title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 29 November 2000 in Case T-213/97: Committee of the Cotton and Allied Textile Industries of the European Union (Eurocoton) and Others v Council of the European Union (Dumping — Failure by the Council to adopt definitive duties — Action for annulment — Actionable measure — Action for damages)

text:
24.3.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 95/9
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              1.     Dismisses the application.
                                                                         2.     Orders the applicants to pay all the costs and the United
                                                                                Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own
                     of 29 November 2000                                        costs.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 318 of 18.10.97.
in Case T-213/97: Committee of the Cotton and Allied
Textile Industries of the European Union (Eurocoton) and
         Others v Council of the European Union (1)
(Dumping — Failure by the Council to adopt definitive
duties — Action for annulment — Actionable measure —
                      Action for damages)                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 8 November 2000
                         (2001/C 95/15)
                                                                         in Case T-158/98: Bernard Beyt and Others v Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities (1)
                                                                         (Officials — Temporary agents — Posting in a third country
                   (Language of the case: English)                       — Remuneration — Fixing of a weighting specific to Naka
                                                                           (Japan) — Retroactive effect — Recovery of overpayment)
In Case T-213/97: Committee of the Cotton and Allied Textile                                        (2001/C 95/16)
Industries of the European Union (Eurocoton), established in
Brussels, Belgium, Ettlin Gesellschaft für Spinnerei und Webe-
rei AG, established in Ettlingen, Germany, Textil Hof Weberei                                (Language of the case: French)
GmbH & Co. KG, established in Hof, Germany, H. Hecking
Söhne GmbH & Co., established in Stadtlohn, Germany,
Spinnweberei Uhingen GmbH, established in Uhingen, Germ-                 In Case T-158/98: Bernard Bareyt, Ivone Benfatto, Denis
any, F.A. Kümpers GmbH & Co., established in Rheine,                     Bessette, Giuliano Dalle Carbonare, Enrico Di Pietro, Barry
Germany, Tenthorey SA, established in Éloyes, France, Les               John Green, Remmelt Haange, Michel Huguet, Marcus Iseli,
Tissages des Héritiers de G. Perrin — Groupe Alain Thirion               Cornelis Jorg, Neil Mitchell, Pier Luigi Mondino, Alfredo
(HPG-GAT Tissages), established in Cornimont, France, Établis-          Portone, Carlo Sborchia, Alessandro Tesini, Mike Michael
sements des Fils de Victor Perrin SARL, established in Thiéfosse,        Wykes, temporary agents of the Commission of the European
France, Filatures et Tissages de Saulxures-sur-Moselotte, estab-         Communities, all residing in Naka (Japan), represented by
lished in Saulxures-sur-Moselotte, France, Tissage Mouline               Nicolas Lhoëst, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
Thillot, established in Thillot, France, Tessival SpA, established       in Luxembourg at Fiduciaire Becker and Cahen, 3 Rue des
in Azzano S. Paolo, Italy, Filature Niggeler & Küpfer SpA,               Foyers, against the Commission of the European Communities
established in Capriolo, Italy and Standardtela SpA, established         (Agents: G. Valsesia and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart), supported by
in Milan, Italy, represented by C. Stanbrook, QC, and A. Dash-           Council of the European Union (Agents: C. Strömholm and
wood, Barrister, with an address for service in Luxembourg at            T. Blanchet) — application for annulment of all the salary slips
the Chambers of A. Kronshagen, 12 Boulevard de la Foire,                 of the applicants from November 1997 in so far as they apply
against Council of the European Union (Agents: M.A. Santa-               the specific weighting fixed for Naka by Council Regulation
cruz, A. Tanca and S. Marquardt, H.-J. Rabe and G.M. Berrisch),          (ECSC, EC, Euratom) No 1785/97 of 11 September 1997
supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern                laying down the weightings applicable from 1 January 1997
Ireland, (Agent: J.E. Collins) — application for annulment of            to the remuneration of officials of the European Communities
the Council’s ‘decision’ not to adopt the proposal for a                 serving in third countries (OJ 1997 L 254, p. 1), and for an
regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports            order requiring the Commission to repay to the applicants the
of unbleached (grey) cotton fabrics originating in the People’s          amounts withheld from their salary with effect from June
Republic of China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Pakistan and                 1996 by way of recovery of amounts overpaid and to pay
Turkey, (COM(97) 160 final, of 21 April 1997) and for                    them the difference between the salary calculated on the basis
compensation for the damage suffered as a result of that                 of the weighting for Tokyo (Japan) and that paid to them as
‘decision’ — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber,                from November 1997 on the basis of the specific weighting
Extended Composition), composed of: J. Pirrung, President,               — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of
J. Azizi, A. Potocki, M. Jaeger and A.W.H. Meij, Judges;                 J. Pirrung, President, J. Azizi and A. Potocki, Judges; G. Herzig,
G. Herzig, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a                 administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 8 Novem-
judgment on 29 November 2000, in which it:                               ber 2000, in which it:


title: Case C-205/09: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Városi Bíróság (Hungary)) — Criminal proceedings against Emil Eredics, Mária Vassné Sápi (Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA — Standing of victims in criminal proceedings — Meaning of victim — Legal persons — Mediation in criminal proceedings — Detailed rules of application)

