title: Action brought on 6 March 1997 by G. J. Meijer against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-51/97)

text:
No C 142/24          EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   10 . 5 . 97
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant considers that, by authorizing payment of               ( a ) primarily: order the Community to pay to the
the third tranche of aid to Air France, the Commission                      applicant the sum of Fl 385 583 , together with interest
disregarded Articles 92 ( 3 ) and 93 ( 2 ) and ( 3 ) of the EC              thereon at the rate of 8 % per annum from 19 May
Treaty and undermined the coherence of the procedures                       1992 until the date of payment in full;
for monitoring State aid and anti-competitive practices in
the common market. In the applicant's view, the
                                                                            in the alternative: order the Community to pay the
communication is vitiated by errors of form, of law and of
                                                                            applicant such sum as the Court in its wisdom shall
fact, and should consequently be annulled under
                                                                            think fit, amounting to not less than Fl 172 213
Article 173 of the EC Treaty.
                                                                            ( namely, the amount resulting from the application of
                                                                            Regulation (EEC) No 2187/93 ), together with interest
According to the applicant, the communication is void,                      thereon at the rate of 8% per annum from 19 May
since it infringes essential procedural requirements by                     1992 until the date of the payment in full;
authorizing payment of the third tranche of the aid
without any prior examination of its compatibility with
                                                                      ( b) order the Community to pay the costs .
the common market in accordance with the procedure laid
down in Article 93 ( 2 ) and ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty.
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
In addition, the applicant considers that the
communication is void by reason of infringement of                    The applicant, a SLOM producer, is seeking compensation
essential procedural requirements, since it authorizes                pursuant to Article 178 in conjunction with the second
payment of the third tranche of the aid prior to the                  paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty for the damage
outcome of the proceeding initiated under Regulation                  suffered by him as a result of the fact that, following the
No 17 of the Council implementing Articles 85 and 86 of               expiry of his SLOM undertaking, he has been unable, by
the Treaty as regards the measures taken for the                      reason of the absence of a reference quantity, to resume
renovation of Orly airport by Aeroports de Paris, a                   milk production .
publicly-owned industrial and commercial institution
placed under the authority of the Minister for Civil
Aviation .
Lastly, the applicant considers that the communication is
vitiated by manifest errors of assessment and that it                 Action brought on 6 March 1997 by G. J. Meijer against
infringes Article 92 ( 3 ) (c ) of the EC Treaty, since it holds      the Council of the European Union and the Commission
that the failures established with regard to fulfilment of                              of the European Communities
condition No 16 are minor and do not undermine the
                                                                                ( Case T-51 /97 )
compatibility of the aid with the common market, and
that the undertakings given by the French authorities are                                         ( 97/C 142/50 )
enough to remedy the distortions of competition caused by
the non-observance of that condition .
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                      An action against the Council of the European Union and
                                                                      the Commission of the European Communities was
                                                                      brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                      Communities on 6 March 1997 by G. J. Meijer, of
Action brought on 6 March 1997 by H. Buwalda against                  Usquert (Netherlands ), represented by E. H. Pijnacker
the Council of the European Union and the Commission                  Hordijk, of the Amsterdam Bar, and M. T. P. J. van Oers,
               of the European Communities                            of The Hague Bar, with an address for service in
                        ( Case T-50/97 )                              Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Frieden, 62 Avenue
                                                                      Guillaume .
                          ( 97/C 142/49 )
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
               (Language of the case: Dutch)
An action against the Council of the European Union and               ( a ) primarily: order the Community to pay to the
the Commission of the European Communities was                              applicant the sum of Fl 139 382, together with interest
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European                  thereon at the rate of 8 % per annum from 19 May
Communities on 6 March 1997 by H. Buwalda , of                              1992 until the date of payment in full;
Franeker (Netherlands ), represented by E. H. Pijnacker
Hordijk, of the Amsterdam Bar, and M. T. P. J. van Oers,                  . in the alternative: order the Community to pay the
of The Hague Bar, with an address for service in                            applicant such sum as the Court in its wisdom shall
Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Frieden, 62 Avenue                         think fit, amounting to not less than Fl 58 022
Guillaume .                                                                 ( namely, the amount resulting from the application of
 ---pagebreak--- 10 . 5 . 97             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 142/25
       Regulation ( EEC ) No 2187/93 ), together with interest          Action brought on 6 March 1997 by B. J. G. Oude Kotte
       thereon at the rate of 8 % per annum from 1 9 May                against the Council of the European Union and the
       1992 until the date of the payment in full;                                 Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-53/97 )
( b ) order the Community to pay the costs .                                                         ( 97/C 142/52 )
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                       (Language of the case: Dutch)
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                  An action against the Council of the European Union and
Case T-50/97 (').                                                       the Commission of the European Communities was
                                                                        brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
(') Page 24 of this Official Journal .
                                                                        Communities on 6 March 1997 by B. J. G. Oude Kotte, of
                                                                        Fleringen ( Netherlands ), represented by E. H. Pijnacker
                                                                        Hordijk, of the Amsterdam Bar, and M. T. P. J. van Oers,
                                                                        of The Hague Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                        Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Frieden, 62 Avenue
                                                                        Guillaume .
Action brought on 6 March 1997 by P. J. M. Biermans                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
against the Council of the European Union and the
            Commission of the European Communities                      ( a ) primarily: order the Community to pay to the
                           ( Case T-52/97)                                     applicant the sum of Fl 279 389, together with interest
                             ( 97/C 142/51 )                                   thereon at the rate of 8% per annum from 19 May
                                                                               1992 until the date of payment in full ;
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                               in the alternative: order the Community to pay the
                                                                               applicant such sum as the Court in its wisdom shall
An action against the Council of the European Union and                        think fit, amounting to not less than Fl 45 349
the Commission of the European Communities was                                 ( namely, the amount resulting from the application of
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European                     Regulation ( EEC ) No 2187/93 ), together with interest
Communities on 6 March 1997 by P. J. M. Biermans, of                           thereon at the rate of 8 % per annum from 19 May
Herkenbosch (Netherlands ), represented by E. Fl .                             1992 until the date of the payment in full;
Pijnacker Hordijk, of the Amsterdam Bar, and M. T. P. J.
van Oers, of The Hague Bar, with an address for service in               ( b ) order the Community to pay the costs.
 Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Frieden, 62 Avenue
 Guillaume .
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
                                                                         Case T-50/97 (').
 ( a ) primarily: order the Community to pay to the
        applicant the sum of Fl 60 863 , together with interest          (') Page 24 of this Official Journal .
        thereon at the rate of 8% per annum from 19 May
        1992 until the date of payment in full;
        in the alternative: order the Community to pay the
        applicant such sum as the Court in its wisdom shall
        think fit, amounting to not less than Fl 22 390 ,                Action brought on 6 March 1997 by H. J. Leemkuil
        ( namely, the amount resulting from the application of           against the Council of the European Union and the
        Regulation ( EEC) No 2187/93 ), together with interest                      Commission of the European Communities
        thereon at the rate of 8 % per annum from 19 May                                            ( Case T-54/97 )
        1992 until the date of the payment in full;                                                   ( 97/C 142/53 )
 ( b ) order the Community to pay the costs .                                              (Language of the case: Dutch)
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     An action against the Council of the European Union and
                                                                         the Commission of the European Communities was
                                                                          brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
 The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                   Communities on 6 March 1997 by H. J. Leemkuil , of
 Case T-50/97 (').
                                                                         Winterswijk Miste (Netherlands ), represented by E. H.
                                                                          Pijnacker Hordijk, of the Amsterdam Bar, and M. T. P. J.
  (') Page 24 of this Official Journal .                                  van Oers, of The Hague Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                          Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Frieden , 62 Avenue
                                                                          Guillaume .


