003, and order the European Commission to pay the costs of the whole proceedings, including the costs of the proceedings at first instance, pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 122 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice;

               —

               should the Court decide that the state of the proceedings does not permit a decision by the Court, remit the case to the General Court for a decision on the basis of its legal assessment and reserve the issue of the costs of the appeal for a decision by that court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appeal is against the judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2010 in Case T-319/05 (‘the judgment under appeal’). In the judgment under appeal, the General Court dismissed the action for annulment brought by the appellant against Commission Decision 2004/12/EC of 5 December 2003 (‘the contested decision’) the 213th regulation for the implementation of German air traffic regulations establishing procedures for instrument-guided landings and take-offs at Zurich airport (‘the 213th Regulation’), as amended by the first amending regulation 1 April 2003 (‘the disputed German measure’).
   The appellant raises the following pleas:

               1.

               The Court made an error of law in its interpretation and application of Article 9(1) of Regulation No 2408/92, in so far as the Court took the view that its scope only included prohibitions on the exercise of traffic rights. Furthermore, the Court failed to have regard to the fact that such an interpretation of Article 9(1) of Regulation No 2408/92, even if possible in the EU context, cannot be relied on against the applicant under Article 1(2) of the Agreement.

               2.

               The Court misinterpreted and misapplied the obligation to state reasons within the meaning of Article 296 of the TFEU (formerly Article 253 EC), by not objecting to the Commission excluding without explanation the applicability of Article 9(1) of Regulation No 2408/92. Furthermore, the Court erred in considering that, when the Commission replaced the reasoning in the contested decision with a completely new ‘explanation’, that it was not a substitution of reasoning in the court proceedings.

               3.

               The Court erred in law in its interpretation and application of Article 8(3) of Regulation No 2408/92, by failing to take account of the rights of the airport operator and the people living around the airport.

               4.

               The Court misinterpreted and misapplied the principle of non-discrimination. It erred in law by excluding the rights of the airport operator and the Swiss people living around the airport from its analysis. Contrary to the forms of order sought by the applicant, the Court refused to consider whether the measures were necessary. It did not apply in a sufficiently strict manner the requirement of a justification on objective grounds. The interest in promoting a tourist area does not warrant protection, since economic interests cannot constitute objective justifications.

               5.

               The proportionality test applied by the Court is marked by serious errors of law. The Court distorted the evidence. The Court failed to establish the facts in an adequate manner. In disregard of its own right of review, it substituted the Commission's establishment of the facts for its own. In disregard of the right to be heard, it based its reasoning on facts on which the appellant had not presented its comments.

               6.

               Having regard to the assessment of less onerous restrictions, the Court failed to observe the rules on the apportionment of the burden of proof and other principles.

               7.

               Having regard to the alternative of establishing a noise quota scheme, the Court put forward contradictory arguments.


