title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 17 February 1998 in Case T-183/96: E v. Economic and Social Committee of the European Communities (Officials - Freedom of expression in relation to hierarchical superiors - Duty of loyalty and obligation to uphold the dignity of the service - Disciplinary measure - Relegation in step - Principle of proportionality)

text:
C 94/22               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    28.3.98
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an
                       (Fourth Chamber)                              address for service in Luxembourg at Fiduciaire Myson
                                                                     SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange, against European Parliament
                      of 29 January 1998                             (Agents: Manfred Peters and Evelyn Waldherr) Ð
in Case T-157/96: Paolo Salvatore Affatato v. Commission             application for annulment, first, of the decision of the
               of the European Communities (1)                       Parliament of 1 December 1995 assigning the applicant to
(Officials Ð General competitions Ð Non-registration on              non-active status with effect from of 30 November 1995
the list of successful candidates Ð Letter correcting a              and all subsequent decisions relating thereto and, secondly,
letter initially sent to the candidate Ð Legal relationship          the decision of the Parliament of 3 September 1996 to
between the institution and a candidate in a competition             change the date when the decision of 1 December 1995
Ð Obligation to provide a statement of reasons Ð                     was to take effect to 31 January 1996, the Court of First
Damages for material and non-material damage Ð                       Instance (First Chamber), composed of A. Saggio,
                         Permissibility)                             President, B. Vesterdorf and R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges;
                                                                     H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on 13 January 1998,
                          (98/C 94/56)                               the operative part of which is as follows:
                 (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                     1. The application is dismissed.
In Case T-157/96: Paolo Salvatore Affatato, residing at
Foggia (Italy), represented initially by Nicola De Perna, of
the Foggia Bar, and subsequently by Alberto Tedeschi, of             2. The parties shall each bear their own costs.
the Bari Bar, and Cino Fiori, of the Foggia Bar, with an
address for service at 13 Via Saseo, Foggia, against the             (1) OJ C 388, 21.12.1996.
Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
Gianluigi Valsesia) Ð application for, first, a finding that
the letter whereby the chairman of the selection board for
competition COM/B/794 informed the applicant that he
was registered on the list of successful candidates in the
aforementioned competition is valid and, in the
alternative, for the annulment of the illegal stages of that           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
competition and, secondly, a claim for damages to                                         of 17 February 1998
compensate him for material and non-material damage
suffered Ð the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),             in Case T-183/96: E v. Economic and Social Committee of
composed of K. Lenaerts, President, P. Lindh and J. D.                               the European Communities (1)
Cooke, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar,            (Officials Ð Freedom of expression in relation to
gave a judgment on 29 January 1998, in which it:                     hierarchical superiors Ð Duty of loyalty and obligation to
                                                                     uphold the dignity of the service Ð Disciplinary measure
1. dismissed the claims in the application;
                                                                         Ð Relegation in step Ð Principle of proportionality)
2. ordered the Commission to pay to the applicant BEF                                         (98/C 94/58)
     30 000 by way of compensation for non-material
     damage;
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
3. ordered the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                     In Case T-183/96: E, a former official of the Economic
(1) OJ C 40, 8.2.1997.
                                                                     and Social Committee of the European Communities,
                                                                     residing in Brussels, represented initially by Guy San
                                                                     BartolomeÂ Sarrey, of the Brussels Bar, and subsequently by
                                                                     Miguel Troncoso-Ferrer, of the Brussels Bar, and Pierre
                                                                     Demolin, of the Mons Bar, with an address for service in
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            Luxembourg at the Chambers of Charles Kaufhold, 7
                                                                     Côte d'Eich, v. Economic and Social Committee of the
                        (First Chamber)
                                                                     European Communities (Agents: Moises Bermejo Garde
                      of 13 January 1998                             and Alberto Dal Ferro) Ð application for annulment of
       in Case T-176/96: Cornelis Volger v. European                 the decision of the Secretary-General of the Economic and
                         Parliament (1)                              Social Committee imposing on the applicant the
                                                                     disciplinary measure of relegation in step Ð the Court of
(Officials Ð Action for annulment Ð Admissibility Ð                  First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili,
Decision to assign to non-active status Ð Article 41 of the          President, and C. P. BrieÈt and A. Potocki, Judges; B.
Staff Regulations Ð Duty to have regard to officials'                Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
                            interests)                               a judgment on 17 February 1998, in which it:
                          (98/C 94/57)
                (Language of the case: French)                       1. annuls the decision of the Economic and Social
                                                                         Committee of 18 January 1996 imposing on the
In Case T-176/96: Cornelis Volger, resident at Heffingen                 applicant the disciplinary measure of relegation in
(Luxembourg), represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis, Thierry                   step;
 ---pagebreak--- 28.3.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 94/23
2. orders the Economic and Social Committee to pay all             Bahnhofstraûe 43c, Konz (Germany), represented by Theo
    of the costs.                                                  Baltes and Bernward Wittschier, Rechtsanwälte, of Trier,
                                                                   with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
(1) OJ C 54, 22.2.1997.                                            Chambers of ReneÂ Weber, 3 Rue de la Loge, v. Court of
                                                                   Justice of the European Communities (Agents: Timothy
                                                                   Millett and Bernd Zimmermann), supported by Council of
                                                                   the European Union (Agents: Diego Canga Fano and
                                                                   Martin Bauer) Ð application, first, for annulment of the
                                                                   decision of the Complaints Committee of the Court of
                                                                   Justice of 1 July 1996, second, for the recalculation and
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                          definitive determination of the applicant's pension for the
                     of 3 February 1998                            period from 1 July 1991 to 30 June 1994 on the basis of
                                                                   the weightings for Berlin fixed annually by the Council,
in Case T-68/96: Dimitrios Polyvios v. Commission of the           and, thirdly and in the alternative, for the designation of a
                  European Communities (1)                         date in the near future when that calculation and
(Fisheries Ð Community financial assistance for projects           determination are to take place Ð the Court of First
by joint enterprises Ð Regulation No 4028/86 Ð Extra-              Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili,
      contractual liability Ð Manifest inadmissibility)            President, and C. P. BrieÈt and A. Potocki, Judges; H. Jung,
                                                                   Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 January 1998, in
                         (98/C 94/59)                              which it:
                (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                   1. dismisses the application as manifestly inadmissible;
In Case T-68/96: Dimitrios Polyvios, residing at Piraeus
(Greece), represented by Vassilios Zangas, of the Athens           2. orders the parties to bear their own costs.
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Catherine Thill-Kamitaki, 15 Avenue du                 (1) OJ C 370, 7.12.1996.
Bois, v. Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: Maria Condou Durande and Hubertus van Vliet)
Ð application for compensation for the material damage
allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the
negligence of the Commission on the adoption of a
decision approving an application for financial aid for the
formation of a joint enterprise in Senegal Ð the Court of               ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: P. Lindh,                                  (Third Chamber)
President, and K. Lenaerts and J. D. Cooke, Judges; H.
Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 3 February 1998,                               of 14 January 1998
in which it:                                                       in Case T-30/97: Juana de la Cruz Vela Palacios v.
                                                                         Economic and Social Committee of the European
1. dismisses the application as manifestly inadmissible;                                  Communities (1)
                                                                   (Officials Ð Action for annulment and for damages Ð
2. orders the applicant to pay the costs.                                Time-limit for bringing an action Ð Inadmissible)
                                                                                (98/C 94/61)
(1) OJ C 210, 20.7.1996.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                   In Case T-30/97: Juana de la Cruz Vela Palacios, former
                                                                   official of the Economic and Social Committee of the
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                          European Communities, residing in Brussels, represented
                                                                   by Jaime Creus, of the Barcelona Bar, with an address for
                     of 20 January 1998                            service at 377 C/ Consell de Cent, Barcelona, against
in Case T-160/96: Max Kögler v. Court of Justice of the            Economic and Social Committee of the European
                  European Communities (1)                         Communities (Agent: Moises Bermejo Garde) Ð
                                                                   application for the annulment of, first, a decision
(Officials Ð Pension Ð Weighting Ð Change of capital of            imposing on the applicant the disciplinary measure of
           a Member State Ð Retroactive effect)                    relegation in step and, secondly, a decision to reduce her
                         (98/C 94/60)                              annual leave and a claim for compensation for the non-
                                                                   material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a
                                                                   result of those measures Ð the Court of First Instance
               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                   (Third Chamber), composed of V. Tiili, President, C. P.
                                                                   BrieÈt and A. Potocki, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an
In Case T-160/96: Max Kögler, a former official of the             order on 14 January 1998, the operative part of which is
Court of Justice of the European Communities, residing at          as follows:


title: Case C-201/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 12 April 2016 — Majid (or Madzhdi) Shiri

text:
               18.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/18

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 12 April 2016 — Majid (or Madzhdi) Shiri
   (Case C-201/16)
   (2016/C 260/23)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Majid (or Madzhdi) Shiri

      Defendant: Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are the provisions of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (1) that confer the right to an effective remedy against a transfer decision, in particular Article 27(1), to be interpreted as meaning that an applicant for asylum is entitled to claim that responsibility has been transferred to the requesting Member State on the ground that the six month transfer period has expired (Article 29(2) in conjunction with Article 29(1) of Regulation No 604/2013 in light of the 19th recital)?
               If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:

               2.

               Does the transfer of responsibility under the first sentence of Article 29(2) of Regulation No 604/2013 occur by the fact of the expiry of the transfer period without any order or, for responsibility to be transferred because the period has expired, is it also necessary that the obligation to take charge of, or to take back, the person concerned has been refused by the responsible Member State?

      (1)  OJ 2013 L 180, p. 31.


title: Case C-417/05 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 September 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Maria Dolores Fernández Gómez (Appeals — Temporary staff — Article 2(a) of the CEOS — Period completed within the Commission as a national expert on secondment — Application for annulment — Admissibility — Request under Article 90 (1) of the Staff Regulations — Definition — Measure adversely affecting an official)

text:
               18.11.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/16

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 September 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Maria Dolores Fernández Gómez
   (Case C-417/05 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Temporary staff - Article 2(a) of the CEOS - Period completed within the Commission as a national expert on secondment - Application for annulment - Admissibility - Request under Article 90 (1) of the Staff Regulations - Definition - Measure adversely affecting an official)
   (2006/C 281/25)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Martin and L. Lozano Palacios, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Maria Dolores Fernández Gómez (represented by: J. Iturriagagoitia Bassas, lawyer)
   Re:
   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) in Case T-272/03 Fernández Gómez v Commission [2005] by which the Court of First Instance annulled the decision of the Authority Authorised to Conclude Contracts of Employment, of 12 May 2003, rejecting the application for renewal of the applicant's contract and by which it ordered the Commission to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 50 000 to compensate for the damage suffered.
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 September 2005 in Case T-272/03 Fernández Gómez v Commission is set aside;

               2.

               The action brought by Ms Fernández Gómez before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities for the annulment of the decision of the Authority Authorised to Conclude Contracts of Employment of 12 May 2003 rejecting the application for renewal of Ms Fernández Gómez's contract and for compensation in respect of the damage which allegedly resulted from that decision is dismissed as inadmissible;

               3.

               The parties are ordered to bear their own costs as regards both the proceedings at first instance and the appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 10, 14.1.2006.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 23 April 1996 in Case T-113/95: Giuseppe Mancini v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Admissibility - Time limit for complaints)

text:
No C 158/ 12          EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     1 . 6 . 96
        Removal from the register of Case C-83/95 ( )                      Removal from the register of Case C- 1 5 9/95 ( )
                         ( 96/C 158/28 )                                                       ( 96/C 158/29 )
By order of 26 February 1996 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communites ordered the removal              By order of 9 February 1 996 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-83/95 : Commission of the               Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
European Communities v. Hellenic Republic .                         from the register of Case C-159/95 : Commission of the
                                                                    European Communities v. Hellenic Republic .
(') OJ No C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995 .
                                                                    C ) OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
                                                   COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            2 , orders the Economic and Social Committee to pay all
                                                                         the costs .
                       of 18 April 1996
in Case T-13/95 : Nicolaos Kyrpitsis v. Economic and Social
         Committee of the European Communities ( 1 )                C ) OJ No C 74, 25 . 3 . 1995 .
(Officials — Notice of vacancy — Transfer — Interests of
the service — Rejection of application — Statement of
                             reasons)
                         ( 96/C 158/30 )
                                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 23 April 1996
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                    in Case T-l 13/95 : Giuseppe Mancini v. Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities O
                                                                      (Officials — Admissibility — Time limit for complaints)
In Case T-13/95 : Nicolaos Kyrpitsis, an official of the                                      ( 96/C 158/31 )
Economic and Social Committee of the European
Communities, residing at Châtelineau ( Belgium ),
represented by Jean-Noël Louis, of the Brussels Bar, with an                         (Language of the case: Italian)
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 1 rue Glesener, v . Economic and             In Case T-l 13/95 : Giuseppe Mancini, an official of the
Social Committee of the European Communities ( Agents :             Commission of the European Communities, residing at
Bermejo Garde and Denis Waelbroeck ) — application for             Varese ( Italy ), represented by Giuseppe Marchesini,
annulment of the decisions rejecting the applications by the        advocate with a right of audience before the Italian Court of
applicant for the grade D 3/D 2 post of skilled employee            Cassation, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
( messenger ) in the Personnel , Administration and Finance         Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8-10 Rue Matthias Hardt, v.
Directorate of the Economic and Social Committee,                   Commission of the European Communites ( Agent:
advertised in vacancy notices Nos 2/94, 3/94 and 4/94 — the         Gianluigi Valsesia ) — application for annulment of the
Court of First Instance ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of:             decision relieving the applicant of his duties — the Court of
R. Schintgen, President, and R. Garcia-Valdecasas and               First Instance ( Third Chamber ), composed of: C. P. Briët,
J. Azizi, Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the      President, and B. Vesterdorf and A. Potocki, Judges;
Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 April 1996 , in which         B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
it :                                                               given a judgment on 23 April 1 996 , in which it:
                                                                    1 , dismisses the action as inadmissible;
1 , annuls the decisions of the Secretary-General of the
     Economic and Social Committee of30 March 1 994 and            2 , orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay
     25 October 1995 rejecting the applications by the                  two thirds of the applicant's costs.
     applicant for the grade D 3/D 2 post ofskilled employee
     (messenger) in the Personnel, Administration and
                                                                    (') OJ No C 229 , 2 . 9 . 1995 .
     Finance Directorate of the Economic and Social
     Committee, advertised in vacancy notices Nos 2/94,
     3 /94 and 4/94 :


