title: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 July 2001 in Case C-497/99 P: Irish Sugar plc v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Article 86 of the EC Treaty (now Article 82 EC) — Sugar — Collective dominant position — Abuse — Appeal partly clearly inadmissible and partly clearly unfounded)

text:
C 331/6                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        24.11.2001
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                                         ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Second Chamber)
                         (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 20 September 2001
                          of 10 July 2001
                                                                          in Case C-1/01 P: Asia Motor France SA, André-François
                                                                          Bach, and Monin automoles SA v Commission of the
                                                                          European Communities, and Europe Auto Services SA
in Case C-497/99 P: Irish Sugar plc v Commission of the                                                  (EAS) (1)
                   European Communities (1)
                                                                          (Competition — Decision rejecting complaints — Appeal
                                                                          in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly
                                                                                unfounded)
(Appeal — Article 86 of the EC Treaty (now Article 82 EC)
— Sugar — Collective dominant position — Abuse —
Appeal partly clearly inadmissible and partly clearly                                                (2001/C 331/09)
                            unfounded)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                         (2001/C 331/08)
                                                                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                          In Case C-1/01 P: Asia Motor France SA, established in
                                                                          Chemille (France), in liquidation, André-François Bach, acting
                                                                          in his capacity as receiver of the business of Jean-Michel
                                                                          Cesbron, residing in Chemille, the subject of a court order in
In Case C-497/99 P: Irish Sugar plc, established in Carlow                bankruptcy, and Monin automobiles SA, established in Bourg-
(Ireland), represented by A. Böhlke, Rechtsanwalt — appeal                de-Péage (France) in liquidation, (avocat: J-C. Fourgoux) —
against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the                appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
European Communities (Third Chamber) of 7 October 1999                    the European Communities (Fifth Chamber) of 26 October
in Case T-228/97 Irish Sugar v Commission [1999] ECR II-                  2000 in Case T-154/98 Asia Motor France and Others v
2969, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other                  Commission [2000] ECR II-3453, seeking to have that judgment
party to the proceedings being Commission of the European                 set aside, the other parties to the proceedings being: Com-
Communities (Agent: K. Wiedner, assisted by C. Quigley) —                 mission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Marenco
the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola,                    and F. Siredey-Garnier) and Europe Auto Services SA (EAS),
President of the Chamber, P. Jann, L. Sevón, S. von Bahr                 established in Livange (Luxembourg) — the Court (Second
(Rapporteur) and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo                Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, President of the Chamber,
Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an               R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and N. Colneric, Judges; F.G. Jacobs,
order on 10 July 2001, in which it:                                       Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on
                                                                          20 September 2001, the operative part of which is as follows:
1.    Dismisses the appeal;                                               1.    The appeal is dismissed;
2.    Orders Irish Sugar plc to pay the costs.                            2.    Asia Motor France SA, Mr Bach, in his capacity as receiver of
                                                                                the business of Mr Cesbron, and Monin automobiles SA shall
                                                                                pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 63, 4.3.2000.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 61 of 24.2.2001.


title: Case C-359/03: Action brought on 19 August 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

text:
C 264/20               EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                           1.11.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         That period expired without the Republic of Austria having
                                                                        adopted the necessary provisions.
The Republic of Austria was to transpose Directive 90/269/
EEC by the time of its accession to the European Union on               (1) OJ 1990 L 156, p. 14.
1 January 1995.
That period expired without the Republic of Austria having
adopted the necessary provisions.
(1) OJ 1990 L 156, p. 9.
                                                                        Action brought on 19 August 2003 by the Commission
                                                                        of the European Communities against the Republic of
                                                                                Austria
                                                                                (Case C-360/03)
Action brought on 19 August 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Republic of                                              (2003/C 264/33)
                             Austria
                         (Case C-359/03)
                                                                        An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
                         (2003/C 264/32)                                before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                        on 19 August 2003 by the Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities, represented by Denis Martin, Member of the
                                                                        Legal Service of the European Commission, and Horstpeter
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought                   Kreppel, seconded to the Commission’s Legal Service within
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                 the framework of an exchange with national officials, with an
on 19 August 2003 by the Commission of the European                     address for service in Luxembourg.
Communities, represented by Denis Martin, Member of the
Legal Service of the European Commission, and Horstpeter
Kreppel, seconded to the Commission’s Legal Service within              The applicant claims that the Court should:
the framework of an exchange with national officials, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.                                      1.    Declare that, by failing to adopt or to notify the Com-
                                                                              mission of all the laws, regulations and administrative
                                                                              provisions necessary fully to comply with Commission
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   Directive 2000/39/EC of 8 June 2000 establishing a first
                                                                              list of indicative occupational exposure limit values in
1.    Declare that, by failing to adopt or at any rate to                     implementation of Council Directive 98/24/EC on the
      notify the laws, regulations and administrative provisions              protection of the health and safety of workers from the
      necessary fully to comply with Council Directive 90/270/                risks related to chemical agents at work (1), the Republic
      EEC of 29 May 1990 on the minimum safety and health                     of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3
      requirements for work with display screen equipment                     of that directive;
      (fifth individual Directive within the meaning of
      Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (1), the Republic          2.    Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs of the
      of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under                   proceedings.
      Article 11 of that directive and the third paragraph of
      Article 249 of the Treaty.
2.    Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs of the
      proceedings.                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        The period for transposition expired on 31 December 2001.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        (1) OJ 2000 L 142, p. 47.
The Republic of Austria was to transpose Directive 90/270/
EEC by the time of its accession to the European Union on
1 January 1995.


title: Action brought on 22 January 1998 by the Italian Republic against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-15/98)

