title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 September 2002 in Case C-172/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln): Ferring Arzneimittel GmbH v Eurim-Pharm Arzneimittel GmbH (Interpretation of Article 28 EC and Article 30 EC — Medicinal products — Withdrawal of parallel import licence in consequence of waiver of the marketing authorisation for the medicinal product of reference by the holder of that authorisation)

text:
9.11.2002                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 274/9
3.    a)    The provision of general care and domestic help by an            1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt all the measures necessary to
            out-patient care service to persons in a state of physical or          ensure the correct transposition of Articles 4, 7(3), 11, 12(2),
            economic dependence amounts to the supply of services                  18(1) and (3) and 22(1) of Council Directive 86/609/EEC of
            closely linked to welfare and social security work within              24 November 1986 on the approximation of laws, regulations
            the meaning of Article 13(A)(1)(g) of the Sixth Directive              and administrative provisions of the Member States regarding
            (77/388/EEC).                                                          the protection of animals used for experimental and other
                                                                                scientific purposes, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
      (b) The exemption provided for in Article 13(A)(1)(g) of the                 obligations under that directive;
            Sixth Directive (77/388/EEC) may be relied upon by a
            taxable person before national courts in order to oppose         2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
            national rules incompatible with that provision. It is for
            the national court to establish, in the light of all relevant    (1 ) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.
            factors, whether the taxable person is an organisation
            recognised as charitable within the meaning of the
            aforesaid provision.
( 1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 10 September 2002
                                                                             in Case C-172/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      the Landgericht Köln): Ferring Arzneimittel GmbH v
                                                                                Eurim-Pharm Arzneimittel GmbH ( 1)
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                             (Interpretation of Article 28 EC and Article 30 EC —
                        of 12 September 2002                                 Medicinal products — Withdrawal of parallel import licence
                                                                             in consequence of waiver of the marketing authorisation for
                                                                             the medicinal product of reference by the holder of that
in Case C-152/00: Commission of the European Communi-                                                    authorisation)
                      ties v French Republic ( 1)
                                                                                (2002/C 274/14)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
      Directive 86/609/EEC — Incomplete transposition)                                           (Language of the case: German)
                           (2002/C 274/13)                                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                             In Case C-172/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       EC by the Landgericht Köln (Germany) for a preliminary ruling
                    in the European Court Reports)                           in the proceedings pending before that court between Ferring
                                                                             Arzneimittel GmbH and Eurim-Pharm Arzneimittel GmbH,
                                                                             on the interpretation of Article 28 EC and Article 30 EC, the
                                                                             Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: F. Macken, President of
In Case C-152/00, Commission of the European Communities                     the Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet,
(Agents: L. Ström and J.-F. Pasquier) v French Republic                      V. Skouris and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed,
(Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger and C. Vasak, and G. de Bergues):               Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar,
Application for a declaration that, by failing to transpose fully            has given a judgment on 10 September 2002, in which it has
and correctly Council Directive 86/609/EEC of 24 November                    ruled:
1986 on the approximation of laws, regulations and adminis-
trative provisions of the Member States regarding the protec-                1.    Article 28 EC precludes national legislation under which the
tion of animals used for experimental and other scientific                         withdrawal of the marketing authorisation of reference for a
purposes (OJ 1986 L 358, p. 1), and in particular Articles 4, 7,                   medicinal product on application by the holder thereof means
11, 12, 18 and 22 thereof, the French Republic has failed to                       that the parallel import licence for that product automatically
fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty, the Court (Fifth                       ceases to be valid.
Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber,
S. von Bahr and A. La Pergola (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geel-               2.    The fact that the new version of the medicinal product has been
hoed, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator,                        placed on the market of the Member State of importation alone
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 September 2002,                      or is also found on the market in other Member States does not
in which it:                                                                       alter the answer to the first question.
 ---pagebreak--- C 274/10                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                          9.11.2002
3.    If it is demonstrated that there is in fact a risk to public health    Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 of the Council of 18 May 1972
      arising from the coexistence of two versions of the same               and Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on
      medicinal product on the market in a Member State such a risk          the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables are to
      may justify restrictions on the importation of the old version of      be interpreted as meaning that compliance with the provisions on
      the medicinal product in consequence of the withdrawal of the          quality standards applicable to fruit or vegetables must be capable of
      marketing authorisation of reference by the holder thereof in          enforcement by means of civil proceedings instituted by a trader
      relation to that market.                                               against a competitor.
( 1) OJ C 211 of 22.7.2000.                                                  (1 ) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                      of 17 September 2002                                                            (Sixth Chamber)
in Case C-253/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                                          of 24 September 2002
the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division):
Antonio Muñoz y Cia SA, Superior Fruiticola SA v Frumar
            Ltd, Redbridge Produce Marketing Ltd ( 1)
                                                                             in Case C-255/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                             the Tribunale di Trento): Grundig Italiana SpA v Ministero
                                                                                delle Finanze ( 1)
(Agriculture — Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 — Quality
standards for varieties of table grapes — Legal obligations
of operators marketing table grapes within the Community
— Right of an operator to seek enforcement of those                          (Internal taxes contrary to Community law — Recovery of
                  obligations in civil proceedings)                          sums paid but not due — National legislation retroactively
                                                                             reducing time-limits for bringing proceedings — Compati-
                                                                                bility with the principle of effectiveness)
                           (2002/C 274/15)
                                                                                (2002/C 274/16)
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
In Case C-253/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
EC by the Court of Appeal of England and Wales (Civil                                           in the European Court Reports)
Division) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Antonio Muñoz y Cia SA, Superior
Fruiticola SA and Frumar Ltd, Redbridge Produce Marketing
Ltd, on the interpretation of Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 of
the Council of 18 May 1972 and Council Regulation (EC)                       In Case C-255/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation                     EC by the Tribunale di Trento (Italy) for a preliminary ruling
of the market in fruit and vegetables (OJ, English Special                   in the proceedings pending before that court between Grundig
Edition 1972 (II), p. 437, and OJ 1996 L 297, p. 1 respectively),            Italiana SpA and Ministero delle Finanze, on the interpretation
the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President,                  of the principles of Community law relating to the recovery of
P. Jann (Rapporteur), N. Colneric and S. von Bahr, (Presidents               sums paid but not due, the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed
of Chambers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola,                      of: F. Macken, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann,
J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and                     J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen and J.N. Cunha
C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate Gen-                      Rodrigues, Judges; D. Ruíz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General;
eral; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 September              R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 24 September
2002, in which it has ruled:                                                 2002, in which it has ruled:


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 October 2001 in Case T-171/99: Corus UK Ltd v Commission of the European Communities (Action for damages — Recovery of undue payments — Harm suffered by reason of a partially annulled decision)

text:
5.1.2002                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                                 C 3/23
3.    Annuls Article 2 of Decision 1999/580, in so far as the               1.    Annuls Council Regulation (EC) No 2450/98 of 13 November
      Federal Republic of Germany is required to recover from the                 1998 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of
      applicant the part of the investment grant make to the applicant            stainless steel bars originating in India and collecting definitively
      in 1995 in respect of investment in its cold wire rod drawing               the provisional duty imposed, in so far as it concerns imports
      plant and the aid element of the guarantees covering the                    into the European Community of products manufactured by
      operating loans of DEM 7.2 million and DEM 4.8 million                      Mukand Ltd, Isibars Ltd, Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd and
      granted at the end of 1994;                                                 Viraj Impoexpo Ltd;
4.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;                           2.    The remainder of the application is dismissed as inadmissible;
5.    Orders the applicant to pay two-thirds of its costs;                  3.    The Council shall bear its own costs together with those incurred
                                                                                by the applicants. The Commission shall bear its own costs.
6.    Orders the Commission to pay, in addition to its own costs, one
      third of the costs incurred by the applicant;
                                                                            (1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.
7.    Orders the interveners to bear their own costs.
(1) OJ C 86, 27.3.1999
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                          of 10 October 2001
                       of 19 September 2001
                                                                            in Case T-171/99: Corus UK Ltd v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
in Case T-58/99: Mukand Ltd and Others v Council of the
                         European Union (1)
                                                                            (Action for damages — Recovery of undue payments —
                                                                              Harm suffered by reason of a partially annulled decision)
(Anti-subsidy proceedings — Regulation (EC) No 2450/98
    — Stainless steel bright bars — Injury — Causal link)
                                                                                (2002/C 3/37)
                            (2002/C 3/36)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                            In Case T-171/99: Corus UK Ltd, formerly British Steel plc,
In Case T-58/99: Mukand Ltd, established in Mumbai (India),                 then British Steel Ltd, established in London, represented by
Isibars Ltd, established in Mumbai, Ferro Alloys Corporation                P.G.H. Collins and M. Levitt, Solicitors, with an address for
Ltd, established in Nagpur (India), Viraj Impoexpo Ltd, estab-              service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European
lished in Mumbai, represented by K. Adamantopoulos, lawyer,                 Communities (Agents: J. Currall and W. Wils) — application
and J. Branton, Solicitor, with an address for service in                   seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the
Luxembourg, against Council of the European Union (Agents:                  applicant through the Commission’s refusal to pay it interest
S. Marquardt, H.-J. Rabe and G. Berrisch), supported by                     on the amount repaid pursuant to a judgment of the Court of
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: V. Kreu-                    First Instance reducing the level of the fine imposed on it —
schitz and N. Khan) — application for annulment of Council                  the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of
Regulation (EC) No 2450/98 of 13 November 1998 imposing                     B. Vesterdorf, President, M. Vilaras and N.J. Forwood, Judges;
a definitive countervailing duty on imports of stainless steel              G. Herzig, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
bars originating in India and collecting definitively the pro-              judgment on 10 October 2001, in which it:
visional duty imposed (OJ 1998 L 304, p. 1) — the Court
of First Instance (First Chamber, Extended Composition),
composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, A. Potocki, J. Pirrung,               1.    Orders the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of
M. Vilaras and N.J. Forwood, Judges; D. Christensen, Adminis-                     EUR 3 016 608, together with simple interest on that sum at
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 September                   the fixed rate of 5.75 % per annum, for the period from
2001, in which it:                                                                24 April 1999 to the date of the present judgment;
 ---pagebreak--- C 3/24                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   5.1.2002
2.    Orders that the sums referred to in paragraph (1) above shall            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      bear simple interest at the same rate from the date of the present
      judgment until full and final payment;                                                    of 19 September 2001
3.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;                          in Case T-337/99: Henkel KGaA v Office for Harmonis-
                                                                           ation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                                (OHIM) (1)
4.    Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                           (Community trade mark — Shape of a product for washing
                                                                           machines or dishwashers — Three-dimensional mark —
(1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.                                                 Absolute ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation
                                                                                (EC) No 40/94)
                                                                                (2002/C 3/39)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                In Case T-337/99: Henkel KGaA, established in Düsseldorf
                                                                           (Germany), represented by H.F. Wissel and C. Osterrieth,
                                                                           lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
                          of 20 June 2001                                  Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
                                                                           and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: A. von Mühlendahl, D. Schen-
in Case T-188/99: Euroalliages v Commission of the                         nen and S. Laitinen) — application brought against the
                   European Communities (1)                                decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for
                                                                           Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                                                                           Designs) of 21 September 1999 (Case R 73/1999-3), which
(Dumping — Decision terminating an expiry review —                         was notified to the applicant on 28 September 1999 — the
                      Action for annulment)                                Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of
                                                                           A.W.H. Meij, President, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges;
                                                                           D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
                            (2002/C 3/38)
                                                                           judgment on 19 September 2001, in which it:
                    (Language of the case: French)                         1.    Dismisses the action;
                                                                           2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
In Case T-188/99: Euroalliages, whose head office is in Brussels           (1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.
(Belgium), represented by D. Voillemot and O. Prost, lawyers,
with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Com-
mission of the European Communities (Agents: initially
N. Khan and, subsequently, V. Kreuschitz and A.P. Bentley) —
application for annulment of Commission Decision
1999/426/EC of 4 June 1999 terminating the anti-dumping                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
proceeding concerning imports of ferro-silicon originating in
Egypt and Poland (OJ 1999 L 166, p. 91) — the Court of First
Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition), composed                                       of 20 September 2001
of A.W.H. Meij, President, K. Lenaerts, A. Potocki, M. Jaeger
and J. Pirrung, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for           in Case T-344/99: Lucı́a Recalde Langarica v Commission
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 June 2001, in which                             of the European Communities (1)
it:
                                                                           (Officials — Expatriation allowance — Article 4(1)(a) of
                                                                           the Staff Regulations — Article 26 of the Staff Regulations
1.    Dismisses the application;                                                                  — Rights of defence)
2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs.                                                          (2002/C 3/40)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
(1) OJ C 314 of 30.10.1999.
                                                                           In Case T-344/99: Lucı́a Recalde Langarica, an official of the
                                                                           Commission of the European Communities, residing in


title: Case T-254/01: Action brought on 9 October 2001 by Giuseppe Di Pietro against Court of Auditors of the European Communities

