title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 13 July 1995 in Case C-350/92: Kingdom of Spain v. Council of the European Union (Action for annulment - Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 of 18 June 1992 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products)

text:
 14 . 10 . 95         EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 268/ 1
                                                                   I
                                                             (Information)
                                                COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                          COURT OF JUSTICE
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       of open network provision to leased lines, the Hellenic
                       ( Fifth Chamber)                                    Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC
                                                                           Treaty;
                         of 6 July 1995
in Case C-259/94 : Commission of the European                         2 , the Hellenic Republic is ordered to pay the costs.
             Communities v. Hellenic Republic C )
(Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 92/44/EEC —                 (') OJ No C 316 , 12 . 11 . 1994 .
 Telecommunications — Open network provision to leased
                              lines)
                         ( 95/C 268/01 )
                (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                                  of 13 July 1995
          published in the European Court Reports)                    in Case C-350/92 : Kingdom of Spain v. Council of the
                                                                                European Union i 1 )
In Case C-259/94 :          Commission of the European                 (Action for annulment — Council Regulation (EEC)
Communities ( agents : Dimitrios Gouloussis and Anders                No 1768/92 of 18 June 1992 concerning the creation of a
Christian Jessen ) v. Hellenic Republic ( agents : Panagiotis         supplementary protection certificate for medicinal
Mylonopoulos and Ioanna Kiki ) — application for a                                                 products)
declaration that, by omitting to bring into force and, in the                                   ( 95/C 268/02 )
alternative, to notify to the Commission within the period
prescribed the laws, regulations and administrative
provisions necessary to comply in full with Council                                  (Language of the case: Spanish)
Directive 92/44/EEC of 5 June 1992 on the application of
open network provision to leased lines ( OJ No L 165 , p. 27),        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under               published in the European Court Reports)
the EC Treaty — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of:
C. Gulmann , President of the Chamber, P. Jann, J. C.
Moitinho de Almeida, D. A. O. Edward ( Rapporteur ) and L.            In Case C-350/92 : Kingdom of Spain ( agents : Alberto
Sevón, Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General ; R. Grass,              Navarro Gonzalez and Antonio Hierro Hernandez-Mora ,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 July 1995 , in which it          subsequently replaced by Gloria Calvo Diaz ) supported by
rules :                                                               the Hellenic Republic ( agents : Vassileios Kontolaimos and
                                                                      Maria Basdeki, subsequently replaced by Vassileia Pelekou )
                                                                      v . Council of the European Union ( agents: Antonio
1 , by omitting to bring into force within the period                 Sacchettini , Sophia Kyriacopoulou and Ignacio Díez Parra )
     prescribed the laws, regulations and administrative              supported by the French Republic ( agents : Philippe
     provisions necessary to comply in full with Council              Pouzoulet and Hélène Duchêne ), and by the Commission of
     Directive 92/44/EEC of 5 June 1992 on the application            the European Communities ( agents: Jean Amphoux,
 ---pagebreak--- No C 268/2            EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                  14 . 10 . 95
Ricardo Gosalbo Bono and Pieter Van Nuffel ) —                          2 , orders the European Parliament to pay the costs. The
application for the annulment of Council Regulation ( EEC )                   Council shall bear its own costs.
No 1768/92 of 18 June 1992 concerning the creation of a
supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products
— the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias,                     (') OJ No C 159 , 11 . 6 . 1993 .
President, F. A. Schockweiler and P. J. G. Kapteyn
( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, C. N. Kakouris,
J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch
( Rapporteur ), H. Ragnemalm and L. Sevón, Judges; F. G.
Jacobs, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 13 July 1995 , in which it:
1 , dismisses the application;
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
2 , orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs;                                               of 13 July 1995
                                                                        in Case C-341/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
3 , orders the Hellenic Republic, the French Republic and               the Vestre Landsret ( Denmark )): Danvaern Production A/S
      the Commission to bear their own costs .                                   and Schuhfabriken Otterbeck GmbH & Co ( 1 )
                                                                        (Brussels Convention — Specialjurisdiction — Article 6 (3)
                                                                                — Counterclaim — Set-off)
(•) OJ No C 260 , 9 . 10 . 1992 .
                                                                                95/C 268/04
                                                                                (Language of the case: Danish)
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
                        of 13 July 1995
in Case C-156/93 : European Parliament v. Commission of
                 the European Communities (')                           In Case C-341 /93 : reference to the Court under the Protocol
 (Legislation on organicproduction ofagriculturalproducts               of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice
 — Respectivepowers ofthe Council and the Commission —                  of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction
                Prerogatives of the Parliament)                         and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial
                          ( 95/C 268/03 )                               Matters by the Vestre Landsret ( Denmark ) for a preliminary
                                                                        ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
                                                                        Danvaern Production A/S and Schuhfabriken Otterbeck
                (Language of the case: English)                         GmbH & Co — on the interpretation of Articles 6(3 ) and
                                                                        22 of the said Convention of 27 September 1968 ( OJ No
                                                                        L 304, p . 36 ), as amended by the Convention of 9 October
 In Case C-156/93 : European Parliament ( agent: Jorge                   1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland
 Campinos ) v. Commission of the European Communities                    and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
 ( agents: Christiaan Timmermans, David Gilmour and José                Ireland ( OJ No L 304, p . 1 and — as amended — p . 77 ) and
 Luis Iglesias Buhigues) supported by Council of the                    the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the
 European Union ( agents: Jean-Claude Piris and Michael                  Hellenic Republic ( OJ No L 388 , p . 1 and — as amended —
 Bishop ) — application for the annulment of Commission                  OJ No C 97, p . 1 ) — the Court, composed of: G. C.
 Regulation ( EEC ) No 207/93 of 29 January 1993 defining                Rodriguez Iglesias, President, F. A. Schockweiler, C.
 the content of Annex VI to Regulation ( EEC ) No 2092/91                Gulmann and P. Jann ( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F.
 on organic production of agricultural products and                      Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, J. L. Murray, D. A. O.
 indications referring thereto on agricultural products and              Edward ( Rapporteur), J. -P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and L.
 foodstuffs and laying down detailed rules for implementing              Sevón, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate-General; R. Grass,
 the provisions of Article 5 ( 4 ) thereto ( OJ No L 25 , p. 5 ) or,     Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 July 1995 , in which it
 in the alternative, the annulment of the contested parts                rules :
 thereof — the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias,
 President, F. A. Schockweiler, P.J. G. Kapteyn ( Rapporteur)
 and P. Jann ( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, C. N.            Article 6 (3) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on
 Kakouris, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, J. L. Murray, G.                  Jurisdiction and the Enforcement ofJudgments in Civil and
 Hirsch, H. Ragnemalm and L. Sevón, Judges; F. G. Jacobs,                Commercial Matters, as amended by the Convention of
 Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the                    9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of
 Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 July 1995 , in which              Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain
 it :
                                                                         and Northern Ireland and by the Convention of25 October
                                                                          1 982 on the Accession ofthe Hellenic Republic, applies only
  1,   dismisses the action :                                            to claims by defendants which seek the pronouncement ofa


title: Action brought on 29 September 1997 by Dr Anthony Goldstein against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-262/97)

