title: Case T-46/02: Action brought on 26 February 2002 by Finchimica, S.p.A. and I.Pi.Ci. — Industria Prodotti Chimici, S.p.A. against the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union

text:
15.6.2002               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 144/47
The applicants also raise the point of a violation of the                 tion product active substance trifluralin in the list of priority
principles of consistency and uniform application of Com-                 substances which will be restricted in the EU insofar as it
munity law, of proportionality and of legal certainty and                 entails direct or indirect ‘discharges, emissions and losses’ in
legitimate expectations.                                                  the aquatic environment during normal agricultural use.
In addition, the applicants claim that the contested measure
also departs from the letter and the spirit of the international          The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
agreements to which it expressely refers (OSPAR, HELCOM                   relied upon in Case T-45/02 (DOW AgroSciences and Others -
and the Barcelona Convention).                                            v- Parliament and Council (2).
(1) OJ L 331, of 15.12.2001, p. 1.                                        (1) OJ [2001] L 331, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 170, of 25.6.1992, p. 40.                                        (2) See p. 46 of the present Official Journal.
(3) OJ L 327, of 22.12.2000, p. 1.
Action brought on 26 February 2002 by Finchimica,
S.p.A. and I.Pi.Ci. — Industria Prodotti Chimici, S.p.A.
against the European Parliament and the Council of the                    Action brought on 27 February 2002 by Makhteshim-
                         European Union                                   Agan Holding B.V. against the European Parliament and
                                                                                the Council of the European Union
                          (Case T-46/02)
                                                                                (Case T-57/02)
                         (2002/C 144/97)
                                                                                (2002/C 144/98)
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
An action against the European Parliament and the Council of
the European Union was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 26 February 2002
by Finchimica, S.p.A. and I.Pi.Ci. — Industria Prodotti Chimici,
S.p.A., represented by Mr Koen Van Maldegem and Mr Claudio                An action against the European Parliament and the Council of
Mereu of McKenna & Cuneo LLP, Brussels (Belgium).                         the European Union was brought before the Court of First
                                                                          Instance of the European Communities on 27 February 2002
                                                                          by Makhteshim-Agan Holding B.V., represented by Mr Philippe
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               Logelain, Mr Koen Van Maldegem and Mr Claudio Mereu of
                                                                          McKenna & Cuneo, LLP, Brussels (Belgium).
—     partially annul Decision no. 2455/2001/EC of the Euro-
      pean Parliament and of the Council of 20 November
      2001 establishing the list of priority substances in the            The applicant claims that the Court should:
      field of water policy and amending Directive 2000/60/
      EC (1), so as to remove trifluralin from the measure;
                                                                          —     order the partial annulment of Decision no. 2455/2001/
—     order the defendants to pay all costs and expenses in                     EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
      these proceedings.                                                        20 November 2001 establishing the list of priority
                                                                                substances and priority hazardous substances in the field
                                                                                of water policy and amending Directive 2000/60/EC, so
                                                                                as to remove the applicant’s substances — Atrazine,
                                                                                Chlorpyrifos, Diuron, Endosulfan, Isoproturon (IPU),
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 Simazine and Trifluralin — from the measure;
The applicants seek the partial annulment of Decision                     —     order the defendants to pay all costs and expenses in
no. 2455/2001/EC which includes the applicants’ plant protec-                   these proceedings.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 16 January 1996 in Case T-108/94: Elena Candiotte v. Council of the European Union (Artists' competition - Rules of the competition - Lawfulness of the selection procedure - Powers of the Selection Committee)

text:
2 . 3 . 96           1 EN |                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      No C 64/ 11
     workers within the Community require that, where                           himself during the first stage of its life and refrains from
     doctors have worked as such in the public service of                       pursuing a full-time paid occupation,
     another Member State of the EC, the time spent in such
     employment should likewise be taken into account for                       if the cash benefit, which is a fixed amount, is paid only
     the purposes of promotion on grounds of seniority as                       if the income does not exceed certain limits graduated
     provided for in the BAT or should the court instead take                   according to the number of members of the family,
     no such decision and leave this matter to the parties to                   and if, although the cash benefit, as a family-policy
     the collective agreement, having regard to their freedom                   social benefit, is intended as recompense for bringing up
     to agree terms ?                                                           the child and to compensate for the absence of income
(') OJ , English Special Edition 1968 ( II ), p. 475 .
                                                                                from a full-time occupation and the other burdens of
                                                                                caring for and bringing up the child, its primary purpose
                                                                                is to act as an incentive to foster an attachment to the
                                                                                child ?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                               2 . If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, is the
Bundessozialgericht by order of that court of 29 November                       cash benefit in relation to a migrant worker within the
1995 in the case of Karin Mille-Wilsmann v. Land                                meaning of Article 73 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71
                      Nordrhein-Westfalen                                       a family benefit even if it is not the worker himself who is
                                                                                bringing up the child and is therefore entitled, but his
                         ( Case C-16/96 )                                       wife ?
                           ( 96/C 64/24 )
                                                                          3 . Do national rules which in a Member State provide, in
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                          favour of its nationals residing there, for an entitlement
European Communities by an order of the                                         to a cash benefit for one parent who her or himself
Bundessozialgericht ( Federal Social Court ) — 14th                             brings up her or his child during the first stage of its life
Chamber — of 29 November 1995 , which was received at                           and refrains from pursuing a full-time paid occupation,
the Court Registry on 19 January 1996 , for a preliminary                       also apply, under EC law, such as Article 7 ( 2 ) of
ruling in the case of Karin Mille-Wilsmann v. Land                              Regulation ( EEC ) No 1612/68 ( 2 ), to the spouse of a
Nordrhein-Westfalen on the following questions:                                 worker who works in that State for the purpose of
                                                                                Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 and who lives with his
1 . Is a cash benefit financed from tax revenue a family                        spouse in another Member State ( frontier worker )?
     benefit within the meaning of Article 1 ( u ) ( i ) of
     Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 ('), if a condition for                ( ] ) OJ English Special Edition 1971 ( II ), p. 416 .
     entitlement is that one parent brings up the child her or            ( 2 ) OJ English Special Edition 1968 ( II ), p. 475 .