text:
5.1.2002              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 3/37
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               In support of his claim, he relies on the following pleas:
—     annul the decision of the Commission of 16 August
      2001 refusing to grant the applicant access to certain              —    the vacancy notice was drawn up in vague terms,
      documents concerning a proceeding pursuant to                            inasmuch as it does not make it possible to discern with
      Article 81 of the EC Treaty (COMP/E-1/37.919) relating                   any certainty the conditions for taking part in the
      to bank charges for currency exchange within the Euro                    appointment procedure.
      zone: Germany (Dresdner Bank AG) — on the wider
      application of access to files under Article 8 of Com-              —    the candidate who was finally appointed does not meet,
      mission Decision 2001/462/EC, ECSC of 23 May 2001                        according to his curriculum vitae published on the
      on the terms of reference of hearing officers in certain                 internet, the minimum requirements for selection and for
      competition proceedings;                                                 being considered a suitable candidate.
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                          —    the defendant, according to its own interpretation of the
                                                                               rules of the Court adopted by Decision No 18/97,
                                                                               refused him access to certain document regarding the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                appointment procedure.
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put
forward in T-216/01 Reisebank AG v Commission.
                                                                          Action brought on 11 October 2001 by Changzhou
                                                                          Hailong Electronics & Light Fixtures Co., Ltd. & Zhejiang
Action brought on 9 October 2001 by Giuseppe Di Pietro
                                                                          Yankon Group Co., Ltd. against the Council of the
 against Court of Auditors of the European Communities
                                                                                European Union
                        (Case T-254/01)
                                                                                (Case T-255/01)
                         (2002/C 3/64)
                                                                                (2002/C 3/65)
                   (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Court of Auditors of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities on 9 October 2001 by Giuseppe
Di Pietro, represented by Giovanni Monforte, lawyer.                      An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                          brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                          Communities on 11 October 2001 by Changzhou Hailong
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               Electronics & Light Fixtures Co., Ltd. & Zhejiang Yankon
                                                                          Group Co., Ltd., represented by Mr Philip Bentley QC and
—     annul the decision of the Court of Auditors of the                  Mr Filip Ragolle of Stanbrook Hooper, Brussels (Belgium).
      European Communities of 22 February 2001 whereby it
      decided to ‘appoint’ Michel Hervé to the post of Secretary
      General of the Court;
                                                                          The applicants claim that the Court should:
—     order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the
      applicant and to make good the damage suffered by him.              —    annul Council Regulation (EC) No 1470/2001 of 16 July
                                                                               2001 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and
                                                                               collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on
                                                                               imports of integrated electronic compact fluorescent
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                lamps (CFL-i) originating in the People’s Republic of
                                                                               China in so far as it applies to the applicants;
The applicant opposes the appointment of a Secretary General
of the Court of Auditors.                                                 —    order the Council to pay the costs.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 July 1999 in Case C-200/92 P: Imperial Chemical Industries plc (ICI) v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal - Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance - Reopening of the oral procedure - Commission's Rules of Procedure - Procedure for the adoption of a decision by the College of Members of the Commission)

text:
20.11.1999            EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 333/5
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       (Sixth Chamber)                                                           (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 8 July 1999
                         of 8 July 1999
                                                                        in Case C-227/92 P: Hoechst AG v Commission of the
in Case C-200/92 P: Imperial Chemical Industries plc (ICI)                                 European Communities (1)
      v Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                        (Appeal — Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance
(Appeal — Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance             — Reopening of the oral procedure — Commission’s Rules
— Reopening of the oral procedure — Commission’s Rules                  of Procedure — Procedure for the adoption of a decision by
of Procedure — Procedure for the adoption of a decision by                        the College of Members of the Commission)
         the College of Members of the Commission)
                                                                                (1999/C 333/09)
                       (1999/C 333/08)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
In Case C-200/92 P: Imperial Chemical Industries plc (ICI),                                in the European Court Reports)
whose registered office is at Millbank, London, United
Kingdom, represented by D. Vaughan QC, and D. Anderson,
Barrister, instructed by V.O. White and R.J. Coles, Solicitors,         In Case C-227/92 P: Hoechst AG, whose registered office is in
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of            Frankfurt am Main, Germany, represented by H. Hellmann,
L. Dupong, 14a Rue des Bains, supported by DSM NV, whose                Rechtsanwalt, Cologne, with an address for service in Luxem-
registered office is in Heerlen, Netherlands, represented by            bourg at the Chambers of Messrs Loesch and Wolter, 8 Rue
I.G.F. Cath, of The Hague Bar, with an address for service in           Zithe, supported by DSM NV, whose registered office is in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Dupong, 14a Rue des                    Heerlen, Netherlands, represented by I.G.F. Cath, of The Hague
Bains, appeal against the judgment of the Court of First                Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber) of                 Chambers of L. Dupong, 14a Rue des Bains, appeal against the
10 March 1992 in Case T-13/89 ICI v Commission [1992]                   judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
ECR II-1021, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other         Communities (First Chamber) of 10 March 1992 in Case T-
party to the proceedings being the Commission of the                    10/89 Hoechst v Commission [1992] ECR II-629, seeking to
European Communities (Agent: J. Currall) — the Court (Sixth             have that judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings
Chamber), composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn, President of the                 being the Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
Chamber, G. Hirsch, G.F. Mancini (Rapporteur), J.L. Murray              G. zur Hausen) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General;                  P.J.G. Kapteyn, President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch, G.F. Man-
H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, and D. Louterman-Hubeau,             cini (Rapporteur), J.L. Murray and H. Ragnemalm, Judges;
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment        G. Cosmas, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Regis-
on 8 July 1999, in which it:                                            trar and D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for
                                                                        the Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 July 1999, in which
                                                                        it:
1. Dismisses the appeal;
                                                                        1. Dismisses the appeal;
2. Orders Imperial Chemical Industries plc (ICI) to pay the costs;
                                                                        2. Orders Hoechst AG to pay the costs;
3. Orders DSM NV to bear its own costs.
                                                                        3. Orders DSM NV to pay its own costs.
(1) OJ C 167 of 4.7.1992.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 167 of 4.7.1992.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 27 September 2004 in Case T-108/04: Nikolaus Steininger v Commission of the European Communities (Career development report — Reduction of merit points — Not necessary to proceed to judgment)

text:
               8.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/36

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 27 September 2004
   in Case T-108/04: Nikolaus Steininger v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Career development report - Reduction of merit points - Not necessary to proceed to judgment)
   (2005/C 6/71)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-108/04: Nikolaus Steininger, an official of the Commission, residing in Brussels, represented by N. Lhoest, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: C. Berardis-Kayser and H. Kraemer, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — Application for annulment of the Commission's decision reducing the merit points awarded to the applicant for the assessment period 2001-2002 — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of H. Legal, President, P. Mengozzi and I. Wiszniewska-Bialecka, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 27 September 2004, in which it:

               (1)

               Declares that it is no longer necessary to proceed to judgment;

               (2)

               Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant.

