title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 23 October 1997 in Case C-150/95: Portuguese Republic v. Commission of the European Communities supported by the Council of the European Union (Common agricultural policy - Regulation (EC) No 307/95 - Oil seeds - Final regional reference amounts - Exclusion of Portuguese producers from the benefit of compensatory adjustments for overshoots and non-utilization in the Community as a whole - Action for annulment)

text:
C 387/2                                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     20 . 12 . 97
Buckley, assisted by John D. Cooke and Jennifer Payne ) —             37 of the EC Treaty — the Court, composed of: G. C.
application for a declaration that, by establishing and               Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, H.
maintaining, as against the other Member States, as part              Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet ( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F.
of a national monopoly of a commercial character,                     Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida , P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L.
exclusive import and export rights in the electricity                 Murray, D. A. O. Edward ( Rapporteur), J. -P. Puissochet,
industry, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its               G. Hirsch, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; G. Cosmas,
obligations under Articles 30 , 34 and 37 of the EC Treaty            Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar,
— the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias,                   D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the
President, C. Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet                      Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 October 1997, in
( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho             which it :
de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, D. A. O.
Edward ( Rapporteur ), J. -P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann
and L. Sevón, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General ; H.                1 . dismisses the application;
von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, D. Louterman-Hubeau,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 23 October 1997, in which it:                             2 . orders the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           to pay the costs;
1 . dismisses the application;
                                                                      3 . orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
                                                                           Northern Ireland, and Ireland, as interveners, to bear
2 . orders the Commission of the European Communities                      their own costs .
     to pay the costs;
                                                                      (') OJ C 202 , 23 . 7. 1994 .
3 . orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
     Northern Ireland, the French Republic and Ireland, as
     interveners, to bear their own costs .
(') OJ C 202 , 23 . 7. 1994 .
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( Sixth Chamber )
                                                                                of 23 October 1997
                                                                      in Case C- 15 0/95 : Portuguese Republic v. Commission of
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  the European Communities supported by the Council of
                        of 23 October 1997                                                  the European Union (')
in Case C-159/94: Commission               of the European            (Common agricultural policy — Regulation (EC)
Communities, supported by United           Kingdom of Great           No 307/95 — Oil seeds — Final regional reference
Britain and Northern Ireland v.              French Republic,         amounts — Exclusion of Portuguese producers from the
                      supported by Ireland (')                        benefit of compensatory adjustments for overshoots and
                                                                      non-utilization in the Community as a whole — Action
 (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligatons —                                            for annulment)
  Exclusive rights to import and export gas and electricity)
                                                                                ( 97/C 387/04 )
                           ( 97/C 387/03 )
                 (Language of the case: French)                                     (Language of the case: Portuguese)
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                               published in the European Court Reports)
 In   Case    C-159/94 :      Commission    of  the   European        In Case C-150/95 : Portuguese Republic ( Counsel :
 Communities ( Agents : Richard B. Wainwright and                     Professor João Mota de Campos, Agent: Luis Fernandes )
 Hendrik van Lier ), supported by United Kingdom of Great             v. Commission of the European Communities ( Agents:
 Britain and Northern Ireland ( Agent: Lindsey Nicoll,                Antonio Caeiro and Gerard Rozet ), supported by the
 assisted by David Anderson ) v. French Republic ( Agents:            Council of the European Union (Agents : Jan-Peter Hix
 Catherine de Salins and Jean-Marc Belorgey ), supported              and Paulo Borges ) — application for the annulment of
 by Ireland ( Agent: Michael A. Buckley, assisted by John             Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 307/95 of 14 February
 D. Cooke and Jennifer Payne ) — application for a                     1995 establishing corrected final regional reference
 declaration that, by establishing exclusive import and               amounts for producers of soya beans, rape seed, colza
 export rights for gas and electricity, the French Republic           seed and sunflower seed for the 1994/95 marketing year
 has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 30, 34 and        ( OJ 1995 L 36 , p. 2 ), in so far as it reduces by 20% the
 ---pagebreak--- 20 . 12 . 97             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 387/3
final regional reference amounts for sunflower seeds                     ( Rapporteur ), Judges, A. La Pergola, Advocate General; L.
produced in Portugal — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ),                     Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
composed of: H. Ragnemalm, President of the Chamber,                    judgment on 23 October 1997 in which it:
R. Schintgen, G. F. Mancini, P. J. G. Kapteyn ( Rapporteur)
and G. Hirsch, Judges, C. O. Lenz, Advocate General;
H. A. Riihl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has             1 . declares that, by determining, for the application of
given a judgment on 23 October 1997, in which it:                             the special consumer tax and the flat-rate added
                                                                              special duty, the taxable value of imported used cars
                                                                              by reducing the price of equivalent new cars by 5 %
 I . dismisses the application;                                               for each year of age of the vehicles concerned, with, as
                                                                              a rule, a maximum reduction of 20% , and by
                                                                              excluding anti-pollution technology imported used cars
2 . orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs;                          from the benefit of the reduced rates of the special
                                                                              consumer tax applicable to that type of vehicle, the
3 . orders the Council of the European Union to bear its                      Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
      own costs .
                                                                              under Article 95 of the Treaty;
(') OJ C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .                                          2 . for the rest, dismisses the application;
                                                                        3 . orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                        (') OJ C 31 , 3 . 2 . 1996 .
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           ( Fifth Chamber)
                         of 23 October 1997
in    Case    C-375/95 : Commission of the European
             Communities v. Hellenic Republic ( 1 )
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Failure to fulfil obligations — Taxation of motor vehicles
                                                                                of 4 November 1997
                          — Discrimination)
                             ( 97/C 387/05 )                            in Case C-337/95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                        the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden ): Parfums Christian Dior
                                                                              SA and Parfums Christian Dior BV v. Evora BV (')
                  (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                        (Trade mark rights and copyright — Action brought by
                                                                        the owner of those rights to stop a reseller advertising the
                                                                                further commercialization of goods — Perfume)
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
           published in the European Court Reports)                                                  ( 97/C 387/06 )
In Case C-375/95 : Commission of the European                                             (Language of the case: Dutch)
Communities (Agent: Dimitrios Gouloussis ) v. Hellenic
Republic ( Agents : Panagiotis Mylonopoulos and Anna
Rokofyllou ) application for a declaration under Article 169
of the EC Treaty that, by introducing and maintaining in                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
force provisions concerning the taxation of used cars                              published in the European Court Reports)
which, first, for the purposes of calculating the basis of
assessment to the special consumer tax permit only 5 %
for each year of age to be deducted from the selling price              In Case C-337/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
of equivalent new vehicles, which percentage cannot                     of the EC Treaty from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
exceed 20 % of the value of the equivalent new vehicles                 for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before
and, second, govern the levying of the flat-rate added                  that court between Parfums Christian Dior SA and
special duty without any reduction for used cars and,                   Parfums Christian Dior BV, and Evora BV — on the
third, grant tax advantages ( reduction of the special                  interpretation of Articles 30, 36 and the third paragraph
consumer tax ) only in respect of new anti-pollution                    of Article 177 of the EC Treaty and of Articles 5 and 7 of
technology cars and not imported anti-pollution                         the First Council Directive ( 89/ 104/EC ) of 21 December
technology used cars, the Hellenic Republic has failed to               1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States
fulfil its obligations under Article 95 of the EC Treaty —              relating to trade marks ( OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1 ) — the Court,
the Court ( Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. C. Gulmann,                 composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C.
President of Chamber, M. Wathelet, J. C. Moitinho de                    Gulmann ( Rapporteur ), H. Ragnemalm, R. Schintgen,
Almeida , D. A. O. Edward and J. -P. Puissochet                         Presidents of Chambers, G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de