text:
C 94/8                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   28.3.98
SpA against Direzione Regionale per le Entrate della                        the contested decision. When it became aware that the
Toscana and Ufficio delle Imposte Dirette di Firenze on                     amendment to Regional Law No 9 had been made
the following question:                                                     before the procedure was under way, the Commission
                                                                            decided to make a further separation and held that
Is a statutory tax on the net assets of companies with                      that Law marked another, fresh aid scheme, with
share capital which has effects economically equivalent to                  effect from 1996, to be considered separately. The
those of an indirect tax on capital contributions                           Italian Government and the parties concerned did not
compatible with Community law and in particular with                        become aware of this latter development until the
Directive 69/335/EEC (1)                                                    decision was notified to them. It should have been
                                                                            communicated beforehand inasmuch as it amounted to
(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412.                          an amendment to the subject matter of the procedure.
                                                                            Failure to notify of this amendment timeously
                                                                            prevented not only the Italian Government but also
                                                                            the other interested parties from submitting relevant
                                                                            and effective comments in order to protect their
                                                                            respective interests.
      Action brought on 22 January 1998 by the Italian
      Republic against the Commission of the European                    2. Infringement of Article 93 of the Treaty in that a
                          Communities                                       distinction has been made between new and existing
                                                                            aid Ð Unlawful treatment of existing aid as new aid
                         (Case C-15/98)                                     Ð Assessment of aid as new vitiated by manifest
                          (98/C 94/16)                                      errors.
                                                                            Where amendments made to an existing scheme have
An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                            not been communicated, aid granted after such
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
                                                                            amendments may be deemed unlawful inasmuch as
the European Communities on 22 January 1998 by the
                                                                            they are contrary to Article 93(3) of the Treaty only if
Italian Republic, represented by Umberto Leanza and by
                                                                            such amendments have had a decisive effect on the
Pier Giorgio Ferri, Avvocato dello Stato, with an address
                                                                            compatibility of the aid. Part III of the decision took
for service in Luxembourg at the Italian Embassy, 5 Rue
                                                                            into consideration the factors listed in paragraphs (a)
Marie-AdeÂlaïde.
                                                                            to (e) in order to ascertain whether the aid granted
                                                                            after the 1988 Regional Law is new.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                            So far as concerns (a) relating to the condition that the
Ð annul, pursuant to Article 173 of the EC Treaty, the                      undertaking should be established in Sardinia, the
     decision of 21 October 1997 (1),                                       Commission made a serious and manifest error in
                                                                            ascribing to the Regional Law of 1988 the provision
Ð make an appropriate order in respect                     of  the          that the undertaking should have its head office and
     Commission's letter of 14 November 1997,                               its port of registration in Sardinia. This is not a new
                                                                            element because it was already provided for in the
Ð order the EC Commission to pay the costs.                                 1951 Law as amended in 1954.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                         This error is also reflected in the assessment made of
                                                                            the importance of the other elements dealt with under
The Italian Government considers the Commission's                           letters (b) to (d).
decision of 21 October 1997 caused it harm and is
unlawful on the following grounds:                                       3. The assessment as to compatibility of the aid for the
                                                                            purposes of Article 92(1) was not carried out, is
                                                                            insufficient, inadequate or, in any event, unreasoned.
1. Unlawfulness of the determination adopted in the
     contested decision and enacted by way of the
     Commission's letter of 14 November 1997, relating to                   The Commission has altogether failed to take a view
     Regional Law No 9 of 15 February 1996 Ð                                on whether the aid is likely to distort or threaten to
     Infringement of the procedural rules.                                  distort competition. So far as concerns the other
                                                                            ground of incompatibility, that is to say the effect on
                                                                            trade between Member States, the Commission puts
     The Commission has not given any explanation as to
                                                                            forward reasons which are barely comprehensible,
     why it chose to make a single aid scheme, albeit
                                                                            illogical and in any event seriously inadequate.
     amended over time, subject to two different
     procedures. The Commission's choice is not only
     unjustified, it appears inappropriate to the aim of                 4. Unlawful assessment of the aid of the purposes of
     ensuring the correct and transparent exercise of its                   Article 92(3)(a) and (c) of the Treaty.
     power to check whether aid is compatible with the
     common market. Instead, the Commission creates                         After concluding that the aid scheme is incompatible
     confusion and makes the assessment process uncertain,                  within the meaning of Article 92(1) on the ground that
     contributing considerably to the unlawfulness vitiating                if affects trade between the Member States, the
 ---pagebreak--- 28.3.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 94/9
     Commission examined whether it was possible to                It cannot share the view of the French authorities that,
     apply the derogations provided for in Article 92(2)           technically, there are two types of contracts relating to
     and (3). That point in the decision must suffer the           underground work (electrification) and installation above
     same consequences as the unlawful assessment carried          ground' (street lighting) respectively; the two operations
     out for the purposes of Article 92(1) denounced under         are closely linked and reference to the NACE
     the preceding submission which, should it be upheld,          nomenclature and the CPC and ISIC nomenclatures is
     would overturn all that has been decided on the               irrelevant.
     presumption that the aid is incompatible.
5. Unlawful order to recover the aid on the ground that            Moreover, the Commission considers, in particular in view
     it is in breach of the principles of protection of            of the notices published in both the Official Journal of the
     legitimate expectations, proportionality and equal            European Communities and the French Bulletin Official
     treatment.                                                    des Annonces des MarcheÂs Publics, that SYDEV must be
                                                                   considered to be the only contracting entity in question
(1) Commission Decision 98/95/EC (OJ L 20, 27.1.1998, p. 30).      rather than the individual associations of communes for
                                                                   the electrification of the VendeÂe. Since the contracting
                                                                   entity, for the purposes of the Directive, may be an entity
                                                                   with no legal personality, the question as to who is a legal
                                                                   party to the public contract is not decisive in order to
                                                                   identify it as the contracting entity. Finally, the work
Action brought on 22 January 1998 by the Commission of             concerned has only one purpose and is intended to fulfil a
  the European Communities against the French Republic             single economic and technical function, namely
                        (Case C-16/98)                             electrification over a number of years of the deÂpartement
                         (98/C 94/17)                              of the VendeÂe. Only the geographical location of the work
                                                                   is varied within the same deÂpartement. That difference is
An action against the French Republic was brought before           not such as to enable various works to be distinguished: it
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                merely means that several lots may be distinguished within
22 January 1998 by the Commission of the European                  the same works. However, pursuant to the second
Communities, represented by Hendrik van Lier, Legal                paragraph of Article 14(10), in particular, where a work is
Adviser, and Olivier Couvert-CasteÂra, a national civil            the subject of several lots, the value of each lot is to be
servant on secondment to the Legal Service, acting as              taken into account when assessing the value of all the
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the           contracts.
office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,
Kirchberg.                                                         The notices of the award of contracts as published
The Commission of the European Communities claims                  confirm the Commission's view that the result of splitting
that the Court should:                                             the contracts has been to reserve the contracts to local
                                                                   undertakings, who were better informed as to the real
Ð declare that, in the course of the procurement                   scale of the programme of works. Those notices show in
     procedure issued by the Syndicat DeÂpartement                 fact that all the contracts were awarded to a restricted
     d'Electrification de la VendeÂe in December 1994 for          group of undertakings of the deÂpartement of the VendeÂe.
     the award of a contract for electrification and street
     lighting work, the French Republic failed to fulfil its       (1) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 84.
     obligations under Articles 4(2), 14(1), 10 and 13,            (2) Judgment in Case C-311/96 (OJ C 212, 12.7.1997, p. 6).
     together with Articles 21, 24 and 25 of Council
     Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating the
     procurement procedures of entities operating in the
     water, energy, transport and telecommunications
     sectors (1),
Ð order the French Republic to pay the costs.                      Reference for a preliminary ruling by the President of the
                                                                   Arrondissementsrechtbank, The Hague, by order of
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                   19 December 1997 in the case of Emesa Sugar (Free Zone)
When the procedure for the award of public contracts in            NV and 1. the Netherlands State, 2. the Hoofdproduct-
question was held (end 1994 to early 1996), Directive 93/                 schap voor Akkerbouwproducten and 3. Aruba
38/EEC of 14 June 1993 had still not been transposed into                                  (Case C-17/98)
French law (2). None the less, the contracting entity was
required to apply the provisions of that Directive to that                                  (98/C 94/18)
award procedure by reason of their direct effect as from
1 July 1994.
                                                                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
The Commission considers that the entire electrification           European Communities by order of the President of the
and street lighting work in question comes within the              Arrondissementsrechtbank, The Hague, of 19 December
scope of one contracting entity and constitutes a single           1997, received at the Court Registry on 23 January 1998,
contract which was artificially split in order to avoid the        for a preliminary ruling in the case of Emesa Sugar (Free
obligations of the Directive.                                      Zone) NV and 1. the Netherlands State, 2. the Hoofdpro-