title: Case C-51/16: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Holland — Netherlands) — Stryker EMEA Supply Chain Services BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Classification of goods — Implant screws intended to be inserted in the human body for the treatment of fractures or the stabilisation of prostheses — Combined Nomenclature — Heading 9021 — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1212/2014 — Validity)

text:
               19.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/4

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 26 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Holland — Netherlands) — Stryker EMEA Supply Chain Services BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond
   (Case C-51/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common Customs Tariff - Tariff headings - Classification of goods - Implant screws intended to be inserted in the human body for the treatment of fractures or the stabilisation of prostheses - Combined Nomenclature - Heading 9021 - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1212/2014 - Validity))
   (2017/C 195/05)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank Noord-Holland

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Stryker EMEA Supply Chain Services BV

      Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond

      Operative part of the judgment

   Heading 9021 of the Combined Nomenclature of the Common Customs Tariff in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1101/2014 of 16 October 2014, must be interpreted as meaning that medical implant screws such as those at issue in the main proceedings fall under that heading as those goods have characteristics which distinguish them from ordinary goods by the finish of their manufacture and their high degree of precision, as well as by their method of manufacture and the specificity of their purpose. In particular, the fact that medical implant screws such as those at issue in the main proceedings can be inserted in the body only by means of specific medical tools, not by means of ordinary tools, is a characteristic to be taken into consideration in order to distinguish those medical implant screws from ordinary products.

      (1)  OJ C 136, 18.4.2016.


title: Case C-244/09: Action brought on 3 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               26.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 233/4

         Action brought on 3 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-244/09)
   2009/C 233/07
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: R. Lyal and W. Mölls, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by restricting decreasing balance depreciation for wear and tear under Paragraph 7(5) of the Law on Income Tax (Einkommensteuergesetz) to buildings located in Germany, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 EC;

               —

               order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present action concerns the provisions of the German Law on Income Tax (Einkommensteuergesetz) whereby the ‘decreasing balance depreciation for wear and tear’ — that is, the use of depreciation rates higher than those used for straight line depreciation during the early stages of the depreciation period — which is provided for in the fiscal treatment of immovable property is restricted to buildings located in Germany.
   This difference in the treatment of immovable property located in and outside Germany is, it is claimed, contrary to the free movement of capital guaranteed under Article 56 EC. According to settled case-law, Article 56 EC prohibits all measures which treat cross-border capital movements less favourably than wholly internal capital movements, thereby deterring residents from engaging in the former.
   In consequence of the provision at issue, the cash-flow situation of an investor who is liable to tax is less favourable in the case of a foreign property than in the case of a property in Germany. The effect of this is that investment in property abroad is less appealing than investment in property in Germany, and investors might be deterred from constructing or buying a building in another Member State. According to the case-law, the improved cash-flow in the case of an investment in property in Germany amounts to a tax advantage which must be taken into account when comparing the treatment of wholly internal and cross-border situations.
   Although the operation of the discriminatory provision being challenged in this case has been limited to buildings in respect of which an application for a building permit was made or a purchase contract concluded before 1 January 2006, this does not eliminate the restriction on the free movement of capital, since decreasing balance depreciation for wear and tear is ongoing.
   According to the Federal Government, the aforementioned restriction is justified by overriding reasons in the public interest, since the purpose of the provision at issue is to promote the construction of apartments for rent in Germany.
   It must be noted in this regard that, according to settled case-law, support for the domestic economy is not an objective that can justify a restriction of the fundamental freedoms. Even if the objective — promotion of the construction of apartments for rent — were to be recognised as a non-economic objective, the strict limitation of decreasing balance depreciation to buildings situated in Germany would be neither necessary nor proportionate. The promotion of the construction of apartments for rent in Germany would not be adversely affected if it were possible to apply the decreasing balance method of depreciation to immovable property in other Member States also.
   The Federal Government has not, therefore, put forward any grounds that might justify the interference in the free movement of capital that has been established.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 4 July 1996 in Case C-296/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg): Bernhard Pietsch v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Waltershof (Preserved mushrooms - Protective measures)

text:
9 . 11 . 96            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 336/7
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                   No 2163/92 of 30 July 1992 on the levying of the additional
                        ( Sixth Chamber)                               amount provided for by Regulations ( EEC ) No 3429/80,
                                                                       ( EEC ) No 796/81 , and ( EEC ) No 1755/81 adopting
                          of 4 July 1996                               protective measures applicable to imports of preserved
in Case C-295/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling                  cultivated mushrooms ( 2 ) the Court ( Sixth Chamber ),
from the Finanzgericht Hamburg ): Hüpeden & Co. KG v.                  composed of: C. N. Kakouris ( Rapporteur ), President of the
               Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas ( 1 )                        Chamber, G. F. Mancini and J. L. Murray, Judges;
(Preserved cultivated mushrooms — Measures of market                   F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General ; H. A. Rühl, Principal
                            management)                                Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 4 July
                                                                       1996 , in which it ruled :
                           ( 96/C 336/ 13 )
                                                                       Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2163/92 of
                (Language of the case: German)                         30 July 1992 on the levying of the additional amount
                                                                       provided for by Regulations (EEC) No 3429/80, (EEC)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be           No 796/81 , and (EEC) No 1755/81 adopting protective
          published in the European Court Reports)                     measures applicable to imports of preserved cultivated
                                                                       mushrooms is invalid as regards the level of the additional
In Case C-295/94 : reference to the Court pursuant to                  amount set.
Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Finanzgericht
( Finance Court) Hamburg ( Germany ) for a preliminary                 í 1 ) OJ No C 370, 24 . 12 . 1994 .
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between            ( 2 ) OJ No L 217, 1992 , p . 16 .
Hüpeden & Co . KG and Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas —
on the validity of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1796/81 of
30 June 1981 on measures applicable to imports of
preserved cultivated mushrooms ( 2 ) — the Court ( Sixth
Chamber ), composed of: C. N. Kakouris ( Rapporteur ),
President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini and J. L. Murray,
Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl ,                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment                                     of 11 July 1996
on 4 July 1996 , in which it ruled :                                   in Joined Cases C-427/93 , C-429/93 and C-436/93
                                                                       (references for a preliminary ruling from the S0- og
Article 2 (1 ) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1796/81 of               Handelsret i Kobenhavn and from the Højesteret ):
30 June 1981 on measures applicable to imports of                           Bristol-Myers Squibb and Others v. Paranova A/S ( 1 )
preserved cultivated mushrooms is invalid as regards the               (Directive 89/104/EEC to approximate the laws of the
level of the additional amount set.                                    Member States relating to trade marks — Article 36 of the
                                                                            EC Treaty — Repackaging of trade-marked products)
(') OJ No C 370, 24 . 12 . 1994 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 183 , 1981 , p . 1 .                                                               ( 96/C 336/ 15 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: Danish)
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                             published in the European Court Reports)
                        ( Sixth Chamber )
                                                                       In Joined Cases C-427/93 , C-429/93 and C-436/93 :
                          of 4 July 1996                               references to the Court pursuant to Article 177 of the EC
in Case C-296/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling                  Treaty by the So- og Handelsret i Kobenhavn ( Maritime and
from the Finanzgericht Hamburg ): Bernhard Pietsch v.                  Commercial Court of Copenhagen ) ( in Cases C-427/93 and
            Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Waltershof ( 1 )                      C-429/93 ) and the Højesteret ( Supreme Court ) ( in Case
        (Preserved mushrooms — Protective measures)                    C-436/93 ) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
                                                                       pending before those courts between Bristol-Myers Squibb
                           ( 96/C 336/14 )
                                                                       and Paranova A/S ( C-427/93 ), and between C. H.
                                                                       Boehringer Sohn, Boehringer Ingelheim KG, Boehringer
                (Language of the case: German)                         Ingelheim A/S and Paranova A/S ( C-429/93 ), and between
                                                                       Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, Bayer Danmark A/S and Paranova
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be           A/S ( C-436/93 ), on the interpretation of Article 7 of the first
          published in the European Court Reports)                     Council Directive ( 89/104/EEC ) of 21 December 1988 to
                                                                       approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade
In Case C-296/94 : reference to the Court pursuant to                  marks ( 2 ), and of Article 36 of the EC Treaty, the Court,
Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Finanzgericht                    composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C. N.
( Finance Court ) Hamburg ( Germany ) for a preliminary                Kakouris, J. -P. Puissochet and G. Hirsch ( Presidents of
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between            Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, C.
Bernhard Pietsch and Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Waltershof                   Gulmann ( Rapporteur ), P. Jann and H. Ragnemalm, Judges,
— on the validity of Commission Regulation ( EEC )                     Advocate-General, F. G. Jacobs, for the Registrar : H. von