                                                         COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  annulment of — firstly, the decision of the Selection
                       of 16 January 1996                                 Committee for Artists' Competition No 93/S 21-3373/FR,
                                                                          taken on behalf of the Council and notified to the applicant
in Case T-108/94 : Elena Candiotte v. Council of the
                                                                          by letter of 14 January 1994 , not to admit her to the second
                       European Union (')                                 stage of that competition, — secondly, that Committee's
(Artists ' competition — Rules of the competition —                       decision to delegate to each national working party the
Lawfulness of the selection procedure — Powers of the                     initial selection of applications from artists established in its
                      Selection Committee)                                national territory, — thirdly, its decision to fix the number
                            ( 96/C 64/25 )                                of artists to be selected at three per Member State, and —
                                                                          fourthly, its decision to draw up without further
                                                                          examination the list of artists admitted to the second stage of
                                                                          the competition; and ( ii ) an order requiring the Council to
                 (Language of the case: French)                           pay a symbolic ecu as compensation for the damage which
                                                                          the applicant claims to have suffered as a result of the
                                                                          Selection Committee's decisions, in particular the decision
In Case T-108/94 : Elena Candiotte , self-employed artist,                rejecting her application — the Court of First Instance ( Fifth
residing in Jambes ( Belgium ), represented by Jean-Noel                   Chamber ), composed of: R. Schintgen, President, R.
Louis, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in                 Garcia-Valdecasas and J. Azizi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
Luxembourg at the office of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 1 Rue                   has given a judgment on 16 January 1996 , in which it:
Glesener v. Council of the European Union ( Agents : Yves
Cretien and Diego Canga Fano ) — application for ( i )                     1 . dismisses the application;
 ---pagebreak--- No C 64/ 12            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    2 . 3 . 96
2 . orders the applicant to pay the whole of the costs,               Vassilios Akritidis, of the Athens Bar, with an address for
      including those relating to the proceedings for the             service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arsène
      adoption of interim measures.                                   Kronshagen, 22 Rue Marie-Adelaide, v. Commission of the
                                                                      European Communities (Agents: Ana Maria Alves Vieira
f 1 ) OJ No C 120, 30 . 4 . 1994 .                                    and Bertrand Wägenbaur) — application, first, for
                                                                      annulment of the decision of the Commission, addressed to
                                                                      the applicant by letter of 20 March 1995 , rejecting his
                                                                      application for regrading in grade Bl , step 2 , with
                                                                      retroactive effect from 1 March 1983 , and, second, for an
                                                                      order requiring the Commission to bear the pecuniary
                                                                      effects of such regrading, together with interest thereon —
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            the Court of First Instance ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of R.
                       ( Second Chamber )                             Schintgen, President, and R. García-Valdecasas and J. Azizi,
                                                                      Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 15 December
                    of 14 December 1995                               1995 , the operative part of which is as follows :
in Case T-90/94: Erik Dan Frederiksen v. European
                           Parliament (*)
                                                                      1 . the action is dismissed as inadmissible;
                 (No need to give a decision)
                              96/C 64/26 )
                                                                      2 . the applicant is ordered to pay all of the costs.
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                      (') OJ No C 229 , 2 . 9 . 1995 .
In Case T-90/94: Erik Dan Frederiksen, an official of the
European Parliament, residing in Howald ( Luxembourg),
represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi , both
of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 1
Rue Glesener, against European Parliament ( Agents: Didier
Petersheim and Ezio Perillo ) — application for annulment of
                                                                                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
Vacancy Notice No 7346 inviting applications for the post
                                                                               OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
of Language Adviser ( Grade LA 3 ) in the Danish Translation
Division — the Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber ),                                of 22 December 1995
composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, D. Barrington and P.            in Case T-219/95 R, Marie-Thérèse Danielsson and Others
Lindh, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on                          v. Commission of the European Communities
14 December 1995 , the operative part of which is as
follows :                                                                                ( 96/C 64/28 )
1 . there is no need to give a decision;                                             (Language of the case: English)
2 . the European Parliament is to pay the costs.                      In Case T-2 19/95 R: Marie-Therese Danielsson, Pierre
                                                                      Largenteau and Edwin Haoa, all residing in Tahiti, French
0 ) OJ No C 103 , 11 . 4 . 1994 .                                     Polynesia, representd by Phon van den Biesen, of the
                                                                      Amsterdam Bar, and Denis Waelbroeck, of the Brussels Bar,
                                                                      assisted during the written procedure by Gerrit Betlem and
                                                                      Seven Deimann, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                      at the office of Dei Gréng, 31 Grand-Rue, v. Commission of
                                                                      the European Communities ( Agents : Richard Wainwright
                                                                      and Thomas Cusack ), supported by French Republic
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                      (Agents : Catherine de Salins, Marc Fonbaustier and
                    of 15 December 1995                               Jean-Francois Dobelle ) — application for suspension of the
in Case T-131/95 : Nicolaos Progoulis v. Commission of the            operation of the decision of the Commission of the
                  European Communities ( 1 )                          European Communities of 23 October 1995 regarding
                                                                      French nuclear tests and for an order that the Commission
(Confirmatory act — New and material fact —                           take all measures necessary to preserve and protect the
   Inadmissibility — Costs — Costs unreasonably caused)               applicants' rights under the EAEC Treaty — the President of
                            ( 96/C 64/27 )                            the Court of First Instance made an order on 22 December
                                                                      1995 , the operative part of which is as follows:
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                      1 . the French Republic is granted leave to intervene in
In Case T-131 /95 : Nicolaos Progoulis, an official of the                 support of the form of order sought by the
Commission of the European Communities, represented by                     Commission;


title: Case C-54/00: Action brought on 21 February 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
C 211/4                  EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      22.7.2000
1. Declares that, by maintaining in force the combined provisions            declaration that by maintaining in force Real Decreto
     of Article L. 310-8 and Article A. 310-1 of the Insurance Code,         157/1988, por el que se establece la normativa a que deben
     which provide that insurance or capitalisation undertakings             ajustarse las denominaciones de origen y las denominaciones
     which market for the first time in France a standard form contract      de origen calificadas de vinos y sus respectivos Reglamentos
     of insurance must systematically send the Minister for Economic         (Royal Decree No 157/88 laying down the rules governing
     and Financial Affairs an information sheet containing infor-            designations of origin and controlled designations of origin
     mation on the general conditions of insurance policies, the French      for wines and regulations implementing it, BOE No 47 of
     Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 6, 29      24 February 1988, p. 5864)) and in particular Article 19(1)(b)
     and 39 of Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the            thereof, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations
     coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions         under Article 34 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
     relating to direct insurance other than life assurance and              Article 29 EC), as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the
     amending Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (third non-               European Communities in its judgment of 9 June 1992 in
     life insurance directive) and Articles 5, 29 and 39 of Council          Case C-47/90 Delhaize v Promalvin [1992] ECR I-3669, and
     Directive 92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992 on the coordi-                  Article 5 of the EC Treaty (now Article 10 EC — the Court,
     nation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating      composed of G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho
     to direct life assurance and amending Directives 79/267/EEC             de Almeida, D.A.O. Edward, L. Sevón, R. Schintgen (Presidents
     and 90/619/EEC (third life assurance directive);                        of Chambers), C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet,
                                                                             G. Hirsch, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet, Judges,
2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.                              Advocate General: A. Saggio, D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal
                                                                             Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 16 May
                                                                             2000, in which it:
(1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.