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/14

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Városi Bíróság (Hungary)) — Criminal proceedings against Emil Eredics, Mária Vassné Sápi
   (Case C-205/09) (1)

   (Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA - Standing of victims in criminal proceedings - Meaning of ‘victim’ - Legal persons - Mediation in criminal proceedings - Detailed rules of application)
   2010/C 346/23
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Szombathelyi Városi Bíróság

      Parties in the main proceedings

   Emil Eredics, Mária Vassné Sápi

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Szombathelyi Városi Bíróság — Interpretation of Article 1(a) and Article 10 of Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings — Criminal proceedings in which the victim is a legal person and in which mediation in criminal cases is excluded by national law — Concept of ‘victim’ in the framework decision — Inclusion, as regards the provisions on mediation in criminal cases, of persons other than natural persons? — Conditions for the application of mediation in criminal proceedings

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court hereby rules:

               1.

               Articles 1(a) and 10 of Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘victim’ does not extend to legal persons for the purposes of the promotion of mediation in criminal proceedings in Article 10(1).

               2.

               Article 10 of the Framework Decision 2001/220 must be interpreted as not requiring Member States to make recourse to mediation possible for all offences the substantive components of which, as defined by national legislation, correspond essentially to those of offences for which mediation is expressly provided by that legislation.

      (1)  OJ 2009 C 205, 29.08.2009.


title: Case C-11/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Raad van State, Afdeling Administratie by order of that Court of 9 December 2002 in the case of NV Boss Pharma against Belgian State, represented by the Minister for Economic Affairs

text:
8.3.2003               EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 55/15
Action brought on 10 January 2003 by the Commission                    products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of
of the European Communities against the Grand-Duchy                    national health insurance systems, under which a decision of
                         of Luxembourg                                 the competent national authority refusing permission to
                                                                       market a medicinal product at the price proposed by the
                           (Case C-9/03)                               applicant must contain a statement of reasons ‘based on
                                                                       objective and verifiable criteria’, mean that the competent
                         (2003/C 55/25)                                authority under domestic Belgian legislation must lay down in
                                                                       advance by way of a generally applicable provision the criteria
                                                                       to be taken into consideration by the authority ruling on the
An action against the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg was                    individual application, or is the decision-making authority
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-           permitted to state in each individual decision the objective and
                                                                       verifiable criteria on which it based its refusal, in that case, to
ties on 10 January 2003 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by D. Martin and M. França, acting            grant the application, or is it sufficient for the authority to
                                                                       provide a formal statement of the reasons for its individual
as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                       decision by citing actual evidence from the file and for the
                                                                       courts then to review whether that evidence constitutes an
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                 objective and verifiable criterion?
the Court should:
—     Declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws,
                                                                       (1 ) OJ L 40 of 11.02.1989, p. 8.
      regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
      comply with Directive 98/27/EC of the European Parlia-
      ment and of the Council of 19 May 1998 on injunctions
      for the protection of consumers’ interests (1), the Grand-
      Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations
      under that directive;
—     Order the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
                                                                       Action brought on 14 January 2003 by the Commission
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        of the European Communities against the Republic of
                                                                                Austria
The period for transposition laid down in Article 8 of the
directive expired on 1 January 2001.
                                                                                (Case C-15/03)
( 1) OJ 1998 L 166, p. 51.
                                                                                (2003/C 55/27)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Raad van                     An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
State, Afdeling Administratie by order of that Court of                before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
9 December 2002 in the case of NV Boss Pharma against                  on 14 January 2003 by the Commission of the European
Belgian State, represented by the Minister for Economic                Communities, represented by Dr Jürgen Grunwald, legal
                              Affairs                                  adviser of the European Commission and Minas Konstantinidis,
                                                                       of its legal service, with an address for service at the office of
                                                                       Luis Escobar Guerrero, of the Commission’s legal service,
                          (Case C-11/03)
                                                                       Wagner Centre C 254, Luxembourg-Kirchberg.
                         (2003/C 55/26)
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Raad van State,                   1.    Declare that the Republic of Austria has infringed its
Afdeling Administratie (Council of State, Administrative Div-                obligations under Article 3(1) of Council Directive 75/
ision) of 9 December 2002, received at the Court Registry on                 439/EEC of 16 June 1975 on the disposal of waste oils (1)
13 January 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of NV                  by failing to take the legal and practical measures
Boss Pharma against Belgian State, represented by the Minister               necessary to ensure that priority is given to the treatment
for Economic Affairs on the following question:                              by way of regeneration of waste oils, so long as that is
                                                                             not precluded by technical, financial and organisational
                                                                             constraints.
On a proper interpretation, does Article 2(2) of Council
Directive 89/105/EEC (1) of 21 December 1988 relating to the
transparency of measures regulating the prices of medicinal            2.    Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.