text:
c 370/8               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    6 . 12 . 97
Action brought on 29 September 1997 by Eleonore                      So far as concerns the provision, in the present case, of the
Orthmann against the Commission of the European                      degree requirement, the applicant claims that the
                          Communities                                cumulative requirement of a university degree and
                       ( Case T-261 /97 )                            equivalent experience is contrary to the staff Regulations
                                                                     and introduces an unlawful restriction in respect of those
                         ( 97/C 370/ 18 )                            candidates who are eligible for the vacant post because
                                                                     they have proven experience in the duties to be
                                                                     undertaken .
                (Language of the case: Italian)
An action against the Commission of the European                     As regards the failure to provide a statement of reasons
Communities was brought before the Court of First                    for the rejection of the candidature, the applicant insists
Instance of the European Communities on 29 September                 that it appears unfair to have to wait until a reply is made
1997 by Eleonore Orthmann, represented by Giuseppe                   to the complaint in order to learn the reasons for the
Marchesini, of the Vicenza Bar, with an address for service          authority's rejection of the candidature .
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, Rue
Mathias Hardt .                                                      Finally, she affirms that the appointment of the candidate
                                                                     by the administrative authority is contrary to the wording
The applicant claims that the Court should:                          of the notice in issue inasmuch as the appointee was not a
                                                                     member of the Commission 's staff and had an external
                                                                     employment relationship only with it .
— annul the decision whereby the applicant's candidature
     was excluded in the context of vacancy notice COM/
     R/5603/96 ,
— annul the 'appel a manifestation d'interef ( call for
     expressions of interest ) inasmuch as it is contrary to         Action brought on 29 September 1997 by Dr Anthony
     Article 29 of the Staff Regulations and, so far as              Goldstein against the Commission of the European
     concerns Post NPPR/2027/96, on the ground that it                                          Communities
     imposes a double requirement for admission,                                             ( Case T-262/97)
                                                                                ( 97/C 370/ 19 )
— annul the appointment of Gabriela Christ either on the
     ground of the procedure followed in the present case
     or because the applicant was not a member of staff of                            (Language of the case: English)
     the Commission,
                                                                     An action against the Commission of the European
— make an appropriate order as to costs .                            Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                     Instance of the European Communities on 29 September
                                                                      1997 by Dr Anthony Goldstein, represented by Raymond
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  St John Murphy of Merriman White, Solicitor, 3 King's
                                                                     Bench Walk, Inner Temple, London .
The applicant, an official in Category B at the Joint
 Research Centre in Ispra , contests the rejection of her            The applicant claims that the Court should :
candidacy for a vacant post involving duties which she
 had been carrying out for years in the Einecs Committee,
 but which was reclassified in Category A. Since no                  — order the defendant to pay compensation for the
 appointment was made following the vacancy notice, the                   damage suffered by him to be determined by the Court
 Commission, by means of the ' appel a manifestation                      ex aequo et bono or by an expert together with
 d'interef, called for the submission of candidatures for a               default interest at a rate to be fixed by the Court,
 large number of posts, among which was listed the
 abovementioned post under Category A. The applicant                  — order the defendant to pay the costs .
 states that she was put at a particular disadvantage by the
 reintroduction of the requirement of a chemistry degree .
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 She maintains in this respect that the Commission could
 not prevent an official in Category B from being                     In 1993 the applicant, a Community medical specialist in
 appointed to a post in Category A given that in the                  rheumatology, submitted to the Commission under
 context of scientific or technical posts Article 98 , which is       Article 3 ( 2 ) of Council Regulation No 17 an application
 a provision specifically intended for officials in, scientific       for a finding that the General Medical Council, a
 or technical posts, derogates from the provisions of                 statutory body which regulates the medical profession in
 Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, according to which              the territory of the United Kingdom, had infringed
 promotion from one category to another may only be                   Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty. At the same time as
 awarded on the basis of a competition .                              the complaint the applicant requested interim measures
 ---pagebreak--- 6 . 12 . 97           EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 370/9
which the Commission rejected. An action against that                     In support of its application for the annulment of that
decision was brought by the applicant before the Court of                 decision, VTM raised five pleas in law.
First Instance ('). In the present case the applicant seeks
compensation for the damage occasioned to him by the                      1 . Breach of its right of defence .
unlawful failure of the Commission to exercise the powers
of surveillance and control conferred on it by the Treaty in              2 . Breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate
accordance with the prescribed legal framework to protect                     expectations, the principle of legal certainty and the
his legitimate interests by the adoption of interim                           duty of care :
measures .
                                                                              in Case C-211/91 ( judgment of 16 December 1992 )
(') Case T-235/95 , OJ C 64, 2 . 3 . 1996 , p. 19 .                           the Commission did not consider that the exclusive
                                                                              right relating to commercial television constituted an
                                                                              infringement of Article 52 of the EC Treaty. When the
                                                                              Commission has examined the compatibility with the
                                                                              Treaty of a provision of national law under Article 169
                                                                              of the EC Treaty, it may not subsequently find a part
Action brought on 3 October 1997 by the Vlaamse                               of that provision to be incompatible with the Treaty in
Televisie Maatschappij NV against Commission of the                           the context of proceedings under Article 90 ( 3 ).
                    European Communities
                        ( Case T-266/97)                                  3 . Breach of the obligation to state reasons under
                          ( 97/C 370/20 )                                     Article 190 of the EC Treaty:
                (Language of the case: Dutch)                                 since this is the first time that the Commission has
                                                                              held an exclusive right to be incompatible with
An action against the Commission of the European                              Article 90 ( 1 ), read in conjunction with Article 52 of
Communities was brought before the Court of First                             the EC Treaty, the requirement to state the reasons on
Instance of the European Communities on 3 October 1997                        which that decision was based was even greater, VTM
by Vlaamse Televisie Maatschappij NV ( Flemish                                maintains .
Television Company), represented by F. Herbert and D.
Arts, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in                 4 . In the alternative, infringement of Article 90 ( 1 ), read
Luxembourg at the Chambers of C. Zeyen, of the                                in conjunction with Article 52 of the EC Treaty:
Luxembourg Bar, 56—58 Rue Charles Martel ,
Luxembourg-Merl .                                                             VTM challenges the Commission's view that Flemish
                                                                              cultural policy, which is based on preservation of
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                  pluralism in the Flemish press, does not justify VTM's
                                                                              exclusive right in respect of commercial television in
1 . annul the Commission Decision of 26 June 1997                             Flanders .
     pursuant to Article 90 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty on the
     exclusive right to broadcast television advertising in               5 . Missuse of powers:
     Flanders;
                                                                              this  is the     fifth time     that the Commission has
2 . order the Commission to pay the costs .                                   challenged the Flemish media legislation . According to
                                                                              VTM, the Commission's persistence is the result of
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                           political pressure at both national and European level .
The action by VTM must be considered in the context of
the statutory provisions adopted by the Vlaamse
Gemeenschap ( Flemish Community ) which, as a
transitional measure pending the liberalization of the
audiovisual market, grant the exclusive right to operate                  Action brought on 6 October 1997 by Broome &
commercial television in Flanders to one private                          Wellington Ltd against the Commission of the European
broadcasting corporation, which may only broadcast                                                     Communities
advertising with the authorization of the Flemish                                                   ( Case T-267/97 )
Government . In 1987 VTM was authorized to broadcast
advertising for a period of 18 years.                                                                 ( 97/C 370/21 )
In 1994 VT4, a company incorporated under English law                                     (Language of the case: English)
but with its origins in Flanders, submitted a complaint to
the Commission concerning VTM 's exclusive right to                       An action against the Commission of the European
operate commercial television in Flanders.                                Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                          Instance of the European Communities on 6 October 1997
According to Commission Decision 97/606/EC of 26 June                     by Broome & Wellington Ltd, represented by Fiona M.
 1997 ( OJ L 244 , 6 . 9 . 1997, p. 18 ) that exclusive right is           Carlin and James H. Searles, with an address for service in
contrary to Article 90 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty, read in                    Luxembourg at the office of Arendt & Medernach, 8—10
conjunction with Article 52 of the EC Treaty.                             rue Mathias Hardt .