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 January 2003 in Case C-14/00: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Free movement of goods — Directive 73/241/EEC — Cocoa and chocolate products containing fats other than cocoa butter — Products lawfully manufactured and marketed in the Member State of production under the sales name "chocolate" — Prohibition on marketing under that name in the Member State of marketing— Requirement to use the name "chocolate substitute")

text:
22.2.2003                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                                       C 44/3
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                             in the Member State of production, and by requiring that those
                                                                                products may only be marketed under the name ‘chocolate
                                                                                substitute’, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                           (Sixth Chamber)                                          under Article 30 of the Treaty (now, after amendment,
                                                                                Article 28 EC);
                         of 16 January 2003                                  2.     Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
in Case C-14/00: Commission of the European Communi-                         (1 ) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.
                      ties v Italian Republic (1)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Free
movement of goods — Directive 73/241/EEC — Cocoa and
chocolate products containing fats other than cocoa butter
— Products lawfully manufactured and marketed in the
Member State of production under the sales name ‘chocolate’
— Prohibition on marketing under that name in the Member
State of marketing— Requirement to use the name ‘chocolate                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                              substitute’)
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                            (2003/C 44/04)
                                                                                of 9 January 2003
                     (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                in Case C-76/00 P: Petrotub SA and Republica SA (1)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                           (Appeal — Protection against dumping — Determination
                                                                             of the dumping margin — Choice of the ‘asymmetrical’
                                                                             calculation method — Article 2.4.2 of the Agreement on
                                                                             Implementation of Article VI of the GATT — Statement of
                                                                             reasons — Determination of normal value — Taking into
                                                                             account of sales made using compensation — Statement of
In Case C-14/00, Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: G. Valero Jordana and G. Bisogni) v Italian Republic                                                  reasons)
(Agent: U. Leanza, assisted by O. Fiumara): Application for a
declaration that, by prohibiting chocolate products containing                                             (2003/C 44/05)
vegetable fats other than cocoa butter, and which are lawfully
manufactured in Member States which authorise the addition
of such fats, from being marketed in Italy under the name used                                     (Language of the case: English)
in the Member State of origin, and by requiring that those
products may only be marketed under the name ‘chocolate
substitute’, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
under Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
Article 28 EC), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:                      In Case C-76/00 P, Petrotub SA, established in Roman
J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen,                    (Romania), and Republica SA established in Bucharest (Roman-
V. Skouris (Rapporteur), N. Colneric and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues,               ia) (avocats: A. Merckx and P. Bentley): Two appeals against
Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,                     the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
Head of Division, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                 Communities (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) of
16 January 2003, in which it:                                                15 December 1999 in Joined Cases T-33/98 and T-34/98
                                                                             Petrotub and Republica v Council [1999] ECR II-3837, seeking
                                                                             to have that judgment set aside, the other parties to the
1.    Declares that, by prohibiting cocoa and chocolate products             proceedings being: Council of the European Union (Agent: S.
      which comply with the requirements as to minimum content               Marquardt, assisted by G. Berrisch), defendant at first instance,
      laid down in point 1.16 of Annex I to Council Directive 73/            and Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
      241/EEC of 24 July 1973 on the approximation of the laws               V. Kreuschitz and S. Meany) intervener at first instance, the
      of the Member States relating to cocoa and chocolate products          Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of
      intended for human consumption to which vegetable fats other           the Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans, D.A.O. Edward, A. La
      than cocoa butter have been added, and which are lawfully              Pergola (Rapporteur) and P. Jann, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate
      manufactured in Member States which authorise the addition             General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a
      of such fats, from being marketed in Italy under the name used         judgment on 9 January 2003, in which it has ruled:


title: Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European CommunitiesOJ C 19, 25.1.2003

text:
C 31/22         EN                    Official Journal of the European Union                            8.2.2003
                                                         III
                                                      (Notices)
                                                  (2003/C 31/31)
           Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Communities
        OJ C 19, 25.1.2003
        Past publications
        OJ C 7, 11.1.2003
        OJ C 323, 21.12.2002
        OJ C 305, 7.12.2002
        OJ C 289, 23.11.2002
        OJ C 274, 9.11.2002
        OJ C 261, 26.10.2002
                                            These texts are available on:
                                       EUR-Lex: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex
                                         CELEX: http://europa.eu.int/celex


8.3.2003               EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 55/19
        Removal from the register of Case C-489/99 ( 1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-492/99 ( 1)
                         (2003/C 55/40)                                                         (2003/C 55/43)
By order of 19 November 2002 the President of the Court of             By order of 19 November 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-489/99 (Reference for a preliminary        from the register of Case C-492/99 (Reference for a preliminary
ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Immobiliare Flavia Srl, in        ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Colleoni Giacomo e Figli
liquidation, v Ministero delle Finanze.                                Srl v Ministero delle Finanze.
( 1) OJ C 79 of 18.03.2000.                                            (1 ) OJ C 79 of 18.03.2000.
        Removal from the register of Case C-490/99 ( 1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-134/00 ( 1)
                         (2003/C 55/41)                                                         (2003/C 55/44)
By order of 19 November 2002 the President of the Court of             By order of 11 December 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-490/99 (Reference for a preliminary        from the register of Case C-134/00 (Reference for a preliminary
ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Azzini SpA v Ministero            ruling by the Tribunale di Trento): Ministry of Finance v
delle Finanze.                                                         Merkur Chemical s.r.l..
( 1) OJ C 79 of 18.03.2000.                                            (1 ) OJ C 176 of 24.06.2000.
        Removal from the register of Case C-491/99 ( 1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-88/01 (1)
                         (2003/C 55/42)                                                         (2003/C 55/45)
By order of 19 November 2002 the President of the Court of             By order of 15 November 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-491/99 (Reference for a preliminary        from the register of Case C-88/01 (Reference for a preliminary
ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Falegnameria Carminati di         ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Agricola Torriani Sas v
Franco e Domenico Carminati Snc v Ministero delle Finanze.             Ministero delle Finanze.
( 1) OJ C 79 of 18.03.2000.                                            (1 ) OJ C 118 of 21.04.2001.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 30 March 2000 in Case T-33/99: Elvira Méndez Pinedo v European Central Bank (Notice calling for applications for posts in the Legal Service of the European Central Bank — Application for annulment and compensation — Inadmissibility)