title: Case T-387/12: Action brought on 4 September 2012 — Italy v Commission

text:
               20.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/15

         Action brought on 4 September 2012 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-387/12)
   2012/C 319/28
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: S. Fiorentino, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the European Commission implementing decision 2012/336/EU of 22 June 2012 (notified under document C(2012) 3838), excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as that decision is the object of the present action;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The scope of the present action is limited to the flat-rate financial corrections applied to the Italian Republic in relation to the aid scheme for growers of processing tomatoes, for the years 2006, 2007 and 2008.
   In support of its action, the applicant relies on a single plea alleging infringement of Article 7(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 1999 L 160, p. 103) and of Article 31 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (2005 L 209, p. 1).
   By that plea, the applicant challenges the application of the financial corrections made by the contested decision, equal to 2 % of expenditure, submitting that those corrections were applied notwithstanding the proof, acknowledged by the Commission, that no significant financial damage was caused.
   In addition, the applicant disputes the quantification of the corrections themselves in so far as their actual determination is disproportionate and manifestly illogical, since they are considerably higher than the potential damage resulting from the conduct attributed to the Italian authorities.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) of 14 July 1997 in Case C-388/96: Glasoltherm Sàrl v. Commission of the European Communities, Électricité de France and HLM 'Colomiers Habitat' SA (Formal inadmissibility of the application)

text:
27 . 9 . 97            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 295/9
                  ORDER OF THE COURT                                           — of DM 608 503,40 for 'expenditure in promoting
                        (Third Chamber)                                              the sale of milk ', and
                         of 14 July 1997                                       — of DM 485 466,68 by reason of ' failure to comply
in Case C-3 88/96 : Glasoltherm Sari v. Commission of the                            with payment deadlines',
European Communities, Electricite de France and HLM
                   'Colomiers Habitat' SA (')                                  are not to be paid by the EAGGF but are charged to
           (Formal inadmissibility of the application)                         the Federal Republic of Germany,
                            ( 97/C 295/ 14 )
                                                                        — order the defendant to pay the costs of the
                                                                               proceedings .
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
           published in the European Court Reports)                     — ( Expenditure in promoting the sale of milk )
In Case C-388/96 : Glasoltherm Sari, in liquidation, having                    The charging of the item cited in the application,
                                                                               which arose from two contracts which the former
its seat for the purposes of the liquidation at Orsay,
France v. Commission of the European Communities,                              Federal Office for the Organization of the Agricultural
Electricite de France, having its seat in Paris, and HLM                       Markets ( BALM ) had concluded on behalf of the
' Colomiers Habitat' SA, having its seat at Colomiers,                         Commission in promoting the sale of milk and milk
France — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: J. C.                         products within the framework of Regulations ( EEC )
Moitinho de Almeida, President of Chamber, C. Gulmann                          No 465/92 ( ] ) and ( EEC ) No 585/93 ( 2 ), is justified by
 ( Rapporteur) and J.-P. Puissochet, Judges; G. Cosmas,                        the Commission on the ground of failure to comply
Advocate-General ; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order                      with a requirement concerning the content of the
on 14 July 1997, the operative part of which is at follows :                   interim reports of the successful tenderer for which no
                                                                               provision existed in the relevant Community law.
                                                                               According to the standard contracts provided for at
 The action is inadmissible.                                                   that time under the above regulations, final reports
                                                                               were required to contain cost-benefit analyses,
 n OJ C 40, 8 . 2 . 1997.                                                      whereas interim reports were not so required. It was
                                                                                only for subsequent programmes and measures — thus
                                                                                for the continuation of advertising measures
                                                                                subsequent to Regulations ( EEC ) No 465/92 and
                                                                                ( EEC ) No 585/93 — that the new sample contracts
                                                                                contained corresponding clauses .
 Action brought on 7 July 1997 by the Federal Republic                  — ( Failure to comply with payment deadlines in respect
 of Germany against the Commission of the European                              of aid for set-aside )
                              Communities
                          ( Case C-245/97 )
                                                                                The provision in Article 15 ( 2 ) of Regulation (EEC )
                             ( 97/C 295/15 )                                    No 2069/91 ( 3 ), under which the amount of aid had to
                                                                                be paid by 31 December 1992 at the latest, was
                                                                                complied with. There is no basis in law for excluding
 An action against the Commission of the European                               the portion of that amount payable by the Community
  Communities was brought before the Court of Justice                           from clearance of the accounts on the ground that it
  of the European Communities on 7 July 1997 by the                             was not until May 1993 that this portion was claimed
  Federal Republic of Germany, represented by Ernst                             from the Community by way of Table 104 . The
  Roder, Ministerialrat, and Claus-Dieter Quassowski ,                          Commission's working document of 4 January 1993
  Regierungsdirektor, Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs,                      ( Document VI/488/92 DE ) governs solely the graded
  D-53107 Bonn .                                                                rejection of amounts which were not paid to end
                                                                                recipients within the periods laid down by Community
                                                                                law. It does not provide for any sanctions in the case
  The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    of late notification to the Community of amounts
                                                                                which end recipients did receive within the specified
  — set aside the Commission decision of 23 April 1997 —                        periods .
      C(97 ) 1180 final — on the clearance of the accounts
      presented by the Member States in respect of the                   ( 1 ) OJ L 53 , 28 . 2 . 1992, p. 8 .
      expenditure for 1993 on the Guarantee Section of the               ( 2 ) OJ L 61 , 13 . 3 . 1993 , p . 26 .
      European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund                  ( 3 ) OJ L 191 , 16 . 7. 1991 , p . 19 .
      ( EAGGF ) in so far as Article 2 thereof provides that
      the amounts :


Important legal notice

|

E2001P0005

Action brought on 26 April 2001 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Principality of Liechtenstein (Case E-5/01)