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 September 2004 in Case C-72/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria di Massa): Carbonati Apuani Srl v Comune di Carrara (Charges having effect equivalent to a customs duty — Tax levied on marble excavated in the territory of a municipality on its being transported across the boundaries of the municipal territory)

text:
               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/9

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 9 September 2004
   in Case C-72/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria di Massa): Carbonati Apuani Srl v Comune di Carrara (1)

   (Charges having effect equivalent to a customs duty - Tax levied on marble excavated in the territory of a municipality on its being transported across the boundaries of the municipal territory)
   (2004/C 262/18)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case C-72/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Commissione tributaria di Massa Carrara (Italy), by decision of 11 December 2002, registered at the Court on 18 February 2003, in the proceedings brought by Carbonati Apuani Srl v Comune di Carrara — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, A. Rosas, S. von Bahr, R. Silva de Lapuerta and K. Lenaerts (Rapporteur), Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, gave a judgment on 9 September 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               A tax proportionate to the weight of goods, levied in one municipality of a Member State only and imposed on one class of goods when those goods are transported beyond the territorial boundaries of that municipality, constitutes a charge having effect equivalent to a customs duty on exports within the meaning of Article 23 EC, despite the fact that it is imposed also on goods the final destination of which is within the Member State concerned.

               2.

               Article 23 EC cannot be relied on in support of claims for refunds of sums levied by way of the marble tax before 16 July 1992, except by claimants who had, before that date, initiated legal proceedings or raised an equivalent claim.

      (1)  OJ C 83 of 5.4.2003.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (First Chamber) of 6 April 1995 in Case T-150/89: G. B. Martinelli v. Commission of the European Communities (Competition - Infringement of Article 85 of the EEC Treaty)

text:
No C 137/20              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     3 . 6 . 95
1 . annuls Article 1 of Commission Decision 89/515/EEC                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
       of 2 August 1989 relating to a proceeding under                                          (First Chamber)
       Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (IV/3 1 . 553 — Welded steel
       mesh) as regards the findings therein that the applicant                                 of 6 April 1995
       participated in an agreement defining price and quotas           in Case T-151 /89 : Société des Treillis et Panneaux Soudés
       on the French market in the period 1981 /82, that it                 SA v. Commission of the European Communities ( l )
       participated after June 1 984 in an agreement having the         (Competition — Infringement of Article 85 of the
       same object on the French market in the period 1 983/84,                                         Treaty)
       and that it participated in an agreement with                                              ( 95/C 137/49 )
       Baustahlgewebe GmbH having as its object the
       application of quotas to its exports to the German
       market;                                                                        (Language of the Case: French)
2 . reduces the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant
       by Article 3 of that Decision to ECU 57 000;                     In Case T-151 / 89 : Societe des Treillis et Panneaux Soudes
                                                                        SA, established in Puteaux ( France ), represented by Robert
3 . dismisses the application as regards the remaining                  Collin and Richard Milchior, of the Paris Bar, with an
       claims;                                                          address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                        Ernest Arendt, 8—10 Rue Mathias Hardt, v. Commission of
4 . orders the Commission to bear its costs and to pay                  the European Communities ( Agents N. Koch, E. Traversa , J.
       one-half of the applicant's costs;                               Currall, A. Coutrelis and N. Coutrelis ) — application for
                                                                        the annulment of Commission Decision 89/515/EEC of
5 . orders the applicant to bear one-half of its costs.
                                                                        2 August 1989 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of
                                                                        the EEC Treaty ( IV/3 1.553 — Welded steel mesh, OJ 1989 L
f 1 ) OJ No C 306 , 5 . 12 . 1989 .
                                                                        260 , p. 1 ) — the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber ),
                                                                        composed of H. Kirschner, President, C. W. Bellamy, B.
                                                                        Vesterdorf, R. Garcfa-Valdecasas and K. Lenaerts, Judges,
                                                                        H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on 6 April 1995 , in
                                                                        which the Court:
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                           ( First Chamber )                            I . dismisses the application;
                           of 6 April 1995
in Case T-l 50/89 : G. B. Martinelli v. Commission of the
                                                                        2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                    European Communities ( 1 )
 (Competition — Infringement of Article 85 of the EEC                   («) OJ No C 306 , 5 . 12 . 1989 .
                                 Treaty)
                             ( 95/C 137/48 )
                  (Language of the Case: Italian)
In Case T-150/89 : G. B. Martinelli, formerly G. B.
Metallurgica SpA, established in Milan ( Italy), represented             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
by Carmelo Maccarone, of the Bergamo Bar, with an                                               (First Chamber)
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                                of 6 April 1995
Franco Colussi, 36 Rue de Wiltz, v. Commission of the
European Communities ( Agents : E. Traversa , J. Currall and            in Case T-152/89: ILRO SpA v. Commission of the
A. Dal Ferro ) — application for the annulment of                                        European Communities ( J )
Commission Decision 89/515/EEC of 2 August 1989                          (Competition — Infringement of Article 85 of the
relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty                                             Treaty)
( IV/3 1.553 — Welded steel mesh, OJ 1989 L 260, p. 1 .) —                                         ( 95 /C 137/50
the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber ), composed of H.
Kirschner, President of the Chamber, C. W. Bellamy, B.
Vesterdorf, R. Garcfa-Valdecasas and K. Lenaerts , Judges,                             (Language of the Case: French)
H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 April 1995 , in
which it:
                                                                        In Case T-152/89 : ILRO SpA, established in
 I. dismisses the application;                                          Lecco-Pescarenico ( Italy), represented by Maurice Laredo,
                                                                        of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs.                              at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8—10 Rue Mathias
                                                                        Hardt, v. Commission of the European Communities
 ( i ) OJ No C 306 , 6 . 12 . 1989 .                                     ( Agents E. Traversa, A. Dal Ferro ) — application for the
                                                                        annulment     of  Commission          Decision 89/515/EEC      of
                                                                        2 August 1989 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of


title: Case C-368/10: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 May 2012 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2004/18/EC — Procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts — Contract for the supply, installation and maintenance of dispensing machines for hot drinks, and the supply of tea, coffee and other ingredients — Article 23(6) and 23(8) — Technical specifications — Article 26 — Conditions for performance of the contract — Article 53(1) — Criteria for award of the contracts — Most economically advantageous tender — Products derived from organic agriculture and fair trade — Use of labels in the formulation of the technical specifications and the award criteria — Article 39(2) — Concept of ‘additional information’ — Article 2 — Principles for award of contracts — Principle of transparency — Articles 44(2) and 48 — Verification of the suitability and choice of participants — Minimum level of technical or professional abilities — Compliance with ‘criteria of sustainability of purchases and socially responsible business’ )

text:
               30.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/3

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 May 2012 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-368/10) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2004/18/EC - Procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts - Contract for the supply, installation and maintenance of dispensing machines for hot drinks, and the supply of tea, coffee and other ingredients - Article 23(6) and 23(8) - Technical specifications - Article 26 - Conditions for performance of the contract - Article 53(1) - Criteria for award of the contracts - Most economically advantageous tender - Products derived from organic agriculture and fair trade - Use of labels in the formulation of the technical specifications and the award criteria - Article 39(2) - Concept of ‘additional information’ - Article 2 - Principles for award of contracts - Principle of transparency - Articles 44(2) and 48 - Verification of the suitability and choice of participants - Minimum level of technical or professional abilities - Compliance with ‘criteria of sustainability of purchases and socially responsible business’)
   2012/C 194/04
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Zadra and F. Wilman, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels and M. de Ree, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Failure to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 2, Article 23(6) and (8), Article 44(2), Article 48(1) and (2) and Article 53(1) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114) — Principles for the award of contracts — Technical specifications — Verification of the capacity and choice of operators, award of contracts — Technical or professional capacities — Criteria for the award of contracts — Supply, installation and maintenance of coffee machines