      (1)  OJ C 106 of 30.4.2004.


title: Removal from the register of T-8/96

text:
No C 199/40          EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   28 . 6 . 97
     27 February 1997, and in particular Article 2 thereof,        Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
     and                                                           Case T-259/94 : Michel Pouzol v. Court of Auditors of the
                                                                   European Communities .
— to order the Office to pay the costs of the action.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                (') OJ No C 254, 10 . 9 . 1994 .
The applicant, a member of the First Board of Appeal of
the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs ), contests the abovementioned
Decision of the President of the Office, adopted on
21 February 1997.                                                            Removal from the register of T-3 00/94 ( l )
                                                                                ( 97/C 199/93 )
The Decision concerns certain aspects of the organization
of the Boards of Appeal created pursuant to Article 130 of
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Council Regulation (EC ) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993
on the Community trademark.
                                                                   By order of 11 March 1997 the President of the Fifth
The applicant submits that the Decision, and in particular         Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
its Article 2, should be annuled on the following grounds.         Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                   Case T-300/94 : Henri Maurissen v. Court of Auditors of
Firstly, Article 2 of the Decision is contrary to                  the European Communities.
Articles 112 ( 1 ) and 131 ( 2 ) of the Regulation. It thus
infringes a rule relating to the application of the Treaty         O OJ No C 316, 12 . 11 . 1994 .
within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 173
of the EC Treaty.
 Secondly, the Decision is unlawful because the President
 failed to consult two thirds of the members of the Boards
 of Appeal appointed by the Council of Ministers and
 because the Members who were consulted ( i.e. the                           Removal from the register of T-115/95 (')
 chairmen ) were given insufficient time to consider the                                        ( 97/C 199/94 )
 matter properly. That failure to engage in proper
 consultations amounts to an infringement of an essential                           (Language of the case: French)
 procedural requirement within the meaning of the second
 paragraph of Article 173 of the EC Treaty.                         By order of 30 April 1997 the President of the Second
                                                                    Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
 Thirdly, the Decision does not contain an adequate                 Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
 statement of the reasons on which Article 2 is based .             Case T-115/95 : Michel Pouzol v. Court of Auditors of the
                                                                    European Communities .
 Fourthly, the President has no competence to adopt any
 Decision introducing a hierarchical relationship within the
 Boards of Appeal ( as he purports to do in Article 2 (2 ) of       (') OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 .
 the Decision ) or to subject the entire membership of the
 Boards of Appeal to the hierarchical authority of the Vice
 President for Legal Affairs and of the President himself.
 Article 2 is therefore void for lack of competence within
 the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 173 of the
 EC Treaty.                                                                    Removal from the register of T-8/96 (')
                                                                                ( 97/C 199/95 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                    By order of 28 April 1997 the President of the Second
           Removal from the register of T-259/94 (')
                                                                    Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                         ( 97/C 199/92                              Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
                 (Language of the case: French)                      Case T-8/96 : Antonia Carparelli v. Commission of the
                                                                    European Communities.
  By order of 30 April 1997 the President of the Second
  Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European             (') OJ No C 77, 16 . 3 . 1996 .


title: Case T-497/15: Action brought on 28 August 2015 — Oltis Group v European Commission

text:
               23.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 389/59

         Action brought on 28 August 2015 — Oltis Group v European Commission
   (Case T-497/15)
   (2015/C 389/68)
   Language of the case: Czech

      Parties

      Applicant: Oltis Group a.s. (Olomouc, Czech Republic) (represented by: P. Konečný, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the European Commission rejecting the applicant’s tender, or tenders, for the innovation programmes ‘The Innovation Programme IP 4 — IT Solutions for Attractive Railway Services’ and ‘The Innovation Programme IP 5 — Technologies for Sustainable & Attractive European Freight’ in the context of the ‘Shift2Rail’ project;

               —

               award the applicant the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the assessment body exceeded the bounds of its jurisdiction
               The applicant claims, inter alia, in this regard that the assessment body could not, in its procedure, supplant the exclusive right of the applicant to combine several separate tenders for the grant of the status of an associated member of the company ‘Shift2Rail’ in a single tender and it has thereby vitiated its assessment procedure. The applicant further submits that, if the submission of two separate tenders by one tenderer for different innovation programmes was not in accordance with the procurement documents, from the point of view of the assessment body, and if those documents do not provide for such a situation, then it should have been warned regarding that fact pursuant to Part 8.2 of the procurement documents, and therefore it should retain its right to dispose of the tenders submitted.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the procedure followed by the assessment body was not in accordance with the procurement documents
               The applicant claims in this connection that the assessment body did not act in accordance with the procurement documents, inasmuch as it disposed of the applicant’ tenders without notifying the applicant or calling on it to clarify any ambiguities or errors.
               The applicant is further of the opinion that the assessment body should have assessed (and awarded points to) its tenders separately, even after they were combined in a single tender, since it is only by following this procedure that the principle of objective evaluation and assessment may be complied with. The procedure followed by the assessment body, in assessing the applicant’s tenders together and thus also awarding points with regard to the assessment criteria together, is misleading, discriminatory and in conflict with the basic principle of the procurement documents, and renders the decision impossible to review.


title: Case C-260/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichts Sigmaringen (Germany) lodged on 13 May 2013 — Sevda Aykul v Land Baden-Württemberg

text:
               29.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 189/14

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichts Sigmaringen (Germany) lodged on 13 May 2013 — Sevda Aykul v Land Baden-Württemberg
   (Case C-260/13)
   2013/C 189/28
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichts Sigmaringen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sevda Aykul

      Defendant: Land Baden-Württemberg

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the obligation concerning the mutual recognition of driving licences issued by Member States which is laid down in Article 2(1) of Directive 2006/126/EC preclude national legislation of the Federal Republic of Germany under which the right to use a foreign driving licence in Germany must be revoked ex post facto by the administrative authorities if the holder of the foreign driving licence drives a motor vehicle on that licence in Germany while under the influence of illegal drugs and thereafter under the relevant German provisions is no longer fit to drive?

               2.

               If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative, is this also the case where the issuing State is aware of the person in question driving while under the influence of drugs but takes no action and the risk represented by the holder of the foreign driving licence therefore persists?

               3.

               If the answer to question 1 is in the negative, can the Federal Republic of Germany make reinstatement of the right to use a foreign driving licence in Germany subject to compliance with the national conditions applicable to such reinstatement?

               4.

                           (a)

                           Can the reservation with respect to observance of the principle of territoriality of criminal and police laws laid down in Article 11(2) of Directive 2006/126/EC justify action under its driving licence legislation by a Member State other than the issuing State? For example, does that reservation allow the right to use a foreign driving licence in Germany to be revoked ex post facto by means of a preventive measure under criminal law?