Official Journal C 242 , 30/08/2001 P. 0006 - 0006

Action brought on 26 April 2001 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Principality of Liechtenstein(Case E-5/01)(2001/C 242/10)An action against the Principality of Liechtenstein was brought before the EFTA Court on 26 April 2001 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Peter Dyrberg, acting as agent of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 74, Rue de Trèves, B-1040 Brussels.The applicant claims that the Court should:1. Declare that, by failing to adopt, within the time-limit prescribed, the national provisions necessary to comply with Articles 3(1), 4, 6 and 7, read in conjunction with Article 2, of the Act referred to in point 6 of Annex IX to the EEA Agreement (Council Directive 87/344/EEC of 22 June 1987 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to legal expenses insurance), as adapted by way of Protocol 1 to the EEA Agreement, the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 10 of that Act and Article 7 of the EEA Agreement.2. Order the Principality of Liechtenstein to pay the costs of the proceedings.Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:- Article 3(1) of the Directive states that legal expenses cover shall be the subject of a contract separate from that drawn up for the other classes of insurance or shall be dealt with in a separate section of a single policy in which the nature of the legal expenses cover and, should the Member State so request, the amount of the relevant premium are specified.- Article 4 of the Directive provides that any contract of legal expenses insurance shall expressly recognise that where recourse is had to a lawyer or other person appropriately qualified according to national law in order to defend, represent or serve the intrests of the insured person in any inquiry or proceedings, that insured person shall be free to choose such lawyer or other person.- Article 6 of the Directive provides that Member States shall adopt all appropriate measures to ensure that, without prejudice to any right of appeal to a judicial body which might be provided for by national law, an arbitration or other procedure offering comparable guarantees of objectivity is provided for whereby, in the event of a difference of opinion between a legal expenses insurer and his insured, a decision can be taken on the attitude to be adopted in order to settle the dispute. Further the insurance contract must mention the right of the insured person to have recourse to such a procedure.- Article 7 of the Directive provides that whenever a conflict of interests arises or there is disagreement over the settlement of the dispute, the legal expenses insurer or, where appropriate, the claims settlement office shall inform the person insured of the right referred to in Article 4 and the possibility of having recourse to the procedure referred to in Article 6.- It follows from Article 10 of the Act, as adapted by way of Protocol 1 to the Agreement, that the time limit for Liechtenstein to take the necessary measures to comply with the Act expired on 1 May 1995.- At the expiry of the abovementioned time limit, Liechtenstein had not taken the legislative measures necessary to comply with the Act. Nor had such measures been taken at the end of the time limit set by the EFTA Surveillance Authority in its reasoned opinion, in which it requested Liechtenstein to take the measures necessary to comply with the Act. Liechtenstein has, therefore, failed to comply with its obligations under Article 10 of the Act and Article 7 of the EEA Agreement.


title: Case T-56/99: Action brought on 25 February 1999 by Marlines SA against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
15.5.1999             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 136/17
Action brought on 25 February 1999 by Marlines SA                        Action brought on 1 March 1999 by Ventouris Group
  against the Commission of the European Communities                     Enterprises SA against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
                         (Case T-56/99)                                                           (Case T-59/99)
                        (1999/C 136/37)                                                          (1999/C 136/38)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
                   (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                European Communities on 1 March 1999 by Ventouris
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               Group Enterprises SA whose registered office is in Panama,
European Communities on 25 February 1999 by Marlines SA                  represented by Maria Proestou and Maria Velmakhou, of the
whose registered office is in Monrovia, Liberia, represented by          Athens Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Dimitrios Papatheofanous, of the Athens Bar, with an address             Chambers of Claude Medernach, 8-10 rue Mathias Hardt,
for service in Luxembourg at the office of Paul Attallas (J. P.          L-2010 Luxembourg.
Lorang SA) route de Trèves, L-1010 Luxembourg.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claim that the Court should:
                                                                         — annul the Commission decision of 9 December 1998
                                                                             relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the Treaty
— annul the Commission decision of 9 December 1998                           (IV/34.466 — Greek Ferry Boats);
    relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the Treaty
    (IV/34.466 — Greek Ferry Boats);                                     — in the alternative, amend the contested decision in the
                                                                             applicant’s favour so that any fine imposed on it is the
                                                                             lowest provided for;
— order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                         — in the further alternative, amend the contested decision in
                                                                             the applicant’s favour to take account of the extenuating
Grounds for annulment and main arguments                                     circumstances put forward;
                                                                         — order the Commission to pay the costs.
— The applicant, being a management company, did not
    have the power to enter into an agreement on prices
    with competing companies and for that reason did not                 Grounds for annulment and main arguments
    participate in discussions of that nature or send documents
    to the other companies accepting their views on the                  — The fact that the Commission found that the applicant was
    carriage charges.                                                        party together with other companies to an agreement or
                                                                             agreements for the joint setting of the carriage charge for
                                                                             lorries is attributable to an error by the Commission in
— The pricing policy which the applicant pursued during the                  assessing the submissions made, and the evidence adduced,
    period at issue was independent and different from that of               by the applicant. If the Commission had not erred in that
    the other companies.                                                     way, it would have accepted that the applicant had no
                                                                             reason at all to be party to agreement or agreements of
                                                                             such a kind.
— While the Commission accepts in Article 1(2) of the
    contested decision that the applicant was not in any way
    party to agreements amounting to infringements of Article            — The Commission erred in its assessment both of the factors
    85 (1) of the Treaty, it finds in Article 1(2), in vague terms           selected by it and of the submissions put forward, and
    and mistakenly, that the applicant infringed that provision.             evidence adduced, by the applicant in finding that the
                                                                             applicant was party with other companies to an agreement
                                                                             for the joint setting of the carriage charges for the
— The Commission manifestly erred as to the facts, and either                Patras-Bari route.
    the contested decision lacks reasoning so far as concerns
    the applicant or its reasoning is inadequate.                        — Even if it is accepted that specific documents taken into
                                                                             account by the Commission show the applicant was party
                                                                             to an agreement or agreements contrary to Article 85 (1)
                                                                             of the Treaty, those documents were not obtained lawfully
                                                                             by the Commission, and thus must be disregarded by the
                                                                             Court of First Instance.


title: Case C-258/10: Order of the Court of 4 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Dâmbovița — Romania) — Nicușor Grigore v Regia Națională a Pădurilor Romsilva — Direcția Silvică București (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Social policy — Protection of the safety and health of workers — Directive 2003/88/EC — Organisation of working time — Notion of ‘working time’ — ‘Notion ofmaximum weekly working time’ — Forest ranger subject, under the terms of his employment contract and the applicable collective agreement, to flexible working time of 8 hours per day and 40 hours per week — National legislation holding him liable for any damage suffered in the section of forest under his control — Classification — Effect of overtime on the remuneration and financial compensation of the person concerned)

text:
               25.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 186/9

         Order of the Court of 4 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Dâmbovița — Romania) — Nicușor Grigore v Regia Națională a Pădurilor Romsilva — Direcția Silvică București
   (Case C-258/10) (1)

   (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Social policy - Protection of the safety and health of workers - Directive 2003/88/EC - Organisation of working time - Notion of ‘working time’ - ‘Notion ofmaximum weekly working time’ - Forest ranger subject, under the terms of his employment contract and the applicable collective agreement, to flexible working time of 8 hours per day and 40 hours per week - National legislation holding him liable for any damage suffered in the section of forest under his control - Classification - Effect of overtime on the remuneration and financial compensation of the person concerned)
   2011/C 186/15
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Tribunal Dâmbovița (Romania)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Nicușor Grigore

      Defendant: Regia Națională a Pădurilor Romsilva — Direcția Silvică București

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Dâmbovița — Interpretation of Articles 2(1) and 6 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9) — Notion of ‘working time’ — National legislation holding a forest ranger liable for any damage suffered in the section of forest under his control, despite the terms of his employment contract making him subject to a maximum daily working time of eight hours — Notion of ‘maximum weekly working time’ — Actual weekly working time exceeding the lawful maximum weekly working time — Effect of overtime on the remuneration and financial compensation of the person concerned

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Article 2(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time must be interpreted as meaning that a period during which a forest ranger, whose daily working time, as stipulated in his employment contract, is eight hours, is required to carry out wardenship duties in a section of forest, making him liable to disciplinary action, the payment of compensation and civil or criminal sanctions, as the case may be, for any damage ascertained in the area under his control, regardless of the time when the damage occurs, constitutes ‘working time’ within the meaning of that provision only if the nature and extent of the wardenship obligation on that forest ranger and the system of liability applicable to him require his physical presence at the place of work and if, during that period, he must be available to his employer. It is for the national court to undertake the factual and legal checks necessary, in particular as regards the applicable national law, in order to assess whether that is the situation in the matter before it.