                                                                             1. Dismisses the action;
                                                                             2. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium and the Kingdom of Spain to
                                                                                bear their own costs;
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                             3. Orders the Kingdom of Denmark, the Italian        Republic, the
                                                                                Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Portuguese       Republic, the
                           of 12 May 2000
                                                                                Republic of Finland, the United Kingdom of       Great Britain
                                                                                and Northern Ireland and the Commission of       the European
in Case C-388/95: Kingdom of Belgium v Kingdom of                                Communities to bear their own costs.
                                Spain (1)
(Article 34 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
                                                                             (1) OJ C 46 of 14.2.1996.
Article 29 EC) — Regulation (EEC) No 823/87 — Quality
wines produced in a specified region — Designations of
origin — Obligation to bottle in the region of production —
Justification — Consequences of an earlier judgment giving
a preliminary ruling — Article 5 of the EC Treaty (now
                            Article 10 EC))
                           (2000/C 211/06)
                     (Language of the case: Spanish)                         Action brought on 21 February 2000 by the Commission
                                                                             of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
(Provisional translation: the definitive translation will be published
                in the Reports of Cases before the Court)                                               (Case C-54/00)
In Case C-388/95, Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: J. Devadder),
supported by Kingdom of Denmark (Agent: P. Biering), the                                               (2000/C 211/07)
Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents: M. Fierstra and J. van
den Oosterkamp), the Republic of Finland (Agents: H. Rotkirch,
T. Pynna and K. Castrén) and by the United Kingdom of Great                  An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: S. Ridley, assisted by                  Court of Justice of the European Communities on 21 February
E. Sharpston), v Kingdom of Spain (R. Silva de la Puerta),                   2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
supported by the Italian Republic (Agent: Professor U. Leanza,               represented by Richard Wainwright, of its Legal Service, and
assisted by I. M. Braguglia), the Portuguese Republic (Agents:               Giacinto Bisogni, appeal court judge on secondment to the
L. Fernandes, Â. Cortesão Seiça Neves and L. Bigotte Chorão)              Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
and the Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                      Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner
J.L. Iglesias Buhigues and H. van Lier) — application for a                  Centre, Kirchberg.
 ---pagebreak--- 22.7.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 211/5
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              — Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
— Declare that, by failing to adopt or, in any event, to
    communicate to the Commission, within the prescribed                 Pleas in law and main arguments
    period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
    necessary to comply with European Parliament and
    Council Directive 97/52/EC of 13 October 1997 amending               Under Article 249 of the EC Treaty, according to which a
    Directives 92/50/EEC, 93/36/EEC and 93/37/EEC concern-               directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
    ing the coordination of procedures for the award of public           each Member State to which it is addressed, Member States are
    service contracts, public supply contracts and public works          required to observe the time-limits laid down in directives for
    contracts respectively (1), the Italian Republic has failed to       their transposition. That time-limit expired on 1 July 1998
    fulfil its obligations under that directive; and                     without the Italian Republic having brought into force the
                                                                         necessary provisions in order to comply with the directive
— Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                           referred to in the Commission’s application.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          (1) OJ 1997 L 335, p. 15.
Under Article 249 of the EC Treaty, according to which a
directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
each Member State to which it is addressed, Member States are
required to observe the time-limits laid down in directives for
their transposition. That time-limit expired on 13 October
1998 without the Italian Republic having brought into force
the necessary provisions in order to comply with the directive           Action brought on 27 April 2000 by the Kingdom of the
referred to in the Commission’s application.                             Netherlands against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
(1) OJ 1997 L 328, p. 1.
                                                                                (Case C-156/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 211/09)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Action brought on 22 February 2000 by the Commission                     ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic                 Communities on 27 April 2000 by the Kingdom of the
                                                                         Netherlands, represented by Marc Fierstra, Head of the Euro-
                                                                         pean Law Section in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The
                          (Case C-56/00)
                                                                         Hague, acting as Agent.
                         (2000/C 211/08)
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 February              — Annul the Commission decision of 23 February 2000
2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,                           determining in a particular case that an application for
represented by Richard Wainwright, of its Legal Service, and                  remission of import duties in a specified amount is
Giacinto Bisogni, appeal court judge on secondment to the                     inadmissible and that the remission of import duties in a
Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in               separate amount is unjustified (file REM 23/99);
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner
Centre, Kirchberg.                                                       — Order the Commission to pay the costs.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
— Declare that, by failing to adopt or, in any event, communi-
    cate to the Commission, within the prescribed period, the            — Infringement of Article 589 of Commission Regulation
    laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary                 (EEC) No 2454/93 (1); in the alternative, infringement of
    to comply with Directive 97/63/EC of the European                         the obligation to state reasons laid down in Article 253 EC
    Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 1997                         in so far as the contested decision declared inadmissible
    amending Directives 76/116/EEC, 80/876/EEC, 89/284/                       that part of the application for remission which seeks
    EEC and 89/530/EEC on the approximation of the laws of                    to recover compensatory interest: Article 589(3), fifth
    the Member States relating to fertilizers (1), the Italian                subparagraph, of Regulation No 2454/93 provides that if
    Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that                  the Commission fails to raise an objection against acceding
    directive; and                                                            to the request within two months of the date of


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 3 December 2003 in Case T-82/00 DEP: Bic SA and Others v Council of the European Union (Procedure — Taxation of costs)

text:
20.3.2004                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                             C 71/27
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   SA, established in Nyon (Switzerland), represented by
                                                                             A. Vianello, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
                                                                             against the Council of the European Union (Agents: S. Mar-
                       of 17 November 2003
                                                                             quardt and F.P. Ruggeri Laderchi) — application for taxation
                                                                             of the costs to be reimbursed by the applicants to the defendant
In Case T-340/99 DEP: Arne Mathisen AS against Council                       following the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second
                    of the European Union (1)                                Chamber, Extended Composition) of 5 April 2001 given in
                                                                             Case T-82/00 Bic and Others v Council [2001] ECR II-1241
(Taxation of costs — Expenses necessarily incurred by the                    — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed
parties for the purposes of the proceedings — Lawyers’ fees                  of: J. Pirrung, President, A.W.H. Meij and N.J. Forwood, Judges;
                       — Photocopy expenses)                                 H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 3 December 2003, the
                                                                             operative part of which is as follows:
                           (2004/C 71/49)
                                                                             The total amount of costs recoverable by the Council in Case T-82/
                    (Language of the case: English)                          00 is fixed at EUR 5 500.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.