title: Case T-161/99: Action brought on 8 July 1999 by the company Navigazione Libera del Golfo against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 281/20               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        2.10.1999
The applicants claim that the Court should:                             Action brought on 8 July 1999 by the company Naviga-
                                                                        zione Libera del Golfo against the Commission of the
— order, by way of measures of inquiry, the production of all                               European Communities
    documents relating to the work done by the selection
    board, including the tests, and the taking of evidence from
    Mr Fischer Holm, Mr Merilla and Mr Welander and the                                          (Case T-161/99)
    other candidates in the competition;
                                                                                (1999/C 281/39)
— annul all the steps taken in the competition;
— annul the decisions of the selection board in competition
    LA/62 not to admit the applicants to the oral test and not                             (Language of the case: Italian)
    to mark their optional tests;
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
— annul the Council’s decision of 8 April 1999 rejecting the            ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
    administrative complaint lodged by the applicants on                European Communities on 8 July 1999 by the company
    8 December 1998;                                                    Navigazione Libera del Golfo, represented by Salvatore Raven-
                                                                        na and Emiliano Amato, of the Naples and Rome Bars, with
— order the defendant to pay the costs.                                 an address for service in Massalubrense (NA) at the chambers
                                                                        of S. Ravenna, 2 Corso S. Agata.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        — declare that the Commission has failed to fulfil its obli-
The applicants, all of whom are Swedish nationals and grade                  gations under Article 93 of the EC Treaty (now Article 88
LA 7 officials of the Council, took part in the Council’s internal           EC) by failing to adopt a decision on the complaint made
competition LA/62 based on tests, which was held with a view                 by the applicant on 20 February 1999 concerning aid
to filling three LA 5 posts of reviser/principal translator                  granted to the undertaking CA.RE.MAR (Napoli) by the
(Swedish mother tongue). By letter of 9 September 1998 the                   Italian Government;
selection board informed the applicants that it had decided not
to admit them to the oral test, on the ground that they had             — order the Commission to bear the applicant’s costs.
not obtained at least 60 % of the maximum marks provided
for by the competition notice in respect of the revision test.
Consequently, the optional tests which they had done were               Pleas in law and main arguments
not marked.
                                                                        The applicant in the present case is a maritime transport
In support of their application, the applicants plead:                  company operating high speed vessels (hydroplanes and
                                                                        catamarans) serving the islands in the Bay of Naples. It
— infringement of Article 3 of Annex III to the Staff Regu-             challenges the system of State aid introduced by Law No 684
    lations and failure to observe the principles of objectivity        of 20 December 1974 in so far as it relates specifically to
    and equality in the assessment of the candidates, first, in         CA.RE.MAR., the only company operating in the Bay of Naples
    that no member of the selection board had a perfect                 which benefits from such aid.
    knowledge of the target language, namely Swedish, and,
    second, in that the members of the selection board did not
    have a perfect command of the source languages, in                  According to the applicant, the subsidies in question are
    particular French and English, alternatively that an insuf-         unlimited and are intended to make up the operating losses
    ficient number of them possessed such a command;                    which the recipient — a public concern — registers every year;
                                                                        the result being that the aid enables the company to escape
— infringement of the essential rules governing the work of             bankruptcy which would otherwise be inevitable. In addition,
    the selection boeard and failure to observe the principle of        the aid in question is operating aid, which is clearly inconsistent
    equal treatment, inasmuch as two assessors lacked a perfect         with the Commission Communication on Community guide-
    command of all the source languages;                                lines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in
                                                                        difficulty (1) and the Community guidelines on State aid to
— infringement of the essential rules governing the work of             maritime transport (2).
    the selection board and failure to observe the principle of
    objectivity in the assessment of candidates, such that the
    assessors, who were colleagues of the applicants, were able         On this point, it is asserted that, between 1992 and 1997, the
    to penetrate the anonymity attaching to the papers;                 amount of aid has averaged something in the region of ITL
                                                                        40 billion, whereas revenue from ticket sales is just a little over
— failure to comply with the competition notice, in that the            50 % of that figure.
    selection board instructed the assessors to allow only a
    limited number of candidates to proceed to take the oral            The applicant submitted its complaint on 20 February 1999.
    test;                                                               Because of the particular urgency of the matter, in the
                                                                        complaint itself the applicant requested the defendant to take
— irregularity in the composition of the selection board.               action within the period of two months laid down in
                                                                        Article 175 of the EC Treaty (now Article 232). Since no
                                                                        decision was adopted within that period, the applicant brought
                                                                        the present action.
 ---pagebreak--- 2.10.1999               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 281/21
According to the applicant, because of the classic nature of the          the Staff Committee of 22 October 1997 and of paragraph 2
contested aid and the fact that it is clearly operating and rescue        of Article 2 of the General Notice for Election published by
aid, the said period of two months may be considered                      the electoral office on 27 January 1999, inasmuch as 21 per-
reasonable.                                                               sons not qualifying as electors under the applicable rules voted
                                                                          in the contested elections and those votes may have affected
                                                                          the results as regards the allocation of the number of seats on
(1) OJ C 368 of 23.12.94.                                                 the various lists.
(2) OJ C 205 of 5.7.1997.
                                                                          They also plead infringement of the first paragraph of Article 1
                                                                          and Article 4 of Annex II to the Staff Regulations, of the
                                                                          second subparagraph of Article 3(1) and Article 6 of the Rules
                                                                          laying down the composition and operation of the Staff
                                                                          Committee, of Article 14(b) and (c) of the procedure adopted
                                                                          by the general meeting on 19 January 1999 for the election of
                                                                          the Brussels section of the Staff Committee, and of the second
Action brought on 19 July 1999 by Luigia Dricot-Daniele,                  paragraph of Article 2 and the second paragraph of Article 4
Patricia De Palma and Claudine Hamptaux against the                       of the General Notice for Election in that 27 postal votes
         Commission of the European Communities                           arrived out of time because the electors concerned received
                                                                          their ballot papers late.
                          (Case T-162/99)
                                                                          Lastly, the applicants plead infringement of the final paragraph
                          (1999/C 281/40)                                 of Article 14 of the Rules laying down the composition and
                                                                          operation of the Staff Committee and of Article 32 of the
                                                                          internal rules of the Brussels local staff committee of 14 April
                                                                          1990, in that the appointments to the Central Staff Committee
                    (Language of the case: French)                        and to the other organs set up under the Staff Regulations and
                                                                          administrative bodies were made by a local staff committee
An action against the Commission of European Communities                  constituted in accordance with the results of elections which
was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European            were vitiated by irregularities. In the applicants’ view, those
Communities on 19 July 1999 by Luigia Dricot-Daniele,                     irregularities may have altered the distribution of seats as
Patricia De Palma and Claudine Hamptaux, residing in Brussels,            between the different lists, and may consequently have altered
represented by Lucas Vogel, of the Brussels Bar, with an                  the distribution of seats on the Central Staff Committee and in
address for service at the Chambers of Christian Kremer, 6 Rue            the other administrative bodies or organs set up under the
Heinrich Heine.                                                           Staff Regulations appointments to which were to be made by
                                                                          the local staff committee.
The applicants claim that the Court should:
— annul the elections held on 9, 10 and 11 March 1999 to
    the Staff Committee of the local Brussels section and the
    various appointments and proposals for appointments to
    the Central Staff Committee and to the other organs set up
    under the Staff Regulations and administrative bodies                 Action brought on 9 July 1999 by Alain Leroy against the
    made by that committee following those elections;                                     Council of the European Union
— in so far as may be necessary: first, take note of the refusal
    by the Commission to annul the aforementioned elections                                        (Case T-164/99)
    and declare that the Staff Committee of the local Brussels
    section, constituted in accordance with the results of the                                    (1999/C 281/41)
    elections held on 9, 10 and 11 March 1999, as proclaimed
    by the electoral office on 23 March 1999, has not been
    validly constituted and, consequently, that the appoint-                                 (Language of the case: French)
    ments and or proposals for appointments made by that
    committee to the Central Staff Committee and to the                   An action against the Council of the European Union was
    other organs set up under the Staff Regulations and                   brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
    administrative bodies are invalid; and, second, annul the             Communities on 9 July 1999 by Alain Leroy, residing at
    rejection of the complaints lodged by the applicants;                 Grimbergen (Belgium), represented by Georges Vandersanden,
                                                                          of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
— order the defendant to pay the costs.                                   at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          — acknowledge the illegality of the decision of the Council of
                                                                              1 May 1999 laying down the detailed arrangements for
The applicants plead, first, infringement of the fourth para-                 the integration of the Schengen Secretarial into the General
graph of Article 1 of Annex II to the Staff Regulations of                    Secretariat of the Council, and consequently annul the
officials, of Article 7 of the Conditions of employment of other              same;
servants of the European Communities, of Articles 4(2) and 6
of the Rules laying down the composition and operation of                 — order the defendant to pay the costs.