               2.

               The classification of a period of ‘working time’ within the meaning of Article 2(1) of Directive 2003/88 does not depend on the provision of staff accommodation within the section of forest under the control of the forest ranger concerned provided that that provision does not imply that he is required to be physically present in the place determined by the employer and available there to his employer in order to be able to take appropriate action if necessary. It is for the national court to undertake the checks necessary in order to assess whether that is the situation in the matter before it.

               3.

               Article 6 of Directive 2003/88 must be interpreted as precluding, in principle, a situation in which, although the employment contract of a forest ranger stipulates that the maximum working time is 8 hours per day and 40 hours per week, in reality he carries out, by virtue of legal obligations, wardenship duties in the section of forest under his control, either permanently or so as to exceed the maximum weekly working time laid down in that article. It is for the national court to undertake the checks necessary in order to assess whether that is the situation in the matter before it and, if so, to ascertain whether the conditions laid down in Article 17(1) of Directive 2003/88 or in Article 22(1) thereof relating to the ability to derogate from Article 6 have been complied with in the case in the main proceedings.

               4.

               Directive 2003/88 must be interpreted as meaning that the employer’s obligation to pay salaries and benefits which may be treated as salary in respect of the period during which the forest ranger is required to carry out wardenship duties in the section of forest under his control does not fall within the scope of that directive, but under that of the relevant provisions of the national law.

      (1)  OJ C 221, 14.8.2010.


title: Case C-436/15: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — Lietuvos Respublikos aplinkos ministerijos Aplinkos projektų valdymo agentūra v ‘Alytaus regiono atliekų tvarkymo centras’ UAB (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of the European Union’s financial interests — Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 — Article 3(1) — Funding from the Cohesion Fund — Project for the development of a regional waste management system — Irregularities — Concept of ‘multiannual programme’ — Definitive termination of a multiannual programme — Limitation period)

text:
               21.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/4

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — Lietuvos Respublikos aplinkos ministerijos Aplinkos projektų valdymo agentūra v ‘Alytaus regiono atliekų tvarkymo centras’ UAB
   (Case C-436/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of the European Union’s financial interests - Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 - Article 3(1) - Funding from the Cohesion Fund - Project for the development of a regional waste management system - Irregularities - Concept of ‘multiannual programme’ - Definitive termination of a multiannual programme - Limitation period))
   (2017/C 277/04)
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Referring court

   Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Lietuvos Respublikos aplinkos ministerijos Aplinkos projektų valdymo agentūra

      Defendant:‘Alytaus regiono atliekų tvarkymo centras’ UAB

      third parties: Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerija, ‘Skirnuva’ UAB, ‘Parama’ UAB, ‘Alkesta’ UAB, ‘Dzūkijos statyba’ UAB

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               A project, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, consisting in the creation of a waste management system in a specific region and the implementation of which was envisaged over several years and financed by resources of the European Union, falls within the concept of a ‘multiannual programme’ within the meaning of the second sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests.

               2.

               Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95 must be interpreted as meaning that the limitation period for an irregularity committed in the context of a ‘multiannual programme’, such as the project at issue in the main proceedings, runs from the date on which the irregularity in question was committed, in accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95; if the irregularity is ‘continuous or repeated’, the limitation period runs from the day on which the irregularity ceases, in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95.
               In addition, a ‘multiannual programme’ is regarded as ‘definitively terminated’, within the meaning of the second sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95, on the end date provided for in respect of that programme, in accordance with the rules which govern it. In particular, a multiannual programme governed by Council Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 of 16 May 1994 establishing a Cohesion Fund, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1264/1999 of 21 June 1999, Council Regulation (EC) No 1265/1999 of 21 June 1999 and the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, must be regarded as being ‘definitively terminated’, within the meaning of that provision, on the date indicated in the European Commission decision approving that project as the deadline for completion of the work and for the making of the payments of the eligible expenditure related thereto, without prejudice to any extension, by a new decision of the Commission to that effect.

      (1)  OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.


title: Action brought on 20 February 1995 by Terres Rouges Consultant and others against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-47/95)