In Case T-340/99 DEP: Arne Mathisen AS, established in
Vaeroy (Norway), represented by S. Knudtzon, lawyer, with an
address for service in Luxembourg, against Council of the
European Union, (Agents: S. Marquardt and G. Berrisch),
supported by Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: V. Kreuschitz and S. Meany): Application for taxation
of costs brought by the Council following the judgment of the
Court of First Instance in Case T-340/99 Arne Mathisen v
Council [2002] ECR II-2905, the Court of First Instance
(Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of:                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
H. Legal, President, V. Tiili, A.W.H. Meij, M. Vilaras and
N.J. Forwood, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on
17 November 2003, the operative part of which is as follows:                                        of 4 December 2003
The total amount of costs to be reimbursed by Arne Mathisen AS to            in Case T-78/01 INNOVA – Centro euromediterraneo per
the Council is fixed at EUR 30 620,01.                                       lo sviluppo sostenibile v Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities (1)
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.
                                                                             (‘Culture 2000’ Programme — ‘Una festa per Aristofane’
                                                                             project — Suspension of payment of part of a Community
                                                                                grant awarded — No need to adjudicate)
                                                                                (2004/C 71/51)
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                        of 3 December 2003
in Case T-82/00 DEP: Bic SA and Others v Council of the
                         European Union (1)                                  In Case T-78/01: INNOVA — Centro euromediterraneo per lo
                                                                             sviluppo sostenibile, established in Calatafimi (Italy), represent-
                 (Procedure — Taxation of costs)                             ed by D. Waelbroeck and J. Waldron, lawyers, v Commission
                                                                             of the European Communities (Agents: D. Martin and H.
                                                                             Speyart) — application seeking, in the first place, an order that
                           (2004/C 71/50)                                    the Commission should pay the second and final tranches of
                                                                             the grant awarded to the applicant for the ‘Una festa per
                     (Language of the case: Italian)                         Aristofane’ project under the ‘Culture 2000’ programme
                                                                             established by Decision No 508/2000/EC of the European
                                                                             Parliament and of the Council of 14 February 2000 (OJ 2000
                                                                             L 63, p. 1), and, in the alternative, annulment of the
In Case T-82/00 DEP: Bic SA, established in Clichy (France),                 Commission’s decision allegedly sent by letter of 25 January
Flamagas SA, established in Barcelona (Spain), Swedish Match                 2001, informing the applicant of the suspension of payment


title: Case T-120/03: Action brought on 10 April 2003 by Synopharm GmbH & Co. KG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
19.7.2003              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                             C 171/29
Action brought on 24 March 2003 by Elisabeth von                           limit, which favours undertakings of less than 20 hectares, also
Pezold against the Commission of the European Com-                         results in severe distortion of competition, in contravention of
                              munities                                     Article 35 of Regulation No 1257/1999 ( 1).
                         (Case T-108/03)                                   (1 ) Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on
                                                                                support for rural development from the European Agricultural
                                                                                Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and
                                                                                repealing certain Regulations (OJ L 160, 26.06.1999, p. 80).
                         (2003/C 171/50)
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                           Action brought on 10 April 2003 by Synopharm GmbH
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  & Co. KG against the Office for Harmonisation in the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                           Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
European Communities on 24 March 2003 by Elisabeth von
Pezold, residing in Pöls (Austria), represented by R. von Pezold,                                     (Case T-120/03)
lawyer.
                                                                                (2003/C 171/51)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           (Language of the case to be determined in accordance with
                                                                           Article 131(2) of the Rules of Procedure — Language in which the
—     annul the approval of point 6.2.1.4.1. of the guidelines                               application was submitted: German)
      on the implementation of the ‘other measures’ forming
      part of the Austrian rural development programm
      ZI.21.200/50-II/00 of 27 July 2000, C III in Section 6,
      headed ‘Forestry’, granted by the Commission decision of             An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
      14 July 2000 approving a rural development program-                  Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
      ming document for the Republic of Austria for the period             Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
      from 2000 to 2006 (C(2000) 1973 final);                              10 April 2003 by Synopharm GmbH & Co. KG, Barsbüttel
                                                                           (Germany), represented by G. J. Hodapp, lawyer. Pentafarma-
                                                                           Sociedade Técnico-Medicinal, LDA, Sacavém (Portugal) was
—     in the alternative, if it finds that point 6.2.1.4.1. of those
                                                                           also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
      guidelines has not been approved by the Commission,
      deliver a judgment to that effect;
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
                                                                           —      annul Decision R 44/2002-3 of the Third Board of
                                                                                Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                                Market of 15 January 2003 in so far as the appeal was
                                                                                dismissed;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           —      order the Office to pay the costs.
The applicant owns a forestry undertaking with forests cover-
ing approximately 3 500 hectares. She submits that                         Pleas in law and main arguments
point 6.2.1.4.1. of the Austrian guidelines on the implemen-
tation of the ‘rural development programm’ limits applications
for support for forests to a maximum of 20 hectares per                    Applicant for Com-               The applicant
undertaking, and that this limit was approved by the contested             munity trade mark:
decision.
                                                                           Community trade mark             The word mark ‘DERMASYN’ for
                                                                           sought:                          goods in Classes 1, 3 and 5 (inter
                                                                                alia, cosmetics, medicines, pharm-
As grounds for her action, the applicant submits that the                                                   aceutical and sanitary prep-
setting of a limit of 20 hectares constitutes support of                                                    arations and disinfectants for the
individual undertakings, rather than support of the forests per                                             human body) — Application No
se, as required by Regulation No 1257/1999. Moreover, the                                                   662 403
 ---pagebreak--- C 171/30             EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                        19.7.2003
Proprietor of mark or        Pentafarma-Sociedade        Técnico        The applicant claims that the Court should:
sign cited in the oppo-      Medicinal, LDA
sition proceedings:
                                                                        —     annul the decision of the European Agency for the
                                                                              Evaluation of Medicinal Products of 4 February 2003,
Mark or sign cited in        The Portuguese word mark                         Document No EMEA/2044;
opposition:                  ‘DERMAZIL’ for goods in Class 5
                             (inter alia, pharmaceutical prep-
                                                                        —     order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
                             arations and disinfectants)
Decision of the Oppo-        Registration refused in respect of
sition Division:             several goods in Classes 3 and 5
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
Decision of the Board of     Annulment of the decision of the
Appeal:                      Opposition Division in respect of
                             certain goods in Class 5. Dismissal        The applicant holds a Community marketing authorisation for
                             of the remainder of the applicant’s        the medicinal product, INOmax, whose active ingredient is
                             appeal.                                    nitrogen oxide (NO). On 25 January 2002, the competent
                                                                        authority in France granted another undertaking a national
                                                                        authorisation for a medicinal product called KINOX, whose
Pleas in law:                —     A similarity between the
                                                                        active ingredient is also nitrogen oxide. In response to that
                                   goods compared can be seen
                                                                        authorisation, the applicant lodged an application with the
                                   only in respect of goods in
                                                                        European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products
                                   Class 5.