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 23 October 2003 in Case C-115/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation): Administration des douanes et droits indirects v Rioglass SA, Transremar SL (Free movement of goods — Measures having equivalent effect — Procedures for detention under customs control — Goods in transit intended for the market of a non-member country — Spare parts for motor cars)

text:
C 304/8                  EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                           13.12.2003
to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax:                        Administration des douanes et droits indirects and Rioglass SA,
uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), as amended                Transremar SL on the interpretation of Article 28 EC, the
by Council Directive 1999/49/EC of 25 May 1999 amending,                     Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President
with regard to the level of the standard rate, Directive 77/388              of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, V. Skouris (Rapporteur),
(OJ 1999 L 139, p. 27), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed                  F. Macken and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; J. Mischo,
of: D.A.O. Edward, acting as President of the Fifth Chamber,                 Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for
A. La Pergola and P. Jann (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Mischo,                   the Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 October 2003, in
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment                  which it has ruled:
on 23 October 2003, in which it:
                                                                             Article 28 EC is to be interpreted as precluding the implementation,
1.    Declares that, by applying a reduced rate of value added tax to        pursuant to a legislative measure of a Member State concerning
      services provided directly to the public by musical ensembles or       intellectual property, of procedures for detention by the customs
      for a concert organiser and to services provided directly to the       authorities of goods lawfully manufactured in another Member State
      public by soloists, but applying the standard rate of that tax to      and intended, following their transit through the territory of the first
      the services of soloists working for an organiser, the Federal         Member State, to be placed on the market in a non-member country.
      Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      the third subparagraph of Article 12(3)(a) of the Sixth Council
      Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation               (1) OJ C 131 of 1.6.2002.
      of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —
      Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assess-
      ment, as amended by Council Directive 1999/49/EC of
      25 May 1999 amending, with regard to the level of the
      standard rate, Directive 77/388;
2.    Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 131 of 1.6.2002.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 23 October 2003
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      in Case C-154/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                                the Hässleholms tingsrätt): Jan Nilsson (1)
                          (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                             (International trade in endangered species of wild fauna
                        of 23 October 2003                                   and flora — CITES — Regulation (EC) No 338/97 —
                                                                             Articles 2(w) and 8(3) — Notion of ‘worked specimen’ —
in Case C-115/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                    Stuffed animal — Concept of ‘specimen acquired more than
the Cour de cassation): Administration des douanes et                        50 years previously’ — Manner of acquisition — Exemption
      droits indirects v Rioglass SA, Transremar SL (1)                        — Regulation (EC) No 1808/2001 — Articles 29 and 32)
(Free movement of goods — Measures having equivalent                                                   (2003/C 304/12)
effect — Procedures for detention under customs control —
Goods in transit intended for the market of a non-member
              country — Spare parts for motor cars)                                             (Language of the case: Swedish)
                           (2003/C 304/11)                                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                     (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                           In Case C-154/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234
                                                                             EC by Hässleholms tingsrätt (Sweden) for a preliminary ruling
                                                                             in the criminal proceedings pending before that court against
                                                                             Jan Nilsson, on the interpretation of Council Regulation (EC)
In Case C-115/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234                   No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species
EC by the Cour de cassation (France) for a preliminary                       of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein (OJ 1997
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                  L 61, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC)


title: Case C-55/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Ordinario di Roma — Fourth Labour Chamber — by order of that court of 1 February 2000, in the case of Elide Gottardo v Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale (INPS)

text:
C 122/14              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       29.4.2000
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale                   Question 2
Ordinario di Roma — Fourth Labour Chamber — by
order of that court of 1 February 2000, in the case of
                                                                      ‘Is a public body which invites tenders for works which are
Elide Gottardo v Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza
                                                                      not covered by the works directive (Directive 93/37), inasmuch
                         Sociale (INPS)
                                                                      as the threshold value is not exceeded, entitled to stipulate in
                                                                      the tender documents that a specified make must be used in the
                         (Case C-55/00)                               case where the relevant requirement in the tender documents is
                                                                      not accompanied by the words “or an equivalent make”?’
                        (2000/C 122/23)
                                                                      Question 3
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunale
Ordinario di Roma (Rome District Court) — Fourth Labour               ‘If Question 1 or Question 2 is answered in the negative, can
Chamber — of 1 February 2000, which was received at the               such wording of tender documents as described in Questions 1
Court Registry on 21 February 2000, for a preliminary ruling          and 2 be regarded as constituting an infringement of Article 12
in the case of Elide Gottardo v Istituto Nazionale della              EC or Article 28 EC?’
Previdenza Sociale (INPS), on the following question on the
interpretation of Articles 6 and 48(2) of the EC Treaty (now
Articles 12 EC and 39(2) EC):                                         (1) Of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for
                                                                          the award of public works contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54).
‘Whether or not a worker who is a citizen of a Member State
with a record of payments of social security contributions to
the competent institution of another Member State is entitled
to be awarded an old-age pension on the basis of aggregation
of the contributions paid to the institution of a State outside
the Union under the convention which the Member State has
concluded with the latter and which it applies to its own
citizens.’                                                            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Immigration
                                                                      Appeal Tribunal, by order of that court of 16 December
                                                                      1999, in the case of Mary Carpenter against Secretary of
                                                                                State for the Home Department
                                                                                (Case C-60/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 122/25)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Vestre Landsret
by order of 14 February 2000 in the case of Bent Mousten
             Vestergaard v Spøttrup Boligselskab                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                      European Communities by an order of the Immigration Appeal
                                                                      Tribunal, of 16 December 1999, which was received at the
                         (Case C-59/00)                               Court Registry on 21 February 2000, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                      in the case of Mary Carpenter against Secretary of State for the
                        (2000/C 122/24)                               Home Department on the following question:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                In circumstances where:
European Communities by order of 14 February 2000 by the
Vestre Landsret (Western Regional Court), which was received          a) a national of a Member State, who is established in that
at the Court Registry on 23 February 2000, for a preliminary               Member State and who provides services to persons in
ruling in the case of Bent Mousten Vestergaard v Spøttrup                  other Member States; and
Boligselskab on the following questions:
                                                                      b) has a spouse who is not a national of a Member State;
Question 1                                                            can the non-national spouse rely on
‘Is a public body which invites tenders for works which are           1) Article 49 EC and/or
not covered by the works directive (Directive 93/37) (1),
inasmuch as the threshold value is not exceeded, entitled to          2) Directive 73/148/EEC (1)
stipulate in the tender documents that a specified Danish make
must be used in the case where the relevant requirement in the        to provide the non-national spouse with the right to reside
tender documents is not accompanied by the words “or an               with his or her spouse in his or her spouse’s Member State of
equivalent make”?’                                                    origin?


title: Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 19, 22.1.2005

text:
               5.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/30

         (2005/C 31/56)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the
         Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 19, 22.1.2005

   Past publications

      OJ C 6, 8.1.2005

      OJ C 314, 18.12.2004

      OJ C 300, 4.12.2004

      OJ C 273, 6.11.2004

      OJ C 262, 23.10.2004

      OJ C 251, 9.10.2004

   These texts are available on:

               EUR-Lex:http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex

               CELEX:http://europa.eu.int/celex


title: Case C-357/08: Action brought on 4 August 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               27.9.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/10

         Action brought on 4 August 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-357/08)
   (2008/C 247/18)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Zavvos)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/14/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 amending Council Directives 72/166/EEC, 84/5/EEC, 88/357/EEC and 90/232/EEC and Directive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, or in any event by not notifying those provisions to the Commission, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The time-limit for transposition of Directive 2005/14/EC into domestic law expired on 11 June 2007.