text:
22. 4. 95            [ EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 101 / 19
      provide translations of documentary evidence written           Action brought on 20 February 1995 by Nordcement
      in foreign languages, thereby frustrating the submission       Aktiengesellschaft against the Commission of the European
      by the applicant of a comprehensive response (third                                      Communities
      head of claim);                                                                        (Case T-46/95 )
( d ) rendered it impossible, in overall terms, for the                                       ( 95/C 101/38 )
      applicant to submit a defence commensurate with the
      scope of the matters covered by the proceeding, by                            (Language of the case: German)
      prescribing unreasonably short periods for the delivery
      of its response and for inspection of the file ( fourth head
      of claim );                                                    An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
( e ) provided a statement of reasons for he decision which          Instance of the European Communities on 20 February
      was inadequate and contradictory, particularly as              1995 by Nordcement Aktiengesellschaft of Hanover,
      regards discrepancies between the operative part of the        represented by Karlheinz Moosecker and Martin
      decision and the reasons therefor, as well as an absence       Klusmann, Rechtsanwâlte, Diisseldorf, with an address for
      of reasons in support of individual objections ( fifth         service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Bonn & Schmitt,
      head of claim), and — consequently —                           62 Avenue Guillaume .
( f) made findings of fault and determined the fine to be
      imposed in a manner which, from a formal standpoint            The applicant claims that the Court should :
      alone, fell far short of the requirements laid down by
      Article 190 of the EC Treaty regarding the giving              1 . annul in its entirety the Decision of the Commission of
      of reasons for individual decisions ( sixth head of                 30 November 1994 ( Cases IV/33.126 and 33.322 —
      claim).                                                             Cement ), served on the applicant on 13 December 1994
                                                                          and 3 February 1995 , in so far as it concerns the
By reason of those procedural infringements, the                          applicant,
Commission breached the principles of equality of arms in
the proceeding, of entitlement to a fair hearing and of                   in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the
equitable procedure and equality of treatment.                            applicant to a reasonable sum corresponding to the real
Consequently, the decision was reached in an unlawful                     significance of the influence on competition forming the
manner and should thus be annulled .                                      subject-matter of the proceeding, the period of time to
                                                                          which the objections regarding the ECEC relate and the
As regards the substance of the matter, the applicant                     involvement of the applicant in the matter;
complains that the Commission:
(a ) based its legal subsumptions on incorrect and unproven          2 , order the defendant to pay the costs .
      suppositions, in that it investigated the actual
      circumstances in the cement markets in a fragmentary           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
      manner and drew erroneous and arbitrary conclusions
      from the facts investigated ( seventh head of claim );         The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
                                                                     in Case T-45/95 Alsen-Breitenburg Zement- und Kalkwerke
( b ) with particular regard to the ECEC, failed to recognize,       GmbH v . Commission .
      from the standpoint of Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty,
      the absence of elements constituting an infringement in
      relation to that organization and its modus operandi
      ( eighth head of claim);
(c) assumed the existence of links between the ECEC and
      the EPC, organizations which were the subject of               Action brought on 20 February 1995 by Terres Rouges
      complaints, whereas no such links in fact existed ( ninth      Consultant and others against the Commission of the
      head of claim);                                                                   European Communities
( d ) in assuming the existence of a single continuing                                       (Case T-47/95 )
      infringement, bracketed together, in a grossly unlawful                                 ( 95/C 101/39 )
      manner, different sets of facts, and conjectured
      participation in the alleged Cembureau agreement
      (tenth head of claim );
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(e ) without due authority, issued directions in Article 8           An action against the Commission of the European
      of the decision which were inadequately defined and            Communities was brought before the Court of First
      which were impermissible regarding the future                  Instance of the European Communities on 20 February
      exchange of information (eleventh head of claim).              1 995 by Terres Rouges Consultant, the head office of which
Consequently, the decision constitutes an infringement of            is in Paris, Cobana Import, the head office of which is at
                                                                     Rungis ( France), and SIPEV NV, the head office of which is
the Treaty and of higher-ranking rules of Community law,
and should for that reason be annulled .                             in Antwerp ( Belgium ), represented by Michel Aurillac, of
                                                                     the Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                     the Chambers of Charles Duro, 6 Rue Heine.
 ---pagebreak--- No C 101/20         HEN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                              22 . 4 . 95
The applicant claims that the Court should:                          Lastly, the contested Regulation is in breach of the Lomé
                                                                     Convention, inasmuch as neither the purpose nor the effect
— annul the contested regulation, with all the legal                 of Protocol 5 to the Convention and the preamble thereto
      consequences flowing therefrom, and order the                  is to place non-traditional bananas in a less favourable
      Commission to pay the costs.                                   position than their Latin American competitors.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicants, three companies handling the importation
and marketing of 70% of the banana production of the
Côte d'Ivoire, contest Commission Regulation (EC )
No 3224/94, inasmuch as it disregards the provisions of the          Action brought on 20 February 1995 by the Bundesverband
basic regulation in the banana sector.                               der Deutschen Zementindustrie eV against the Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities
Following the adoption by the Council of Regulation ( EEC )                                   (Case T-48/95 )
No 404/93 on the common organization of the market in                                          ( 95/C 101/40 )
bananas, a number of Latin American banana-producing
countries applied, pursuant to Article XXIII ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) of
GATT, for the setting up of a panel, which found that the                            (Language of the case: German)
Community rules in the matter were incompatible in several
respects with GATT, in particular those relating to specific         An action against the Commission of the European
duties paid on the importation of bananas, preferential              Communities was brought before the Court of First
rights granted by the EEC to ACP countries in respect of             Instance of the European Communities on 20 February
bananas and the grant of import licences allowing access to          1995 by the Bundesverband der Deutschen Zementindustrie
imports within the framework of the tariff quota provided            eV of Cologne (Federal Republic of Germany), represented
for .                                                                by Jochen Burrichter, Rechtsanwalt, Dusseldorf, with an
                                                                     address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
In those circumstances, the Commission negotiated with               Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue.
Costa Rica, Colombia, Nicaragua and Venezuela a
Framework Agreement on Bananas which was initialled in
Brussels and annexed to the Marrakesh General Agreement              The applicant claims that the Court should:
on the WTO . That Framework Agreement had the effect, in
particular, of modifying the rules governing the global tariff       — annul Articles 1,2, 3 ( 3 ), 4 ( 1 ), ( 2 ) and ( 3 ) (a ) and 9 ( 5 ) of
quota . The operative part of the contested regulation sets              the Decision of the Commission of 30 November 1994
out, for all practical purposes, the provisions of the                   ( Cases IV/33.126 and 33.322 — Cement),
Framework Agreement.
                                                                     — order the Commission to pay the costs.
The applicant companies plead, first, an infringement of
essential procedural requirements, in that the contested             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
regulation was adopted, contrary to the provisions of
Article 27 of the basic Regulation, without the Management             L The applicant pleads infringement of the rules
Committee for Bananas having delivered an opinion within                   governing administrative procedure .
the time allowed by its Chairman.
Moreover, the contested Regulation, which is deemed,                       1 . Substantial parts of the statement of objections
within the legislative hierarchy, to constitute a Regulation                   forming an inseparable whole, namely the so-called
implementing the basic Regulation in the banana sector,                        'national' parts, were not communicated to the
disregards the provisions of that basic Regulation.                            applicant.
According to the applicants, Article 1 of the contested
Regulation, which divides the tariff quota up into specific                2 . It was not clear from the statement of objections
quotas and creates a quota of 90 000 tonnes in favour of the                   which matters were objected to .
Dominican Republic and other ACP States concerning
traditional quantities, and Article 2, which provides, within              3 . The Commission did not give the applicant full
the limits of those quotas, for the release for free circulation               access to the file .
of bananas originating in various Latin American countries,
including bananas dispatched before 20 December 1994,                      4. The Commission changed the factual and legal
are contrary to Regulation (EEC ) No 404/93 , which                            nature of the objections made against the applicant
contains no such provisions .                                                  without giving it a fresh opportunity to submit its
                                                                               comments .
If the contested Regulation purports to be based on the
agreements concluded in the course of the Uruguay Round                    5 . The Commission failed to fulfil its obligation to
of multilateral trade negotiations, a further Council                          provide the Advisory Committee on Restrictive
regulation should have been adopted to take account of that                    Practices and Dominant Positions with the full text
international commitment, in so far as the Framework                           of its proposed decision, containing details of the
Agreement derogates from a Council regulation.                                 individual fines .


title: Judgment of the Court of 6 November 2003 in Case C-101/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Göta hovrätt): Bodil Lindqvist (Directive 95/46/EC — Scope — Publication of personal data on the internet — Place of publication — Definition of transfer of personal data to third countries — Freedom of expression — Compatibility with Directive 95/46 of greater protection for personal data under the national legislation of a Member State)