                                                                        (EMEA) to initiate the procedure under Article 31 of Directive
                             —     The final syllables, which           2001/83/EC (1) in respect of medicinal products containing
                                   alone are relevant, are clearly      nitrogen oxide. That application was rejected in the contested
                                   different in both sound and          decision on the ground that the applicant, as holder of a
                                   appearance.                          Community marketing authorisation, is not entitled to make
                                                                        such an application.
                             —     No likelihood of confusion
                                   exists.
                                                                        The applicant raises the following pleas in law:
                                                                        —     Infringement of essential procedural requirements. The
                                                                              applicant submits that the contested decision was adopted
                                                                              by staff in the secretariat of the EMEA, who, under the
                                                                              relevant procedural provisions of Directive 2001/83/EC
                                                                              and Regulation No 2309/93/EC ( 2) were not competent
                                                                              to adopt such a decision. Instead, the decision on whether
                                                                              to reject the application should have been taken by the
                                                                              Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products (CPMP) of
Action brought on 14 April 2003 by AGA AB against the                         the EMEA.
        Commission of the European Communities
                                                                        —     Failure to observe the principle of the right to be heard,
                                                                              in so far as the applicant was not given any opportunity
                       (Case T-122/03)                                        to express its views on the matter before the decision to
                                                                              reject the application on procedural grounds was adopted.
                       (2003/C 171/52)
                                                                        —     Incorrect interpretation of Article 31 of Directive 2001/
                                                                              83/EC. The applicant submits that, contrary to the
                                                                              view of the EMEA, holders of Community marketing
                 (Language of the case: German)                               authorisations for medicinal products for human use are
                                                                              also entitled to lodge applications on the basis of that
                                                                              article.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               (1 ) OJ L 311, 28.11.2001, p. 67.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              (2 ) OJ L 214, 24.8.1993, p. 1.
European Communities on 14 April 2003 by AGA AB,
whose registered office is in Lidingö (Sweden), represented by
B. Sträter and M. Ambrosius, lawyers.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT of 2 April 1998 in Case C-188/97 P: Lars Bo Rasmussen v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Vacancy notice - Annulment of the procedure under way - Competition notice - Post reserved to nationals of new Member States - Appeal)

text:
C 184/4               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      13.6.98
2. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the                                   ORDER OF THE COURT
     costs.                                                                                of 2 April 1998
                                                                     in Case C-188/97 P: Lars Bo Rasmussen v. Commission of
(1) OJ C 74, 8.3.1997.                                                                the European Communities (1)
                                                                     (Officials Ð Vacancy notice Ð Annulment of the
                                                                     procedure under way Ð Competition notice Ð Post
                                                                        reserved to nationals of new Member States Ð Appeal)
                                                                                (98/C 184/05)
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                 (Language of the case: French)
                       (First Chamber)
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                       of 30 April 1998                                        published in the European Court Reports)
in Case C-215/97: (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunale, Bologna): Barbara Bellone v. Yokohama                 In Case C-188/97 P: Lars Bo Rasmussen, an official of the
                            SpA (1)                                  Commission of the European Communities, residing at
                                                                     Dalheim, Luxembourg, represented by Carlo Revoldini, of
(Directive 86/653/EEC Ð Independent commercial agents                the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in
Ð National rules providing that commercial agency                    Luxembourg at the Chambers of the latter, 180, Route de
contracts concluded by persons not entered on the register           Longwy, Luxembourg Ð appeal against the judgment of
                      of agents are void)                            the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                     (Fifth Chamber) of 18 March 1997 in Case T-35/96
                        (98/C 184/04)                                Rasmussen v. Commission [1997] ECR-SC II-187 seeking
                                                                     to have that judgment set aside, the other party to the
                                                                     proceedings being Commission of the European
                (Language of the case: Italian)                      Communities (Agents: Julian Currall, assisted by Alberto
                                                                     Dal Ferro) Ð the Court, composed of M. Wathelet,
                                                                     President of the Chamber, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and L.
                                                                     Sevón, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate-
                                                                     General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 2 April
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       1998, the operative part of which is as follows:
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                     1. The appeal is dismissed.
In Case C-215/97: reference to the Court under Article 177           2. The appellant is ordered to pay the costs.
of the EC Treaty from the Tribunale, Bologna (Italy) for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Barbara Bellone and Yokohama SpA Ð on                  (1) OJ C 212, 12.7.1997.
the interpretation of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of
18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the
Member States relating to self-employed commercial
agents (OJ L 382 of 31.12.1986, p. 17) Ð the Court (First
Chamber), composed of M. Wathelet, President of the
Chamber, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and L. Sevón, Judges; G.               Reference for a preliminary ruling by the House of Lords,
Cosmas, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given             by order of that Court of 5 February 1998, in the case of
a judgment on 30 April 1998, in which it has ruled:                  Preston and others against Wolverhampton Healthcare
                                                                     NHS Trust and others, and Fletcher and others against
                                                                                Midland Bank plc
Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on                                          (Case C-78/98)
the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating
                                                                                (98/C 184/06)
to self-employed commercial agents precludes a national
rule which makes the validity of an agency contract
conditional upon the commercial agent being entered in               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
the appropriate register.                                            European Communities by an order of the House of
                                                                     Lords, of 5 February 1998, which was received at the
(1) OJ C 228, 26.7.1997.                                             Court Registry on 23 March 1998, for a preliminary
                                                                     ruling in the case of Preston and others against
                                                                     Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS Trust and others, and
                                                                     Fletcher and others against Midland Bank plc, on the
                                                                     following questions:


title: ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 7 July 1998 in Case T-65/98 R, Van den Bergh Foods Ltd v. Commission of the European Communities (Competition - Interlocutory proceedings - Intervention - Confidentiality - Suspension of execution)

text:
C 312/12              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  10.10.98
of: V. Tiili, President, C. P. BrieÈt and A. Potocki, Judges;        service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger, Hoss
H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 6 July 1998, the                et Prussen, 2 Place Winston Churchill v. Commission of
operative part of which is as follows:                               the European Communities (Agents: Kirsi Leivo and
                                                                     Richard Lyal) Ð application for annulment of Articles 2
1. The application is dismissed.                                     and 4 of Commission Decision C(97) 3036 of 6 October
                                                                     1997 relating to a procedure pursuant to Article 11(5) of
2. The applicant shall pay the costs.                                Council Regulation No 17 (IV/35.860 Ð Steel tubes), Ð
                                                                     the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed
(1) OJ C 7, 10.1.1998.