      (1)  OJ L 149, 11.6.2005, p. 14.


title: Case T-343/03: Action brought on 8 October 2003 by Deutsche Post AG and Securicor Omega Express Limited against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 7/34                  EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         10.1.2004
1.    Orders the Commission to pay the applicant the sum of                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
      EUR 3 000, in addition to the sum of EUR 1 500 already                                           INSTANCE
      awarded by the Appointing Authority.
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the action.                                                          of 9 July 2003
3.    Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                           in Case T-288/02 R: Asian Institute of Technology (AIT) v
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
(1) OJ C 118 of 18.5.2002.
                                                                                (Procedure for interim relief — Urgency — None)
                                                                                (2004/C 7/63)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                        of 21 October 2003
in Case T-392/02: Solvay Pharmaceuticals BV v Council of
                      the European Union (1)
                                                                           In Case T-288/02 R: Asian Institute of Technology (AIT),
                                                                           established in Pathumthani (Thailand), represented by H. Teis-
(Directive 70/524/EEC — Community authorisation, linked
                                                                           siers du Cros, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxem-
to the person responsible for putting into circulation, of an
                                                                           bourg, against Commission of the European Communities
additive in animal feedingstuff — Transitional rules —
                                                                           (Agents: P.-J. Kuijper and B. Schöfer) — application for
Withdrawal of the authorisation — Action for annulment —
                                                                           suspension of operation of the decision of the Commission of
Admissibility — Conditions for withdrawal — Precautionary
                                                                           22 February 2002 to conclude a research contract with the
principle — Principles of equal treatment, legal certainty,
                                                                           Center for Energy-Environment Research and Development —
              sound administration and good faith)
                                                                           the President of the Court of First Instance made an order on
                                                                           9 July 2002, the operative part of which is as follows:
                            (2004/C 7/62)
                    (Language of the case: French)                         1.    The application for interim relief is dismissed.
                                                                           2.    Costs are reserved.
In Case T-392/02: Solvay Pharmaceuticals BV, established in
Weesp (Netherlands), represented by C. Meijer, F. Herbert and
M. L. Struys, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg, against Council of the European Union (Agents: M. Balta
and M. Ruggery Laderchi), supported by Commission of the
European Communities (Agent: A. Bordes), application for the
annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1756/2002 of
23 September 2002 amending Directive 70/524/EEC concern-
ing additives in feedingstuffs as regards withdrawal of the                Action brought on 8 October 2003 by Deutsche Post
authorisation of an additive and amending Commission Regu-                 AG and Securicor Omega Express Limited against the
lation (EC) No 2430/1999 (OJ 2002 L 265, p. 1) — the                               Commission of the European Communities
Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of
N. J. Forwood, President, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges;
H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on 21 October 2003, in                                           (Case T-343/03)
which it:
1.    Dismisses the application.                                                                      (2004/C 7/64)
2.    Orders the applicant to bear his own costs and pay those
      incurred by the Council, including those incurred in the                                (Language of the case: German)
      interlocutory proceedings.
3.    Orders the Commission to bear its own costs, including those
      incurred in the interlocutory proceedings.                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
(1) OJ C 55 of 8.3.2003.                                                   European Communities on 8 October 2003 by Deutsche Post
                                                                           AG, Bonn (Germany) and Securicor Omega Express Limited,
                                                                           Sutton (United Kingdom), represented by T. Lübbig, lawyer.
 ---pagebreak--- 10.1.2004             EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 7/35
The applicants claim that the Court should:                              of the allegations made by the applicants of cross-subsidies for
                                                                         parcels and express parcel operations, the Decision is therefore
                                                                         vitiated by a failure to state reasons (infringement of
—     annul the Decision of the Commission of the European               Article 253 EC).
      Communities of 27 May 2003 on State aid N 784/2002
      — United Kingdom, ‘Government rural network support
      funding, debt payment funding and rolling working                  (1) OJ L 247, p. 27.
      capital loan to Post Office Limited’, document number
      C(2003) 1652 final, in so far as it terminates the State aid
      complaint procedure initiated by the first applicant’s
      letter of 3 December 2002;
—     order the Commission of the European Communities to
      pay the costs of the proceedings.
                                                                         Action brought on 9 October 2003 by Eugénio Branco,
                                                                         Lda, in liquidation, against the Commission of the Euro-
                                                                                pean Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Case T-347/03)
By letter of 3 December 2002, the applicants requested the                                         (2004/C 7/65)
Commission to investigate the costs and earnings structures of
the postal undertaking Consignia plc (Royal Mail Group plc)                                 (Language of the case: French)
as regards parcels and express parcel service as to the existence
of a cross-subsidy.
                                                                         An action was brought before the Court of First Instance of
The applicants object to the termination by means of the                 the European Communities on 9 October 2003 against the
contested decision of the State aid complaint procedure which            Commission of the European Communities by Eugénio Bran-
they initiated. In particular, the applicants complain that, by          co, Lda, in liquidation, of Lisbon, Portugal, represented by
that contested approval decision, the Commission terminated              Bolota Belchior, lawyer.
its State aid investigation in respect of the subject of the
complaint while it was still at a preliminary stage.
                                                                         The applicants claim that Court of First Instance should:
The applicants take the view that if there had been an                   —     annul in its entirety Commission Decision C(87) 0860 of
appropriate and comprehensive examination of the obser-                        23 October 2002 which reduced the European Social
vations which the applicants submitted under the complaint                     Fund (EFS) contribution for training actions approved
procedure, the Commission would have encountered serious                       by the Commission (File 870302P3) and required the
problems and doubts as to the compatibility with the common                    applicant to repay the sum of EUR 13 929,7, and
market of the facts put forward in the complaint and would
have had to initiate a full assessment. In effect, the applicants’       —     order the defendant to pay the costs
complaint demonstrates in detail that the parcel service of the
United Kingdom’s Post is not achieving the coverage of costs
required under the Commission’s Decision of 19 June 2002
on measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
for Deutsche Post AG (1) and that therefore the suspicion of a
cross-subsidy — described in the Deutsche Post Decision as
inadmissible State aid — is founded as regards parcel services.
                                                                         The applicant maintains that the contested reduction and
                                                                         obligation to make a refund derive from the fact that the
                                                                         Commission failed to approve the request for payment of the
The applicants maintain that the parcel services which form              balance under the EFS financing procedure and did not select
the subject-matter of the applicants’ complaint are mentioned            certain expenses submitted by it.
in the Commission’s Decision only in passing and without
separate consideration of individual spheres of activity. The
Commission did not examine whether ‘Parcel Services’ consti-             The applicant submitted to the Portuguese European Social
tute the provision of a universal parcel service or, for example,        Fund Department (DAFSE) its application for EFS funding for
the handling of express parcels and, accordingly, an area of             a vocational training action on 29 June 1986, and the
competition which has long since been liberalised. In the light          Commission declared its application successful.