text:
C 176/22              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                    24.6.2000
Communities (Agents N. Khan and F. Randolph) — application                       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/98 of
7 April 1998, imposing a provisional antidumping duty on                                         of 23 March 2000
imports of certain unbleached cotton fabrics originating in the
People’s Republic of China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Pakistan             in Case T-234/99: Patrick Monod-Gayraud v Commission
and Turkey (OJ 1998 L 111, p. 19), the Court of First                                    of the European Communities (1)
Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition), composed
of J.D. Cooke, President, and R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas, P. Lindh,
J. Pirrung and M. Vilaras, Judges; Registrar: H. Jung, has made           (Action for annulment and compensation — National expert
an order on 28 January 2000 to the following effect:                      seconded to the Commission — Cost of accommodation —
                                                                          Time-limit for bringing proceedings — Proceedings brought
1. There is no need to adjudicate upon the application in this case.                       out of time — Inadmissibility)
2. Each party shall bear its own costs.                                                           (2000/C 176/39)
(1) OJ C 258 of 15.8.1998.                                                                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          In Case T-234/99: Patrick Monod-Gayraud, a national expert
                                                                          on secondment to the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties, residing in Warsaw (Poland), represented by H. Masse-
                                                                          Dessen, advocate with a right of audience before the Conseil
                                                                          d’État and the Cour de Cassation, and V. Ecker, of the
                                                                          Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               at the latter’s Chambers, 77 Boulevard Grande-Duchesse
                                                                          Charlotte, v Commission of the European Communities
                       of 30 March 2000                                   (Agents: J. Currall and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart) — application,
                                                                          first, for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 29 June
in Case T-33/99: Elvira Méndez Pinedo v European Central                  1999 refusing to pay the applicant’s accommodation expenses
                              Bank (1)                                    and, second, for compensation for the loss resulting therefrom
                                                                          — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
                                                                          R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas, President, and P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke,
(Notice calling for applications for posts in the Legal Service           Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 23 March 2000,
of the European Central Bank — Application for annulment                  the operative part of which is as follows:
            and compensation — Inadmissibility)
                                                                          1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
                        (2000/C 176/38)
                                                                          2. The applicant is to pay all the costs.
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)                         (1) OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.
In Case T-33/99: Elvira Méndez Pinedo, residing in Madrid,
represented by Antonio Mendez Garcı́a, of the Madrid Bar,
2nd Floor, Calle Bravo Murillo, 28015 Madrid, v European
Central Bank (Agents: Antonio Sàiñz de Vicuña and Chiara
Zilioli) — application for annulment of the notice calling for
applications for posts in the Legal Service of the European               Action brought on 4 April 2000 by ACA — Associação
Central Bank, published in Official Journal C 159 A of 26 May             Comercial de Aveiro against the Commission of the
1998, and for compensation — the Court of First Instance                                      European Communities
(Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, and
A. Potocki and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made                                       (Case T-80/00)
an order on 30 March 2000, the operative part of which is as
follows:
                                                                                (2000/C 176/40)
1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
2. The application for legal aid is dismissed.
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
3. The parties shall bear their own costs.
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 4 April 2000 by ACA — Associa-
(1) OJ C 121 of 1.5.1999.                                                 ção Comercial de Aveiro, a non-profit-making organisation,
                                                                          whose registered office is at Aveiro (Portugal), represented by
                                                                          João Amaral e Almeida and Bernardo Diniz de Ayala, of the
                                                                          Lisbon Bar.


title: Case T-145/02: Action brought on 8 May 2002 by Armin Petrich against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
29.6.2002              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 156/37
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of his action, the applicant argues infringement of
                                                                         The Commission decision against which the present action is
Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations, infringement of the
                                                                         brought is the same as that contested in Case T-109/92 Bolloré
principle of non-discrimination and a manifest error of
                                                                         v Commission (1). In that decision, the Commission found that
assessment. According to the applicant, any objective consider-
                                                                         the applicant had participated in the national meetings of
ation of the respective merits of the officials eligible for
                                                                         the secret European cartel in the context of the European
promotion would not have led to his being disregarded.
                                                                         Association of Manufacturers of Carbonless Paper (AEMPC),
                                                                         the adoption and concerted application of price increases, the
                                                                         sharing of sales and market quotas in the copying paper sector
                                                                         and the establishment of control mechanisms.
                                                                         In support of its claims, the applicant pleads infringement of
Action brought on 18 April 2002 by Papelera Guipuz-                      the principles of presumption of innocence and of the burden
coana de Zicuñaga, S.A. against Commission of the                       of proof. In that regard, it denies having participated in the
                     European Communities                                meetings held for the purpose of organising the European
                                                                         cartel. The applicant emphasises that the defendant institution
                                                                         ignored not only the fact that the applicant does not belong to
                         (Case T-136/02)                                 the AEMPC but also the fact that that association did not
                                                                         possess information relating to the applicant’s prices and sales
                                                                         volumes.
                         (2002/C 156/68)
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                       The applicant claims that the fine imposed on it should be
                                                                         reduced by at least 60 %. Apart from what has already been
                                                                         stated in the preceding paragraph, the applicant emphasises
                                                                         that the infringements imputed to it are alleged to have lasted
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                for less than one year.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 18 April 2002 by Papelera Guipuz-
coana de Zicuñaga, S.A., whose registered office is at Hernani
(Guipúzcoa, Spain), represented by Iñigo Quintana Aguirre.
                                                                         (1) Not yet published in OJ.
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:
—     annul Article 1 of the Commission decision of 20 Decem-
      ber 2001 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81
      of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement
      (Case COMPE/E/1/36.212 — Carbonless paper), in so far
      as it finds that Zicuñaga participated in the infringement
      and in so far as it relates to the duration of the                 Action brought on 8 May 2002 by Armin Petrich against
      infringement, and Article 3 in relation to the fine imposed               the Commission of the European Communities
      in Article 4;
—     in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the                                          (Case T-145/02)
      applicant in the contested decision as follows:
      (a)   annul the application of the excess of 10 % applied                                   (2002/C 156/69)
            by the Commission on the ground that a duration
            in excess of one year was not imputed to the
            applicant;                                                                      (Language of the case: French)
      (b) reduce substantially (by a minimum of 60 %) the
            basic penalty imposed to take account of the
            mitigating circumstances indicated;                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      (c)   award costs to the applicant, including expenditure          European Communities by Armin Petrich, of Travemünde,
            and interest for the guarantees provided, deriving           Germany, represented by Patrick Goergen, lawyer, with an
            from the handling of the entire procedure.                   address for service in Luxembourg,
 ---pagebreak--- C 156/38              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                  29.6.2002
The applicant asks the Court to:                                               Removal from the register of Case T-163/97 (1)
—     annul the decision taken by the Selection Board of
      Competition COM/A/7/01 on 11 February 2002 not to                                          (2002/C 156/70)
      correct the written test of the applicant and not to admit
      him to the tests subsequent to the written test;
                                                                                (Language of the Case: Dutch)
—     annul all the subsequent steps and measures taken in the
      competition procedure in question;
—     in the alternative, order the Commission to pay to the            By order of 10 April 2002 the President of the Third Chamber
      applicant EUR 100 000 as compensation for material                of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
      and non-material damage;                                          ordered the removal from the register of Case T-163/97:
                                                                        Nederlands Antillen v Council of the European Union and
                                                                        Commission of the European Communities.
—     order the Commission to pay all the costs of the case.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 212 of 12.07.1997.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In the present case, the applicant is challenging the refusal by
the Selection Board in Open Competition COM/A/7/01 to
correct his written test and admit him to the subsequent tests.
The ground for that refusal is that the applicant is said to
have insufficient experience in the area of human resource
management.
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case T-218/99 (1)
It is pointed out that the applicant was included on the list                                    (2002/C 156/71)
of candidates who fulfilled the general conditions of the
competition, he took part in the pre-selection tests, and was
admitted to the written test.
                                                                                (Language of the Case: German)
In support of his application, the applicant claims that:
—     there was a manifest error of assessment in this case;            By order of 28 January 2002 the President of the Fifth
                                                                        Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                        Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                        T-218/99: Anton Dürbeck GmbH v Commission of the
—     the obligation to state reasons has been infringed;               European Communities.
—     the principle of sound administration and the duty to
      have regard to the welfare of applicants have not been
      complied with.                                                    (1) OJ C 6 of 8.1.2000.