                                                                     of: P. Lindh, President, K. Lenaerts and J. D. Cooke,
                                                                     Judges, has given an order of 24 June 1998, in which:
                                                                     1. The application         is    dismissed  as    manifestly
                                                                         inadmissible.
               ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
          OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             2. The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.
                       of 15 July 1998
                                                                     (1) OJ C 55, 20.2.1998.
in Case T-286/97 R: Anthony Goldstein v. Commission of
                  the European Communities
                    (No need to adjudicate)
                        (98/C 312/32)
               (Language of the case: English)                                      ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
                                                                              OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
In Case T-286/97 R: Anthony Goldstein, residing in                                           of 7 July 1998
London, represented by Raymond St John Murphy,
solicitor, 3 Kings Bench Walk, Inner Temple, London,                 in Case T-65/98 R, Van den Bergh Foods Ltd v.
against Commission of the European Communities Ð                              Commission of the European Communities
application for interim measures in connection with a                (Competition Ð Interlocutory proceedings Ð Intervention
complaint (IV/34.824 Ð Goldstein/GMC) against certain                       Ð Confidentiality Ð Suspension of execution)
anti-competitive practices, lodged by the applicant under
Article 3(2) of Council Regulation No 17 of 6 February                                       (98/C 312/34)
1962, First Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of
the Treaty (OJ, English Special Edition 1959Ð1962, p. 87)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
Ð the President of the Court of First Instance made an
order on 15 July 1998, the operative part of which is as
follows:                                                             In Case T-65/98 R, Van den Bergh Foods Ltd, formerly
                                                                     HB Ice Cream Ltd, established in Dublin, represented by
1. There is no need to adjudicate on the application for             Malcolm Nicholson and Michael Rowe, solicitors, with an
     interim measures.                                               address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                     Elvinger, Hoss & Prussen, 2 Place Winston Churchill, v.
2. The applicant shall bear his own costs.                           Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Barry
                                                                     Doherty and Wouter Wils) Ð application for suspension
                                                                     of execution of the Commission Decision of 11 March
                                                                     1998 relating to a proceeding under Articles 85 and 86 of
                                                                     the EC Treaty (Case Nos IV/34.073, IV/34.395 and IV/
                                                                     35.436 Ð Van den Bergh Foods Limited) Ð the President
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            of the Court of First Instance made an order on 7 July
                                                                     1998 in which he:
                       of 24 June 1998
in Case T-596/97: Dalmine SpA v. Commission of the
                                                                     1. grants leave to Master Foods Ltd and Treats Frozen
                   European Communities (1)
                                                                         Confectionery Ltd to intervene in Case T-65/98 R in
(Action for annulment Ð Competition law Ð Decision                       support of the forms of order sought by the defendant;
requiring the supply of information Ð Periodic penalty
    payments Ð Notification Ð Manifest inadmissibility)
                                                                     2. grants the requests for confidential treatment made by
                        (98/C 312/33)                                    Van den Bergh Foods Ltd, with respect to certain
                                                                         information contained in its application for suspension
               (Language of the case: English)                           of execution of the Commission Decision of 11 March
                                                                         1998 relating to a proceeding under Articles 85 and
In Case T-596/97: Dalmine SpA, established in Dalmine                    86 of the EC Treaty (Case Nos IV/34.073, IV/34.395
(Italy), represented by Fabrizio Arossa, of the Milan Bar,               and IV/35.436 Ð Van den Bergh Foods Limited), for
and Rachel Brandenburger, Solicitor, with an address for                 the purposes of the interlocutory proceedings;
 ---pagebreak--- 10.10.98             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 312/13
3. suspends execution of that Commission Decision until             brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
    such time as the Court of First Instance has given final        Communities on 30 June 1998 by Hameico Stuttgart
    judgment on the main action;                                    GmbH and others, Stuttgart (Federal Republic of
                                                                    Germany), represented by Gerrit Schohe, Rechtsanwalt,
4. reserves the costs.                                              Hamburg (Germany), with an address for service in
                                                                    Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Baden, 34b Rue
                                                                    Philippe II.
                                                                    The applicants claim that the Court should:
               ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT                               Ð declare that the defendants are obliged to compensate
         OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 the applicants for the losses suffered and/or to be
                       of 15 July 1998                                  suffered by the applicants as a result of the application
                                                                        of Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 on the
in Case T-73/98 R: SocieÂteÂ Chimique Prayon-Rupel SA v.                common organisation of the market in bananas, in
         Commission of the European Communities                         particular Articles 17 to 19 and 21(2) thereof, and in
(State aid Ð Proceedings for interim measures Ð                         consequence of the application of Commission
  Intervention Ð Interim measures Ð Urgency Ð None)                     Regulation (EEC) No 1442/93 laying down detailed
                                                                        rules for the application of the arrangements for
                        (98/C 312/35)                                   importing bananas into the Community, inasmuch as,
                                                                        in accordance with those regulations, and in particular
               (Language of the case: French)                           Article 19(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 404/93:
In Case T-73/98 R SocieÂteÂ Chimique Prayon-Rupel SA,                   Ð the inclusion of the applicants in the closed
incorporated in Engis (Belgium), represented by Bernard                     category of Category A' market operators
van de Walle de Ghelcke, of the Brussels Bar, with an                       (Article 2(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 1442/93) is
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                        conditional on their having marketed third-country
Freddy Brausch, 11 Rue Goethe, against the Commission                       bananas during the years 1989 to 1991,
of the European Communities (Agent: Dimitris
Triantafyllou) Ð application for operation of Commission                Ð the scope of the import licences to which the
Decision SG (98) D631 on State aid cases N 198/97 and                       applicants are entitled within the framework of
NN 81/97 to be suspended Ð Germany Ð Financial                              Category A' is conditional on the reference
measures in favour of Chemische Werke Piesteritz GmbH,                      quantities accumulated by the applicants during
and for any other form of interim measure, the President                    the years 1989 to 1991, and
of the Court made an order on 15 July 1998 in which he:
                                                                        Ð market operators who, during the period from
1. allowed the Federal Republic of Germany to intervene                     1989 to 1991, were established in the former
    in support of the Commission;                                           German Democratic Republic were unable, prior
                                                                            to the point in time at which the territory of the
2. allowed the application by SocieÂteÂ Chimique Prayon-                    former German Democratic Republic became part
    Rupel SA for certain parts of its application for                       of the then European Economic Community
    suspension of operation to be treated as confidential                   (German reunification on 3 October 1990), to
    for the interlocutory stage of the proceedings;                         accumulate such quantities,
3. dismissed the application for interim measures;                  Ð order the parties to indicate, within a given period (to
                                                                        be prescribed by the Court) after delivery of its
                                                                        judgment, the amounts which they have agreed upon
4. reserved judgment on costs.                                          as being payable, or, if no such agreement is reached,
                                                                        order them to submit to the Court, within that period,
                                                                        their quantified proposals as to the sums which should
                                                                        be paid,
                                                                    Ð reserve its decision as to costs.