title: Case F-108/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 13 December 2007 — Basili v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Assessment — Career development report — Assessment year 2004 — Action for annulment — Staff representatives — Opinion of the ad hoc working party)

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/54

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 13 December 2007 — Basili v Commission
   (Case F-108/06) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Assessment - Career development report - Assessment year 2004 - Action for annulment - Staff representatives - Opinion of the ad hoc working party)
   (2008/C 22/103)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Tamara Diomede Basili (Brussels, Belgium) (represented: initially by T. Bontinck and J. Feld, lawyers, then by T. Bontinck, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Martin and H. Kraemer, agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of the career development report notified to the applicant on 10 November 2005, in so far as it did not take into account the opinion of the ‘ad hoc working party and the staff representatives' suggestions for promotion’.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 261 of 28.10.2006, p. 37.


title: Case T-156/05: Action brought on 18 April 2005 by Dimitra Lantzoni against the Court of Justice of the European Communities

text:
               25.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/27

         Action brought on 18 April 2005 by Dimitra Lantzoni against the Court of Justice of the European Communities
   (Case T-156/05)
   (2005/C 155/52)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Court of Justice of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 18 April 2005 by Dimitra Lantzoni, residing in Luxembourg, represented by Michèle Bouché, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               annul the decision of the Complaints Committee of 8 March 2005 in so far as it rejects the applicant's two complaints of 22 September 2004 directed respectively against the distribution of promotion points to which she was subject for 2002 and against her non-promotion under the 2003 promotion procedure;

               2.

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In November 2003, the applicant, an official of the defendant, was informed that she had not been awarded any promotion points. She challenged that decision on the ground that her periodic report was not yet final when the promotion points were awarded. Following that challenge and the improvement of her report by the appeal assessor, the applicant's immediate superior reviewed her case in the light of her final report but again decided not to award her any promotion points for 2002. By her action, the applicant contests both the latter decision and the decision not to promote her under the 2003 procedure.
   In support of her action, the applicant alleges manifest error of assessment on the basis of an alleged lack of consistency between the decision not to award her any promotion points and the assessments and findings contained in her periodic report. She also claims that the defendant compared her merits not with those of all the officials of the institution who were eligible for the same promotion, but only with those of the other officials in her unit, in contravention both of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and of point 8 of the Annex to the Decision of the Court of Justice relating to promotions. In addition, she alleges irregularities in the opinion of the Promotion Committee, namely failure to observe the audi alteram partem rule and the rights of the defence.
   As regards the challenging of the decision not to promote her, the applicant maintains that her periodic report does not in any way justify blocking her career, particularly since the criticisms made of her in her periodic reports are vague and unsubstantiated.


title: Case T-395/08: Action brought on 22 September 2008 — Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli v OHIM (Shape of a chocolate rabbit)

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/37

         Action brought on 22 September 2008 — Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli v OHIM (Shape of a chocolate rabbit)
   (Case T-395/08)
   (2008/C 313/68)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG (Kilchberg, Switzerland) (represented by R. Lange, E. Schalast and G. Hild, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 July 2008 (Case No R 419/2008-4);

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: the three-dimensional mark in the form of a chocolate rabbit for goods in Class 30 — Application No 3 664 372

      Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: The mark applied for is unusual, has the function of indicating origin and has the necessary distinctive character.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 November 2004 in Case C-482/03: Commission of the European Communities v Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2001/14/EC — The Community's railways — Allocation of infrastructure capacity, the levying of charges for the use of infrastructure and safety certification — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               8.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/16

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Sixth Chamber)
   of 18 November 2004
   in Case C-482/03: Commission of the European Communities v Ireland (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2001/14/EC - The Community's railways - Allocation of infrastructure capacity, the levying of charges for the use of infrastructure and safety certification - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2005/C 6/30)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case C-482/03: action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 19 November 2003, between Commission of the European Communities (Agent: W. Wils) and Ireland (Agents: D. O'Hagan and D. Moloney, BL) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber, S. von Bahr and U. Lõhmus (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 November 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders Ireland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 7 of 10.1.2004.