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               On account of the fact that, in the tendering procedure for a public contract for the supply and management of coffee machines, which was the subject of a contract notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 16 August 2008, the province of North Holland:

                           —

                           established a technical specification incompatible with Article 23(6) of Directive 2004/18 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1422/2007 of 4 December 2007, by requiring that certain products to be supplied were to bear a specific eco-label, rather than using detailed specifications;

                           —

                           established award criteria incompatible with Article 53(1)(a) of Directive 2004/18 by providing that the fact that certain products to be supplied bore specific labels would give rise to the grant of a certain number of points in the choice of the most economically advantageous tender, without having listed the criteria underlying those labels and without having allowed proof that a product satisfies those underlying criteria by all appropriate means;

                           —

                           established a minimum level of technical ability not authorised by Articles 44(2) and 48 of Directive 2004/18 by requiring, on the basis of suitability requirements and minimum capacity levels stated in the specifications applicable in the context of that contract, that tenderers comply with the ‘criteria of sustainable purchasing and socially responsible business’ and state how they comply with those criteria and ‘contribute to improving the sustainability of the coffee market and to environmentally, socially and economically responsible coffee production’, and

                           —

                           prescribed a clause contrary to the obligation of transparency provided for in Article 2 of Directive 2004/18 by requiring that tenderers comply with ‘the criteria of sustainable purchasing and socially responsible business’ and state how they comply with those criteria and ‘contribute to improving the sustainability of the coffee market and to environmentally, socially and economically responsible coffee production’,

                     the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under the aforementioned provisions.

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.


title: Action brought on 20 November 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against Nea Energiaki Tekhnologia EPE (Case C-416/98)

text:
23.1.1999             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 20/19
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                             on the basis that the settlement which the Commission
Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 24 September                  agreed to is considered to be invalid as achieved by
1998 in the case of Laszlo Bakcsi against Finanzamt                     fraudulent means, that is to say the Court should
                       Fürstenfeldbruck                                 order the defendant to refund the entire amount of the
                                                                        principal debt of GRD 13 800 000, together with
                       (Case C-415/98)
                                                                        interest under the provisions of the agreement
                        (1999/C 20/30)                                  amounting to GRD 24 382 218 up until service of
                                                                        this application, namely a total amount of
                                                                        GRD 38 182 218, and additionally legal interest for
                                                                        late payment under Greek legislation from service of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  this application on the defendant until the full
European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof                    discharge of its debt, or otherwise interest on the basis
(Federal Finance Court) of 24 September 1998, received at               of the rate set by the European Investment Bank in
the Court Registry on 20 November 1998, for a                           respect of the period from the lodging of this
preliminary ruling in the case of Laszlo Bakcsi against                 application until the defendant has fully discharged the
Finanzamt Fürstenfeldbruck on the following questions:                  debt;
(1) May a trader allocate goods used for mixed purposes
     (business and non-business) wholly to his private              Ð in the alternative, order the defendant to refund to
     assets, regardless of the extent to which they are used            the Commission the amount arising under the
     in his business?                                                   abovementioned settlement, namely GRD 9 498 551,
                                                                        together with interest owed on the principal sum of
                                                                        GRD 9 257 051, which under the provisions of the
(2) Where a person has acquired goods from a private                    agreement amounts to interest of GRD 14 643 006 up
     individual for the purposes of his business with no                until service of this application, that is to say a total
     right to deduct tax and subsequently disposes of                   amount of GRD 24 141 557, and also the legal
     them, is that disposal fully liable to turnover tax in             interest provided for by Greek legislation from service
     accordance with Articles 2(1) and 11A(1)(a) of                     of this application until the full discharge of the
     Directive 77/388/EEC (1)?                                          defendant's debt, or otherwise interest on the basis of
                                                                        the rate set by the European Investment Bank in
                                                                        respect of the period from the lodging of this
(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.                                          application until the defendant has fully discharged the
                                                                        debt;
                                                                    Ð order the defendant in each case to pay the
                                                                        Commission's general legal costs together with the fees
Action brought on 20 November 1998 by the Commission                    of its authorised lawyers.
of the European Communities against Nea Energiaki
                       Tekhnologia EPE
                       (Case C-416/98)                              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                        (1999/C 20/31)
                                                                    The objects of the defendant company are the study and
An action against Nea Energiaki Tekhnologia EPE was                 construction of alternative energy systems and its
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                 participation in public tenders. In 1985 the Commission
Communities on 20 November 1998 by the Commission                   entered into an agreement with the defendant under which
of the European Communities, represented by Richard                 the latter undertook, in return for Community financial
Wainwright, Principal Legal Adviser, and Olivier                    assistance, to carry out the project Kea Island', whose
Couvert-CasteÂra, a civil servant on secondment to its              objective was the installation of a wind generator on a
Legal Service, assisted by Maria Bra, of the Brussels Bar,          Greek island and a two-year demonstration that the
and Kiriaki Kapoutzidou, of the Athens Bar, with an                 system worked before being handed over to the users.
address for service in Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos           Under that agreement the Commission made an advance
Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,              payment to the defendant of GRD 13 800 000. However,
Kirchberg.                                                          the defendant did not take any steps at all to implement
                                                                    the project. The Commission subsequently terminated the
                                                                    agreement. The defendant never repaid the sum received
                                                                    in advance or even the sum arising under the settlement
The Commission claims that the Court should:
                                                                    reached in the meantime.
Ð order the defendant to refund to the Commission all
    the financing which it received from the Community,


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of 21 July 1998, in the case of The Queen against Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, ex parte: First Corporate Shipping Ltd (Case C-371/98)