29.4.2000             EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 122/41
— annul the jury’s decision not to put their names on the list                   Removal from the register of Case T-193/98 (1)
    of successful candidates in Internal Competition B/260:
                                                                                (2000/C 122/63)
— order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           By order of 18 February 2000 the President of the Second
                                                                          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                          Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
The applicants state that the Council had organised an Internal           Case T-193/98: Vassilis Boucouvalas v European Parliament.
Competition B/260 concerning passage from one category to
another on the basis of tests, in order to fill three administrative
assistants’ posts. After the tests had been marked by the jury,           (1) OJ C 48 of 20.2.1999.
by letters of 27 November 1998, the Directorate for Personnel
and Administration informed the applicants that they had
obtained 109 and 105 marks respectively in the written and
oral tests overall, which would have allowed them to be
included in fifth and sixth places on the list of suitable
candidates. In accordance with the footnote on page 1 and
with Chapter V of the notice of competition, the jury did not
place them on the list of suitable candidates, since the number
of successful candidates cannot exceed the number of posts to                     Removal from the register of Case T-88/99 (1)
be filled, namely three posts.
                                                                                (2000/C 122/64)
During the pre-litigation stage, the applicants claimed that,
according to the information at their disposal, only one of the
three posts to be filled was occupied by one of the successful                               (Language of the case: Greek)
candidates and that, therefore, the competition at issue was
not a competition designed to fill specific posts, but a                  By order of 18 February 2000 the President of the Second
non-specialised competition concerning passage from one                   Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
category to another. They requested, consequently, that a full            Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
reserve list be drawn up including all the candidates who had             Case T-88/99: Vassilis Boucouvalas v European Parliament.
passed the tests, including themselves.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.
In support of their claims before the Court of First Instance,
the applicants plead:
— infringement of Article 4 of the Staff Regulations, and of
    the general principle prohibiting appointment by order;
— infringement of Article 29(1) of the Staff Regulations;                        Removal from the register of Case T-207/99 R
— infringement of:                                                                                (2000/C 122/65)
    — Staff Notice No 16/91 concerning the general arrange-
         ments for applying the system of internal competitions,                            (Language of the case: Spanish)
         and in particular point ‘D’ thereof,
                                                                          By order of 14 February 2000 the President of the Court of
    — Staff Notices No 70/97 and 32/98 concerning Internal                First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                          removal from the register of Case T-207/99 R: Asociación de
         Competition B/260.
                                                                          Fruticultores del Jalón Medio v Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities.


title: Case T-140/10: Action brought on 26 March 2010 — Hans Günter Söns v OHIM — Settimio (GREAT CHINA WALL)

text:
               5.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/39

         Action brought on 26 March 2010 — Hans Günter Söns v OHIM — Settimio (GREAT CHINA WALL)
   (Case T-140/10)
   2010/C 148/66
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Hans Günter Söns (Wehr, Germany) (represented by: M. Schwabe, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Alfredo Settimio (Los Angeles, United States)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 26 January 2010 in case R 281/2009-1;

               —

               Order the defendant to declare invalid the registered Community trade mark subject of the application for invalidity; and

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for invalidity: The word mark “GREAT CHINA WALL” for goods in classes 18, 24 and 25

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Party requesting the revocation of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the application for a declaration of invalidity

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(c) and (g) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal wrongly applied the legal provisions in question; infringement of international agreements concerning the protection of geographical indications.


title: Case C-172/11: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Ludwigshafen am Rhein (Germany)) — Georges Erny v Daimler AG — Werk Wörth (Freedom of movement for workers — Article 45 TFEU — Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 — Article 7(4) — Principle of non-discrimination — Top-up amount on wages paid to workers placed on a scheme of part-time work prior to retirement — Cross-border workers subject to income tax in the Member State of residence — Notional taking into account of the tax on wages of the Member State of employment)

text:
               25.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 258/6

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Ludwigshafen am Rhein (Germany)) — Georges Erny v Daimler AG — Werk Wörth
   (Case C-172/11) (1)

   (Freedom of movement for workers - Article 45 TFEU - Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 - Article 7(4) - Principle of non-discrimination - Top-up amount on wages paid to workers placed on a scheme of part-time work prior to retirement - Cross-border workers subject to income tax in the Member State of residence - Notional taking into account of the tax on wages of the Member State of employment)
   2012/C 258/09
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Arbeitsgericht Ludwigshafen am Rhein

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Georges Erny

      Defendant: Daimler AG — Werk Wörth

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Arbeitsgericht Ludwigshafen am Rhein, Landau Divisions — Interpretation of Article 45 TFEU and of Article 7(4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ, English special edition 1968 (II), p. 475) — Top-up amount on wages paid to workers placed on a scheme of part-time work prior to retirement — Less favourable pay for cross-border workers subject to income tax only in their State of residence as a result of the taking into account, when calculating that top-up amount, of the tax on wages notionally payable in the State of employment

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 45 TFEU and Article 7(4) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community preclude clauses in collective and individual agreements under which a top-up amount such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which is paid by an employer under a scheme of part-time working for older employees in preparation for retirement, must be calculated in such a way that the tax on wages payable in the Member State of employment is notionally deducted when the basis for the calculation of that top-up amount is being established, even though, under a tax convention for the avoidance of double taxation, the pay, salaries and similar remuneration paid to workers who do not reside in the Member State of employment are taxable in their Member State of residence. In accordance with Article 7(4) of Regulation No 1612/68, such clauses are null and void. Article 45 TFEU and the provisions of Regulation No 1612/68 leave the Member States or the social partners free to choose between the different solutions suitable for achieving the objective of those respective provisions.

      (1)  OJ C 226 30.7.2011.


title: Case T-580/16: Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2017 — Azoulay and Others v Parliament (Civil service — Officials — Members of the temporary staff — Remuneration — Family allowances — Education allowance — Refusal to reimburse education costs — Article 3(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Legitimate expectations — Equal treatment — Principle of sound administration)

text:
               19.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/27

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2017 — Azoulay and Others v Parliament
   (Case T-580/16) (1)

   ((Civil service - Officials - Members of the temporary staff - Remuneration - Family allowances - Education allowance - Refusal to reimburse education costs - Article 3(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Legitimate expectations - Equal treatment - Principle of sound administration))
   (2017/C 195/38)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Irit Azoulay (Brussels, Belgium), Andrew Boreham (Wansin-Hannut, Belgium), Mirja Bouchard (Villers-la-Ville, Belgium) and Darren Neville (Ohain, Belgium) (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: E. Taneva and L. Deneys, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought under Article 270 TFEU, seeking annulment of the individual decisions of the Parliament of 24 April 2015 refusing to grant education allowances for the year 2014/2015 and, so far as necessary, annulment of the individual decisions of the Parliament of 17 and 19 November 2015 partially rejecting the applicants’ complaints of 20 July 2015.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Ms Irit Azoulay, Mr Andrew Boreham, Ms Mirja Bouchard and Mr Darren Neville to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 145, 25.4.2016 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal as Case F-9/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).


title: Case T-357/11: Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2012 — Bimbo v OHIM — Grupo Bimbo (GRUPO BIMBO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for figurative Community trade mark GRUPO BIMBO — Earlier national word mark BIMBO — Relative ground for refusal — Mark with a reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               9.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2012 — Bimbo v OHIM — Grupo Bimbo (GRUPO BIMBO)
   (Case T-357/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for figurative Community trade mark GRUPO BIMBO - Earlier national word mark BIMBO - Relative ground for refusal - Mark with a reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 38/34
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Bimbo, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Grupo Bimbo, SAB de CV (Mexico City, Mexico)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 April 2011 (Case R 1272/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Bimbo, SA and Grupo Bimbo, SAB de CV.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls points 1, 3 and 4 of the operative part of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 14 April 2011 (Case R 1272/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Bimbo, SA and Grupo Bimbo, SAB de CV;

               2.

               Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.


title: Joined Cases C-549/12 P and C-54/13 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 24 June 2015 — Federal Republic of Germany v European Commission, Kingdom of Spain, French Republic, Kingdom of the Netherlands (Appeals — European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) — Reduction of financial assistance — Method of calculation by extrapolation — European Commission’s procedure for the adoption of the decision — Failure to comply with the time-limit — Consequences)

text:
               24.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/2

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 24 June 2015 — Federal Republic of Germany v European Commission, Kingdom of Spain, French Republic, Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Joined Cases C-549/12 P and C-54/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeals - European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) - Reduction of financial assistance - Method of calculation by extrapolation - European Commission’s procedure for the adoption of the decision - Failure to comply with the time-limit - Consequences))
   (2015/C 279/02)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze, acting as Agent, and by U. Karpenstein, C. Johann, C. von Donat and J. Lipinsky, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: B. Conte and A. Steiblytė, Agents), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, Agent), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, D. Colas and N. Rouam, Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. Bulterman and B. Koopman, Agents) (C-54/13 P)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Sets aside the judgments of the General Court of the European Union in Germany v Commission (T-265/08, EU:T:2012:434) and Germany v Commission (T-270/08, EU:T:2012:612);

               2)

               Annuls Commission Decision C(2008) 1690 final of 30 April 2008 reducing the financial assistance granted from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) to the Operational Programme in the Objective 1 area of the Land Thüringen (Germany) (1994-1999), in accordance with Commission Decision C(94) 1939/5 of 5 August 1994, and of Commission Decision C(2008) 1615 final of 29 April 2008 reducing the financial assistance granted from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) by Commission Decision C(94) 1973 of 5 August 1994 to the Operational Programme for Berlin (East) (Germany) relating to Objective No 1 (1994-1999);

               3)

               Orders the European Commission to bear, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by the Federal Republic of Germany both in the context of the procedure at first instance and in relation to these appeals;

               4)

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic and the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 46, 16.2.2013.

      OJ C 86 23.3.2013.


title: Joined Cases C-53/15 P to C-56/15 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 December 2015 — Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías, SA (C-53/15 P), Trefilerías Quijano SA, (C-54/15 P), Trenzas y Cables de Acero PSC SL, (C-55/15 P), Global Steel Wire SA (C-56/15 P) v European Commission (Appeals — Competition — European prestressing steel market — Commission decision adjusting the amount of the fines imposed on certain undertakings and fixing a new period for the payment of those fines — Other undertakings whose fines remained unchanged having no interest in bringing proceedings — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Appeal manifestly unfounded)

text:
               29.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/3

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 December 2015 — Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías, SA (C-53/15 P), Trefilerías Quijano SA, (C-54/15 P), Trenzas y Cables de Acero PSC SL, (C-55/15 P), Global Steel Wire SA (C-56/15 P) v European Commission
   (Joined Cases C-53/15 P to C-56/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeals - Competition - European prestressing steel market - Commission decision adjusting the amount of the fines imposed on certain undertakings and fixing a new period for the payment of those fines - Other undertakings whose fines remained unchanged having no interest in bringing proceedings - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Appeal manifestly unfounded))
   (2016/C 078/03)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellants: Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías, SA (C-53/15 P), Trefilerías Quijano SA, (C-54/15 P), Trenzas y Cables de Acero PSC SL, (C-55/15 P), Global Steel Wire SA (C-56/15 P) (represented by: F. González Díaz and A. Tresandi Blanco, abogados)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Urraca Caviedes and F. Castillo de la Torre, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the order

   The Court hereby orders:

               1.

               The appeals are dismissed.

               2.

               Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías SA, Trefilerías Quijano SA, Trenzas y Cables de Acero PSC SL and Global Steel Wire SA shall pay the costs of the proceedings in cases C-53/15 P, C-54/15 P, C-55/15 P and C-56/15 P respectively.

      (1)  OJ C 118, 13.4.2015


title: Case T-515/08: Action brought on 19 November 2008 — Mauerhofer v Commission

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/50

         Action brought on 19 November 2008 — Mauerhofer v Commission
   (Case T-515/08)
   (2009/C 44/89)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Volker Mauerhofer (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: J. Schartmüller, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               primarily, annul the contested measure as far as it concerns the applicant;

               —

               additionally, or as an alternative to the claim for annulment, find that the defendant has incurred non contractual liability through the unlawful adoption of the contested measure;

               —

               order the defendant to pay to the applicant, as a result of the contested measure, the sum of 5 500 euros for the non-contractual damages suffered and an annual interest rate of 4 % since 4 November 2008 until delivery of the judgment bringing the present proceedings to an end.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision of 9 September 2008 by which it adopted an administrative order reducing the number of working days allocated to the applicant for carrying out its tasks within an expert contract No MC/5043/025/001/2008 signed between the applicant and the Consultant for the participation in a ‘Value Chain Mapping Analysis’ project based on the Framework Contract ‘EuropeAid/123314/C/SER/multi’ carried out in Bosnia and Herzegovina, signed between the Consultant and the Commission. Furthermore, the applicant seeks the compensation for damages suffered as a result of the contested measure.
   The applicant puts forward the following pleas in law in support of its claims:
   First, the applicant claims that the contested measure was adopted by the Commission with breach of procedural requirement of a written proposal made by a Consultant prior to the Commission decision, as required by the General Conditions and Specific Guidelines applicable to the Framework Contract project ‘Value Chain Mapping Analysis’.
   Second, the applicant submits that the contested measure was adopted with violation of its right to be heard by impartial authority.
   Third, it argues that the contested measure was adopted with breach of its right to be dealt with by an authority free of a conflict of interest.
   Further, the applicant contends that, when adopting the contested measure, the defendant failed to correctly and fairly calculate and analyse the number of working days deducted from the total number of the days allocated to the applicant for carrying out its tasks.
   Finally, the applicant claims that the Commission misused its power when adopting the contested measure as it didn't take into account for the evaluation of a number of working days allocated to the applicant the mistakes committed by the Consultant.


title: Case C-80/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 25 February 2008 — Ministero delle Finanze v Michele Franchetto

text:
               9.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 116/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 25 February 2008 — Ministero delle Finanze v Michele Franchetto
   (Case C-80/08)
   (2008/C 116/21)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   La Corte Suprema di Cassazione
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Ministero delle Finanze

      Respondent: Michele Franchetto
   Questions referred

               1.

               Are the tax relief measures for cooperative societies, pursuant to Articles 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of Presidential Decree No 601 of 1973, compatible with the rules on competition and, in particular, are they classifiable as state aid within the meaning of Article 87 EC, especially given that the system of monitoring and for the prevention of abuse provided for under Legislative Decree No 1577 of 1947 is inadequate?

               2.