                           (b)

                           If the answer to question 4(a) is in the affirmative, does the competence to reinstate the right to use the foreign driving licence in Germany, taking into account the obligation of recognition, lie with the Member State which imposed the preventive measure or with the issuing State?


title: Action brought on 23 September 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany (Case C-331/97)

text:
c 331/16               ΓΕΝ                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       1 . 11 . 97
Commission of the European Communities, represented                             Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations
by Paolo Stancanelli, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent,                    under the EC Treaty and those Directives;
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, also of the Commission's Legal
Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                      2. order the defendant to pay the costs.
The Commission claims that the Court should :                           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments correspond to those set
1 . declare that, by failing to bring into force, within                out in Case C-320/97 ( 3 ); the period prescribed for
      the period prescribed, the laws, regulations and                  transposition expired on 1 July 1995 .
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      European Parliament and Council Directive 95/27/EC
      of 29 June 1995 ( l ) amending Council Directive 86/              H OJ L 182, 2 . 8 . 1995 , p. 14 .
      662/EEC       on    the     limitation of   noise   emitted       ( 2 ) OJ L 182, 2 . 8 . 1995, p. 17.
      by hydraulic excavators, rope-operated excavators,                ( 3 ) See p. 13 of this Official Journal.
      dozers, loaders and excavator-loaders (2 ), the Kingdom
      of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      that Directive and the EC Treaty;
2 . order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
                                                                        Action brought on 24 September 1997 by the Commission
                                                                        of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                                        Belgium
                                                                                ( Case C-332/97)
Pleas in law and main arguments correspond to those set                                                ( 97/C 331/32 )
out in Case C-320/97 ( 3 ); the period prescribed for
transposition expired on 31 December 1995 .
                                                                        An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
                                                                        before the Court of Justice on 24 September 1997 by the
(') OJ L 168 , 18 . 7. 1995 , p. 14 .                                   Commission of the European Communities, represented
(2 ) OJ L 384, 31 . 12 . 1986 , p . 1 .
(3 ) See p. 13 of this Official Journal.
                                                                        by H. van Vliet, acting as Agent, with an address for
                                                                        service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la
                                                                        Cruz, of the Commission's Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
                                                                        Kirchberg.
                                                                        The Commission claims that the Court should :
Action brought on 23 September 1997 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Federal                         1 . declare that, by failing to bring into force, within
                        Republic of Germany                                     the period prescribed, the laws, regulations and
                            Case C-331/97)                                      administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                                Council Directive 93/119/EC of 22 December 1993 on
                            ( 97/C 331/31 )                                     the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or
                                                                                killing ( l ), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil
                                                                                its obligations under the Treaty;
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
brought before the Court of Justice on 23 September 1997                2 . order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Klaus-Dieter Borchardt, of its Legal
Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
also of the Commission's Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
Kirchberg.                                                              Pleas in law and main arguments correspond to those set
                                                                        out in Case C-320/97 (2 ); the period prescribed in the
                                                                        Directive expired on 1 January 1995 .
The Commission claims that the Court should :
                                                                        (') OJ L 340 , 31 . 12 . 1993 , p. 21 .
                                                                         ( z ) See p. 13 of this Official Journal .
1 . declare that, by failing to adopt the measures
      necessary to comply with Directives 95/40/EC (*) and
      95/4 1/EC (2) within the period prescribed, the Federal


title: Case C-504/15: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Frosinone (Italy) lodged on 23 September 2015 — Criminal proceedings against Antonio Paolo Conti

text:
               7.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 406/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Frosinone (Italy) lodged on 23 September 2015 — Criminal proceedings against Antonio Paolo Conti
   (Case C-504/15)
   (2015/C 406/21)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Frosinone

      Party/parties to the main proceedings

   Antonio Paolo Conti

      Question referred

   Are Article 49 et seq. and Article 56 et seq. of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, as also expanded upon by the principles laid down in the judgment of the Court of Justice of 16 February 2012 [in Joined Cases C-72/10 and C-77/10] to be interpreted as precluding national legislation which imposes an obligation to transfer, free of charge, the right to use the tangible and intangible assets constituting the network for managing and collecting bets upon cessation of that activity due to the expiry of the relevant licence or as a result of measures disqualifying the licence-holder or withdrawing the licence?


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 March 1999 in Case C-258/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat für Kärnten): Hospital Ingenieure Krankenhaustechnik Planungs-Gesellschaft mbH (HI) v Landeskrankenanstalten-Betriebsgesellschaft (Public service contracts - Effect of a directive not transposed into national law)

text:
15.5.1999                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 136/3
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                        conformity with Directive 92/50 and the requirement that the
                                                                               rights of individuals must be protected effectively, the national
                                                                               court must determine whether the relevant provisions of its
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                      domestic law allow recognition of a right for individuals to bring
                                                                               an appeal in relation to awards of public service contracts. In
                          of 4 March 1999                                      circumstances such as those arising in the case in the main
                                                                               proceedings, the national court must determine in particular
                                                                               whether such a right of appeal may be exercised before the same
in Case C-258/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling                           bodies as those established to hear appeals concerning the award
from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat für Kärnten):                           of public supply contracts and public works contracts.
Hospital Ingenieure Krankenhaustechnik Planungs-
Gesellschaft mbH (HI) v Landeskrankenanstalten-                            3. Services of the kind with which the defendant’s invitation to
                       Betriebsgesellschaft (1)                                tender is concerned, namely tasks relating to the preparation and
                                                                               execution of projects for the construction of a paediatric clinic in
                                                                               a hospital and the corresponding medical facilities, fall within
(Public service contracts — Effect of a directive not trans-                   Category No 12 of Annex I A to Directive 92/50/EEC.
                      posed into national law)
                                                                           4. The provisions of Titles I and II of Directive 92/50/EEC may be
                           (1999/C 136/04)                                     relied on directly by individuals before national courts. As regards
                                                                               the provisions of Titles III to VI, they may also be relied on by an
                                                                               individual before a national court if it is clear from an individual
                                                                               examination of their wording that they are unconditional and
                    (Language of the case: German)                             sufficiently clear and precise.
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     (1) OJ C 271, 6.9.1997.
                    in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-258/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat für
Kärnten for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Hospital Ingenieure Krankenhaus-
technik Planungs-Gesellschaft mbH (HI) and Landeskrankenan-
stalten-Betriebsgesellschaft — on the interpretation of Council                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordi-
nation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions                                         of 9 March 1999
relating to the application of review procedures to the award
of public supply and public works contracts (OJ L 395,
30.12.1989, p. 33) and of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of                   in Case C-212/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for                the Højesteret): Centros Ltd v Erhvervs- og Selskabs-
the award of public service contracts (OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p.                                           styrelsen (1)
1) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: P. J. G. Kapteyn
(Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch, J. L. Murray,           (Freedom of establishment — Establishment of a branch
H. Ragnemalm and R. Schintgen, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate                 by a company not carrying on any actual business —
General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,               Circumvention of national law — Refusal to register)
has given a judgment on 4 March 1999, in which it has ruled:
                                                                                (1999/C 136/05)
1. The conditions laid down in Article 2(8) of Council Directive
     89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the
     laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the
                                                                                (Language of the case: Danish)
     application of review procedures to the award of public supply
     and public works contracts do not apply to authorities whose
     composition and functioning are governed by rules such as those
     to which that body is subject.                                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
2. Neither Article 2(8) nor any other provisions of Directive
     89/665/EEC may be interpreted as meaning that, if Council             In Case C-212/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
     Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordi-           the EC Treaty from the Højesteret for a preliminary ruling in
     nation of procedures for the award of public service contracts has    the proceedings pending before that court between Centros
     not been transposed by the end of the period prescribed for that      Ltd and Erhvervs- og Selskabsstyrelsen — on the interpretation
     purpose, the review bodies in the Member States with jurisdiction     of Articles 52, 56 and 58 of the EC Treaty — the Court,
     to review procedures for the award of public supply contracts and     composed of: G. C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P. J. G. Kap-
     public works contracts, established under Article 2(8) of Directive   teyn, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann, Presidents of
     89/665, may also hear appeals concerning procedures for the           Chamber, G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gul-
     award of public service contracts. However, in order to observe       mann, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward, H. Ragnemalm, L. Sevón,
     the requirement that domestic law must be interpreted in              M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen and K. M. Ioannou,