text:
19.12.98              EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 397/19
(5) Is the prohibition on discrimination, whether overt or        on 16 October 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case
     covert, contained in Article 9 of the EEC-Turkey             of The Queen against Minsitry of Agriculture, Fisheries
     Agreement, and/or Article 12 of the EEC-Turkey               and Food, ex parte: J. H. Cooke and Sons (a firm), on the
     Agreement and/or Article 37 of the Additional                following question:
     Protocol to be interpreted as precluding a Member
     State from applying its immigration rules in a way
     that grants a Turkish national temporary, rather than        Is the expression an area which has been cultivated in the
     permanent, permission to engage in employment?               previous year with a view to a harvest' in Article 2 of
                                                                  Commission Regulation (EC) No 762/94 (1) of 6 April
                                                                  1994, laying down detailed rules for the application of
                                                                  Council Regulation (EEC) No 1765/92 (2) with regard to
                                                                  the set-aside scheme, to be interpreted as including land
                                                                  which has been in grass in the previous year, where the
                                                                  grass has been cut and used for silage?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
Justice (England and Wales), Queen's Bench Division, by
                                                                  (1) OJ L 90, 7.4.1994, p. 8.
order of that court of 21 July 1998, in the case of The
                                                                  (2) OJ L 181, 1.7.1992, p. 12.
Queen against Secretary of State for the Environment,
Transport and the Regions, ex parte: First Corporate
                         Shipping Ltd
                       (Case C-371/98)
                        (98/C 397/31)
                                                                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht Kiel
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the            by order of that court of 13 October 1998 in the case of
European Communities by an order of the High Court of             PreussenElektra Aktiengesellschaft against Schleswag
Justice (England and Wales), Queen's Bench Division, of                                  Aktiengesellschaft
21 July 1998, which was received at the Court Registry on                                (Case C-379/98)
16 October 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
The Queen against Secretary of State for the Environment,                                  (98/C 397/33)
Transport and the Regions, ex parte: First Corporate
Shipping Ltd, on the following question:
                                                                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                  European Communities by order of the Second
Is a Member State entitled or obliged to take account of          Commercial Chamber of the Landgericht Kiel (Regional
the considerations laid down in Article 2(3) and Council          Court, Kiel) of 13 October 1998, received at the Court
Directive 92/43/EEC (1) on the conservation of natural            Registry on 23 October 1998, for a preliminary ruling in
habitats and of wild fauna and flora, namely, economic,           the case of PreussenElektra Aktiengesellschaft against
social and cultural requirements and regional and local           Schleswag Aktiengesellschaft on the following questions:
characteristics, when deciding which sites to propose to
the Commission pursuant to Article 4(1) of that Directive
and/or defining the boundaries of such sites?
                                                                  (a) Do the rules on payment and compensation for
                                                                       supplies of electricity, laid down in Paragraph 2 or 3
(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.                                         or 4 or in Paragraphs 2 to 4 of the Law governing the
                                                                       supply of electricity from renewable energy sources
                                                                       over the public grid (Law on the supply of electricity)
                                                                       of 7 December 1990 (BGBl I, at p. 26 to 33), in the
                                                                       version set out in Article 3(2) of the Law reforming
                                                                       the law governing the energy supply industry of
                                                                       24 April 1998 (BGBl I, p. 730 (p. 734 to 736)),
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of                constitute State aid for the purposes of Article 92 of
Justice (England and Wales), Queen's Bench Division, by                the EC Treaty?
order of that court, of 25 August 1998, in the case of
The Queen against Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and
       Food, ex parte: J. H. Cooke and Sons (a firm)                   Is Article 92 of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as
                       (Case C-372/98)                                 meaning that the underlying concept of aid also
                                                                       covers national rules for the benefit of the recipient of
                        (98/C 397/32)                                  the payment, under which the costs entailed are not
                                                                       met, either directly or indirectly, from the public
                                                                       budget but are borne by individual undertakings in a
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 sector, which have a statutory obligation to purchase
European Communities by an order of the High Court of                  at fixed minimum prices, and which are precluded by
Justice (England and Wales), Queen's Bench Division, of                law and circumstance from passing those costs on to
25 August 1998, which was received at the Court Registry               the final consumer?


title: Case C-52/01: Action brought on 5 February 2001 by Commission of the European Communities against TV Internazionale SpA

text:
21.4.2001                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 118/11
      Is Article 3a(1)(e) of the directive to be interpreted as           Action brought on 5 February 2001 by Commission of
      meaning that the information on the identification of the           the European Communities against Beta Television SpA
      competitor must be restricted to the extent absolutely                                    (Videomusic/TMC2)
      necessary and it is therefore not permitted if, in addition
      to the competitor’s name, its company logo (if it exists)
      and its shop are shown?                                                                      (Case C-51/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/17)
(1) OJ 1997 L 290, p. 18.
(2) OJ 1984 L 250, p. 17.                                                 An action against Beta Television SpA (Videomusic/TMC2)
                                                                          was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                          Communities on 5 February 2001 by the Commission of the
                                                                          European Communities, represented by Bernard Mongin,
                                                                          assisted by Massimo Moretto, avvocato.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          —     order the defendant to repay, to the Commission, EUR
Action brought on 5 February 2001 by Commission of                              382 312, together with interest as from 14 July 1999
the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain                           until actual payment;
                                                                          —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                            (Case C-47/01)
                           (2001/C 118/16)                                Pleas in law and main arguments
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before                 The action, brought on the basis of an arbitration clause, seeks
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 Febru-              the repayment of sums of money advanced in the context of
ary 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,                   Contract No 70320, signed on 13 November 1996, in the
represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana, with an address for               context of the 16:9 Action Plan to promote the broadcast of
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la                high-definition television programmes in Europe.
Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                          The beneficiary, within the period laid down in the contract,
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               broadcast only 6 hours and 34 minutes of programmes in
                                                                          16:9 format instead of the 500 hours offered and contracted
                                                                          for. The Commission therefore decided to terminate the
—     declare that, by failing to draw up or, in any event,               contract, governed by Belgian law, for breach of contract by
      communicate to the Commission, the plan, outline or                 the defendant.
      inventory summary required by Articles 4(1) and 11 of
      Council Directive 96/59/EC (1) of 16 September 1996 on
      the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlori-
      nated terphenyls (PCB/PCT), the Kingdom of Spain has
      failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
—     order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.
                                                                          Action brought on 5 February 2001 by Commission of
                                                                          the European Communities against TV Internazionale
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                         SpA
The pleas in law and main arguments relied on are set out in                                       (Case C-52/01)
the application.
                                                                                (2001/C 118/18)
(1) OJ 1996 L 243, p. 31.                                                 An action against TV Internazionale SpA was brought before
                                                                          the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 Febru-
                                                                          ary 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                          represented by Bernard Mongin, assisted by Massimo Moretto,
                                                                          avvocato.
 ---pagebreak--- C 118/12              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      21.4.2001
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  b)   if the answer to question (a) is yes, from what date
                                                                                and on what basis should such interest be calculated?
—     order the defendant to repay, to the Commission, EUR
      263 656 together with interest as from 14 July 1999               2.   On the proper interpretation of Article 1(4) of the Second
      until actual payment;                                                  Motor Insurance Directive, in circumstances where the
                                                                             compensating body itself has an obligation to investigate
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                                  the victim’s injury and loss (and to incur the costs thereof,
                                                                             including the cost of medical and other reports):
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              a)   must the arrangements concerning the provision of
                                                                                compensation by the body include provision for the
The action, brought on the basis of an arbitration clause, seeks                  payment of the costs incurred by a victim in
the repayment of sums of money advanced in the context of                         preparing and making his application to that body
Contract No 70317, signed on 13 November 1996, in the                             for compensation?
context of the 16:9 Action Plan to promote the broadcast of
high-definition television programmes in Europe.                             b)   if the answer to question (a) is yes, on what basis are
                                                                                those costs to be calculated in a case where that
The beneficiary, within the period laid down in the contract,                     body has made an offer to the victim in excess of
broadcast only 43 hours and 20 minutes of programmes in                           the amount that he finally recovers, which offer the
16:9 format instead of the 500 hours offered and contracted                       victim declined to accept?
for. The Commission therefore decided to terminate the
contract, governed by Belgian law, for breach of contract by            3.   On the proper interpretation of Article 1(4) of the Second
the defendant.                                                               Motor Insurance Directive, if the victim’s application for
                                                                             compensation is determined by a body that is not a
                                                                             court, must he have a full right to appeal against that
                                                                             determination to a court, on both the facts and the law,
                                                                             rather than an appeal to an independent arbitrator having
                                                                             the following principal characteristics:
                                                                             i)   the victim may appeal to the arbitrator on both the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of                           facts and the law;
Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division, by
order of that court of 17 May 2000, in the case of
                                                                             ii)  when giving notice of appeal, the victim may make
Samuel Sidney Evans against 1) Secretary of State for the
                                                                                further representations and adduce further evidence
Environment, Transport and the Regions and 2) Motor
                                                                                to the compensating body upon which the compen-
                        Insurers’ Bureau
                                                                                sating body may alter its award prior to the appeal;
                         (Case C-63/01)                                      iii) the victim is provided in advance with a copy of all
                                                                                the material to be provided to the arbitrator and is
                        (2001/C 118/19)                                           given the opportunity to add any material that he
                                                                                wishes in response;
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the High Court of                        iv)  the arbitrator makes an award, without an oral
Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division, of 17 May                      hearing, in which he or she decides what award the
2000, which was received at the Court Registry on 13 February                     compensating body ought to make and gives reasons
2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Samuel Sidney                       for that decision;
Evans against 1) Secretary of State for the Environment,
Transport and the Regions and 2) Motor Insurers’ Bureau, on                  v)   if the victim is dissatisfied, he is entitled to appeal
the following questions:                                                          from the arbitrator to the Courts but he may do so
                                                                                only on the grounds of serious irregularity affecting
1.    On the proper interpretation of Council Directive                           the arbitration or on a question of law (including
      84/5/EEC (1) of 30th December 1983 on the approxi-                          whether there was any evidence to support any
      mation of the laws of the Member States relating to                         particular conclusion of the arbitrator or whether
      insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of                  any particular conclusion was one to which no
      motor vehicles (‘the Second Motor Insurance Directive’):                    arbitrator could reasonably come upon the evi-
                                                                                dence), and in the case of an appeal on a question of
      a)    must the arrangements concerning the provision of                     law, permission to appeal must be obtained from
            compensation by the body established or authorised                    the Court which will not be given unless the decision
            pursuant to Article 1(4) include provision for the                    of the arbitrator is obviously wrong and it is just
            payment of interest on the sums found to be payable                   and proper in all the circumstances for the Court to
            for the damage to property or personal injuries?                      determine the question.