Action brought on 30 June 1998 by Hameico Stuttgart
GmbH and Others against the Council of the European
Union and the Commission of the European Communities                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                       (Case T-99/98)
                                                                    The applicants, who are members of the Atlanta Group,
                        (98/C 312/36)
                                                                    are established in the territory of the former German
                                                                    Democratic Republic, or were established there during the
              (Language of the case: German)                        period from 1989 to 1991. They are claiming inter alia
                                                                    compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by them
An action against the Council of the European Union and             as a result of the fact that, under the Community rules on
the Commission of the European Communities was                      the organisation of the market, they were not able to


title: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 July 2001 in Case C-241/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia): Confederación Intersindical Galega (CIG) v Servicio Galego de Saúde (Sergas) (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Social policy — Protection of the health and safety of workers — Directives 89/391/EEC and 93/104/EC — Scope — Primary care services personnel — Average period of work — Inclusion of time on call)

text:
13.10.2001                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 289/5
      Decision 2001/246/EC of 27 March 2001 laying down the                      outside emergencies in the area of the Autonomous Community
      conditions for the control and eradication of foot-and-mouth               of Galicia does not come within the scope of the exception
      disease in the Netherlands in application of Article 13 of                 or exclusions laid down in Article 2 of Council Directive
      Directive 85/511/EEC, as amended by Commission Decision                    89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures
      2001/279/EC of 5 April 2001.                                               to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers
                                                                                at work. However, such an activity may come under the
(1) OJ C 173 of 16.6.2001.
                                                                                derogations provided for in Article 17 of Directive 93/104, in
                                                                                so far as the conditions set out in that provision are fulfilled.
                                                                            3)   Time spent on call, when their physical presence is required, by
                                                                                the medical and nursing staff providing services for Servicio
                                                                                Galego de Saúde in the on-call service, in primary care teams
                      ORDER OF THE COURT                                         and in other services which treat outside emergencies in the area
                                                                                of the Autonomous Community of Galicia must be regarded in
                           (Sixth Chamber)                                       its entirety as working time, and where appropriate as overtime,
                                                                                within the meaning of Directive 93/104.
                             of 3 July 2001
in Case C-241/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia): Confedera-                   (1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.
ción Intersindical Galega (CIG) v Servicio Galego de Saúde
                               (Sergas) (1)
(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Social policy —
Protection of the health and safety of workers — Directives
89/391/EEC and 93/104/EC — Scope — Primary care
services personnel — Average period of work — Inclusion of
                              time on call)
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
                            (2001/C 289/08)
                    (Language of the case: Spanish)                                                  (First Chamber)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                                of 12 July 2001
                     in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-241/99: reference to the Court under Article 234                  in Case C-256/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
EC from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain),               the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that             Bench Division (Crown Office)): The Queen v Secretary
court between Confederación Intersindical Galega (CIG) and                              of State for the Home Department (1)
Servicio Galego de Safide (Sergas) — on the interpretation of
Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the                         (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Question
introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the                   identical to a question on which the Court has already ruled)
safety and health of workers at work (OJ 1989 L 183, p. 1)
and Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993
concerning certain aspects of the organization of working time                                        (2001/C 289/09)
(OJ 1993 L 307, p. 18) — the Court (Sixth Chamber),
composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, V. Skour-
is, R. Schintgen, N. Colneric and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues                                          (Language of the case: English)
(Rapporteur), Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass,
Registrar, has given an order on 3 July 2001, the operative
part is as follows:                                                         In Case C-256/99: reference to the Court under Article 234
                                                                            EC from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales,
1)    An activity such as that of the medical and nursing staff             Queen’s Bench Division (Crown Office) for a preliminary
      providing services for Servicio Galego de Saúde in the on-call       ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
      service, in primary care teams and in other services which treat      The Queen and Secretary of State for the Home Department,
      outside emergencies in the area of the Autonomous Community           ex parte Cheung Chiu Hung, intervener: Justice — on the
      of Galicia fall within the scope of Council Directive 93/104/EC       interpretation of Articles 8 and 8a of the EC Treaty (now, after
      of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the                 amendment, Articles 17 EC and 18 EC), of the Declaration by
      organization of working time.                                         the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
                                                                            Northern Ireland on the definition of the term ‘nationals’,
2)    An activity such as that of the medical and nursing staff             annexed to the Final Act of the Treaty concerning the
      providing services for Servicio Galego de Saúde in the on-call       Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United
      service, in primary care teams and in other services which treat      Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the European


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 17 January 2001 in Case T-124/99: Autosalone Ispra dei Fretelli Rossi Snc v European Atomic Energy Authority, represented by the Commission of the European Communities (Action for compensation — Non-contractual liability — Flood — Obstruction of a drain — Time-limit — No effect on running of time)

text:
5.5.2001                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 134/21
1.    Dismissed the application;                                               ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
2.    Ordered the applicant to pay the costs.                                                    of 17 January 2001
                                                                          in Case T-124/99: Autosalone Ispra dei Fretelli Rossi Snc
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.00.                                                   v European Atomic Energy Authority, represented by the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                          (Action for compensation — Non-contractual liability —
                                                                          Flood — Obstruction of a drain — Time-limit — No effect
                                                                                on running of time)
                                                                                (2001/C 134/46)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                        of 18 January 2001
                                                                          In Case T-124/99: Autosalone Ispra dei Fratelli Rossi Snc,
                                                                          established in Ispra (Italy), represented by F. Venuti, of the
in Case T-65/00: Angeliki Ioannou v Council of the                        Busto Arsizio Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                        European Union (1)                                at the Chambers of A. Kronshagen, 22 Rue Marie-Adelaïde,
                                                                          against European Atomic Energy Community, represented
(Officials — Refusal of recruitment — Physical unfitness                  by the Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
— Opinion of the medical board — Judicial review —                        H. Speyart and P. Stancanelli) — application for a declaration
Comprehensible link between the medical findings and the                  that the European Atomic Energy Community is liable for the
                      conclusion of unfitness)                            harm sustained by the applicant following a flood in Ispra
                                                                          during the night of 1-2 June 1992 and, accordingly, for an
                                                                          order that that Community is to make good that damage —
                         (2001/C 134/45)                                  the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of
                                                                          A.W.H. Meij, President, and A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges;
                                                                          H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 17 January 2001, the
                    (Language of the case: French)                        operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                          1.    The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible;
In Case T-65/00: Angeliki Ioannou, a former employee of the
Economic Union between Belgium, the Netherlands and                       2.    The applicant is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those
Luxembourg (Benelux) assigned to the Schengen Secretariat,                      incurred by the Commission.