title: Case C-160/03: Action brought on 8 April 2003 by the Kingdom of Spain against Eurojust

text:
24.5.2003                EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 124/15
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                                     —    call for applications for the position of Secretary to
                                                                                the General Administration. Ref.: 03/EJ/14 (2003/
1)    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations                        C 34 A/08) OJ C 34 A of 13.2.2003;
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      Council Directive 1999/36/EC of 29 April 1999 on
      transportable pressure equipment ( 1) and Commission                      —    call for applications for the position of Librarian/
      Directive 2001/2/EC of 4 January 2001 adapting the                             Archivist. Ref.: 03/EJ/12 (2003/C 34 A/06) OJ C 34
      latter directive to technical progress ( 2), or in any event                   A of 13.2.2003;
      by failing to notify those provisions to it, Ireland has
      failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directives;
                                                                                —    call for applications for the position of Accounting
2)    order Ireland to pay the costs of this action.
                                                                                officer. Ref.: 03/EJ/08 (2003/C 34 A/02) OJ C 34 A
                                                                                of 13.2.2003;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                —    call for applications for the position of IT-informa-
                                                                                tics expert (webmaster) of the European judicial
Article 249 EC, under which a directive shall be binding, as to
                                                                                network. Ref.: 03/EJ/09 (2003/C 34 A/03) OJ C 34
the result to be achieved, upon each Member State, carries by                        A of 13.2.2003,
implication an obligation on the Member States to observe the
period for compliance laid down in the directive. That period
expired on 1 December 2000 and 1 July 2001 respectively                         the paragraph referring to the documents to be submitted
without Ireland having enacted the provisions necessary to                      in English by applicants submitting their application in
comply with the directives referred to in the conclusions of                    another language; and the paragraphs relating to the
the Commission.                                                                 linguistic knowledge required of candidates, from each of
                                                                                the calls for applications set out below:
( 1) OJ L 138, 1.6.1999, p. 20.
( 2) OJ L 005, 10.1.2001, p. 4.
                                                                                —    in the call for applications for the position of Data-
                                                                                protection officer, as condition No 17: ‘Excellent
                                                                                knowledge of English and French. Ability to work in
                                                                                other European Union languages would be an asset’.
Action brought on 8 April 2003 by the Kingdom of Spain                          —    in the call for applications for the position of Law
                           against Eurojust                                          officer, as condition No 19: ‘Excellent knowledge of
                                                                                English and French. Ability to work in other Euro-
                           (Case C-160/03)                                           pean Union languages would be an asset’.
                           (2003/C 124/25)
                                                                                —    in the call for applications for the position of Press
                                                                                officer, as condition No 12: ‘Ability to speak at least
                                                                                English and French. Knowledge of other official
An action against Eurojust was brought before the Court of                           European Union languages would be an asset’.
Justice of the European Communities on 8 April 2003 by the
Kingdom of Spain, represented by L. Fraguas Gadea, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.                                              —    in the call for applications for the position of
                                                                                Secretary to the General Administration, as con-
                                                                                dition No 9: ‘Thorough knowledge of English and
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                French would be an asset, as well as a satisfactory
                                                                                knowledge of other Community languages’.
1.    annul, in the following calls for applications:
      —     call for applications for the position of Data-
            protection officer. Ref.: 03/EJ/07 (2003/C 34 A/01)                 —    in the call for applications for the position of IT-
            OJ C 34 A of 13.2.2003;                                                  informatics expert (webmaster) of the European
                                                                                judicial network, as condition No 6: ‘Good know-
      —     call for applications for the position of Legal officer.                 ledge of English is essential; in particular, the ability
            Ref.: 03/EJ/11 (2003/C 34 A/05) OJ C 34 A of                             to speak at least two additional official European
            13.2.2003;                                                               Community languages, including French, would be
                                                                                an asset’.
      —     call for applications for the position of Press officer.
            Ref.: 03/EJ/13 (2003/C 34 A/07) OJ C 34 A of
            13.2.2003;                                                     2.   order the defendant body to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 124/16                 EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                        24.5.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            represented by Dr Ulrich Wölker, Commission Legal Adviser,
                                                                           and Florence Simonetti, a national civil servant available to the
—     Breach of the Staff Regulations and of the Conditions                Commission Legal Service under an exchange scheme, with an
      of Employment of Other Servants of the European                      address for service in Luxembourg.
      Communities
      According to Article 30 of Council Decision 2002/                    The Commission claims that the Court should:
      187/JHA of 28 February 2002 establishing Eurojust to
      strengthen the fight against serious forms of crime ( 1),            1.    declare that, by failing to adopt, or to communicate to
      Eurojust staff are to be subject to the rules and regulations              the Commission, the laws, regulations and administrative
      applicable to the officials and other servants of the                      provisions necessary in order to implement Council
      European Communities.                                                      Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive
                                                                                85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain
      Under Article 12 of the Conditions of Employment,                          public and private projects on the environment (1) in the
      candidates are only required to have a thorough know-                      provinces of Burgenland and Salzburg, the Republic of
      ledge of one language and a satisfactory knowledge of                      Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
      another.                                                                   directive;
—     Breach of the linguistic rules of Eurojust                           2.    order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.
      Article 31 of Council Decision 2002/187/JHA provides
      that the official linguistic arrangements of the Union are
      to apply to Eurojust proceedings. No provision of the                Pleas in law and main arguments
      decision expressly states that the working languages of
      Eurojust are to be English and French.                               In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 EC,
                                                                           which provides that a directive is binding as to the result to be
—     Breach of the principle of non-discrimination                        achieved upon each Member State, the Member States are
      The requirement that part of the documents to be                     obliged to comply with the time-limit for implementation laid
      submitted should be drawn up in English and, most of                 down in directives. The period for implementation laid down
      all, the requirement of excellent knowledge of English               in Article 3(1) of Directive 97/11/EC expired on 14 March
      and French amounts to clear discrimination grounds of                1999 without the Republic of Austria having adopted the
      nationality, prohibited by Article 12 EC.                            necessary provisions for the provinces of Burgenland and
                                                                           Salzburg.
( 1) OJ 2002 L 63, p. 1.
                                                                           (1 ) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.
Action brought on 9 April 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Republic of                                Removal from the register of Case C-107/02 ( 1)
                              Austria
                                                                                (2003/C 124/27)
                          (Case C-164/03)
                          (2003/C 124/26)                                  By order of 4 March 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                           of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
                                                                           register of Case C-107/02: Commission of the European
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before               Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 April
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,                        (1 ) OJ C 191 of 10.08.2002.