text:
10.1.2004               EN                             Official Journal of the European Union                                                   C 7/3
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                         2.    Recognition of an establishment for the purposes of
                                                                                Article 13A(1)(b) of the Sixth Directive 77/388 does not
                                                                                presuppose a formal recognition procedure; nor must such
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                            recognition necessarily derive from national tax law provisions.
                                                                                Where the national rules pertaining to recognition contain
                                                                                restrictions which exceed the limits of the discretion allowed to
                       of 6 November 2003                                            Member States under that provision, it is for the national court
                                                                                to determine, in the light of all the relevant facts, whether a
                                                                                taxable person must none the less be regarded as an ‘other duly
in Case C-45/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                             recognised establishment of a similar nature’ within the meaning
the Bundesfinanzhof ): Christoph-Dornier-Stiftung für                                of that provision.
        Klinische Psychologie v Finanzamt Gießen (1)
                                                                               3.    Since the exemption envisaged in Article 13A(1)(c) of the Sixth
(VAT — Article 13A(1)(b) and (c) of the Sixth Directive 77/                          Directive 77/388 is not dependent on the legal form of the
388/EEC — Exemption — Psychotherapeutic treatment                                    taxable person providing the medical or paramedical services
given in an out-patient facility provided by a foundation                            referred to in that provision, psychotherapeutic treatment
governed by private law (charitable establishment)                                   provided by a foundation governed by private law and given by
employing qualified psychologists who are not doctors —                              psychotherapists employed by the foundation may benefit from
                            Direct effect)                                           that exemption.
                                                                               4.    In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings,
                           (2004/C 7/03)                                             Article 13A(1)(b) and (c) of the Sixth Directive 77/388 may
                                                                                be relied on by a taxable person before a national court in order
                                                                                to contest the application of rules of national law which are
                   (Language of the case: German)                                    incompatible with that provision.
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published         (1) OJ C 134 of 5.5.2001.
                   in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-45/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings pending before that court between Christoph-                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Dornier-Stiftung für Klinische Psychologie and Finanzamt
Gießen, on the interpretation of Article 13A(1)(b) and (c) of                                          of 6 November 2003
the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on
the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating                    in Case C-101/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax:                                        the Göta hovrätt): Bodil Lindqvist (1)
uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), the Court
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward, acting as
President of the Fifth Chamber, P. Jann and of A. Rosas                        (Directive 95/46/EC — Scope — Publication of personal
(Rapporteur), Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; H. von                  data on the internet — Place of publication — Definition of
Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 Novem-                   transfer of personal data to third countries — Freedom of
ber 2003, in which it has ruled:                                               expression — Compatibility with Directive 95/46 of greater
                                                                               protection for personal data under the national legislation of
                                                                                a Member State)
1.    Psychotherapeutic treatment given in an out-patient facility of
      a foundation governed by private law by qualified psychologists                                      (2004/C 7/04)
      who are not doctors is not an activity ‘closely related’ to hospital
      or medical care within the meaning of Article 13A(1)(b) of the
      Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the                                     (Language of the case: Swedish)
      harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to
      turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
      basis of assessment, except where such treatment is actually                                 in the European Court Reports)
      given as a service ancillary to the hospital or medical care
      received by the patients in question and constituting the
      principal service. However, the term ‘medical care’ in that
      provision must be interpreted as covering all provision of               In Case C-101/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
      medical care envisaged in letter (c) of the same provision,              by the Göta hovrätt (Sweden) for a preliminary ruling in the
      including services provided by persons who are not doctors but           criminal proceedings before that court against Bodil Lindqvist,
      who give paramedical services, such as psychotherapeutic                 on, inter alia, the interpretation of Directive 95/46/EC of the
      treatment given by qualified psychologists.                              European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995
 ---pagebreak--- C 7/4                    EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                              10.1.2004
on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing                       implementing the provisions of Directive 95/46 to areas not
of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ                           included in the scope thereof provided that no other provision of
1995 L 281, p. 31), the Court, composed of: P. Jann,                                 Community law precludes it.
President of the First Chamber, acting for the President,
C.W.A. Timmermans, C. Gulmann, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and
A. Rosas (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward (Rappor-                     (1) OJ C 118 of 21.4.2001.
teur), J.-P. Puissochet, F. Macken and S. von Bahr, Judges;
A. Tizzano, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy
Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 November 2003, in
which it has ruled:
1.    The act of referring, on an internet page, to various persons and                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      identifying them by name or by other means, for instance by
      giving their telephone number or information regarding their
      working conditions and hobbies, constitutes ‘the processing of                                     (Sixth Chamber)
      personal data wholly or partly by automatic means’ within the
      meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European                                   of 20 November 2003
      Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the
      protection of individuals with regard to the processing of
      personal data and on the free movement of such data.                    in Case C-126/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                              the Cour administrative d’appel de Lyon): Ministre de
                                                                                l’économie, des finances et de l’industrie v GEMO SA (1)
2.    Such processing of personal data is not covered by any of the
      exceptions in Article 3(2) of Directive 95/46.                          (State aid — System of financing a public carcass disposal
                                                                              service by a meat purchase tax — Interpretation of Article 92
                                                                                of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87 EC))
3.    Reference to the fact that an individual has injured her foot and
      is on half-time on medical grounds constitutes personal data
                                                                                (2004/C 7/05)
      concerning health within the meaning of Article 8(1) of
      Directive 95/46.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
4.    There is no ‘transfer [of data] to a third country’ within the          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
      meaning of Article 25 of Directive 95/46 where an individual                                 in the European Court Reports)
      in a Member State loads personal data onto an internet page
      which is stored on an internet site on which the page can be
      consulted and which is hosted by a natural or legal person who
      is established in that State or in another Member State, thereby
      making those data accessible to anyone who connects to the              In Case C-126/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
      internet, including people in a third country.                          by the Cour administrative d’appel de Lyon (France) for a
                                                                              preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
                                                                              court between Ministre de l’économie, des finances et de
                                                                              l’industrie and GEMO SA, on the interpretation of Article 92
5.    The provisions of Directive 95/46 do not, in themselves, bring          of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87 EC), the
      about a restriction which conflicts with the general principles of      Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, acting
      freedom of expression or other freedoms and rights, which are           as President of the Sixth Chamber, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues
      applicable within the European Union and are enshrined inter            (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen, F. Macken and N. Colneric, Judges;
      alia in Article 10 of the European Convention for the Protection        F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Adminis-
      of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms signed at Rome                 trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 November
      on 4 November 1950. It is for the national authorities                  2003, in which it has ruled:
      and courts responsible for applying the national legislation
      implementing Directive 95/46 to ensure a fair balance between
      the rights and interests in question, including the fundamental         Article 92(1) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87(1)
      rights protected by the Community legal order.                          EC), must be interpreted as meaning that a system such as that
                                                                              at issue in the main proceedings, which provides farmers and
                                                                              slaughterhouses with the free collection and disposal of animal
                                                                              carcasses and slaughterhouse waste, must be classified as State aid.
6.    Measures taken by the Member States to ensure the protection
      of personal data must be consistent both with the provisions of
      Directive 95/46 and with its objective of maintaining a balance
                                                                              (1) OJ C 134 of 5.5.2001.
      between freedom of movement of personal data and the
      protection of private life. However, nothing prevents a Member
      State from extending the scope of the national legislation


title: Case C-89/06: Action brought on  14 February 2006  by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic

text:
               8.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/18

         Action brought on 14 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-89/06)
   (2006/C 86/34)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by António Caeiros and Bernhard Schima, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare, principally, that, in having failed to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions needed in order to comply with Directive 2003/30/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 May 2003 on the promotion of the use of biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(1) of that directive;

               —

               declare, in the alternative, that, in having omitted to inform the Commission immediately of any such provisions, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/30/EC;

               —

               order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposition of the Directive 2003/30 expired on 31 December 2004.