               In particular, for the purposes of determining whether the tax relief measures at issue are classifiable as state aid, can those measures be regarded as proportionate in relation to the objectives of cooperative undertakings; can the decision on proportionality take into consideration not only the individual measure but also the advantage conferred by the measures as a whole, with the resulting distortion of competition?

               3.

               For the purposes of the answer to the preceding questions, taking account of the fact that the system of monitoring has been seriously and further undermined by the reform of company law, above all in relation to cooperatives that are predominantly rather than fully mutual, under Law No 311 of 2004, and regardless of whether the tax relief measures in question can be classified as state aid, can the use of the legal form of a cooperative society, even in cases not involving fraud or deception, be regarded as an abuse of law, where that form is used solely or predominantly in order to achieve a tax saving?


Avis juridique important

|

E1997P0003

Request for an advisory opinion from the EFTA Court by Nedre Romerike herredsrett by decision of that court of 2 September 1997 in the case of Jan og Kristian Jæger AS v. Opel Norge AS (Case E-3/97)

Official Journal C 376 , 11/12/1997 P. 0013 - 0013

Request for an advisory opinion from the EFTA Court by Nedre Romerike herredsrett by decision of that court of 2 September 1997 in the case of Jan og Kristian Jæger AS v. Opel Norge AS (Case E-3/97) (97/C 376/12)A request has been made to the EFTA Court by decision of 2 September 1997 of Nedre Romenike herredsrett (Nedre Romerike municipal court), Norway, which was received at the Court Registry on 4 September 1997, for an advisory opinion in the case of Jan og Kristian Jæger AS v. Opel Norge AS, on the following questions:1. (a) Does Article 53 (1) of the EEA Agreement, regarding the rules on selective distribution, prohibit an importer, on entering into a dealership agreement concerning motor vehicles, from imposing conditions regarding a certain shareholder structure of the dealer?(b) If so, will this be applicable regardless of the aim or effects of the condition?(c) Did such a prohibition exist in September 1995?2. (a) Does Article 53 (1) of the EEA Agreement, regarding the rules on selective distribution, prohibit an importer, on entering into a dealership agreement concerning motor vehicles, from imposing conditions regarding the owners and/or general manager in the dealer company holding ownership interests in other companies which deal and/or hold ownership interests in other companies which deal with motor vehicles?(b) If so, is this applicable regardless of the aim or effects of the condition?(c) Did such a prohibition exist in September 1995?3. Does it follow from Article 53 (1) of the EEA Agreement that an importer of motor vehicles in September 1995 had an obligation to enter into a dealership agreement with any or all who wished to be dealers and who otherwise met the qualitative criteria the importer could lawfully impose on dealers?4. Is Article 53 (1) of the EEA Agreement to be construed to the effect that negotiations about an agreement or an agreement to enter into an agreement is tantamount to an 'agreement` and, consequently, sufficient to bring the matter within the scope of Article 53 (1)?5. Is Article 53 (1) of the EEA Agreement to be construed to the effect that a refusal to accept a dealer falls to be examined pursuant to Article 53 when that refusal can serve to enforce an anticompetitive policy or contractual pratice between the importer and other, existing dealers?6. Is Article 53 (2) to be construed to the effect that if a condition is contrary to Article 53 (1) and/or the rules on selective distribution, the entire contract is then of no legal force or


title: Case T-89/09: Judgment of the General Court of 17 March 2015 — Pollmeier Massivholz v Commission (State aid — State measures concerning the establishment of a sawmill in the Land of Hessen — Action for annulment — Letter sent to the complainants — Act not amenable to review — Inadmissibility — Decision finding no State aid — Failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure — Serious difficulties — Calculation of the aid element of State guarantees — Commission Notice on State aid in the form of guarantees — Undertaking in difficulty — Sale of public land — Rights of the defence — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               4.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 146/33

         Judgment of the General Court of 17 March 2015 — Pollmeier Massivholz v Commission
   (Case T-89/09) (1)

   ((State aid - State measures concerning the establishment of a sawmill in the Land of Hessen - Action for annulment - Letter sent to the complainants - Act not amenable to review - Inadmissibility - Decision finding no State aid - Failure to initiate the formal investigation procedure - Serious difficulties - Calculation of the aid element of State guarantees - Commission Notice on State aid in the form of guarantees - Undertaking in difficulty - Sale of public land - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2015/C 146/44)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Pollmeier Massivholz GmbH & Co. KG (Creuzburg, Germany) (represented by: initially J. Heithecker and F. von Alemann, then J. Heithecker, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Urraca Caviedes and F. Erlbacher, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Land Hessen (Germany) (represented by: U. Soltész and P. Melcher, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment, first, of Commission Decision C(2008) 6017 final of 21 October 2008, State aid No 512/2007 — Germany, Abalon Hardwood Hessen GmbH, and, second, of the decision allegedly contained in letter D/55056 of the Commission of 15 December 2008 concerning the State aid procedure CP 195/2007 — Abalon Hardwood Hessen GmbH.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision C(2008) 6017 final of 21 October 2008, State aid No 512/2007 — Germany, Abalon Hardwood Hessen GmbH in so far as it concluded that the State guarantees granted by the Land Hessen do not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders Pollmeier Massivholz GmbH & Co. KG to bear four-fifths of its own costs, four-fifths of the costs of the European Commission and four-fifths of the costs of the Land Hessen;

               4.

               Orders the Commission to bear one-fifth of its own costs and one-fifth of the costs of Pollmeier Massivholz;

               5.

               Orders the Land Hessen to bear one-fifth of its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 129, 6.6.2009.


title: Case T-476/12: Action brought on 31 October 2012 — Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland v Commission

text:
               12.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/41

         Action brought on 31 October 2012 — Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland v Commission
   (Case T-476/12)
   2013/C 9/74
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland GmbH (Aachen, Germany) (represented by: S. Altenschmidt and C. Dittrich, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the implied decision of the Commission of 4 September 2012 (reference No GestDem No 3273/2012), refusing access to the information regarding the applicant’s installations with which the Federal Environment Agency of the Federal Republic of Germany provided the European Commission in the context of the list of installations in Germany covered by Directive 2003/87/EC submitted under Article 15(1) of Commission Decision 2011/278/EU of 27 April 2011;

               —

               In the alternative, annul the implied decision of the Commission of 25 September 2012 (reference No GestDem No 3273/2012) with which access to the requested information was in any case denied;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               Infringement of Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1)

               Here the applicant submits that the preconditions for the extension of the period for answering its confirmatory application did not exist and that because of this a negative decision on the part of the Commission already existed on 4 September 2012.

               2.

               Infringement of the first sentence of Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 (2) in conjunction with Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001
               The applicant submits that the implied refusal of its request infringes the first sentence of Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 in conjunction with Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 as it has a right to have the environmental information sought made accessible on the basis of those provisions and there are no grounds for refusal, which have to interpreted strictly.
               In particular the applicant is of the view that the ground for refusal in the first subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 does not apply. The requested documents relate solely to particulars with which the Federal Republic of Germany provided the Commission and not to an ongoing examination of those particulars by the Commission. It is not therefore to be feared that the Commission’s decision-making process would be seriously undermined.
               Furthermore, the applicant submits that even the opinion of the consulted authorities, which is as yet outstanding, is not a ground for refusing its request. It submits in that regard, that the exception in Article 4(5) of Regulation No 1049/2001 cannot be interpreted so broadly that it gives a Member State a right of veto on the basis of which it could, at its discretion, oppose access to the requested documents. That would be contrary to the Aarhus Convention’s objective of establishing and furthering transparency in decision-making in environmental matters.

               3.

               Infringement of the obligation to state reasons
               Lastly, the applicant submits that there is infringement of the obligation to state reasons under the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13).

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13).