title: Case T-170/02: Action brought on 29 May 2002 by Maria Rosaria Ragazzini against European Parliament

text:
C 202/30               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                    24.8.2002
Action brought on 4 June 2002 by Internationaler Tier-                    According to the applicant, the contested Decision also
schutz-Fonds (IFAW) GmbH against the Commission of                        infringes Article 4 of the Regulation taken as a whole. The
                  the European Communities                                applicant claims that the purpose of the consultation of the
                                                                          German authorities was to enable the Commission to make an
                                                                          assessment whether an exception under Article 4(1) or 4(2)
                         (Case T-168/02)                                  was applicable. However, such an assessment was apparently
                                                                          not made by the Commission. Instead, the Commission
                                                                          indicated that a Member State has the right to veto access to
                         (2002/C 202/49)                                  documents emanating from it, which results, according to the
                                                                          applicant, in a reintroduction of the ‘authorship rule’.
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                          The applicant claims furthermore that the contested Decision
                                                                          does not set out adequate reasons for refusing access and
                                                                          therefore infringes Article 253 of the EC Treaty. There is also
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 no reasoning as to why partial access to the documents was
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                denied.
European Communities on 4 June 2002 by Internationaler
Tierschutz-Fonds (IFAW) GmbH, represented by Scott Crosby,
                                                                          The applicant finally indicates that there is a clear public
Solicitor.
                                                                          interest in the disclosure of those documents since the project
                                                                          leading to the destruction of Mühlenberger Loch was the
                                                                          subject of much public and media comment. Therefore, the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               public should have knowledge of the facts underpinning the
                                                                          Opinion of the Commission authorising the declassification of
—     annul the Decision of the Commission of 26 March 2002               Mühlenberger Loch in order to understand how that accords
      refusing access to the documents held by the Commission             with environmental objectives and principles.
      authored by the German authorities relating to the
      expansion of the existing Daimler Chrysler Aerospace
      GmbH plant on the Elbe in Hamburg for the final                     (1) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and
      assembly of the Airbus A3XX on an area intended for the                 of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to
                                                                              European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ
      Natura 2000 network, as the same were identified in the                 L 145, 31.5.2001 p. 43).
      applicant’s initial application of 20 December 2001 in
      Category B of Annex III to that application;
—     order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Action brought on 29 May 2002 by Maria Rosaria
                                                                                Ragazzini against European Parliament
The applicant sought access to certain documents concerning                                       (Case T-170/02)
the Opinion of the Commission of 19 April 2002 authorising
Germany to declassify the Mühlenberger Loch, an area protect-
ed under Council Directive 92/43/EEC as part of the Natura                                        (2002/C 202/50)
2000 network. The applicant obtained access to part of these
documents. Access to the documents authored by the German                                    (Language of the case: French)
authorities and in the possession of the Commission was,
however, refused by the contested Decision following a request
to that effect made by the German authorities.
                                                                          An action against the European Parliament was brought before
                                                                          the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
The applicant claims that the contested Decision constitutes a            29 May 2002 by Maria Rosaria Ragazzini, residing in Faenza
breach of Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001 (1). According             (Italy), represented by Georges Vandersanden, Laure Levi and
to the applicant, Article 4(5) of the Regulation has been                 Aurore Finchelstein, lawyers.
misinterpreted by the Commission. The applicant claims that,
according to the plain meaning of the words used, a request
by a third party does not place the Commission under                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
an absolute obligation to comply with that request in all
circumstances. The Commission indicated however in its                    —     annul the decision of the appointing authority of 20 Feb-
Decision that Member States have a right of veto under                          ruary 2002 not to grant her the benefit of Article 73 of
Article 4(5) of the Regulation.                                                 the Staff Regulations;
 ---pagebreak--- 24.8.2002              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 202/31
—     order payment of default interest at the rate of 5,75 %            The applicant claims that the Court should:
      with effect from 26 January 1988, the date of the
      accident, on the capital amount payable under Article 73           —      annul the ECB performance appraisal of the applicant for
      of the Staff Regulations;                                                 the year 2001;
—     make an order for damages in the amount of                         —      order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
      EUR 138 358,88 as compensation for the material and
      non-material damage which the contested decision caused
      to the applicant, such amount being provisional, subject
      to increasing it in respect of the material damage, and as
      equitable compensation for the non-material damage;                Pleas in law and main arguments
—     order the defendant to pay all the costs.
                                                                         The applicant, an employee of the defendant, seeks the
                                                                         annulment of his performance appraisal for 2001. He con-
                                                                         siders that appraisal to be an act adversely affecting him
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          because the defendant did not confine itself to appraising his
                                                                         performance. Instead, the defendant based the appraisal on
Following the injuries suffered by the applicant in relation to          factual allegations which the applicant contests and which will
giving birth in 1988, the defendant, first, took the view that           impair his future career development.
the cause of the injuries was not accidental and, secondly,
acknowledged that the applicant was suffering from total
                                                                         The applicant claims that, under the provisions on data
permanent invalidity, rendering it impossible for her to work.
                                                                         protection, the defendant is prohibited from relying on
                                                                         electronically collected data and that that is, in itself, a sufficient
The applicant claims that a new fact has arisen, enabling her            ground for annulment of the appraisal based on that data.
to request afresh that she be accorded the benefit of Article 73         Moreover, the appraisal must be annulled on the ground that
of the Staff Regulations by regarding those injuries as the result       it is based on incorrect factual information.
of an accident. According to the applicant, the findings of the
Medical Committee in 1988 do not reflect her current medical
circumstances, since the sequelae have continued to wreak an
effect and worsened over the years. Furthermore, the com-
mittee did not examine the applicant’s situation with regard to
the medical accident. According to the applicant, since her
injuries were linked to the medical accident, they ought to be
regarded as accidental.
                                                                         Action brought on 13 June 2002 by Neue Erba Lautex
                                                                         GmbH Weberei und Veredlung against the Commission
Accordingly, by deciding to reject the request, the defendant                             of the European Communities
infringed Article 73 of the Staff Regulations and the Rules on
Sickness Insurance for Officials of the European Communities
and, in particular, Articles 12, 14 and 22 thereof. Furthermore,                                  (Case T-181/02)
the applicant alleges breach of the duty to have regard to the
welfare of officials.
                                                                                (2002/C 202/52)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: German)
Action brought on 12 June 2002 by Jan Pflugradt against                  An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                   the European Central Bank                             ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on 13 June
                                                                         2002 by Neue Erba Lautex GmbH Weberei und Veredlung,
                         (Case T-179/02)                                 Neugersdorf (Germany), represented by Professor U. Ehricke,
                                                                         with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                         (2002/C 202/51)
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         —      Annul the Commission Decision (C(2002)944 fin) of
                                                                                12 March 2002 concerning State aid by the Federal
An action against the European Central Bank was brought                         Republic in favour of Neue Erba Lautex GmbH and Erba
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                  Lautex GmbH in liquidation;
on 12 June 2002 by Jan Pflugradt, represented by N. Pflüger,
lawyer.                                                                  —      Order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case T-35/01: Action brought on 16 February 2001 by Shanghai Teraoka Electronic Co. Ltd. against the Council of the European Union