title: Case C-455/03: Action brought on 29 October 2003 (fax 24.10.2003) by the French Republic against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
13.12.2003              EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 304/19
            —    the arrangements under which the Member                 (2)     Breach of the EA Treaty:
                 State of the parent company takes account of
                 the losses of UK resident companies apply
                 regardless of whether the losses are also relieved      —     Article 42 EA: under the procedure established by the
                 in another Member State?                                      contested regulation, the Commission de facto alters the
                                                                               three-month period laid down by this provision of the
      (c)   Would it make any difference if there were evidence                EA Treaty, which the Council alone had the power to
            that relief had been obtained for the losses in the                alter.
            Member State in which the subsidiary was resident
            and, if so, would it matter that the relief was
            obtained subsequently by an unrelated group of               —     Article 43 EA: in adopting the contested regulation, the
            companies to which the subsidiary was sold?                        Commission exceeded the powers conferred upon it by
                                                                               this provision. The Commission has established, by
                                                                               means of an instrument of general application that is
                                                                               mandatory in its entirety and directly applicable in
                                                                               every Member State, a procedure truly entailing detailed
                                                                               examination of investment projects, which is quasi-
                                                                               suspensory in nature.
                                                                         —     Article 44 EA: under the contested regulation, publication
Action brought on 29 October 2003 (fax 24.10.2003) by
                                                                               of investment projects communicated to the Commission
the French Republic against the Commission of the
                                                                               becomes mandatory and automatic in nature, whereas it
                     European Communities
                                                                               is merely optional under this article. Nor does the
                                                                               contested regulation specify that such publication may
                         (Case C-455/03)                                       occur only with the prior consent of the Member States,
                                                                               persons and undertakings concerned.
                         (2003/C 304/28)
                                                                         —     The first subparagraph of Article 194(1) EA: the Com-
                                                                               mission has failed to have regard to the obligation of
                                                                               confidentiality contained in the first subparagraph of
                                                                               Article 194(1) EA by allowing third party access to
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                      investment projects notified by the persons and under-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                   takings concerned, when those projects contain confiden-
Communities on 29 October 2003 (fax 24.10.2003) by the                         tial information that is covered in particular by the trade
French Republic, represented by F. Alabrune, G. de Bergues                     secrecy of those persons and undertakings.
and C. Lemaire, acting as Agents, with an address for service
in Luxembourg.
                                                                         (3) Breach of the principle of legal certainty: under the
The French Republic claims that the Court should:                        contested regulation, the persons or undertakings concerned
                                                                         are ‘recommended’ not to put the investment project into
—     annul Commission Regulation (Euratom) No 1352/2003                 effect before the Commission has issued its recommendation
      of 23 July 2003 amending Regulation (EC) No 1209/                  on that project or it is deemed to be in compliance with the
      2000 determining procedures for effecting the communi-             objectives and provisions of the EA Treaty. The Commission
      cations prescribed under Article 41 of the Treaty estab-           also fails to have regard to the requirement for legal certainty
      lishing the European Atomic Energy Community (1);                  by providing that, where the Commission has opened a
                                                                         detailed examination procedure, it ‘shall as far as possible
                                                                         endeavour’ to adopt a recommendation within a period of six
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                             months. The persons or undertakings concerned do not
                                                                         know within what period the Commission will adopt its
                                                                         recommendation should a detailed examination procedure be
                                                                         opened.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         (1) OJ L 192, 31.7.2003, p. 15.
(1) The Commission lacks competence to adopt the contest-
ed regulation: neither Articles 41 EA to 44 EA nor Council
Regulation (Euratom) No 2587/1999, which are the legal
bases cited by the Commission in the contested regulation,
constitute a legal basis enabling it to adopt that regulation.