title: Judgment of the Court of 16 May 2000 in Case C-83/98 P: French Republic v Ladbroke Racing Ltd and Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Competition — State aid)

text:
12.8.2000                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 233/3
to 143 EC), the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodriguez Iglesias,                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, D.A.O. Edward and
R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers), P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rappor-
teur), J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann and H. Ragnemalm,
Judges, Advocate General: P. Léger, Registrar: L. Hewlett, Admi-                                     of 16 May 2000
nistrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 16 May 2000,
the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                             in Case C-83/98 P: French Republic v Ladbroke Racing
1.    Community law does not preclude a national procedural rule                Ltd and Commission of the European Communities (1)
      which requires that a claim for membership of an occupational
      pension scheme (from which the right to pension benefits flows)
      must, if it is not to be time-barred, be brought within six
      months of the end of the employment to which the claim relates,
      provided, however, that that limitation period is not less                          (Appeal — Competition — State aid)
      favourable for actions based on Community law than for those
      based on domestic law.
                                                                                (2000/C 233/06)
2.    Community law precludes a national procedural rule which
      provides that a claimant’s pensionable service is to be calculated
      only by reference to service after a date falling no earlier than
      two years prior to the date of claim.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
3.    An action alleging infringement of a statute such as the Equal
      Pay Act 1970 does not constitute a domestic action similar to
      an action alleging infringement of Article 119 of the EC Treaty
      (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have been replaced by            In Case C-83/98 P: French Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-
      Articles 136 EC to 143 EC).                                            Bellanger, F. Million and J.-M. Belorgey) — Appeal against the
                                                                             judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                             Communities (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) of
4.    In order to determine whether a right of action available under        27 January 1998 in Case T-67/94 Ladbroke Racing v Commis-
      domestic law is a domestic action similar to proceedings to give       sion [1998] ECR II-1, seeking to have that judgment set aside
      effect to rights conferred by Article 119 of the Treaty, the           in part, the other parties to the proceedings being: Ladbroke
      national court must consider whether the actions concerned are         Racing Ltd, established in London, represented by C. Vajda QC
      similar as regards their purpose, cause of action and essential        and S. Kon, Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxem-
      characteristics.                                                       bourg at the Chambers of Arendt and Medernach, 9-10 Rue
                                                                             Mathias Hardt, and Commission of the European Communities
                                                                             (Agents: G. Rozet and J. Flett) the Court, composed of:
5.    In order to decide whether procedural rules are equivalent, the        G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida,
      national court must verify objectively, in the abstract, whether       D.A.O. Edward, L. Sevón and R. Schintgen (Presidents of
      the rules at issue are similar taking into account the role played     Chambers), P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet,
      by those rules in the procedure as a whole, as well as the             G. Hirsch, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and V. Skouris, Judges;
      operation of that procedure and any special features of those          G. Cosmas, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
      rules.                                                                 judgment on 16 May 2000, in which it:
6.    Community law precludes a procedural rule which has the effect         1.    Dismisses the appeal;
      of requiring a claim for membership of an occupational pension
      scheme (from which the right to pension benefits flows) to be
      brought within six months of the end of each contract of               2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
      employment to which the claim relates where there has been a
      stable employment relationship resulting from a succession of
      short-term contracts concluded at regular intervals in respect of
      the same employment to which the same pension scheme
      applies.                                                               (1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.
(1) OJ C 184 of 13.6.1998.


title: Case T-32/09 P: Appeal brought on 26 January 2009 by Luigi Marcuccio against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 4 November 2008 in Case F-18/07 Marcuccio v Commission

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/51

         Appeal brought on 26 January 2009 by Luigi Marcuccio against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 4 November 2008 in Case F-18/07 Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case T-32/09 P)
   (2009/C 69/111)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               In every case

                           (A.1)

                           set aside in its entirety and without exception the order under appeal;

                           (A.2)

                           declare the action at first instance to be admissible in full.

               —

               As a primary remedy:

                           (B.1)

                           uphold in their entirety and without exception the appellant's pleas in law set out in the application at first instance;

                           (B.2)

                           order the respondent to pay the appellant's costs relating to this appeal and to the proceedings at first instance;

               —

               or, in the alternative:

                           (B.3)

                           refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal, sitting in a different formation, for a fresh decision.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   This appeal is directed against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 4 November 2008 in Case F-18/07 Marcuccio v Commission, which declared the appellant's action to be manifestly inadmissible.
   In support of the forms of order sought by him, the appellant raises the following pleas in law:

               —

               Complete failure to state adequate reasons as regards the classification of the note of 11 October 2005 referred to in paragraph 3 of the order under appeal as an application made under Article 90 of the Staff Regulations, with the result that, in the case at issue, the provisions of Article 90 of the Staff Regulations were applied.

               —

               Complete failure to state adequate reasons as regard the statements concerning the date on which the note of 11 October 2005 reached the respondent and the date on which the contested decision took effect.

               —

               Unlawful findings as regards the alleged manifest inadmissibility of the action at first instance in its entirety.

         Complete failure to state adequate reasons and a failure to make preliminary enquiries as regards the date on which the defence was lodged and a procedural error in that no account was taken of the requirement not to have regard to the arguments contained in the defence in so far as made out of time.

               —

               Infringement of the rule that there should be a fair hearing, as laid down in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.