title: Case C-70/03: Action brought on 17 February 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

text:
C 146/14                EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                          21.6.2003
            order the Community to pay compensation to be                 Pleas in law and main arguments
            determined on an equitable basis by the Court of
            Justice, plus annual interest of 8 % from the date of         —      Incorrect implementation of Article 5 of the Directive.
            the application at first instance to the date of full                The Law transposing Article 5 of Directive 93/13/EEC
            and final payment;                                                   into Spanish law fails to mention that the rule that the
                                                                                interpretation that is the most favourable to the consumer
3.     order the respondent to pay the costs of both sets of                     is to prevail is not to apply in the context of the
       proceedings, in accordance with Article 69(2) of the Rules                procedures laid down in Article 7(2) of the Directive
       of Procedure.                                                             (prohibitory actions). Thus a situation is created in which
                                                                                consumers run the risk that the interpretation rule may
                                                                                go counter to their interests, inasmuch as it will be an
                                                                                obstacle to the removal from contracts with consumers,
                                                                                by means of a prohibitory action, unclear terms which,
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                  according to a ‘normal’ interpretation, are unfair;
                                                                          —      incorrect implementation of Article 6(2) of the Directive:
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in                      by referring to the provision ‘in Article 5 of the 1980
Case C-41/03 P, it being understood that the present case                        Rome Convention on the Law applicable to Contractual
relates to Regulation (EC) No 2081/2000.                                         Obligations’, the Spanish Law limits the protection offered
                                                                                by the Directive to consumers, by introducing a twofold
                                                                                restriction. Thus, the Directive provides for the protection
( 1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2081/2000 of 29 September                     of all consumers in all contracts concluded with a seller
     2000 providing for the continued application of safeguard                   or supplier, whereas the Spanish Law provides such
     measures for imports from the overseas countries and territories            protection only for certain types of contract and only
     of sugar sector products with EC/OCT cumulation of origin                   where certain conditions are satisfied, a twofold restric-
     (OJ 2000 L 246, p. 64).                                                     tion prohibited by the Directive.
                                                                          (1 ) Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in
                                                                               consumer contracts (OJ L 95 of 21.4.1993, p. 29).
Action brought on 17 February 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                Spain
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van
                           (Case C-70/03)                                 Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven by judgment of that Court
                                                                          of 7 January 2003 in the proceedings between A. Tempel-
                                                                          man and Directeur van de Rijksdienst voor de keuring
                          (2003/C 146/23)                                                          van Vee en Vlees
                                                                                (Case C-96/03)
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
                                                                                (2003/C 146/24)
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 Febru-
ary 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Isabel Martínez del Peral and Miguel França, of
its Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          European Communities by judgment of the College van Beroep
                                                                          voor het Bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court for Trade and
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          Industry) of 7 January 2003, received at the Court Registry on
                                                                          4 March 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
1.     Declare that, by failing to transpose fully into its national      between A. Tempelman and Directeur van de Rijksdienst voor
       law Articles 5 and 6(2) of Directive 93/12/EEC (1) of              de keuring van Vee en Vlees on the following questions:
       5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, the
       Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under        1.     May a Member State derive from Community law the
       the Treaty and under that directive;
                                                                                power to decide to kill animals which are suspected of
                                                                                being infected or contaminated with the foot-and-mouth
2.     Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.                              virus?


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 28 May 1998 in Joined Cases T-78/96 and T-170/96: W v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Actions for annulment and for compensation - Admissibility - Reassignment - Interests of the service - Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials - Misuse of power - Statement of reasons - Liability - Administrative fault)