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (First Chamber) of 21 February 1995 in Case T-472/93: Campo Ebro Industrial SA and Others v. Council of the European Union (Action for annulment - Regulation - Alignment of the price of sugar in Spain with the common price - No compensation for producers of isoglucose - Admissibility - Action for damages - Legislative measure involving choices of economic policy)

text:
8 . 4 . 95            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 87/9
established in Groningen, Netherlands, Rotterdamse                    Brautigam and G. Houttuin), supported by Commission of
Aannemersvereniging,          established     in     Rotterdam,       the European Communities (Agent: X. Lewis) —
Netherlands, Aannemersvereniging 'de Rijnstreek',                     application pursuant to Article 173 of the EEC Treaty for
established in Rotterdam, Netherlands, Stichting                      annulment of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3814/92 of
Aanbestedingsregeling           van     de     Samenwerkende          28 December 1992 amending Regulation (EEC)
Bouwbedrijven in Friesland, established in Leeuwarden,                No 1785/81 and introducing application in Spain of the
Netherlands, Samenwerkende Prijsregelnd Vereniging                    sugar sector prices provided for by that Regulation (2 ) and
Nijmegen en Omstreken, established in Nijmegen,                       for damages under Article 178 and the second paragraph of
Netherlands, Samenwerkende Patroons Verenigingen in de                Article 215 of the EEC Treaty, — the Court of First Instance
Boouwbedrijven Noor-Holland-Noord, established in                     (First Chamber), composed of R. Schintgen, President, R.
Alkmaar, Netherlands, Utrechtse Aannemers Vereniging,                 Garcfa-Valdecasas, H. Kirschner, B. Vesterdorf and C. W.
established in Utrecht, Netherlands, Vereniging                       Bellamy, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on
Wegenbouw         Aannemers         Combinatie       Nederland,       21 February 1995 , in which it:
established in Zeist, Netherlands, and Zuid Nederlandse
Aannemers Vereniging, established in Heeze, Netherlands,              1 . dismisses the application as inadmissible in so far as it
represented by Louis H. van Lennep, of the Hague Bar, and                  seeks annulment of Council Regulation (EEC)
Erik H. Pijnacker Hordijk, of the Amsterdam Bar, with an                   No 3814/92 of 28 December 1992 amending
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Luc                   Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 and introducing
Frieden, 6, Avenue Guillaume v. Commission of the                          application in Spain of the sugar sector prices provided
European Communities (Agents: Berend J. Drijber, and P.                    for by that Regulation;
Glazener) — application for a declaration that Commission
Decision 92/204/EEC of 5 February 1992 relating to a
proceeding pursuant to Article 85 of the EEC Treaty                   2. dismisses the application as unfounded in so far as it
(IV/31.572 and 32.571 — Building and Construction                          seeks damages;
Industry in the Netherlands (2 ) is non-existent or,
alternatively, for a declaration that it is void — the Court of       3 . orders the applicants to pay their own costs and jointly
First Instance (First Chamber), composed of R. Schintgen,                  and severally to bear the costs incurred by the
President of the Chamber, H. Kirschner, B. Vesterdorf, K.                  Council;
Lenaerts and C. W. Bellamy, Judges; Registrar, H. Jung,
gave a judgment on 21 February 1995 , in which it:                    4 . orders the Commission to bear its own costs.
1 . dismisses the application;
                                                                      (!) OJ No C 135 , 14 . 5 . 1993 .
                                                                      (2 ) OJ No L 387, 31 . 12 . 1992 , p. 7.
2 . orders the applicants jointly and severally to pay the
     costs, including those relating to the application for
     interim measures.
(M OJ No C 142 , 4 . 6 . 1992 .
(2 ) OJ No L 92, 7. 4. 1992, p. 1 .
                                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 7 March 1995
                                                                      in Joined Cases T-432/93, T-433/93 and T-434/93 :
                                                                      Sociedade de Curtumes a Sul do Tejo, Ld, and Others v.
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                     Commission of the European Communities C )
                        (First Chamber)
                                                                       (European Social Fund — Decision reducing the amount of
                     of 21 February 1995                              financial assistance — Application for annulment —
in Case T-4 72/93 : Campo Ebro Industrial SA and Others v.            Non-existence — Admissibility — Breach of an essential
             Council of the European Union ( x )                                         procedural requirement)
(Action for annulment — Regulation — Alignment of the                                            ( 95/C 87/20
price of sugar in Spain with the common price — No
compensation for producers ofisoglucose — Admissibility                            (Language of the case: Portuguese)
— Action for damages — Legislative measure involving
                 choices of economic policy)                          In Joined Cases T-432/93 , T-433/93 and T-434/93 : Socurte
                          ( 95/C 87/19                                (Sociedade de Curtumes a Sul do Tejo, Ld ), Quavi
                                                                      ( Revestimentos de Cortiga, Ld), and Stec ( Sociedade
               (Language of the case: English)                        Transformadora di Carnes, Ld), established at Pau
                                                                      Queimado, Portugal, represented by Carlos Botelho Moniz
In Case T-472/93 : Campo Ebro Industrial, SA, Levantina               and Antonio Magalhaes Cardoso, of the Lisbon Bar, with an
Agricola Industrial, SA, and Cerestar Iberica, SA, companies          address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Guy
established under Spanish law, represented by Paul                    Harles, 8—10 Rue Mathias Hardt, against Commission of
Glazener, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an address for service           the European Communities (Agents: N. Khan and F. de
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Loesch, 1 1 Rue                 Sousa Fialho ) — application for a declaration that the
Goethe, against Council of the European Union (Agents: A.             Decision by which the Commission reduced the amount of


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 March 2003 in Case T-56/00: Dole Fresh Fruit International Ltd v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Bananas — Common organisation of the markets — Decision 94/800/EC — Regulation (EC) No 478/95 — Export licence scheme — Action for damages)

text:
10.5.2003                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 112/25
26 August 1999 (SG(99) D/7.040) rejecting a complaint                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
submitted pursuant to Article 82 EC, the Court of First
Instance (First Chamber, Extended Composition), composed
of: B. Vesterdorf, President, K. Lenaerts, J. Azizi, N.J. Forwood
                                                                                of 6 March 2003
and H. Legal, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 4 March 2003, in which it:
1.     Dismisses the application;                                           in Case T-56/00: Dole Fresh Fruit International Ltd v
                                                                            Council of the European Union and Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
2.     Orders the applicant to bear its own costs together with those
       incurred by the Commission.
                                                                            (Bananas — Common organisation of the markets —
( 1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.                                                  Decision 94/800/EC — Regulation (EC) No 478/95 —
                                                                                Export licence scheme — Action for damages)
                                                                                (2003/C 112/46)
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                        of 27 February 2003
in Case T-20/00 OP: Commission of the European Com-
             munities v Ivo Camacho-Fernandes (1)
                                                                            In Case T-56/00, Dole Fresh Fruit International Ltd, established
                                                                            in San José (Costa Rica), represented by B. O’Connor, Solicitor,
(Officials — Occupational disease — Irregularity in the                     with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Council of the
opinion of the medical committee — Objection against a                      European Union (Agents: S. Marquardt and J.-P. Hix) and
                     judgment given by default)                             Commission of the European Communities (Agents: initially
                                                                            P. Oliver and C. Van der Hauwaert, then L. Visaggio and
                          (2003/C 112/45)                                   K. Fitch): Application for compensation for the damage
                                                                            allegedly suffered by the applicant by reason of the introduc-
                                                                            tion of the export licence scheme by Council Decision 94/
                     (Language of the case: French)                         800/EC of 22 December 1994 concerning the conclusion on
                                                                            behalf of the European Community, as regards matters within
                                                                            its competence, of the agreements reached in the Uruguay
                                                                            Round multilateral negotiations (1986-1994) (OJ 1994 L 336,
In Case T-20/00 OP: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                            p. 1) and by Commission Regulation (EC) No 478/95 of
ties (Agents: J. Currall and J.-L. Fagnart) against Ivo Camacho-
                                                                            1 March 1995 on additional rules for the application of
Fernandes, an official of the Commission of the European
                                                                            Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 as regards the tariff quota
Communities, residing in Overijse (Belgium), represented by
                                                                            arrangements for imports of bananas into the Community and
N. Lhoëst, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                            amending Regulation (EEC) No 1442/93 (OJ 1995 L 49, p. 13),
— objection against the judgment of the Court of First Instance
                                                                            the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
of 15 November 2000 in Case T-20/00 Camacho-Fernandes v
                                                                            J.D. Cooke, President, R. García-Valdecasas and P. Lindh,
Commission [2000] ECR-SC I-A-249 and II-1149 given by
                                                                            Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the
default, annulling the Commission decision of 10 February
                                                                            Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 March 2003, in which it:
1999 refusing to recognise the occupational origin of the lung
cancer which resulted in the death of Mr Camacho Fernandes’s
wife — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed
of: B. Vesterdorf, President, M. Vilaras and N.J. Forwood,                  1.     Dismisses the application;
Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
given a judgment on 27 February 2003, in which it:
                                                                            2.     Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay those of
                                                                                the Council and the Commission.
1.     Dismisses the objection;
2.     Orders the Commission to pay the costs of the objection.
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 135 of 13.05.2000.
( 1) OJ C 122 of 29.4.2000.