title: Case T-333/02: Action brought on 31 October 2002 by the Gestoras Pro Amnistía association, Juan Mari Olano Olano and Julen Zelarain Errasti against Council of the European Union

text:
C 19/36                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Communities                                     25.1.2003
President of the Court of First Instance made an order on                     In that regard, the applicant takes the view that, having failed
17 October 2002, the operative part of which is as follows:                   to adopt general rules authorising the reversal of management
                                                                              duties, the Secretary General improperly adopted the contested
                                                                              decision. The duties actually carried out by the applicant since
1.    The application for interim relief is rejected.                         the adoption of that decision are moreover manifestly inferior
                                                                              to those normally carried out by an official in Grade A 3.
2.    Costs are reserved.
                                                                              Action brought on 31 October 2002 by the Gestoras Pro
Action brought on 14 October 2002 by Michel Soubies                           Amnistía association, Juan Mari Olano Olano and Julen
    against Commission of the European Communities                              Zelarain Errasti against Council of the European Union
                          (Case T-325/02)                                                             (Case T-333/02)
                          (2003/C 19/69)                                                               (2003/C 19/70)
                    (Language of the case: French)                                               (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                     An action against the Council of the European Union was
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                    brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
European Communities on 14 October 2002 by Michel                             Communities on 31 October 2002 by the Gestoras Pro
Soubies, residing in Brussels, represented by Albert Coolen,                  Amnistía association, whose offices are in Hernani (Spain),
Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, avocats.                                 Juan Mari Olano Olano, residing in Gainza (Spain), and Julen
                                                                              Zelarain Errasti, residing in San Sebastián (Spain), represented
                                                                              by Didier Rouget, lawyer.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                              The applicants claim that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of 26 November 2001 of the Secretary
      General of the Commission posting the applicant, as A
                                                                              —     order the defendant to pay compensation amounting to
      3 adviser ad personam, to Unit SG/F.2 ‘Institutional
                                                                                EUR 1 000 000 to the Gestoras Pro Amnistía association
      matters’;
                                                                                and EUR 100 000 to each of the other two applicants,
                                                                                Juan Mari Olano Olano and Julen Zelarain Errasti;
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                              —     find that those amounts give rise to default interest at the
                                                                                rate of 4.5 % per annum with effect from the date of the
                                                                                judgment of the Court of First Instance and until actual
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                     payment is effected;
                                                                              —     order the defendant to bear its own costs and to pay
The applicant, an official in Grade A 3, is challenging the                         those incurred by the applicants.
decision of the appointing authority to appoint him adviser ad
personam in Unit SG/F.2 ‘Institutional matters’, where the
head of unit was appointed in Grade A 5.
                                                                              Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of his claims, he alleges:
                                                                              The Gestoras Pro Amnistía association and two representatives
—     breach of the obligation to state reasons;                              are seeking compensation for the damage allegedly suffered as
                                                                              a result of the abovementioned association’s name having been
—     breach of the procedure for filling middle-management                   included in the list of terrorist persons, groups and bodies,
      posts, infringement of Articles 4, 5, 27 and 29 of the                  pursuant to Common Position 2001/931/CFSP ( 1), adopted on
      Staff Regulations and breach of the principles of good                  27 December 2001, confirmed by Council Common Position