text:
4.7.98                EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 209/37
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        of 14 May 1998                                                   of 14 May 1998
in Case T-352/94: Mo och Domsjö AB v. Commission of                in Case T-165/95: Arnaldo Lucaccioni v. Commission of
                the European Communities (1)                                      the European Communities (1)
(Competition Ð Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty Ð                    (Officials Ð Action for damages Ð Occupational disease
Liability for unlawful conduct Ð Relevant product market           Ð Damage Ð Taking into account benefits received under
Ð Information exchange Ð Order Ð Fine Ð                            Article 73 of the Staff Regulations Ð Duration of the
Determination of the amount Ð Statement of reasons Ð               procedure for recognising an occupational disease Ð
                   Mitigating circumstances)                                                   Fault)
                         (98/C 209/77)
                                                                                (98/C 209/78)
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-352/94: Mo och Domsjö AB, established at
Örnsköldsvik, Sweden, represented by Antony Woodgate,
Martin Smith and Vincent Smith, Solicitors, London, with           In Case T-165/95: Arnaldo Lucaccioni, a former official of
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of            the Commission of the European Communities, residing in
Arendt & Medernach, 8Ð10 Rue Mathias Hardt v.                      Paris, represented by Georges Vandersanden, Laure Levi
Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                    and Olivier Eben, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
Richard Lyal and Rosemary Caudwell) Ð application for              service in Luxembourg at the office of Fiduciaire Myson
annulment of Commission Decision 94/601/EC of 13 July              SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange, v. Commission of the
1994 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC           European Communities (Agents: Julian Currall and Jean-
Treaty (IV/C/33.833 Ð Cartonboard, OJ L 243 of                     Luc Fagnart) Ð application for compensation for the
19.9.1994, p. 1) Ð the Court (Third Chamber, Extended              material and non-material damage allegedly suffered by
Composition), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President of the          the applicant as a result of the disease affecting him and
Chamber, C. P. BrieÈt, P. Lindh, A. Potocki and J. D.              for the award of compensatory interest on the capital sum
Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for the        paid under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations of officials
Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 May 1998 in which            of the European Communities Ð the Court of First
it:                                                                Instance    (Second      Chamber),    composed     of:  A.
                                                                   Kalogeropoulos, President, and C. W. Bellamy and J.
1. Annuls, as regards the applicant, the first to fourth           Pirrung, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar,
    paragraphs of Article 2 of Commission Decision 94/             has given a judgment on 14 May 1998, in which it:
    601/EC of 13 July 1994 relating to a proceeding under
    Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/C/33.833 Ð
                                                                   1. Dismisses the action.
    Cartonboard) save and except for the following
    passages:
                                                                   2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
    The undertakings named in Article 1 shall forthwith
    bring the said infringement to an end, if they have not
                                                                   (1) OJ C 268, 14.10.1995.
    already done so. They shall henceforth refrain in
    relation to their cartonboard activities from any
    agreement or concerted practice which may have the
    same or a similar object or effect, including any
    exchange of commercial information:
    (a) by which the participants are directly or
                                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
          indirectly informed of the production, sales, order
          backlog, machine utilisation rates, selling prices,                            of 28 May 1998
          costs or marketing plans of other individual
                                                                   in Joined Cases T-78/96 and T-170/96: W v. Commission
          producers.
                                                                                of the European Communities (1)
    Any scheme for the exchange of general information             (Officials Ð Actions for annulment and for compensation
    to which they subscribe, such as the Fides system or its       Ð Admissibility Ð Reassignment Ð Interests of the
    successor, shall be so conducted as to exclude any             service Ð Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials
    information from which the behaviour of individual             Ð Misuse of power Ð Statement of reasons Ð Liability
    producers can be identified'.                                                     Ð Administrative fault)
2. Dismisses the application as regards the remaining                                      (98/C 209/79)
    claims.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
3. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 392, 31.12.1994.                                          In Joined Cases T-78/96 and T-170/96: W, an official of
                                                                   the Commission of the European Communities, residing in
                                                                   Luxembourg, represented by Georges Vandersanden and
 ---pagebreak--- C 209/38             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   4.7.98
Laure Levi, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service        1. Orders the Commission to pay the applicant the sum
in Luxembourg at Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de                       of ECU 400 by way of compensation for
Cessange, against the Commission of the European                        maladministration.
Communities (Agent: Julian Currall) Ð application for
annulment of a decision to reassign the applicant dated
20 July 1995, an express decision of 16 February 1996               2. Dismisses the remainder of the action.
dismissing the complaint lodged by the applicant against
that decision, an implied decision dismissing the claim for
damages submitted by the applicant on 19 October 1995               3. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to
and, in so far as necessary, a decision of 26 June 1996 not             pay the costs incurred by the applicant up to date of
to uphold in its entirety the complaint lodged by the                   receipt by him of the decision rejecting his complaint.
applicant against the last-mentioned decision Ð the Court               The applicant is ordered to bear his own costs
of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of J. Azizi,                incurred as from the date of receipt of the decision
President, R. García-Valdecasas and M. Jaeger, Judges; H.               rejecting his complaint.
Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on 28 May 1998, the
operative part of which is as follows:                              (1) OJ C 40, 8.2.1997.
1. The actions are dismissed.
2. Each party shall bear its own costs.
                                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
( ) OJ C 233, 10.8.1996 and OJ C 388, 21.12.1996.
 1
                                                                                of 26 May 1998
                                                                    in Case T-177/96: Mario Costacurta v. Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
                                                                    (Officials Ð Remuneration Ð Weighting Ð Special
                                                                    derogations applying to officials posted to non-member
                                                                    countries Ð Contrary to the principles of the equivalence
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   of purchasing power and equal treatment)
                      of 12 May 1998                                                        (98/C 209/81)
in Case T-159/96: Rüdiger Wenk v. Commission of the
                  European Communities (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(Officials Ð Recruitment Ð Post of Head of a
Commission delegation Ð Notice of vacancy Ð Legality
Ð Decision rejecting an application for a post Ð                    In Case T-177/96: Mario Costacurta, an official of the
Obligation to provide a statement of reasons Ð                      Commission of the European Communities, residing in
Comparative examination of the merits of the candidates             Luxembourg, represented by Nicolas Decker, of the
Ð Discretion of the appointing authority Ð Protection of            Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in
legitimate expectations Ð Duty to have regard for the               Luxembourg at the latter's Chambers, 16 Avenue Marie-
              welfare and interests of officials)                   TheÂreÁse v. Commission of the European Communities
                                                                    (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and Florence Clotuche) Ð
                        (98/C 209/80)                               application for (1) annulment of the Commission's
                                                                    decision of 22 July 1996 refusing to apply to the applicant
                                                                    the weightings for Zaïre in respect of the period of his
               (Language of the case: French)                       assignment to the Commission's delegation in that country
                                                                    and (2) compensation for the damage thereby caused Ð
                                                                    the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of
In Case T-159/96: Rüdiger Wenk, an official of the                  J. Azizi, President, R. García-Valdecasas and M. Jaeger,
Commission of the European Communities, residing in                 Judges; J. Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for the
Caracas, represented by Nicolas LhoeÈst, of the Brussels            Registrar, gave a judgment on 26 May 1998, the operative
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the               part of which is as follows:
office of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange, v.
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Julian
Currall and Christine Berardis-Kayser) Ð application for            1. The application is dismissed.
annulment of the decision of the Commission of
2 February 1996 rejecting the application by the applicant
for the post of Head of the Commission's delegation in              2. Each of the parties shall bear its own costs.
San JoseÂ Ð the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber),
composed of: J. Azizi, President, and R. García-Valdecasas          (1) OJ C 9, 11.1.1997.
and M. Jaeger, Judges; J. Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 May 1998,
in which it:


title: Case C-169/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Regeringsrätten by order of that Court of 10 April 2003 in the case of Florian W. Wallentin against Riksskatteverket