text:
21.4.2001             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 118/41
—     that, in any event, a period of three and a half years            —     Articles 3(2), 3(3), 3(5) and 3(8) of the basic dumping
      elapsed between 1 December 1995, the date on which he                   regulation in determining that the Community industry
      was first found to be suffering from invalidity, and his                has suffered material injury,
      reinstatement in service on 16 June 1999, a fairly long
      period of time during which the applicant’s home in               —     Article 3(6) of the basic dumping regulation in determin-
      Belgium had to be kept up and maintained in order to be                 ing that imports from the targeted countries caused
      ready for use on his return to Belgium. Further, the                    material injury to the Community industry, and
      applicant incurred substantial costs prior to moving to
      Belgium.                                                          —     Articles 20(4), 20(5) and 6(9) of the basic dumping
                                                                              regulation, Article 253 EC as well as the applicant’s right
                                                                              to a fair hearing.
                                                                        (1) OJ L 56 of 6.3.1996, p. 1.
Action brought on 16 February 2001 by Shanghai Teraoka
Electronic Co. Ltd. against the Council of the European
                              Union
                          (Case T-35/01)
                                                                        Action brought on 19 February 2001 by Glaverbel against
                                                                            the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market
                        (2001/C 118/111)
                                                                                (Case T-36/01)
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/112)
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 16 February 2001 by Shanghai Teraoka                                        (Language of the case: English)
Electronic Co. Ltd., a company incorporated under Chinese
Law, represented by Paul Waer, of the Brussels Bar.                     An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
                                                                        Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             European Communities on 19 February 2001 by Glaverbel,
                                                                        established under the laws of Belgium, represented by Susanne
                                                                        Möbus of Müller-Boré & Parnter, Munich (Germany).
—     annul Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2605/2000
      of 27 November 2000 in so far as it imposes an anti-
      dumping duty on Shanghai Teraoka Electronic Co. Ltd.,             The applicant claims that the Court should:
      and;
                                                                        —     annul or alter the decision of the First Board of Appeal of
—     order the Council to pay the costs of the application.                  the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market of
                                                                              30 November 2000 (case R 0137/2000-1);
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         —     order the Office to pay the costs.
The applicant in the present case is a company incorporated
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
under Chinese Law, whose object is to manufacture high
technology products. It claims that, by imposing anti-dumping
duties on imports of certain retail electronic weighing scales          Trade mark concerned:          A design applied to a surface
manufactured and exported by the applicant, the defendant                                              of the goods in accordance with
has infringed various provisions of the Council Regulation                                             Article 63(1), of the regulation on
No 384/96 on protection against dumped imports from                                                    the Community trade mark (Case
countries not members of the European Communities (1) (the                                             R 0137/2000-1).
basic dumping regulation). It is submitted that the Council has
infringed:                                                              Product or service:            Classes 11, 19 and 21.
—     Article 2(7)c of the basic dumping regulation in denying          Challenged        decision     Refusal of registration by the
      that the applicant could be granted market economy                before the Board of            Examiner.
      status,                                                           Appeal:


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Rheinland-Pfalz by order of that court of 15 March 1996 in the case of Bernd von Hoffmann v. Finanzamt Trier (Case C-145/96)

text:
6 . 7 . 96             I EN |                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        No C 197/9
Action brought on 26 April 1996 by the Commission of the                       harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
European Communities against the Federal Republic of                           turnover taxes ( 1 ), to be interpreted as including the services
                                     Germany                                   of an arbitrator ?
                            ( Case C- 1 3 9/96 )
                                ( 96/C 197/ 15                                 (!) OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 ; EE 09 Fl , p . 54 .
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 26 April 1996 by the Commission of the
European Communities, represented by Klaus-Dieter                              Action brought on 2 May 1996 by the Commission of the
Borchardt, of its Legal Service, with an address for service in                European Communities against the Federal Republic of
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gômez de la Cruz, of the                                                      Germany
Legal Service, Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.
                                                                                ( Case C-146/96)
                                                                                ( 96/C 197/17 )
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                               An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
1 . declare that, by failing within the prescribed period to                   brought before the Court of Justice of the European
       adopt the measures necessary in order to comply with                    Communities on 2 May 1996 by the Commission of the
       Directives       93/48/EEC ( 1 ),           93/49/EEC (2 )    and       European Communities, represented by Klaus-Dieter
       93/61 /EEC ( 3 ), the Federal Republic of Germany has                   Borchardt, of its Legal Service, with an address for service in
       failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and                 Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gômez de la Cruz, of the
       under those Directives;                                                  Legal Service, Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.
2 , order the defendant to pay the costs .                                     The applicant claims that the Court should :
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those                       1 , declare that, by failing within the prescribed period to
in Case C-135/96 (4 ); the time-limit for transposition                               adopt the measures necessary in order to comply with
 expired in each case on 31 December 1993 .                                           Council Directive 93/85/EEC of 4 October 1993 on the
                                                                                control of potato ring rot { 1 ), the Federal Republic of
                                                                                Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC
 H     OJ  No L 250 , 7 . 10 .    1993 , p .  1.                                      Treaty and under that Directive;
 (2 )  OJ  No L 250 , 7. 10 .      1993 , p . 9.
 (3 )  OJ  No L 250,  7 . 10 .     1993 , p . 19 .                              2 , order the defendant to pay the costs.
 (4)   OJ  No C 180 ,  22 . 6 .    1996 , p . 23 .
                                                                                The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
                                                                                in Case C-135/96 (2); the time-limit for transposition
                                                                                expired on 15 November 1993 .
                                                                                i 1 ) OJ No L 259 , 18 . 10 . 1993 , p . 1 .
                                                                                ( 2 ) OJ No C 180, 22 . 6 . 1996, p . 23 .
 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
 Rheinland-Pfalz by order of that court of 15 March 1996 in
      the case of Bernd von Hoffmann v. Finanzamt Trier
                              ( Case C-145 /96 )
                                  ( 96/C 197/ 16
                                                                                Action brought on 3 May 1996 by the Kingdom of the
                                                                                Netherlands against the Commission of the European
  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                                       Communities
  European Communities by an order of the Finanzgericht                                                    (Case C-147/96)
  ( Finance Court) Rheinland-Pfalz (Third Senate ) of
                                                                                ( 96/C 197/18 )
  15 March 1996 , which was received at the Court Registry
  on 3 May 1 996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Bernd
  von Hoffmann v . Finanzamt Trier on the following                              An action against the Commission of the European
  question :                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
                                                                                European Communities on 3 May 1996 by the Kingdom of
  Is Article 9 ( 2 ) ( e ) of Title VI ( third group : ' services of             the Netherlands, represented by Marc Fierstra and J. S. van
  consultants, engineers, consultancy bureaux, lawyers,                          den Oosterkamp, acting as agents .
  accountants and other similar services, as well as data
  processing and the supplying of information') of the Sixth                     The applicant claims that the Court should declare void the
   Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the                             Commission's decision communicated in its letter of