residing in Brussels, represented by J. van Rossum, of the
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the            (1) OJ C 226, 7.8.1999, p. 39.
offices of Société de Gestion Fiduciaire, 13 Avenue du Bois, v
Council of the European Union (Agents: F. Anton and M. Bauer)
— application for annulment of the Council’s decision of
21 May 1999 refusing to appoint the applicant a probationary
official upon the integration of the Schengen Secretariat into
the General Secretariat of the Council on the ground of
physical unfitness to perform the duties envisaged — the Court                  ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: J. Azizi,
President, and K. Lenaerts and M. Jaeger, Judges; J. Palacio                                      of 9 January 2001
González, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judg-
ment on 18 January 2001, in which it:                                     in Case T-149/00: Innova, Centro Euromediterraneo per
                                                                          lo Sviluppo Sostenibile v Commission of the European
1.    Annuls the decision of the Council of 21 May 1999 refusing                                    Communities (1)
      to appoint the applicant a probationary official upon the
      integration of the Schengen Secretariat into the Secretariat of     (Action for annulment — Action concerning what is in fact
      the Council on the ground of physical unfitness to perform the      a dispute of a contractual nature — Lack of jurisdiction of
      duties envisaged;                                                                      the Court of First Instance)
2.    Orders the Council to pay the costs.                                                         (2001/C 134/47)
(1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.                                                                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          In Case T-149/00: Innova, Centro Euromediterraneo per lo
                                                                          Sviluppo Sostenibile, established at Calatafimi (Italy), represent-


30.5.98                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                C 166/11
          (i) is the test for determining the amount of input                communicated to the Commission and to the Court of
               tax that is deductible any different as between               Justice, so that all the evidence may be made available
               Article 17(2), (3) and (5) (and, if so, in which              on an equal footing.
               respects is it different); and
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments:
          (ii) is such a person entitled to deduct all the input
               tax charged in respect of an input on the                 Ð Breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate
               ground that the input was utilised as a                       expectations;
               consequence of making a transaction falling
               within Article 17(3)(c)?                                  Ð Breach of the principle of equality of arms, by virtue
                                                                             of the piecemeal approach to the evidence;
(1) First Council Directive 67/227/EEC of 11 April 1967 on the           Ð Breach of the principle of equality of treatment,
    harmonisation of legislation of Member States concerning
                                                                             whereby comparable situations are not to be treated
    turnover taxes (OJ 71 of 14.4.1967, p. 1301 (SE SER1 67
    p. 14)).                                                                 differently and different situations are not to be
(2) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the                 treated alike;
    harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
    turnover taxes Ð Common system of value added tax:                   Ð Violation of the case-law established by Community
    uniform basis of assessment (OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1).               law.
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
Appeal brought on 14 April 1998 by Smanor SA, Hubert                     Administratif de Dijon by judgment of that court of
SeÂgaud and Monique SeÂgaud against the order made on                    24 March 1998 in the case of CRT France International
16 February 1998 by the Second Chamber of the Court of                        SA v Directeur ReÂgional des Impôts de Bourgogne
First Instance of the European Communities in Case                                              (Case C-109/98)
T-182/97 between, on the one hand, Smanor SA, Hubert
                                                                                (98/C 166/18)
SeÂgaud and Monique SeÂgaud and, on the other, the
          Commission of the European Communities
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                        (Case C-103/98 P)                                European Communities by a judgment of the First
                           (98/C 166/17)                                 Chamber of the Tribunal Administratif de Dijon
                                                                         (Administrative Court, Dijon), of 24 March 1998, which
                                                                         was received at the Court Registry on 15 April 1998, for a
                                                                         preliminary ruling in the case of CRT France International
An appeal against the order made on 16 February 1998
                                                                         SA v Directeur ReÂgional des Impôts de Bourgogne on the
by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                         following question:
the European Communities in Case T-182/97 between, on
the one hand, Smanor SA, Hubert SeÂgaud and Monique                      Whether the provisions of Articles 9, 12 and 95 of the
SeÂgaud and, on the other, the Commission of the                         Treaty of 25 March 1957 establishing the European
European Communities was brought before the Court of                     Economic Community preclude the national authorities
Justice of the European Communities on 14 April 1998 by                  from imposing on manufacturers, importers and persons
Smanor SA, Hubert SeÂgaud and Monique SeÂgaud,                           making supplies in France of transmitting/receiving sets
represented by Laurence Roques, of the Val de Marne Bar,                 operating on two-way channels a tax, the rules for which
with an address for service at 9 Rue du GeÂneÂral de                     are laid down by Article 302 bis (X) of the Code GeÂneÂral
Larminat, CreÂteil.                                                      des Impôts.
The appellants claim that the Court should:
Ð rule that the order made by the Court of First Instance
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-50/97 (1)
     on 16 February 1998 is vitiated by a manifest error of
     assessment;                                                                                (98/C 166/19)
                                                                         By order of 14 October 1997, the President of the Court
Ð rule that the Commission made an error of assessment                   of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
     in the conclusions contained in its letter of 21 May                removal from the register of Case C-50/97: (Reference for
     1997;                                                               a preliminary ruling from the Arrondissementsrechtbank
                                                                         te Almelo): Jan Blauw and Others v Gavema BV.
Ð grant the appellants' application for an order that the                (1) OJ C 94 of 22.3.1997.
     documents in the Smanor case held by the French
     authorities in their administrative archives be