text:
5.7.2003               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 158/9
The Commission claims that the Court should:                              country (restricted tax liability) are subject to a tax at source of
                                                                          such a nature that a basic allowance or other allowance
—     declare that, by failing to bring into force a system of full       for personal circumstances is not granted, whereas persons
      protection for certain species in Annex II to Council               resident in the country are entitled to such an allowance at the
      Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conser-                 time of ordinary assessment to income tax in respect of all
      vation of wild birds (1), as amended by Council Directive           income which they receive in the Member State and abroad
      94/24/EC of 8 June 1994 ( 2), the Hellenic Republic has             (full tax liability), but where the first mentioned person’s lack
      failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the             of right to a basic allowance is taken into account, inter alia,
      directive;                                                          by means of a tax rate which is lower than the rate applicable
                                                                          for taxable persons resident in the country?
—     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The Commission considers that the Hellenic Republic did not
correctly apply Article 7(4) of the directive, since, because late
dates were fixed for the end of the hunting season, it did not
bring into force a system of full protection for certain species          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-
in Annex II to the directive. A percentage of those birds,                richtshof by order of that Court of 31 March 2003 in the
smaller or greater according to species, is not protected from            appeal by Dr. Wolfgang Heiser against Finanzlandesdirek-
hunting activities in the period when they move in search of a                                        tion für Tirol
mate during which their survival is particularly threatened. In
reality such a system does not ensure the full protection of
birds during the stage when they move to their rearing
                                                                                (Case C-172/03)
grounds, in infringement of Article 7(4) of the directive.
( 1) OJ L 103 of 25.4.1979, p. 1.                                                                   (2003/C 158/16)
( 2) OJ L 164 of 30.6.1994, p. 9.
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgerichts-
                                                                          hof (Supreme Administrative Court) of 31 March 2003,
                                                                          received at the Court Registry on 14 April 2003, for a
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Regeringsrätten                 preliminary ruling in the appeal by Dr. Wolfgang Heiser
by order of that Court of 10 April 2003 in the case of                    against Finanzlandesdirektion für Tirol (Regional Finance
        Florian W. Wallentin against Riksskatteverket                     Directorate for the Tyrol) (Appeal Senate I) on the following
                                                                          question:
                         (Case C-169/03)
                         (2003/C 158/15)                                  Is State aid within the meaning of Article 87 EC (formerly
                                                                          Article 92 of the EC Treaty) implied by the existence of a rule
                                                                          such as that contained in Article XIV (3) of Federal Law BGBl
                                                                          21/1995, as amended by BGBl 756/1996, whereby in the case
                                                                          of medical practitioners the conversion from turnover liable
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          to turnover tax to turnover exempt from turnover tax does
European Communities by order of the Regeringsrätten
(Supreme Administrative Court) of 10 April 2003, received at              not, in the case of goods that continue to be used in the
                                                                          business, result in input tax already deducted being reduced
the Court Registry on 14 April 2003, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                          under Article 20 of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC ( 1)?
in the case of Florian W. Walentin against Riksskatteverket on
the following question:
                                                                          (1 ) OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1.
Is Article 39 of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as precluding a
Member State’s legislation which provides that natural persons
who are not regarded as resident in the country for tax
purposes but who receive income from employment in the


title: Action brought on 6 March 1997 by R. Dusselaar against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-57/97)

text:
10 . 5 . 97            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 142/27
Action brought on 6 March 1997 by R. Dusselaar against                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
the Council of the European Union and the Commission
                 of the European Communities                            ( a ) primarily: order the Community to pay to the
                          ( Case T-57/97)                                     applicant the sum of Fl 166 374, together with interest
                            ( 97/C 142/56 )                                   thereon at the rate of 8 % per annum from 1 9 May
                                                                              1992 until the date of payment in full;
                 (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                              in the alternative: order the Community to pay the
An action against the Council of the European Union and                       applicant such sum as the Court in its wisdom shall
the Commission of the European Communities was                                think fit, amounting to not less than Fl 61 220
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European                    ( namely, the amount resulting from the application of
Communities on 6 March 1997 by R. Dusselaar, of Wier                          Regulation ( EEC ) No 2187/93 ), together with interest
(Netherlands), represented by E. H. Pijnacker Hordijk, of                     thereon at the rate of 8% per annum from 19 May
the Amsterdam Bar, and M. T. P. J. van Oers, of The                           1992 until the date of the payment in full;
Hague Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the Chambers of L. Frieden, 62 Avenue Guillaume .                       ( b ) order the Community to pay the costs.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
( a) primarily: order the Community to pay to the                       The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
     applicant the sum of Fl 99 948 , together with interest            Case T-50/97 (')•
     thereon at the rate of 8 % per annum from 19 May
     1992 until the date of payment in full;
                                                                        (') Page 24 of this Official Journal .
     in the alternative: order the Community to pay the
     applicant such sum as the Court in its wisdom shall
     think fit, amounting to not less than Fl 28 063
     ( namely, the amount resulting from the application of
     Regulation ( EEC ) No 2187/93 ), together with interest
     thereon at the rate of 8 % per annum from 19 May                   Action brought on 6 March 1997 by A. Lukens Folkers
     1992 until the date of the payment in full;                        against the Council of the European Union and the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
( b) order the Community to pay the costs .                                                       ( Case T-59/97 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 142/58 )
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
Case T-50/97 (').
                                                                        An action against the Council of the European Union and
                                                                        the Commission of the European Communities was
(') Page 24 of this Official Journal.                                   brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                        Communities on 6 March 1997 by A. Lukens Folkers, of
                                                                        Onstwedde (Netherlands ), represented by E. H. Pijnacker
                                                                        Hordijk, of the Amsterdam Bar, and M. T. P. J. van Oers,
                                                                        of The Hague Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                        Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Frieden, 62 Avenue
Action brought on 6 March 1997 by H. Heringa against                    Guillaume .
the Council of the European Union and the Commission
                 of the European Communities                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
                           (Case T-58/97 )
                             ( 97/C 142/57 )                            ( a ) primarily: order the Community to pay to the
                                                                              applicant the sum of Fl 114 970, together with interest
                 (Language of the case: Dutch)                                thereon at the rate of 8% per annum from 19 May
                                                                               1992 until the date of payment in full;
An action against the Council of the European Union and
the Commission of the European Communities was                                in the alternative: order the Community to pay the
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European                    applicant such sum as the Court in its wisdom shall
 Communities on 6 March 1997 by H. Heringa, of Leems                          think fit, amounting to not less than Fl 30 348
 ( Netherlands ), represented by E. H. Pijnacker Hordijk, of                   ( namely, the amount resulting from the application of
the Amsterdam Bar, and M. T. P. J. van Oers, of The                           Regulation ( EEC ) No 2187/93 ), together with interest
Hague Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                       thereon at the rate of 8% per annum from 19 May
the Chambers of L. Frieden, 62 Avenue Guillaume.                               1992 until the date of the payment in full;