      (1)  OJ L 123 of 17.5.2003, p. 42.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 24 October 1997 in Case T-239/94: Association des Aciéries Européennes Indépendantes (EISA) v. Commission of the European Communities (ECSC - Action for annulment - State aid - Individual decisions authorizing the grant of State aid to steel undertakings - Incompatibility with Treaty provisions - Retroactivity - Article 4 (b) and (c) and the first and second paragraphs of Article 95 of the Treaty)

text:
20 . 12 . 97              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 387/ 15
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe , v. Commission of the European
                                                                                of 24 October 1997
Communities ( Agent: Wouter Wils ), supported in Case
T-18/9 6 by Van Marwijk Kraanverhuur BV, whose
registered office is in Zoetermeer, Netherlands ,                          in Case T-239/94 : Association des Aciéries Européennes
Kraanbedrijf Nijdam BV, whose registered office is                         Indépendantes ( EISA) v. Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities (')
in Groningen, Netherlands, Kranen, Transport &
Montage's Gilde NV, whose registered office is                             (ECSC — Action for annulment — State aid — Individual
in Geldermalsen, Netherlands, Wassink Transport
                                                                           decisions authorizing the grant of State aid to steel
Arnhem BV, whose registered office is in Arnhem,
                                                                           undertakings — Incompatibility with Treaty provisions —
Netherlands, Koedam Kraanverhuur BV, whose registered                      Retroactivity — Article 4 (b) and (c) and the first and
office is in Vianen, Netherlands, Firma Huurdeman
                                                                                second paragraphs of Article 95 of the Treaty)
Kraanwagenverhuurbedrijf, whose registered office is in
Hoevelaken, Netherlands, Datek NV, whose registered                                                 ( 97IC 387/25 )
office is in Genk, Belgium, Thom Hendrickx, resident in
Turnhout, Belgium, represented by August Braakman , of
the Rotterdam Bar, and Willem Sluiter, of the Hague Bar,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Michel Molitor, 14A Rue des Bains —                                            (Language of the case: French)
application, in Case T-213/95 , for an order under
Articles 178 and 215 of the EC Treaty requiring the
Commission to pay compensation for the harm caused to
the applicants by its unlawful conduct and, in Case T-18/                  In Case T-239/94 : Association des Aciéries Europeennes
96 , for the annulment of Commission Decision 95/551 /EC                   Indépendantes ( EISA ), established in Brussels, represented
of 29 November 1995 relating to a proceeding pursuant                      by Alexandre Vandencasteele, of the Brussels Bar, with an
to Article 85 of the EC Treaty ( IV/34.179, 34.202 , 216 —                 address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Stichting      Certificatie     Kraanverhuurbedrijf        and    the      Ernest Arendt, 8— 10 Rue Mathias Hardt, v. Commission
Federatie van Nederlandse Kraanverhuurbedrijven ) ( OJ                     of the European Communities ( Agents : Michel Nolin and
L 312, 23 . 12 . 1995 , p. 79 ) — the Court of First Instance              Ben Smulders ), supported by Council of the European
( Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition ), composed of:                     Union ( Agents : Rüdiger Bandilla and Stephan Marquardt ),
K. Lenaerts, President, R Lindh, J. Azizi, J. D. Cooke and                 Federal Republic of Germany ( Agents : Ernst Röder and
M. Jaeger, Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez, Administator, for                  Bernd Kloke ), Italian Republic ( Agents : Umberto Leanza
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 October 1997,                    and Pier Giorgio Ferri ), Ilva Laminati Piani SpA ,
in which it :                                                              established in Rome, represented by Aurelio Pappalardo ,
                                                                           of the Trapani Bar, and Massimo Merola , of the Rome
                                                                            Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                            Chambers of Alain Lorang, 51 Rue Albert I , —
 1 . joins Cases T-213/95 and T-18/96 for the purposes of                   application for the annulment of Commission Decisions
     the judgment;                                                          94/25 6/ECSC to 94/261 /ECSC of 12 April 1994 ,
                                                                           concerning aid to be granted by various Member States to
                                                                            steel undertakings established in their respective territories
2 . reduces to ECU 100 000 the fine imposed on                              ( OJ L 112, 3 . 5 . 1994, pp . 45 , 52 , 58 , 64, 71 and 77 ) —
                                                                            the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber, Extended
     the Stichting Certificatie Kraanverhuurbedrijf by
     Article 5 (2) of Commission Decision 95/551 /EC                        Composition ), composed of: A. Saggio, President, A.
     of 29 November 1995 relating to a proceeding                           Kalogeropoulos, V. Tiili, A. Potocki and R. M. Moura
     pursuant to Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/34.179,                    Ramos, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment
                                                                            on 24 October 1997, in which it :
     34.202,           216      —        Stichting        Certificatie
     Kraanverhuurbedrijf and                the     Federatie     van
     Nederlandse Kraanverhuurbedrijven);
                                                                            1 . declares that it is unnecessary to give a decision on the
                                                                                application for annulment of Commission Decision
 3 . for the rest, dismisses the applications;                                   94/256/ECSC of 12 April 1995 concerning aid to be
                                                                                granted by Germany to the steel company EKO Stahl
                                                                                AG Eisenhüttenstadt;
 4 . orders the applicants to bear their own costs and to
     pay the costs incurred by the Commission, including
      those relating to the proceedings for interim measures,
     and the interveners ' costs .                                          2 . dismisses the application in all other respects;
     OJ C 31 , 3 . 2 . 1996 and C 95 of 30 . 3 . 1996 .
                                                                            3 . orders the applicant to pay five-sixths of the
                                                                                defendant 's costs and all the costs of the intervener,
                                                                                Ilva Laminati Piani SpA ;
 ---pagebreak---  C 387/ 16               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                20 . 12 . 97
 4 . orders the Council, the Federal Republic of Germany                 Tiili, A. Potocki and R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges; H.
      and the Italian Republic to bear their own costs.                  Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 24 October
                                                                          1997, in which it:
 (') OJ C 202 , 23 . 7. 1994 .
                                                                          1 . dismisses the application;
                                                                         2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs of the defendant
                                                                              and of the intervener Ilva Laminati Piani SpA;
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                         of 24 October 1997                              3 . orders the Council, the Kingdom of Spain, the Italian
                                                                              Republic, SSAB Svenskt Stal AB and Det Danske
 in Case T-243/94: British Steel pic v. Commission of the                     Stålvalseværk A/S to bear their own costs.
                     European Communities (')
 (ECSC — Action for annulment — State aid — Individual                   (■) OJ C 254, 10 . 9 . 1994 .
 decisions authorizing the grant of State aid to steel
 undertakings — Lack of competence — Protection of
legitimate expectations — Incompatibility with Treaty
provisions — Discrimination — Inadequate statement of
reasons — Breach of the rights of the defence —
Articles 4 (b) and (c) and 15 and the first and second
            paragraphs of Article 95 of the Treaty)                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                            ( 97/C 387/26 )                                                      of 24 October 1997
                                                                         in Case T-244/94: Wirtschaftsvereinigung Stahl and
                 (Language of the case: English)                            Others v. Commission of the European Communities (')
                                                                         (ECSC — Action for annulment — State aid — Individual
                                                                         decisions authorizing the grant of State aid to steel
In Case T-243/94 : British Steel pic, established in London,             undertakings — Misuse of power — Protection of
represented by Richard Plender QC, of the Bar of England                 legitimate expectations — Incompatibility with Treaty
and Wales, and by William Sibree, Solicitor, with an                    provisions — Discrimination — Inadequate statement of
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                     reasons — Breach of rights of the defence — Articles 4 (b)
Elvinger, Hoss and Prussen, 15 Cote d'Eich, supported by                 and (c) and 15 and the first and second paragraphs of
SSAB      Svenskt     Stal     AB,  established   in   Stockholm,                            Article 95 of the Treaty)
represented by John Boyce and Philip Raven , Solicitors,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                                                    ( 97/C 387/27 )
Chambers of Elvinger, Hoss and Prussen , 15 Cote d'Eich,
Det      Danske        Stålvalseværk     A/S,    established    in
Frederiksværk ( Denmark ), represented by Jonathan Alex                                 (Language of the case: German)
Lawrence, Solicitor, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernst Arendt, 8— 10 Rue
Mathias Hardt, v. Commission of the European                            In Case T-244/94 : Wirtschaftsvereinigung Stahl,
Communities ( Agents : Nicholas Khan and Ben Smulders ),                established in Düsseldorf ( Germany ), Thyssen Stahl AG,
supported by Council of the European Union ( Agents :                   established in Duisburg ( Germany ), Preussag Stahl AG,
Rüdiger Bandilla and John Carbery ), Italian Republic                   established in Salzgitter ( Germany ), Hoogovens Groep BV,
( Agents: Umberto Leanza and Pier Giorgio Ferri ),                      established in Ijmuiden ( Netherlands ), represented by
Kingdom of Spain ( Agents : initially Alberto Navarro                   Jochim Sedemund and Frank Montag, Rechtsanwälte,
Gonzalez and Gloria Calvo Diaz, and then Luis Perez de                  Cologne, and, as regards Hoogovens Groep BV, by Eric
Ayala Beccerril ) and Ilva Laminati Piani SpA, established              Pijnacker Hordijk, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
in Rome, represented by Aurelio Pappalardo, of the                      service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May,
Trapani Bar, and Massimo Merola , of the Rome Bar, with                 31 Grand-Rue, v. Commission of the European
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                 Communities ( Agents: Bernd Langeheine and Ben
Alain Lorang, 51 Rue Albert I — application for the                     Smulders ), supported by Council of the European Union
annulment      of Commission         Decision   94/258/ECSC     of      ( Agents : Rüdiger Bandilla and Stephan Marquardt ), Italian
12 April 1994 concerning aid to be granted by Spain to                  Republic ( Agents : Umberto Leanza and Pier Giorgio
the public integrated steel company Corporación de la                   Ferri ), and Ilva Laminati Piani SpA, established in Rome,
Siderurgia Integral ( CSI ) and Commission Decision 94/                 represented by Aurelio Pappalardo, of the Trapani Bar,
259/ECSC of 12 April 1994 concerning aid to be granted                  and Massimo Merola , of the Rome Bar, with an address
by Italy to the public steel sector ( Ilva group ) ( OJ L 112,          for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alain
3 . 5 . 1994, pp . 58 and 64 respectively ) — the Court of              Lorang, 51 Rue Albert I — application for the annulment
First Instance ( First Chamber, Extended Composition ),                 of Commission Decision 94/259/ECSC of 12 April 1994
composed of: A. Saggio, President, A. Kalogeropoulos, V.                concerning aid to be granted by Italy to the public steel