title: Action brought on 16 September 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany (Case C-302/96)

text:
9 . 11 . 96                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 336/ 19
     in accordance with generally accepted principles, the                       voted for, and limited to, reconstruction in the new
     interpretation called for in the strict framework of                        Lander,
     Article 92 ( 2 ) ( c ) is neither a narrow nor a liberal
                                                                             — the reasons given for the contested decision are
     interpretation but one which ensures the effectiveness of
                                                                                contradictory in that the Commission on the one hand
     the provision .
                                                                                assumes that the Volkswagen investments in question
     Since the reunification of Germany on 3 October 1990,                       were merely postponed, with its approval, in 1993 and
     the area to which Article 92 ( 2 ) ( c ) of the EC Treaty                   on the other hand claims that they constitute an
     applies has extended beyond the areas of the Federal                        extension of existing capacity,
     Republic affected by the division of Germany to cover                   — the Commission has inadequately assessed the relevant
     the whole of eastern Germany. Already when the                              facts and has in particular mistakenly considered that
     Saarland joined the Federal Republic in 1957 it was clear                   the restructuring measures for Mosel I/Chemnitz I were
     that the area in which the rule in that subparagraph                        temporary measures of employment policy pending the
     applied was extended to the region then joining the                         construction of the new Mosel II/Chemnitz II,
     Republic, in accordance with the principle of
     international law that treaties apply to States as their                — ( in the alternative :) in the context of its assessment of the
     frontiers exist for the time being. This was again                          aids under Article 92 ( 3 ) of the Treaty, the
     confirmed during the negotiations for the Maastricht                        Commission :
     Treaty on European Union; a proposal from the                               — dealt with aid granted on 22 March 1992 essentially
     Luxembourgish Presidency of the Council for an                                  on the basis of the Community framework on State
     amendment to the EEC Treaty in the autumn of 1991                               aid to the motor vehicle industry ( l ), even though
     initially no longer contained the provision in                                  that framework was to expire at the end of 1990 ,
     Article 92 ( 2 ) ( c ) of the EC Treaty . In 1992, furthermore,
     a provision worded identically to Article 92 ( 2 ) ( c ) of the             — ruled out, in formal terms, subparagraph ( b ) which
     EC Treaty was included in Article 61 ( 2 ) ( c ) of the EEA                     the German Government had, as a precaution , given
     Agreement; that would no longer have had any sense                              as a legal basis,
     unless the area of the nine new Federal Lander had also                     — did not apply subparagraph ( a ), even though the
     been meant .                                                                    conditions for its application were met,
     The contested aids for ' Mosel II/Chemnitz II ' are                         — unjustifiably and contrary to long-established
     required in order to compensate for the economic                                practice, regarded the Mosel II/Chemnitz II project
     disadvantages caused by the division of Germany in the                          as expansion investment and not as new
     motor vehicle region of Saxony . Unlike Article 92 ( 2 ) ( b ),                 investment,
      subparagraph ( c ) does not speak of aid to 'make good                     — made non-reconstructible calculations and failed to
      . . . damage' but — more flexibly — to 'compensate for'                        take the supporting documents submitted by
      disadvantages caused by division . Measures serving to                         Volkswagen into acount,
      reestablish comparable economic and social structures
      as between eastern and western Germany are measures                    — breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate
      which compensate within the meaning of                                     expectations by the Commission's surprising
      Article 92 ( 2 ) ( c ). The aim of that provision, which is to             ' about-turn' in no longer regarding Mosel II/Chemnitz II
                                                                                as new investment but as expansion investment.
      compensate for disadvantages caused by division within
      Germany, is fundamentally different from that of                       (') OJ No C 123 , 18 . 5 . 1989 , p . 3 .
      facilitating the development of certain economic areas or
      activities, provided for in Article 92 ( 3 ). Compensation
      under Article 92 ( 2 ) (c ) involves overcoming, as rapidly
      and effectively as possible, the effects of division . The             Action brought on 16 September 1996 by the Commission
      aids referred to in Article 92 ( 3 ) ( a ) and ( c ), however, lie     of the European Communities against the Federal Republic
      within the different context of the policy of economic                                             of Germany
      and social cohesion within the Community under                                                 ( Case C-302/96 )
      Article 130a of the EC Treaty . That aim is pursued by the
      Community through its regional policy in the                                                     ( 96/C 336/36 )
      framework of Title XIV of the Treaty. The Community                    An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
      has included eastern Germany in that policy as a                       brought before the Court of Justice of the European
       'Target 1 ' area . That does not, however, entail the                 Communities on 16 September 1996 by the Commission of
      withdrawal of the special development possibilities                    the European Communities, represented by Paul Nemitz, of
      which Germany uses to compensate as rapidly as                         the Commission's Legal Service, with an address for service
      possible, with its own resources and on the basis of the               in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of
       special provisions of Article 92 ( 2 ) ( c ) of the EC Treaty,        the Legal Service of the Commission, Wagner Centre 254,
       for the consequences of division.                                     Kirchberg.
      When examining under Article 93 of the Treaty whether                  The applicant claims that the Court should :
       aid falling under Article 92 ( 2 ) ( c ) is 'required', it must be
       borne in mind that the German legislation practically                 — declare that, by reason of the payment by the Free State
       precludes any misuse . The authorities may not award aid                   of Saxony to Volkswagen Sachsen GmbH and
       ' on the open market'; under the applicable German                         Volkswagen       Immobilienverwaltung           GmbH       of
       legislation , the purpose and amount of possible aids are                  investment aid for their investment projects in Mosel
 ---pagebreak--- No C 336/20           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     9 . 11 . 96
    and Chemnitz, in the form of investment subsidies                 de Versailles ( Versailles Court of Appeal ) of 8 September
    amounting to DM 90,7 million, the Federal Republic of             1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on
    Germany has infringed the decision of the Commission              23 September 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
    of 26 June 1996 on the grant of aid by Germany to the             Javico International and Jafico AG v. Yves Saint Laurent
    Volkswagen group for works in Mosel and Chemnitz                  Parfums on the following questions :
    and the third sentence of Article 93 ( 3 ) of the EC
    Treaty,                                                           1 . Where an undertaking ( the supplier ) situated in a
                                                                           Member State of the European Union by contract
— order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the                         entrusts another undertaking ( the distributor ) situated
    costs .                                                                in another Member State with the distribution of its
                                                                           products in a territory outside the Union, must
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                        Article 85 ( 1 ) of the Treaty establishing the European
                                                                           Community be interpreted as prohibiting provisions in
Infringement of Community law, in particular the third                     that contract which preclude the distributor from
sentence of Article 93 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty: the legality of the         effecting any sales in a territory other than the
decision of the Commission is a matter to be determined by                 contractual territory, and hence any sale in the Union,
the Court of First Instance, in which the Free State of Saxony             either by direct marketing or by redirection from the
has in the meantime lodged an application for a declaration                contractual territory ?
of nullity pursuant to Article 173 of the EC Treaty ( Case
T-126/96 ). Until such time as a final judgment has been              2 . In the event that the said Article 85 ( 1 ) prohibits such
delivered in that action, Germany and, consequently, the                   contractual provisions, must it be interpreted as not
Free State of Saxony are obliged to comply fully with the                  being applicable where the supplier otherwise
decision of the Commission .
                                                                           distributed his products on the territory of the Union by
                                                                           means of a selective distribution network which has
                                                                           been the subject of an exemption decision under
                                                                           Article 85 ( 3 )?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
Amministrativo Regionale della Liguria in the case Fiera
SpA against Unità Sanitaria Locale No 3 ( Genoa ) and
                    Impresa Romagnoli SpA
                        ( Case C-304/96 )                             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
                          ( 96/C 336/37 )                             Justice, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of
                                                                      16 November 1995 , in the case of the Commissioners of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                Customs and Excise against T. P. Madgett and R. M.
European Communities by an order of the Tribunale                             Baldwin trading as The Howden Court Hotel
Amministrativo Regionale della Liguria ( Regional                                              ( Case C-308/96 )
Administrative Court of Liguria ), First Civil Chamber, of                                       ( 96/C 336/39 )
4 July 1 996 , received at the Court Registry on 1 9 September
1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Hera SpA
against Unita Sanitaria Locale No 3 ( Genoa ) and Impresa             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Romagnoli SpA, on the question :                                      European Communities by an order of the High Court of
                                                                      Justice, Queen's Bench Division, of 16 November 1995 ,
whether or not the Community rules allow — and if so in               which was received at the Court Registry on 23 September
what cases — a Member State to make temporary                          1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of the
exceptions regarding the entry into force of directives where         Commissioners of Customs and Excise against T. P.
the latter prescribe an appropriate time-limit.                       Madgett and R. M. Baldwin trading as The Howden Court
                                                                      Hotel , on the following questions:
                                                                       1 . What are the criteria for determining whether the
                                                                           operations of a taxable person are the operations of a
                                                                           'travel agent' or 'tour operator' to which the provisions
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'Appel de                of Article 26 of Council Directive 77/388/EEC ( ! ) of
Versailles by judgment of that court of 8 September 1995 in                 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the
the case of Javico International and Javico AG v. Yves Saint               Member States relating to turnover tax ( the sixth
                        Laurent Parfums                                     Directive on value added tax ) apply ? In particular, do
                        ( Case C-306/96 )                                  the said provisions apply to the operations of a person
                                                                           who, though not a 'travel agent' or 'tour operator' in the
                           ( 96/C 336/38 )                                  ordinary English meanings of those expressions ,
                                                                            provides for the benefit of travellers services of a kind
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      commonly provided by travel agents or tour
European Communities by a judgment of the Cour d'Appel                      operators ?