      management and sound administration and of the prin-                    2002/340/CFSP (2), adopted on 2 May 2001, and Council
      ciple that officials should have reasonable career pros-                Common Position 2002/940/CFSP (3), adopted on 17 June
      pects.                                                                  2002.
 ---pagebreak--- 25.1.2003               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 19/37
The pleas in law and main arguments put forward are identical              Pleas in law and main arguments
to those in Case T-338/02.
                                                                           The pleas in law submitted are identical to those in Case
( 1) Common Position 2001/931/CFSP of 27 December 2001 on the              T-326/02.
     application of specific measures to combat terrorism, OJ L 344,
     of 28.12.2001, p. 93.
( 2) Council Common Position of 2 May 2002 updating Common
     Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures
     to combat terrorism, OJ L 116, of 3.5.2002, p. 75.
( 3) Council Common Position of 17 June 2002 updating Common
     Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures
     to combat terrorism and repealing Common Position 2002/340/
     CFSP, OJ L 160, of 18.6.2002, p. 32.
                                                                           Action brought on 8 November 2002 by Metro-Goldwin-
                                                                           Mayer Lion Corporation against the Office for Harmon-
                                                                                ization in the Internal Market
                                                                                (Case T-342/02)
Action brought on 13 November 2002 by B.V. Bureau                                                   (2003/C 19/72)
Wijsmuller Scheepvaart-Transport en Zeesleepvaart
Maatschappij against the Commission of the European
                             Communities                                                      (Language of the case: English)
                           (Case T-340/02)
                                                                           An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
                            (2003/C 19/71)                                 Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 8 November 2002 by Metro-
                                                                           Goldwin-Mayer Lion Corporation, Santa Monica, California
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)                         (United States of America), represented by Fernand de Visscher,
                                                                           Emmanuel Cornu, Eric De Gryse, Donatienne Moreau, avocats.
                                                                           A further party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
                                                                           was Moser Grupo Media, S.L., Santa Eulalia Del Rio (Baleares -
                                                                           Spain).
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 13 November 2002 by B.V.
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
Bureau Wijsmuller Scheepvaart-Transport en Zeesleepvaart
Maatschappij, with its registered office in IJsmuiden (Nether-
lands), represented by M.J.J.M. Essers.                                    —     uphold the claim for annulment;
                                                                           —     annul the Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                      5 September 2002;
(1) Primarily, annul the Commission’s decision of 19 June                  —     confirm the decision of the Opposition Division of
       2002 (C(2002) 2158 final) concerning State aid provided                   19 February 2001 insofar as it upholds the Opposition
       by the Netherlands for the activities of Netherlands                      number B 47730 for all the contested goods and services
       tugboats operating within seaports and on inland water-                   and rejects application for registration no 409664 in its
       ways of the Community;                                                    entirety on the basis of applicant’s national registrations
                                                                                of the trademark ‘MGM’;
(2) In the alternative, annul Articles 2 and 3 of the contested
       Commission decision, in which the Commission requires               —     annul the decision of the Opposition Division of 19 Feb-
       the Netherlands Government inter alia to adopt all                        ruary 2001 insofar as it does not admit as ground for
       measures necessary to recover the aid from recipients,                    rejection applicant’s CTM no 141820 of the trademark
       with the exception of that aid which was granted prior to                 ‘MGM’ or, in subsidiary order, insofar as it does not admit
       12 September 1990;                                                        as ground for rejection the earlier national trade mark
                                                                                registrations in Austria, Greece and the United Kingdom;
(3) Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceed-
       ings.                                                               —     condemn the Office to the costs of the proceedings.