title: Case C-1/01 P: Appeal brought on 3 January 2001 by Asia Motor France SA, Jean-Michel Cesbron and Monin Automobiles SA against the judgment delivered on 26 October 2000 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-154/98 between Asia Motor France SA, Jean-Michel Cesbron and Monin Automobiles SA and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 61/6                  EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    24.2.2001
—    In holding that the jurisprudence characterising anti-             Does that requirement of the system of consumer protection
     dumping measures as legislative acts involving choices of          laid down by the directive that interpretation is to be in
     economic policy concerned cases ‘radically different’ from         conformity require a national court, when hearing an action
     the present case, and in thereby holding that a mere               for payment brought by a seller or supplier against a consumer
     infringement of Community law would suffice to give                with whom he has contracted, to set aside an exceptional
     rise to liability under Article 288 EC.                            procedural rule, such as that in Article L 311-37 of the
                                                                        Consumer Code, in so far as it prohibits the national court,
—    In holding that the October 1997 report prima facie                either on the application of the consumer or of its own
     suggested that the Respondent had complied with its                motion, from annulling any unfair clause which vitiates the
     undertaking and in holding therefore that;                         contract where the latter was made more than two years before
                                                                        the commencement of proceedings and in so far as it thereby
     a)     the Commission’s reaction in amending the report            permits the seller or supplier to rely in law on those clauses
            was disproportionate, and                                   and to base its action upon them?
     b)     the Commission had committed an error which                 (1) OJ L 95, 21.4.1993, p. 29.
            would not have been made had it exercised ordinary
            care and diligence.
—    In holding that the Respondent had shown reasonable
     diligence in mitigating the extent of the damage it had
     claimed to have suffered.                                          Appeal brought on 3 January 2001 by Asia Motor France
                                                                        SA, Jean-Michel Cesbron and Monin Automobiles SA
—    In holding that the Commission unjustifiably delayed in            against the judgment delivered on 26 October 2000 by
     adopting the necessary measures to restore the Respon-             the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
     dent’s undertaking and consequently holding that the               European Communities in Case T-154/98 between Asia
     Commission should bear full responsibility for the                 Motor France SA, Jean-Michel Cesbron and Monin Auto-
     Respondent’s loss of profit as from the end of January             mobiles SA and the Commission of the European Com-
     1998.                                                                                munities
                                                                                (Case C-1/01 P)
(1) OJ C 160, 5.6.1999, p. 21.
                                                                                (2001/C 61/12)
                                                                        An appeal against the judgment delivered on 26 October 2000
                                                                        by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities in Case T-154/98 between Asia Motor
                                                                        France SA, Jean-Michel Cesbron and Monin Automobiles SA
                                                                        and the Commission of the European Communities was
                                                                        brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal d’In-                ties on 3 January 2001 by Asia Motor France SA, Jean-Michel
stance, Vienne, by judgment of that court of 15 December                Cesbron and Monin Automobiles SA, represented by
2000, rectified by a judgment of 26 January 2001, in the                J-C. Fourgoux of the Brussels and Paris Bars, with an address
        case of Codifis SA against Jean Louis Fredout                   for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of P. Schiltz, 4 Rue
                                                                        Béatrix de Bourbon.
                         (Case C-473/00)                                The appellants claim that the Court should:
                                                                        —     set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
                          (2001/C 61/11)                                      26 October 2000(1);
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  —     annul the Commission’s decision of 14 July 1998, and
European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal d’Instance             —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
(District Court), Vienne, of 15 December 2000, received at the
Court Registry on 27 December 2000, and rectified by a
judgment of 26 January 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the            Pleas in law and main arguments
case of Codifis SA v Jean Louis Fredout on the following
question:                                                               —     Infringement of fundamental rights: after dismissing the
                                                                              plea alleging breach of the requirement of a reasonable
                                                                              period [within which the administrative procedure must
Given that the protection under Council Directive 93/13/EEC                   be completed], necessary to ensure fair legal process,
of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (1)                     which constitutes a fundamental right, the Court of First
implies that a national court, applying provisions of national                Instance admitted that it was entitled to consider of its
law previous or subsequent to that directive, is to interpret                 own motion the question of infringement of essential
them so far as possible in the light of the wording and purpose               procedural requirements and of the procedural guarantees
of the latter;                                                                conferred by Community law, but decided not to do so.
 ---pagebreak--- 24.2.2001               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 61/7
—     Manifest error of fact and law, distortion, contradiction,         2.   Is the employees’ entitlement to the payment of early
      insufficient statement of reasons and infringement of                   superannuation benefits and lump sum compensation on
      Article 176 of the EC Treaty: the Court of First Instance               redundancy/in the interests of the efficiency of the
      quite simply obliterated the findings in its two earlier                service/on organisational change, a right to an old age,
      judgments (2) and even accepted, theoretically, the expla-              invalidity or survivors’ benefit within the meaning of
      nation offered by the Commission at the hearing that, by                Article 3.3 of the Directive?
      referring in their letter of 1 July 1987 to a ‘quid pro quo’
      consisting in their refusal to authorise other makes of
      Japanese car, the French authorities simply ‘meant to
      make the policy they [were implementing] more palat-               3.   If and to the extent that the answer to question 2 is ‘no’,
      able’, a policy that finds no basis in any regulation or law            is there an obligation on the transferor arising from the
      authorising the exertion of irresistible pressure                       contract of employment, the employment relationship or
      accompanied by threats. That was a mere expedient. It                   the collective agreement within the meaning of Article
      was a distortion of a clear text, already correctly analysed            3.1 and/or 3.2 which transfers by reason of the transfer
      in the previous judgments, to find, in vague terms, to                  of the undertaking and renders the transferee liable to
      the contrary, that the Commission’s ‘explanation’ could                 pay the benefits to the employee upon dismissal?
      ‘reasonably be accepted’. It would not appear to matter
      that, for this manifest misappraisal of the legal import of
      the facts, the Court of First Instance had to distort the          4.   If the answers to questions 2 and 3 are ‘no’ and ‘yes’
      meaning of terms whose sense is had to misconstrue,                     respectively, may the employee, nonetheless, agree to
      such as ‘arrangement’, ‘quid pro quo’, undertaking, ‘reas-              forego his/her entitlement to early, payment of pension
      sessment of the system or commercial choice’.                           and retirement lump sum and/or the annual allowance
                                                                              and lump sum compensation in circumstances where the
                                                                              transferee’s pension scheme does not entitle him or her
(1) In Case T-154/98, OJ C 358 of 21 November 1998, p. 22.                    to the same benefits and the same circumstances or at all,
(2) The judgments in Cases T-7/92 [1993] ECR II-669, and T-387/94             and he/she
    [1996] ECR II-961.
                                                                              (i)   becomes a member of the transferee’s pension
                                                                                scheme; makes contributions to it and/or has contri-
                                                                                butions made to it on his/her behalf by the transferee
                                                                                employer;
                                                                              (ii) becomes a member of the transferee’s pension
                                                                                scheme, makes contributions to it and has contri-
                                                                                butions made to it on his/her behalf by the transferee
                                                                                employer and successfully applies to transfer his/her
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Employment                                accrued benefits from the transferor’s pension
Tribunal, West Croydon (United Kingdom), by order of                                scheme into the transferee’s pension scheme?
that court of 5 January 2001, in the case of Ms S.G. Martin,
Mr R.K.A. Daby and Mr B.J. Willis against South Bank
                             University
                                                                         5.   If so, what are the criteria by which the national
                                                                              court should decide whether, in such circumstances, the
                           (Case C-4/01)                                      employee has agreed?
                          (2001/C 61/13)
                                                                         6.   Are Articles 3.1 and/or 3.2 of the Directive to be
                                                                              interpreted as precluding the transferee from offering
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        transferred employees the option of taking early retire-
European Communities by an order of the Employment                            ment on the basis of early retirement benefits that are less
Tribunal, West Croydon (United Kingdom) of 5 January 2001,                    beneficial than those to which they are entitled as a
which was received at the Court Registry on 8 January 2001,                   consequence of the effect of the Directive?
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ms S.G. Martin, Mr
R.K.A. Daby and Mr B.J. Willis against South Bank University,
on the following questions:                                              7.   Is the answer to the foregoing question affected if, when
                                                                              offering transferred employees the option of taking early
1.    Do rights which are contingent upon either dismissal or                 retirement on terms less beneficial than those to which
      premature retirement by agreement with the employer                     they are entitled under the Directive, the transferee states
      fall within the definition of ‘rights and obligations’ within           that no early retirement benefits will be available in
      the meaning of Article 3.1 of the Directive (1)?                        future?