title: Action brought on 3 February 1997 by AEVP - Associação das Empresas de Vinho do Porto against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-23/97)

text:
No C 131 /18            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  26 . 4 . 97
    vertically integrated, the Commission made a manifest               complaint it lodged, of the adoption and implementation,
    error in its assessment of the relevant facts and its               in France, of aid measures for French producers of liqueur
    application of the law.                                             wines, such measures having been taken by the
                                                                        Government without the duty to notify having been
    This error constitutes an infringement of Articles 2,               complied with.
    3 ( 3 ), 8 ( 3 ), 22 ( 3 ) and 22 (4 ) of Merger Regulation
    and Article 190 of the EC Treaty.                                   Those measures involve the allocation of subsidies in
                                                                        1994, 1995 , 1996 and 1997 of FF 24 million, FF 28
                                                                        million, FF 32 million and FF 37 million respectively.
                                                                        The applicant points out in particular that, following the
Action brought on 3 February 1997 by AEVP — Associa                    complaint lodged by the AEVP, the Commission should,
gao das Empresas de Vinho do Porto against the                          within two months, or within a reasonable time, have
          Commission of the European Communities                        adopted one of two decisions: either to approve the
                                                                        measures in issue, in the event that it had been
                            Case T-23/97)
                                                                        immediately certain that such measures are compatible
                            ( 97/C 131/44 )                             with the common market, after giving the French
                                                                        authorities the opportunity to submit their comments and
              (Language of the case: Portuguese)                        possibly subsequently having discussed the matter with
                                                                        AEVP, if necessary in order to clarify completely the status
                                                                        of the measures in issue; or to initiate the review
An action against the Commission of the European                        procedure provided for in Article 93 ( 2 ) in the event that
Communities was brought before the Court of First                       it cannot, on the basis of a mere preliminary analysis,
Instance of the European Communities on 3 February                      consider the measures in question compatible with the
1997 by AEVP — Associagao das Empresas de Vinho do                      common market.
Porto, whose registered office is at 413 Rua Barao de For
rester, 4400 Vila Nova de Gaia, represented by Carlos Bo
telho Moniz and Ana Santos Reis, of the Bar of Portugal,                The Commission did neither the one nor the other and has
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                        been analysing the situation at a preliminary level for
Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue, Luxembourg.                       almost two years . The applicant insists that, whatever
                                                                        criterion is deemed applicable, the period for a
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             preliminary assessment expired a long time ago without
                                                                        the Commission having adopted a position in accordance
                                                                        with the Treaty.
— find and declare that the Commission of the European
     Communities, the defendant, failed, contrary to the
    provisions of Articles 92 and 93 and in breach of the               The fact that the Commission has not adopted a position
     principles of legality, care and impartiality, in its duty         at the preliminary stage impairs the rights of the
    to take a decision on whether to initiate the procedure             applicant, which is prevented from obtaining judicial
     provided for in Article 93 (2 ) as requested by the                protection under Community law in order to protect its
     applicant by way of complaint No 95/4342 SG(95 ) A/                legitimate interests .
     5925/2 with regard to the aid granted by the French
     Government to domestic liqueur wine producers,
                                                                        The applicant points out the fact that such action by the
— order the Commission to pay all the costs.                             Commission is necessary particularly since national courts
                                                                        do not have jurisdiction to decide whether the aid is
                                                                        compatible with the common market, since that power is
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      conferred by the Treaty exclusively to the Commission.
The applicant brought an action for a declaration that the
 Commission, disregarding the provisions of Articles 92                  Thus, national courts must restrict themselves to ensuring
 and 93 of the EC Treaty, failed to fulfil its obligation to             the effectiveness of the prohibition until the Commission
 adopt an act defining its position on the complaint lodged              takes a final decision .
 with it by the applicant on 24 March 1995 , No 95/4342
 SG(95 ) A/5925 , denouncing a system of financial
 compensation set up by the Government of the French                     It is evident from this system that the Commission has the
 Republic for the benefit of French producers of liqueur                 obligation to take a decision as to the compatibility with
                                                                         the common market of aid measures which have not been
 wines, with the aim of nullifying the difference between
 the charge payable for that category of wine and natural                notified but of which it has meanwhile been apprised, in
 sweet wines in the context of the special consumption                   particular where it has been informed of their existence by
 duties .                                                                means of a complaint submitted by competitors of the
                                                                         beneficiaries of the aid granted.
 The applicant asserts in this regard that, in the instant
 case, the Commission was informed, by way of the


title: Joined Cases T-50/06, T-56/06, T-60/06, T-62/06 and T-69/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 December 2007 — Ireland and Others v Commission (State aid — Directive 92/81/EEC — Excise duty on mineral oils — Mineral oils used as fuel for the production of alumina — Exemption granted by the French, Irish and Italian authorities — New aid — Existing aid — Obligation to state reasons — Finding of the Court of its own motion)

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/43

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 December 2007 — Ireland and Others v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-50/06, T-56/06, T-60/06, T-62/06 and T-69/06) (1)

   (State aid - Directive 92/81/EEC - Excise duty on mineral oils - Mineral oils used as fuel for the production of alumina - Exemption granted by the French, Irish and Italian authorities - New aid - Existing aid - Obligation to state reasons - Finding of the Court of its own motion)
   (2008/C 22/80)
   Languages of the case: English, French and Italian
   Parties

      Applicant in Case T-50/06: Ireland (represented by: D. O'Hagan, Agent, and P. McGarry, Barrister)

      Applicant in Case T-56/06: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and S. Ramet, Agents)

      Applicant in Case T-60/06: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Aiello, avvocato dello Stato)

      Applicant in Case T-62/06: Eurallumina SpA (Portoscuso, Italy) (represented by: L. Martin Alegi, R. Denton and M. Garcia, Solicitors)

      Applicant in Case T-69/06: Aughinish Alumina Ltd (Askeaton, Ireland) (represented by: J. Handoll and C. Waterson, Solicitors)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by V. Di Bucci, N. Khan, P. Stancanelli and K. Walkerová, acting as Agents)

   Re:
   Actions for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/323/EC of 7 December 2005 on the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in the Gardanne region, the Shannon region and Sardinia, implemented by France, Ireland and Italy respectively (OJ 2006 L 119, p. 12)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Joins Cases T-50/06, T-56/06, T-60/06, T-62/06 and T-69/06 for the purposes of the judgment;

               2.

               Annuls Commission Decision 2006/323/EC of 7 December 2005 concerning the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in Gardanne, in the Shannon region and in Sardinia respectively implemented by France, Ireland and Italy;

               3.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action in Case T-62/06;

               4.

               Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicants, including the costs of the interim proceedings in Case T-69/06 R.

      (1)  OJ C 86, 8.4.2006.