title: Action brought on 30 June 1997 by Jean-François Aguinaga and others against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-199/97)

text:
C 271 /20             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   6 . 9 . 97
meeting at which the measures proposed by the                           The applicants are of the view that they are representative
Commission's services were discussed and, presumably,                   organizations and recognized workers' representatives for
voted on indicates that those present included not only                 the purposes of French law and, accordingly, able to
representatives of the Ministries but also representatives of           defend the interests of the undertaking's workers.
research institutes with an interest in receiving financing.
                                                                        They maintain that the contested decision is vitiated by a
O OJ L 334, 22 . 12 . 1994, p . 59 .
                                                                        defective statement of reasons, inadequate description, an
                                                                        error of fact and by misuse of powers, inasmuch as they
                                                                        describe the payments as aid and, in the alternative,
                                                                        inasmuch as they describe them as aid as a whole and
                                                                        without distinction .
Action brought on 24 June 1997 by Comité d'Entreprise                   The decision does not provide an adequate statement of
de la Société Française de Production and Others against                reasons or grounds as regards trade between Member
       the Commission of the European Communities                       States being affected within the meaning of Article 92 ( 1 )
                         ( Case T-l 89/97)                              of the EC Treaty.
                           ( 97/C 271 /32 )
                                                                        In the alternative and in the event that the description as
                                                                        aid is upheld, the applicants claim that it is very difficult
                (Language of the case: French)                          to read the contested decision with respect to whether, in
                                                                        the light of Article 92 ( 3 ) ( c ) of the EC Treaty, the
                                                                        payments in issue are lawful, since most of its reasons are
An action against the Commission of the European                        considered to be confidential . With regard to whether, in
Communities was brought before the Court of First                       the light of Article 92 ( 3 ) ( d ) of the EC Treaty, the
Instance of the European Communities on 24 June 1997                    payments in issue are lawful, the decision is contradictory
by the Comite d'Entreprise de la Societe Fran^aise de                   and again gives an inadequate statement of reasons .
Production, whose registered office is at Bry-sur-Marne
( France ), the Syndicat National de Radio-Diffusion et de
Television SNRT-CGT, the Syndicat Unifie de Radio et de                 Finally, the applicants state that the contested decision is
Television SURT-CFDT, the Syndicat National Force                       based exclusively on criteria of an economic nature
Ouvriere de Radio-Diffusion et de Television and the                    comparing operating costs without taking account of the
Syndicat National de l'Encadrement Audiovisuel SNEA                    social and cultural impact of the decisions taken.
CFE-CGC, all having their registered offices in Paris,                  According to the case-law of the Court, the Commission
represented by Helene Masse-Dessen, Avocat at the                       should have, at the very least, examined such criteria .
Conseil d'Etat and at the Cour de Cassation, Paris, with
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                 (') OJ L 95 , 10 . 4 . 1997, p . 19 .
Guy Thomas, 77 Boulevard de la Grande-Duchesse
Charlotte .
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        Action brought on 30 June 1997 by Jean-Francois
— annul the contested decision,                                         Aguinaga and others against the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
— order the Commission to pay the costs and, pursuant                                              ( Case T-199/97 )
     to Article 87 ( 3 ) and 91b of the Rules of Procedure,                                           97/C 271 /33 )
     order it to pay each of the applicants the equivalent of
     ECU 20 000 in French francs .
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities was brought before the Court of First
The     contested     decision       declared    unlawful     and       Instance of the European Communities on 30 June 1997
incompatible with the common market aid amounting to                    by Jean-Francois Aguinaga, residing in Brussels, Robert
FF 1,110 billion, granted during the period from 1993 to                Donkers, residing at Hoeilaart ( Belgium ) and Patricia
1996 to the Societe de Production Audiovisuelle, a French               Mauguin, residing in Brussels, represented by Nicolas
production company, on the ground that it was allocated                 Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
in breach of the procedure provided for in Article 93 ( 3 )             Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30
of the EC Treaty (').                                                   Rue de Cessange .
 ---pagebreak--- 6 . 9 . 97            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 271 /21
The applicants claim that the Court should :                              temporary staff contracts falling under Article 2 (a ) of
                                                                          the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants to a
— declare the Commission's decision of 18 March 1992
                                                                          maximum duration of three years, with a possibility of
     enabling the contracts of members of the temporary                   extension for a maximum of one year,
     staff to be extended by a two-year period applicable to
     the applicants,
                                                                     — order the Commission to pay the costs .
— annul the Commission's decisions of 26 August 1996
     expressly rejecting the applicants' requests that they be
     able to benefit from a possible extension of their
     contracts up to a total of 5 years,                             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
— so far as necessary, annul the Commission's decisions
                                                                     The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
     expressly rejecting the applicants' complaints,                 in Case T- 185/97 (').
— declare       the   Commission     decision    adopted    on
      13 November 1996 unlawful in so far as it limited all          (') OJ C 252, 16 . 8 . 1997, p . 37.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 October 2004 in Case C-164/01 P G. van den Berg v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Action for damages — Non-contractual liability — Milk — Additional levy — Reference quantity — Producers having entered into a non-marketing undertaking — SLOM producers — Change of holding — Refusal to grant a special reference quantity)

text:
               22.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/1

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 28 October 2004
   in Case C-164/01 P G. van den Berg v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Action for damages - Non-contractual liability - Milk - Additional levy - Reference quantity - Producers having entered into a non-marketing undertaking - SLOM producers - Change of holding - Refusal to grant a special reference quantity)
   (2005/C 19/01)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   In Case C-164/01 P: appeal under Article 49 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice brought on 13 April 2001 by G. van den Berg, residing in Dalfsen (Netherlands) (avocat: E.H. Pijnacker Hordijk), the other parties to the procedure being the Council of the European Union (Agent: A.-M. Colaert) and the Commission of the European Communities (Agent: T. van Rijn) – the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermanns, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet and N. Colneric (Rapporteur), Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 28 October 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Mr van den Berg to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 227 of 11.8.2001.


title: Case C-254/07: Order of the President of the Court of 20 February 2008  Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               24.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 128/28

         Order of the President of the Court of 20 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-254/07) (1)

   (2008/C 128/56)

      Language of the case: Spanish

   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 170, 21.7.2007.