title: Action brought on 7 April 1997 by Jacques Verborgh against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-91/97)

text:
No C 181 / 18        EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   14 . 6 . 97
lodged against the former decision . She points out in that          The applicant claims that the Court should:
regard that the competent director had proposed her
appointment to one of those three posts. Having filled two           — annul the Commission's decision of 12 June 1996
of the posts in question, the appointing authority adopted                rejecting the applicant's request that it give
the contested decision in consequence of the opening of an                consideration to the possible application of
investigation prompted by complaints .                                    Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
She advances the following pleas in support of her claims :
                                                                     — annul , in so far as may be necessary, the decision
                                                                          adopted by the Commission on 27 December 1996
— infringement of the provisions of Article 26 of the
                                                                          expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,
    Staff Regulations and of Articles 6 and 10 of the
    European Convention for the Protection of Human
    Rights, in that the appointing authority took a                  — order the defendant to pay all the costs.
    decision which seriously affected her administrative
    situation on the basis of facts and documents which              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    had not been placed on her personal file and which
    had not been communicated to her,
                                                                     The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
                                                                     Case T- 16/9 7 ( ] ).
— absence of any legal basis for the suspension decision,
    inasmuch as there exists no provision allowing for the           (') OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
    possible suspension by the appointing authority, on
    any grounds whatever, of a procedure for promotion
    by way of application for a post which has been
    declared vacant,
— contradictory reasoning and manifest error of
    assessment. The applicant observes in that regard that           Action brought on 7 April 1997 by Susanne Nikolajsen
    the investigation is being conducted on the basis of                against the Commission of the European Communities
    acts committed by persons unknown, for which the                                           ( Case T-98/97 )
    applicant cannot, therefore, be held responsible to the
    extent of justifying the suspension of the procedure in                                     ( 97/C 181 /35 )
    issue . A decision based on facts which have not yet
    been established must necessarily arise from irregular                           (Language of the case: French)
    reasoning,
                                                                     An action against the Commission oj the European
— absence of a statement of reasons for the initial                  Communities was brought before the Court of First
    decision of the appointing authority, in that, although          Instance of the European Communities on 7 April 1997
    the reasons for rejecting an application for a post do           by Susanne Nikolajsen, residing in Brussels, represented by
    not have to be given until the stage when the                    Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
    complaint is rejected, the position must be different            service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
    where the appointing authority decides to suspend the            Sari , 30 Rue de Cessange .
    procedure for filling a post which has been declared
    vacant ,
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
— abuse of process and misuse of powers .
                                                                     — annul the Commission 's decision of 9 October 1996
                                                                          rejecting the applicant's request that it give
                                                                          consideration to the possible application of
                                                                          Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
Action brought on 7 April 1997 by Jacques Verborgh                   — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision
  against the Commission of the European Communities                      adopted by the Commission on 27 December 1996
                       ( Case T-91 /97 )                                  expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,
                         ( 97/C 181 /34 )
                                                                     — order the defendant to pay all the costs .
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                    The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
Instance of the European Communities on 7 April 1997                 Case T-16/97 ( M.
by Jacques Verborgh, residing at Aalter ( Belgium ),
represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an          O OJ No C 74 , 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27 .
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 30 Rue de Cessange.


title: Case T-122/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of 19 September 2006 — Benkö and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Decision 2004/798/EC — List of sites of Community importance for the Continental biogeographical region — Persons directly and individually concerned — Inadmissibility)

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/49

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 19 September 2006 — Benkö and Others v Commission
   (Case T-122/05) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Directive 92/43/EEC - Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora - Decision 2004/798/EC - List of sites of Community importance for the Continental biogeographical region - Persons directly and individually concerned - Inadmissibility)
   (2006/C 294/104)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicants: Robert Benkö (Kohfidisch, Austria); Nikolaus Draskovich (Güssing, Austria); Alexander Freiherr von Kottwitz-Erdödy (Kohfidisch); Peter Masser (Deutschlandsberg, Austria); Alfred Prinz von und zu Liechtenstein (Deutschlandsberg); Marktgemeinde Götzendorf an der Leitha (Austria); Gemeinde Ebergassing (Austria); Ernst Harrach (Bruck an der Leitha, Austria); Schlossgut Schönbühel-Aggstein AG (Vaduz, Liechtenstein), and Heinrich Rüdiger Fürst Starhemberg'sche Familienstiftung (Vaduz) (represented by: M. Schaffgotsch, lawyer)

      Defendants: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. van Beek and B. Schima, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Action for annulment of Commission Decision 2004/798/EC of 7 December 2004 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, the list of sites of Community importance for the Continental biogeographical region (OJ 2004 L 382, p. 1).
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

               2.

               The applicants shall bear their own costs and pay those of the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 9.7.2005.


title: Case C-62/04: Action brought on 12 February 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
C 85/18                EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                         3.4.2004
Action brought on 10 February 2004 by the Commission                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-
                         lic of Germany                                 —     declare that, by not implementing the laws, regulations
                                                                              and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                         (Case C-57/04)                                       Commission Directive 2002/70/EC (1) of 26 July 2002
                                                                              establishing requirements for the determination of levels
                                                                              of dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs in feedingstuffs, or in any
                         (2004/C 85/32)                                       event by failing to forward those provisions to the
                                                                              Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
                                                                              obligations under Article 3 of that directive;
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                   —     order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 10 February 2004 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Ulrich Wölker, Legal Adviser,
and Gregorio Valero Jordana, of the Commission’s Legal                  Pleas in law and main arguments
Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.
                                                                        The period for transposition of the directive expired on
                                                                        28 February 2003.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations           (1) OJ L 209 of 6.8.2002, p. 15.
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      Directive 2001/81/EC of the European Parliament and of
      the Council of 23 October 2001 on national emission
      ceilings for certain atmospheric pollutants (1), or, in any
      event, by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the
      Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its
      obligations under that directive;
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
2.    order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.           Justice (England and Wales) by order of that court dated
                                                                        21 February 2003, in the case of Centralan Property Ltd
                                                                               against Commissioners of Customs and Excise
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                  (Case C-63/04)
The period for transposition of the directive expired on                                         (2004/C 85/34)
27 November 2002.
(1) OJ 2001 L 309, p. 22.                                               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by an order of the High Court of
                                                                        Justice (England and Wales) dated 21 February 2003, which
                                                                        was received at the Court Registry on 13 February 2004, for a
                                                                        preliminary ruling in the case of Centralan Property Ltd and
                                                                        Commissioners of Customs and Excise on the following
                                                                        question:
Action brought on 12 February 2004 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic                Where: During the period of adjustment provided for in
                                                                        article 20(2) of the Sixth VAT Directive (1) a taxable person
                                                                        disposes of a building which is treated as a capital good; and
                         (Case C-62/04)
                                                                        The disposal of the building is effected by way of two supplies,
                                                                        being (i) the grant of a 999 year lease of the building (an
                         (2004/C 85/33)                                 exempt transaction under article 13(B)(b) of the Directive) for
                                                                        a premium of £6 million, followed three days later by (ii) the
                                                                        sale of the freehold reversion (a taxable transaction under
                                                                        article 13(B)(g) and article 4(3)(a) of the Directive) for a
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the           price of £1,000 plus VAT and which either are or are not
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 12 February             preordained in the sense that once the first had been carried
2004 by the Commission of the European Communities,                     out there was no chance that the second would not be, is
represented by Chiara Cattabriga, of its Legal Service, acting as       article 20(3) of the Sixth VAT Directive to be interpreted so
Agent.                                                                  that:


title: Notice of an open competition

text:
C 98/8        EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                 28.3.2001
                                          COURT OF JUSTICE
                                       NOTICE OF AN OPEN COMPETITION
                                                      (2001/C 98/06)
       The Court of Justice of the European Communities will be publishing in the Official Journal of the European
       Communities C 98 A of 28 March 2001 the following notice of open competition:
       Finnish edition
       CJ/LA/9 (lawyer-linguists of Finnish mother tongue)
       To obtain a copy of this Official Journal please apply to the Personnel Division of the Court of Justice of
       the European Communities, L-2925 Luxembourg.
       Closing date for application: 30 April 2001.