title: ORDER OF THE COURT of 14 November 1995 in Case C-281/95: Hedwig Kuchlenz-Winter v. Commission of the European Communities (Lack of competence of the Court - Reference to the Court of First Instance)

text:
17 . 2 . 96              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      No C 46/5
at Lomé concluded between the African, Caribbean and                      14 November 1995, the operative part of which is as
Pacific States and the European Economic Community —                      follows :
the Court ( Sixth Chamber), composed of C. N. Kakouris,
President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch, F. A. Schockweiler, P.               1 . the application is referred to the Court of First Instance
J. G. Kapteyn and J. L. Murray (Rapporteur ), Judges; C. O.                    of the European Communities;
Lenz, Advocate General; H. A. Rühl, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                 2.   the costs are reserved.
12 December 1995 , in which it rules:
                                                                          (') OJ No C 299, 11 . 11 . 1995 .
1 . The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade does not
       contain provisions ofsuch a nature as to confer rights on
       individuals which they could rely on before national
       courts in order to challenge the application of
       conflicting national provisions . The Fourth ACP-EEC
       Convention may contain such provisions.                            Action brought on 13 December 1995 by the Kingdom of
                                                                                Belgium against the Kingdom of Spain
2 . The ACP-EEC Conventions preclude increases in                                                ( Case C-388/95 )
       internal taxation on bananas originating in the ACP                                          ( 96/C 46/09 )
       States, such as the Italian consumption tax, where those
       increases take place after 1 April 1 976 and their effect is       An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
       to put those banana exports in a situation less                    the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
       favourable than before, as regards access to their                 13 December 1995 by the Kingdom of Belgium, represented
       traditional markets and the advantages they enjoy on               by J. Devadder, Director of Administration in the Ministry
       those markets.                                                     of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Cooperation,
                                                                          acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg
 f 1 ) OJ No C 43 , 12 . 2 . 1994 .                                       at the Belgian Embassy, 4 Rue des Girondins.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          — declare that, by maintaining Royal Decree 157/1988 and
                     ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                               in particular Article 19 ( 1 ) ( b ) thereof, the Kingdom of
                                                                               Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 34
                       of 14 November 1995                                     of the EC Treaty as interpreted by the Court of Justice of
 in      Case    C-281/95 :       Hedwig     Kuchlenz-Winter      v.           the European Communities in its judgment of 9 June
          Commission of the European Communities ( x )                         1992 ( J ) and its obligations under Article 5 of the
                                                                               Treaty,
  (Lack ofcompetence ofthe Court — Reference to the Court
                            of First Instance)                            — order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
                              ( 96/C 46/08 )
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                           — By failing to take the measures necessary to comply with
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                 Article 34 as interpreted by the Court of Justice, the
            published in the European Court Reports)                           Kingdom of Spain disregards the principle of fair
                                                                               competition, incumbent upon it by virtue of Article 5 of
                                                                               the EC Treaty.
 In Case C-281 /95 : Hedwig Kuchlenz-Winter, the divorced
  spouse of a former official of the European Parliament,                  — In Case C-47/90, the Court ofJustice gave a ruling on the
  represented by Dieter Rogalla, Rechtsanwalt, Sprockhövel,                    interpretation of Article 34 of the Treaty in which it
  with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers                     found that the Spanish provisions did not comply with
  of Armin Machmer, 1 Rue Roger Barthel, v. Commission of                       Community law. The Court's reasoning is still
  the European Communities — application for a declaration                     completely relevant: no legislation in the field of wine
  of failure to act on the part of the Commission, in that it                   production has had any effect on the legal context in
  omitted, in breach of the Treaty, to propose amendments to                   which the judgment of the Court of Justice is set.
  the Staff Regulations of officials so as to enable the divorced
  spouse of a former official receiving the retirement pension                 The fact that the Consejo Regulador de la Ribera del
  payable in respect of her former spouse to obtain cover                   .   Duero has taken a decision similar to that of the Consejo
  under the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme — the Court,                        Regulador de la Rioja ( after the abovementioned
  composed of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C. N.                        judgment was published) runs counter to the existence
  Kakouris, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet and G. Hirsch                    of the internal market.
   ( Presidents    of Chambers ),       G.   F.   Mancini,    F.  A.
  Schockweiler, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn,               0 ) Case C-47/90 Delhaize and Others v. Commission [ 1992] ECR
  C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, P. Jann ( Rapporteur), H.                          1-3669 .
  Ragnemalm, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet, Judges; P. Leger,
  Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on