4.2.2003         EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                 C 26/15
                                             COURT OF JUSTICE
                         Decisions adopted by the Court at its meeting on 19 November 2002
                                                         (2003/C 26/11)
         At its meeting on 19 November 2002, the Court of Justice of the European Communities adopted the
         following transitional measures which will apply for the period from the entry into force of the Nice
         Treaty amending the Treaty on European Union, the Treaties establishing the European Communities and
         certain related acts, signed at Nice, 26 February 2001 (OJ C 80, 10.3.2001), until the entry into force of
         the amendments to its Rules of Procedure made necessary by the Nice Treaty.
         Appointment of Presidents of the Chambers
         The Court confirmed the appointments of the Presidents of the Chambers made at its meeting on 17
         September 2002 (OJ C 261, 6.10.2002).
         Composition of the Chambers
         The Court confirmed the composition of the Chambers determined at the same meeting on 17 September
         2002.
         Assigning of cases to benches
         Until the adoption of rules for the appointment of the Judges called upon to form part of the Grand
         Chamber, the Court has decided to sit as the full Court for cases which are not assigned to a chamber of
         three or five Judges.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 March 1999 in Case T-212/97: Agnès Hubert v Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Staff report - Principles of sound administration and legal certainty - Inadequate statement of reasons - General Provisions for implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations - Guidelines for drawing up staff reports - Manifest errors of assessment - Misuse of powers - Action for annulment)

text:
18.9.1999             EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 265/11
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               and Prussen, 2 Place Winston Churchill v Commission of the
                                                                          European Communities (Agents: Ana Maria Alves Vieira and
                        of 9 March 1999                                   Xavier Lewis), supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain
                                                                          and Northern Ireland, (Agents: Michelle Ewing, Kenneth Parker
                                                                          and Andrew Macnab) — application for annulment of the
in Case T-212/97: Agnès Hubert v Commission of the                        Commission decision of 16 May 1997 refusing to take action
                  European Communities (1)                                to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of 6 June
                                                                          1996 in Case C-127/94 R v MAFF ex parte Ecroyd [1996]
(Officials — Staff report — Principles of sound adminis-                  ECR I-2731 — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of:
tration and legal certainty — Inadequate statement of                     R.M. Moura Ramos, President, V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges;
reasons — General Provisions for implementing Article 43                  J. Vanhamme, Legal Secretary, for the Registrar, has given a
of the Staff Regulations — Guidelines for drawing up staff                judgment on 20 May 1999, in which it:
reports — Manifest errors of assessment — Misuse of
               powers — Action for annulment)                             1. Annuls the Commission decision of 16 May 1997 refusing to
                                                                               take action to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice
                        (1999/C 265/19)                                        of 6 June 1996 in Case C-127/94 R v Maff ex parte Ecroyd
                                                                               [1996] ECR I-2731.
                   (Language of the case: French)                         2. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those
                                                                               incurred by the applicant.
In Case T-212/97: Agnès Hubert, an official of the Commission
                                                                          3. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
of the European Communities, residing in Brussels, represented
                                                                               Ireland to bear its own costs.
by Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Liège Bar with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Evelyne Korn, 21
Rue de Nassau v Commission of the European Communities                    (1) OJ C 331 of 1.11.1997.
(Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia, Christine Berardis-Kayser and Denis
Waelbroeck) — application for annulment of a Commission
decision definitively adopting the applicant’s staff report for
the period between 1 July 1993 and 30 June 1995 — the Court
of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) composed of J.D. Cooke,
President, R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges; B. Pastor,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
9 March 1999, the operative part of which is as follows:
1. The action is dismissed.                                                                           of 4 May 1999
2. Each of the parties shall bear its own costs.                                   in Case T-242/97: Z v European Parliament (1)
                                                                          (Disciplinary procedure — Penalty of downgrading —
(1) OJ C 318 of 18.10.1997.
                                                                                Action for annulment)
                                                                                (1999/C 265/21)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               In Case T-242/97: Z, an official of the European Parliament,
                                                                          residing in Brussels represented by Jean-Noël Louis, of the
                         of 20 May 1999                                   Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                          offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange, v
in Case T-220/97: H & R Ecroyd Holdings Ltd v Com-                        European Parliament (Agent: Hans Kruck) — application for
          mission of the European Communities (1)                         annulment of the decision of the General Secretariat of the
                                                                          European Parliament of 28 October 1996 imposing on the
                                                                          applicant the disciplinary measure of downgrading — the
(Milk — Reference quantity — Compliance with a judgment                   Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of: B. Vester-
                     of the Court of Justice)                             dorf, President, and J. Pirrung and M. Vilaras, Judges; B. Pastor,
                                                                          Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
                        (1999/C 265/20)                                   on 4 May 1999, in which it:
                                                                          1. Dismisses the application.
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                          2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
In Case T-220/97: H & R Ecroyd Holdings Ltd, whose registered
office is at Brinsop House, Credenhill (United Kingdom),                  (1) OJ C 331 of 1.11.1997.
represented by William Neville, Solicitor, Peter Duffy QC,
Philippa Watson and Paul Stanley, Barristers, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger, Hoss


title: Case T-255/01: Action brought on 11 October 2001 by Changzhou Hailong Electronics & Light Fixtures Co., Ltd. & Zhejiang Yankon Group Co., Ltd. against the Council of the European Union