C 314/6               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  30.10.1999
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                       Removal from the register of Case C-259/98 (1)
the Court should:
                                                                                (1999/C 314/13)
1. declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
    administrative measures necessary in order to comply with         By order of 29 June 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
    Council Directive 94/67/EC of 16 December 1994 on the             of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
    incineration of hazardous waste (1), or in any event to           the register of Case C-259/98: Commission of the European
    communicate the same to the Commission, the Kingdom               Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
    of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
    directive;
                                                                      (1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.
2. order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Article 249 EC (formerly Article 189 of the EC Treaty),
according to which a directive is to be binding, as to the result            Removal from the register of Case C-64/99 (1)
to be achieved, upon each Member State to which it is
addressed, requires Member States to observe the time-limits                                  (1999/C 314/14)
laid down in directives for their transposition. The time-limit
in the present case expired on 31 December 1996 without the           By order of 1 July 1999 the President of the Court of Justice of
Kingdom of Belgium having brought into force the necessary            the European Communities has ordered the removal from the
provisions in order to comply with the directive referred to in       register of Case C-64/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling
the Commission’s application.                                         from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s
                                                                      Bench Division (Commercial Court): Pace Airline Services Ltd
(1) OJ L 365 of 31.12.1994, p. 34.                                    v Aerotrans Luftfahrtagentur GmbH.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 121 of 1.5.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-182/96 (1)
                        (1999/C 314/12)                                      Removal from the register of Case C-406/95 (1)
By order of 22 June 1999 the President of the Court of Justice                                (1999/C 314/15)
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-182/96: Federal Republic of Germany v          By order of 8 July 1999 the President of the Sixth Chamber of
Commission of the European Communities.                               the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered
                                                                      the removal from the register of Case C-406/95: Italian
(1) OJ C 210 of 20.7.1996.                                            Republic v Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 46 of 17.2.1996.


title: Case C-584/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Versailles (France) lodged on 17 November 2016 — Green Yellow Hyères Sup SNC v Enedis, SA

text:
               6.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/11

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Versailles (France) lodged on 17 November 2016 — Green Yellow Hyères Sup SNC v Enedis, SA
   (Case C-584/16)
   (2017/C 038/14)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour d’appel de Versailles

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Green Yellow Hyères Sup SNC

      Defendant: Enedis, SA

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 107(1) TFEU be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to purchase the electricity generated by plants which use solar radiation energy at a price higher than the market price, that is financed by all final consumers of electricity, as it results from the Ministerial Orders of 10 July 2006 (JORF No 171 of 26 July 2006, p. 11133) and 12 January 2010 (JORF No 0011 of 14 January 2010, p. 727) fixing the conditions for purchasing that electricity, read in conjunction with Law No 2000-108 of 10 February 2000 on the modernisation and development of the public electricity service, Decree No 2000-1196 of 6 December 2000 and Decree No 2001-410 of 10 May 2001, constitutes State aid?

               2.

               If so, must Article 108(3) TFEU be interpreted as meaning that the failure to notify the European Commission of that mechanism beforehand affects the validity of the abovementioned Orders giving effect to the aid at issue?