title: Case C-450/00: Action brought on 6 December 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
10.2.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 45/11
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
—     Infringement of Community law, in particular Article 33
      of the Statute of the Court of Justice:                            The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
                                                                         advanced in Case C-443/00 (2).
      —     error of law and inconsistency in the grounds of the
            contested judgment, inasmuch as the Court of First
            Instance declared inadmissible the head of claim             (1) OJ L 281 of 23.11.1995, p. 31.
                                                                         (2) See p. 8 of this Official Journal.
            alleging infringement of the third and fourth para-
            graphs of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations;
      —     inconsistency in the grounds of the contested judge-
            ment and error of lax, inasmuch as the contested
            judgment does not accept that the Commission
            committed a manifest error of assessment;
      —     inconsistency in the grounds of the contested judge-
            ment and error of law, inasmuch as the Court of              Action brought on 6 December 2000 by the Commission
            First Instance held that the appellant had not               of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy
            established any manifest error of assessment in the                                     of Luxembourg
            context of the comparison of his merits with those
            of other officials, more particularly Mr G;                                             (Case C-450/00)
      —     error of law and inconsistency in the grounds of the
            contested judgement, inasmuch as the Court of First                                      (2001/C 45/22)
            Instance decided that there had been no breach of
            the principles of equal treatment and fairness in the
                                                                         An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
            present case.
                                                                         brought before the Court of Justice on 6 December 2000 by
                                                                         the Commission of the European Communities, represented
                                                                         by Xavier Lewis, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an
                                                                         address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                                                                         Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
                                                                         Kirchberg.
Action brought on 6 December 2000 by the Commission
                                                                         The Commission of the European Communities claims that
of the European Communities against the French Republic
                                                                         the Court should:
                         (Case C-449/00)                                 (1) declare that, by failing to bring into force within the
                                                                               prescribed time-limit the laws, regulations and adminis-
                          (2001/C 45/21)                                       trative measures, including provisions imposing penalties,
                                                                               which are necessary in order to comply with Directive
An action against the French Republic was brought before the                   95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
Court of Justice on 6 December 2000 by the Commission of                       of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with
the European Communities, represented by Xavier Lewis, of                      regard to the processing of personal data and on the
its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service                free movement of such data (1), the Grand Duchy of
in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its                Luxembourg has failed to comply with its obligations
Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                       under Article 32 of that directive;
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                   (2) order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
the Court should:
(1) declare that, by failing to bring into force within the              Pleas in law and main arguments
      prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative
      measures, including provisions imposing penalties, which
      are necessary in order to comply with Directive 95/46/EC           The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
      of the European Parliament and of the Council of                   advanced in Case C-443/00 (2).
      24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with
      regard to the processing of personal data and on the free
      movement of such data (1), the French Republic has failed          (1) OJ L 281 of 23.11.1995, p. 31.
      to comply with its obligations under Article 32 of that            (2) See p. 8 of this Official Journal.
      directive;
(2) order the French Republic to pay the costs.


24.8.2002              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 202/39
       Removal from the register of Case T-382/00 (1)                           Removal from the register of Case T-238/01 (1)
                        (2002/C 202/66)                                                          (2002/C 202/68)
                  (Language of the Case: English)                                           (Language of the Case: French)
                                                                         By order of 28 May 2002 the President of the Fifth Chamber
By order of 30 May 2002 the President of the Second Chamber              of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities               ordered the removal from the register of Case T-238/01:
ordered the removal from the register of Case T-382/00:                  Centre Européen pour la statistique et le développement A.s.b.l.
Monsanto Company v Council of the European Union.                        (CESD — Communautaire, A.s.b.l.) v Commission of the
                                                                         European Communities.
(1) OJ C 61 of 24.2.2001.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 331 of 24.11.2001.
Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-143/01 and
                          T-161/01 (1)
                        (2002/C 202/67)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-2/02 (1)
                   (Language of the Case: French)
                                                                                (2002/C 202/69)
By order of 4 June 2002 the President of the Second Chamber                                (Language of the Case: Spanish)
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
ordered the removal from the register of Joined Cases T-143/
01 and T-161/01: Raymond Maxwell and Liam O’Bradaigh                     By order of 7 June 2002 the President of the Second Chamber
v Commission of the European Communities.                                of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                         ordered the removal from the register of Case T-2/02: Guiller-
                                                                         mo Balmori Abella v Commission of the European Communi-
(1) OJ C 245 of 01.09.2001 and C 289 of 13.10.2001.                      ties.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 68 of 16.3.2002.