title: Case C-181/03 P: Appeal brought on 25 April 2003 by A. Nardone against the judgment delivered on 26 February 2003 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-59/01 between A. Nardone and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
5.7.2003                EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 158/11
Appeal brought on 25 April 2003 by A. Nardone against                    First Instance did not take account of the fact that the applicant
the judgment delivered on 26 February 2003 by the First                  is already entitled to a pension for permanent partial invalidity
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                   which has a clear effect on the calculation of his retirement
Communities in Case T-59/01 between A. Nardone and                       pension.
       the Commission of the European Communities
                         (Case C-181/03 P)
                          (2003/C 158/19)
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 26 February
2003 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance                 Action brought on 5 May 2003 by the Commission of
of the European Communities in Case T-59/01 between                      the European Communities against the Kingdom of the
A. Nardone and the Commission of the European Communi-                                               Netherlands
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 25 April 2003 by A. Nardone, represented
by J.R. Iturriagagoitia and K. Delvolvé, lawyers. The appellant                                    (Case C-189/03)
claims that the Court should:
principally:                                                                                (2003/C 158/20)
—     declare that the appeal is admissible and founded,
—     set aside in its entirety the judgment delivered by the
      Court of First Instance on 26 February 2003 in Case                An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought
      T-59/01;                                                           before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                         5 May 2003 by the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties, represented by W. Wils, acting as Agent.
in the alternative:
—     annul the express decision of the Appointing Authority
      of 15 December 2000 in so far as it rejected the                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
      appellant’s complaint of 23 May 2000 regarding the
      award of an invalidity pension under the second para-              —      Declare that, by laying down, in the framework of the
      graph of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations;                             Law on private security firms and detective agencies,
                                                                                provisions which require that:
—     in so far as is necessary, annul the express decision of the
      Appointing Authority of 20 March 2000 in so far as it
      rejected the appellant’s request of 18 November 1999                      —    an undertaking that wishes to provide services in
      regarding the award of an invalidity pension under the                         the Netherlands must have a permit, without taking
      second paragraph of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations;                       into account the obligations which the foreign
                                                                                service provider must already satisfy in the Member
                                                                                State where it is established, and by charging fees
in any event:                                                                        for this permit;
—     make an order as to costs in accordance with the
      applicable provisions of the Rules of Procedure.                          —    managers of these security firms have a permit for
                                                                                which a charge is also made;
                                                                                —    staff have a diploma issued by a Netherlands organis-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                      ation, and that installers of alarms have professional
                                                                                qualifications without taking into account qualifi-
                                                                                cations obtained in another Member State; the
The appellant disputes the finding of the Court of First Instance                    Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its
that he did not meet the cumulative conditions required under                        obligations under Article 49 EC and Directives 89/
Article 13 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations in order to be                     49/EEC ( 1) and 92/51/EEC (2) on the general system
entitled to an invalidity pension. First, he could not claim his                     for the recognition of professional qualifications.
entitlement in 1981, when he resigned, because he was
unaware of his state of health owing to the progressive and
degenerative nature of his condition. Secondly, the Court of             —      Order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.


title: Case C-18/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 16 January 2014 — CO Sociedad de Gestion y Participación SA and Others v De Nederlandsche Bank NV, De Nederlandsche Bank NV v CO Sociedad de Gestion y Participación SA and Others

text:
               14.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/24

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 16 January 2014 — CO Sociedad de Gestion y Participación SA and Others v De Nederlandsche Bank NV, De Nederlandsche Bank NV v CO Sociedad de Gestion y Participación SA and Others
   (Case C-18/14)
   2014/C 112/29
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants CO Sociedad de Gestion y Participación SA, Depsa 96 SA, INOC SA, Corporación Catalana Occidente SA, La Previsión 96 SA, Grupo Catalana Occidente SA, Grupo Compañia Española de Crédito y Caución SL, Atradius NV, Atradius Insurance Holding NV, J.M. Serra Farré, M.A. Serra Farré, J. Serra Farré

      Respondent: De Nederlandsche Bank NV
   and

      Appellant: De Nederlandsche Bank NV

      Respondents: CO Sociedad de Gestion y Participación SA, Depsa 96 SA, INOC SA, Corporación Catalana Occidente SA, La Previsión 96 SA, Grupo Catalana Occidente SA, Grupo Compañia Española de Crédito y Caución SL, Atradius NV, Atradius Insurance Holding NV, J.M. Serra Farré, M.A. Serra Farré, J. Serra Farré

      Questions referred

               1.

               If the competent authority explicitly approves a proposed acquisition as referred to in Article 15a of the Antonveneta Directive, (1) is it permitted to impose limitations or conditions on such approval under national law? Does it make a difference in this regard whether such limitations or conditions are based on previous commitments given by the proposed acquirer, as referred to in recital 3 in the preamble to the Directive?

               2.

               If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, must the limitations or conditions imposed by the competent authority be necessary in the sense that, were they not to be imposed, the competent authority would find it necessary to oppose the proposed acquisition in the light of the assessment based on the criteria laid down in Article 15b(1) of the Antonveneta Directive?

               3.

               If it is permissible to impose limitations or conditions, does Article 15b(1) of the Directive provide a basis for the competent authority to lay down requirements for the acquisition in regard to the ‘corporate governance’ of the undertaking the acquisition of which is proposed, such as a two-tier supervisory board structure?

      (1)  Directive 2007/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 amending Council Directive 92/49/EEC and Directives 2002/83/EC, 2004/39/EC, 2005/68/EC and 2006/48/EC as regards procedural rules and evaluation criteria for the prudential assessment of acquisitions and increase of holdings in the financial sector (OJ 2007 L 247, p. 1).
   * NB. It is probable that the case concerns Articles 15a and 15b of Directives 92/49/EEC (OJ 1992 L 228, p. 1) and 2002/83/EC (OJ 2002 L 345, p. 1) rather than any corresponding provisions of Directive 2007/44/EC.