text:
5.1.2002              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 3/37
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               In support of his claim, he relies on the following pleas:
—     annul the decision of the Commission of 16 August
      2001 refusing to grant the applicant access to certain              —    the vacancy notice was drawn up in vague terms,
      documents concerning a proceeding pursuant to                            inasmuch as it does not make it possible to discern with
      Article 81 of the EC Treaty (COMP/E-1/37.919) relating                   any certainty the conditions for taking part in the
      to bank charges for currency exchange within the Euro                    appointment procedure.
      zone: Germany (Dresdner Bank AG) — on the wider
      application of access to files under Article 8 of Com-              —    the candidate who was finally appointed does not meet,
      mission Decision 2001/462/EC, ECSC of 23 May 2001                        according to his curriculum vitae published on the
      on the terms of reference of hearing officers in certain                 internet, the minimum requirements for selection and for
      competition proceedings;                                                 being considered a suitable candidate.
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                          —    the defendant, according to its own interpretation of the
                                                                               rules of the Court adopted by Decision No 18/97,
                                                                               refused him access to certain document regarding the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                appointment procedure.
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put
forward in T-216/01 Reisebank AG v Commission.
                                                                          Action brought on 11 October 2001 by Changzhou
                                                                          Hailong Electronics & Light Fixtures Co., Ltd. & Zhejiang
Action brought on 9 October 2001 by Giuseppe Di Pietro
                                                                          Yankon Group Co., Ltd. against the Council of the
 against Court of Auditors of the European Communities
                                                                                European Union
                        (Case T-254/01)
                                                                                (Case T-255/01)
                         (2002/C 3/64)
                                                                                (2002/C 3/65)
                   (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Court of Auditors of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities on 9 October 2001 by Giuseppe
Di Pietro, represented by Giovanni Monforte, lawyer.                      An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                          brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                          Communities on 11 October 2001 by Changzhou Hailong
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               Electronics & Light Fixtures Co., Ltd. & Zhejiang Yankon
                                                                          Group Co., Ltd., represented by Mr Philip Bentley QC and
—     annul the decision of the Court of Auditors of the                  Mr Filip Ragolle of Stanbrook Hooper, Brussels (Belgium).
      European Communities of 22 February 2001 whereby it
      decided to ‘appoint’ Michel Hervé to the post of Secretary
      General of the Court;
                                                                          The applicants claim that the Court should:
—     order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the
      applicant and to make good the damage suffered by him.              —    annul Council Regulation (EC) No 1470/2001 of 16 July
                                                                               2001 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and
                                                                               collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on
                                                                               imports of integrated electronic compact fluorescent
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                lamps (CFL-i) originating in the People’s Republic of
                                                                               China in so far as it applies to the applicants;
The applicant opposes the appointment of a Secretary General
of the Court of Auditors.                                                 —    order the Council to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 3/38                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        5.1.2002
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicants are both Chinese producers of electronic
compact fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) and export those lamps to             —     amend the decision of the second Board of Appeal of the
the European Community.                                                       Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
                                                                              Marks and Designs) of 31 July 2001 concerning appeal
                                                                              No R 789/1999-2 so that it states that there are no
On 17 May 2000, the Commission initiated an anti-dumping                      grounds under Article 8(1)(b) of the Regulation on the
proceeding concerning imports of CFL-i originating in China,                  Community trade mark for refusing to register the
after the lodging by the European Lighting Companies Feder-                   Community trade mark AIR MARITIME under appli-
ation of a complaint. During the anti-dumping investigation.                  cation No 81.331;
Mexico was used, pursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the Basic
Regulation, as the analogue market economy country for the
purposes of determining the normal value of exports from
China.                                                                  —     in the alternative, annul the decision of the second Board
                                                                              of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                              Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 31 July 2001
                                                                              concerning appeal No R 789/1999-2 and order the Office
The applicants co-operated during the investigation and were
                                                                              for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to continue the
granted individual treatment The dumping margins were
                                                                              registration procedure relating to the Community trade
therefore determined using the normal value of the export
                                                                              mark AIR MARITIME under registration No 81.331
prices of Philips Mexicana , a subsidiary of one of the primary
                                                                              without regard to the opposing trade mark, i.e. the
complainants, as well as the normal value of the applicants’
                                                                              German Trade Mark Wz 1.186.278 ‘air marin’, and
export prices.
In support of their claims, the applicants submit that, by              —     order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings.
adopting the Commission’s findings, the Council infringed the
basic anti-dumping Regulation, in that the Commission should
have used Article 2(7)(b) and not 2(7)(a) of that Regulation.
Alternatively, the applicants argue that the normal value
determined under Article 2(7)(a) was manifestly unreasonable
and discriminatory.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        Applicant for the Com-        The applicant
Action brought on 8 October 2001 by Frosch Touristik                    munity trade mark:
GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the
         Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                        Community trade mark          The word mark ‘AIR MARITIME’
                                                                        applied for:                  for goods and services in Class 16,
                        (Case T-257/01)                                                               39 and 42 — Application
                                                                                No 81.331
                          (2002/C 3/66)
                                                                        Proprietor of the oppos-      Air Marin Flugreisen GmbH
(Language of the case: to be determined in accordance with              ing right to a trade mark
Article 131(2) of the Rules of Procedure. Language in which the         or sign:
                 application was drafted: German)
                                                                        Opposing right to trade       The German word mark ‘air mar-
                                                                        mark or sign:                 in’ for services in Class 39
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 8 October 2001 by Frosch Tour-                  Decision of the Oppo-         Rejection of the application for
istik GmbH, Munich, represented by Hans Georg Zeiner and                sition Division:              the services ‘travel agency;
Brigitte Heamann-Dunn, lawyers, with an address for service                                           arrangement and organisation of
in Luxembourg, the other party before the Board of Appeal                                             travel; transport of persons’ in
being Air Marin Flugreisen GmbH, Bonn (Germany).                                                      Class 39


title: Case T-178/98: Action brought on 28 October 1998 by Fresh Marine Company AS against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
5.6.1999              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 160/21
Action brought on 28 October 1998 by Fresh Marine                       Secondly, by failing to inform the applicant of its findings
Company AS against the Commission of the European                       prior to the imposition of provisional measures and not
                         Communities                                    giving the applicant the opportunity to comment on the
                                                                        Commission’s findings, the Commission has infringed the
                                                                        applicant’s right to a fair hearing.
                        (Case T-178/98)
                                                                        (1) OJ L 346, 17.12.1997, p. 63.
                        (1999/C 160/40)
                  (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 28 October 1998 by Fresh Marine                 Action brought on 7 December 1998 by The Committee
Company AS, represented by Jean-François Bellis, with an                of the Cotton and Allied Textile Industries of the Euro-
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch             pean Union (Eurocoton) against the Council of the Euro-
& Wolter,11, rue Goethe.                                                                            pean Union
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                      (Case T-192/98)
— order the Commission to pay damages to it in the total                                         (1999/C 160/41)
     amount of NOK 2 115 000, and
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
— order the Commission to bear all the costs of the proceed-
     ings.
                                                                        An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                        brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                        Communities on 7 December 1998 by the Committee of the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Cotton and Allied Textile Industries of the European Union
                                                                        (Eurocoton), represented by Clive Stanbrook QC and Professor
                                                                        Alan Dashwood with an address for service in Luxembourg at
The applicant, a limited company established under the laws             the Chambers of Arsène Kronshagen, 22, rue Marie Adélaïde.
of Norway, is specialised in the selling of farmed Atlantic
salmon. With effect from 18 December 1997 the Commission
imposed provisional anti-dumping and countervailing duties              The applicant claims that the Court should:
on certain imports of farmed Atlantic salmon originating in
Norway (1).                                                             — declare void, pursuant to articles 173 and 174 EC, the
                                                                            Council’s decision to reject the Commission’s proposal for
                                                                            a Regulation (1) imposing definitive anti-dumping duties
The applicant estimates the damage suffered as a result of the              on imports of unbleached cotton fabric from India,
introduction of provisional measures (in particular deprivation             Indonesia, Pakistan, Turkey, China and Egypt, and (2)
of a significant part of the revenues expected from the 1997                collecting the provisional duties imposed by Regulation
Christmas sales) to NOK 1 115 000. In addition to the damage                (EC) No 773/98 of 7 April 1998, and
inflicted upon it in the form of lost sales on the Community
market, the applicant claims that it has faced and will                 — order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the
continue to face substantial costs in re-establishing itself on             Council.
the Community market. The applicant considers it reasonable
to estimate this damage to amount to NOK 1 000 000.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant submits that the Commission has committed a
flagrant breach of two superior rules of law for the protection         The grounds and arguments are similar to those invoked in
of the individual by imposing provisional antidumping and               case T-213/97 (1).
countervailing duties on it.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 318, 18.10.1997, p. 23.
Firstly, the Commission has failed to discharge its duty of due
care and proper administration by failing to clarify the
applicant’s monitoring report prior to the imposition of
provisional measures.