title: Case T-233/99: Action brought on 12 October 1999 by Land Nordrhein-Westfalen against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 6/30                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      8.1.2000
— order the Commission to pay the costs of this application.            Action brought on 12 October 1999 by Land Nordrhein-
                                                                        Westfalen against the Commission of the European Com-
                                                                                munities
                                                                                (Case T-233/99)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (2000/C 6/54)
The applicant states that on 3 February 1998, pursuant to
Article 19(3) of Regulation No 17/62 the Commission gave                                  (Language of the case: German)
notice (1) that it intended to take a favourable position in
respect of certain agreements notified to it by Bass, by granting
retroactive exemption pursuant to Article 81(3) EC. The                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
agreements in question were a standard form of lease, the               ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
subject of which is a fully fitted-out, on-licensed public house        European Communities on 12 October 1999 by Land Nor-
in England and Wales with a tie for beer, together with certain         drhein-Westfalen, represented by Dr Michael Schütte, of
related agreements, and the standard agreements for Scotland.           Bruckhaus Westrick Heller Löber, Berlin, with an address for
Before taking a final decision on this matter, the Commission           service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Bonn & Schmitt,
invited all interested parties to submit their observations.            7 Val Ste Croix.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
On 31 March 1999, the applicant submitted observations
together with an expert’s report to the Commission. In those            1. Annul Commission Decision C(1999) 2265 fin. of 8 July
observations objection was made to the proposal to grant Bass                1999;
an exemption.
                                                                        2. Order the Commission to pay the costs.
On 16 June 1999, the Commission took a Decision relating to
a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC (Case IV/36.081/F3 —             Pleas in law and main arguments
Bass) (the contested decision) (2). In its decision the Com-
mission, overriding the objections made in the said obser-
vations, it granted Bass retroactive exemption in respect               The subject-matter of the application is Commission Decision
the notified agreements with effect from 1 March 1991 to                C(1999) 2265 fin. (‘the Decision’) of 8 July 1999 concerning
31 December 2002.                                                       a measure taken by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour
                                                                        of Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale (‘WestLB’), notified
                                                                        to the Federal Republic of Germany on 4 August 1999 by
                                                                        letter of the Commission SG (99) D/6112 of 4 August 1999.
The applicant seeks relief from the Court of First Instance on
the grounds that in granting exemption to the notified                  The acting Commission had no jurisdiction to make the
agreements the Commission:
                                                                        Decision, since because of its extent and importance it was
                                                                        not current business of the Commission, nor would the
                                                                        non-adoption of the Decision have run counter to the interests
(a) failed properly to evaluate the facts and law which establish       of the Community or of individuals.
    that the notified agreements do not fulfil the conditions
    set out in Article 81(3);
                                                                        The Commission was irregularly composed as a result of the
                                                                        ’suspension’ of acting Commissioner Bangemann.
(b) failed to give adequate reasons for its decision that
    the notified agreements fulfil the conditions set out in
                                                                        The Commission omitted to make available to the applicant
    Article 81(3).                                                      essential documents which were material to the defence, in
                                                                        particular a report by consultants First Consulting, and thereby
                                                                        restricted the applicant’s ability to defend itself.
(1) OJ 1999 C 36, p. 5.
(2) OJ 1999 L 186, p. 1.                                                The facts were stated incompletely and manifestly incorrectly
                                                                        on essential points, such as the structure of WestLB’s business
                                                                        activity and its performance of public duties. WestLB is not a
                                                                        ’restructuring’ case but a profitably operating undertaking. For
                                                                        that reason the Commission wrongly applied to WestLB the
                                                                        criteria of assessment developed for capital injections in
                                                                        undertakings in economic difficulties.
 ---pagebreak--- 8.1.2000              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 6/31
The Commission further infringed its duty to clarify the facts           Action brought on 15 October 1999 by P.C.P. van Oppen-
in a neutral and unprejudiced manner, by giving preference to            Veger, trading as Service Station formerly operating as
Bundesverband deutscher Banken over other parties concerned              J.P. Veger, against the Commission of the European
and presenting the facts in a biased way. The Decision infringes                                   Communities
the obligation to state reasons under Article 253 EC. A
central part of the Decision, the determination of ‘reasonable
                                                                                (Case T-238/99)
remuneration’ at 12 % after tax, is not comprehensible and
the bases of the calculation are not evident. The Commission
also fails to distinguish between the indicative figures for                                       (2000/C 6/55)
return on equity (RoE) and return on investment (RoI) and
confuses rates of return before tax with rates after tax. The
reference to the Crédit Lyonnais decision as a starting-point                               (Language of the Case: Dutch)
for the rate of return used does not satisfy the requirement to
state reasons. Finally, the Commission in the Decision fails
to address essential arguments of the Federal Republic of                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Germany.                                                                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 15 October 1999 by P.C.P. van
                                                                         Oppen-Veger, trading as Service Station formerly operating
                                                                         as J.P. Veger, of Maria Hoop (Netherlands), represented by
                                                                         P.J.M. Brouwers, of the Meerssen Bar.
The Commission based the Decision on a fundamentally                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
incorrect approach by applying for the first time the criterion
of an ’average return’ as the minimum expected return to a               (a) annul, at least in part, the Commission’s decision (C(1999)
capital injection from public funds in a profitably operating                2539 final) (1) of 20 July 1999 concerning State aid granted
public undertaking. It thus exceeded its powers to control aid.              by the Netherlands to 633 service stations in the region
Article 295 EC protects the business activity of the public                  bordering Germany;
sector and thus restricts inter alia the Commission’s jurisdiction
with respect to the application of Article 87(1) EC. Business            (b) order the Commission to pay the costs.
activity of the State excludes the presence of ’aid granted
through State resources’ within the meaning of Article 87(1)
EC in the case of profitable undertakings. The Commission,               Pleas in law and main arguments
extending the concept of aid too far, wrongly applies the
criterion of the capital investor acting in market-economy
conditions to capital injections in profitably operating under-          The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case
takings. The public sector as investor is allowed a broad margin         T-210/99.
of discretion for capital injections in profitably operating
undertakings.
                                                                         (1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.
The Commission impermissibly requires an average return as
a minimum expected return for capital injections from public
funds. In so doing the Commission disregards the particular
structure and business activity of WestLB and the particular             Action brought on 18 October 1999 by J.J.L. Alofs, trading
objectives and legal form of the Wfa assets. The Wfa assets              as Auto Service Center Alofs, against the Commission of
absorbed are not comparable with capital which may be freely                              the European Communities
invested but are earmarked for public house-building support
and are directed to the public good rather than to making a
profit. By integrating the Wfa into WestLB, considerable                                          (Case T-239/99)
synergy effects have been achieved.
                                                                                (2000/C 6/56)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: Dutch)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 18 October 1999 by J.J.L. Alofs,
                                                                         trading as Auto Service Center Alofs, of Arnhem (Netherlands),
                                                                         represented by S.C. Struycken-Veenhoff, of the Nijmegen Bar.