20.2.1999             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 48/21
The reduced rate for medicaments reimbursable by the                       Removal from the register of Case C-84/97 (1)
social security was applicable on 1 January 1991 but does                                  (1999/C 48/36)
not comply with Community law.
                                                                    By order of 27 October 1998 the Court of Justice of the
Such a rate specifically for reimbursable medicaments,              European Communities has ordered the removal from the
whereas another rate is applicable to other medicaments,            register of Case C-84/97 (reference for a preliminary
is contrary to the principle of uniformity of the tax in            ruling from the Corte d'Appello di Torino):
Article 12(3)(a) of the Sixth Directive.                            Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v. Grafoplast
                                                                    SpA.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 131, 26.4.1997.
That specific rate is not, as the French Government
contends, based on objective criteria but on the legal
status of the products in question. Medicaments
reimbursable by the social security are not intrinsically
different from other medicaments.
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case C-305/96 (1)
(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.
                                                                                (1999/C 48/37)
                                                                    By order of 28 October 1998 the Court of Justice of the
                                                                    European Communities has ordered the removal from the
                                                                    register of Case C-305/96: United Kingdom and Northern
                                                                    Ireland v. Commission of the European Communities.
      Removal from the register of Case C-428/97 (1)
                                                                    (1) OJ C 370, 7.12.1996.
                        (1999/C 48/34)
By order of 20 October 1998, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-428/97 (Reference for                 Removal from the register of Case C-332/97 (1)
a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof): Sarclad
                                                                                (1999/C 48/38)
International Ltd v. Bundesamt für Finanzen.
(1) OJ C 55, 20.2.1998.                                             By order of 28 October 1998, the President of the Court
                                                                    of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
                                                                    removal from the register of Case C-332/97: Commission
                                                                    of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 331, 1.11.1997.
      Removal from the register of Case C-178/96 (1)
                        (1999/C 48/35)
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case C-367/97 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 48/39)
By order of 23 October 1998, the President of the Sixth
Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European
Communities ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                    By order of 28 October 1998, the President of the Court
Case C-178/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the
                                                                    of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia):
                                                                    removal from the register of Case C-367/97: Commission
Stefano Serbini v. Ministero del Commercio con l'Estero.
                                                                    of the European Communities v. Kingdom of the
                                                                    Netherlands.
(1) OJ C 197, 6.7.1997.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 370, 6.12.1997.


title: Action brought on 6 October 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium (Case C-347/97)

text:
22 . 11 . 97             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 357/23
Action brought on 6 October 1997 by the Commission                      the European Communities, represented by Klaus-Dieter
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                      Borchardt, of its Legal Service, with an address for service
                                  Belgium                               in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
                           ( Case C-347/97)                             of its Legal Service, 254 Wagner Centre, Kirchberg,
                                                                        Luxembourg.
                             ( 97/C 357/40 )
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                 — declare that ( i ) by allowing, contrary to Article 2 of
on 6 October 1997 by the Commission of the European                          Regulation ( EEC ) No 2252/90 ('), goods, for which a
Communities, represented by Gotz zur Hausen, Legal                           refund had been granted on their importation from the
Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in                    Netherlands, to be introduced into the Federal
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,                         Republic of Germany without a levy corresponding to
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                                   the Community level of prices being raised and paid
                                                                             over to the Community and ( ii ) by abolishing all
                                                                            customs formalities for the movement of goods within
The Commission of the European Communities claims                            Germany and not adopting the measures required to
that the Court should :
                                                                             implement Regulation ( EEC ) No 2252/90, the Federal
                                                                             Republic of Germany failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                             under the EC Treaty,
— declare that, by failing to adopt and/or communicate
     measures necessary to comply with Article 6 of
     Council Directive 91 / 157/EEC of 18 March 1991                    — order the defendant to pay the costs.
     on batteries and accumulators containnig certain
     dangerous substances ('), the Kingdom of Belgium has
     failed to fulfill its obligations under that Directive,            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
— order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                        The     Federal       Republic     of Germany has  infringed
                                                                        Community law in that:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                        — it has failed to levy duty on imported butter, and has
                                                                             not assessed a sum, which is lost to the Community
The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third                          budget, of DM 12 684 000 and paid that sum, with
paragraph of Article 189 and the first paragraph of                          interest, to the Community,
Article 5 of the EC Treaty requires Member States to
achieve the results provided for therein before the expiry              — all customs formalities at the internal German border
of the period prescribed for doing so. The programmes                       were abolished before reunification on 3 October
referred to in Article 6 of the Directive should have been
                                                                             1990 and the measures required to implement
drawn up and communicated to the Commission by                               Regulation ( EEC ) No 2252/90 were not adopted .
17 September 1992 at the latest and it is neither disputed
or disputable that the Kingdom of Belgium did not take
all the national measures necessary in order to draw up                 (') OJ L 203 , 1 . 8 . 1990, p. 61 .
the programmes in question.
(') OJ L 78 , 26 . 3 . 1991 , p . 38 .
                                                                        Action brought on 13 October 1997 by the Commission
                                                                        of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
                                                                                Luxembourg
Action brought on 7 October 1997 by the Commission of                                              ( Case C-351/97)
the European Communities against the Federal Republic                                                ( 97/C 357/42 )
                               of Germany
                             Case C-348/97 )
                                                                        An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                             ( 97/C 357/41 )                            brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                        Communities on 13 October 1997 by the Commission of
                                                                        the European Communities, represented by Gerard
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                   Berscheid, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                     address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
Communities on 7 October 1997 by the Commission of                      Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.


title: Case T-120/01: Action brought on 4 June 2001 by Carlo De Nicola against the European Investment Bank

text:
C 227/30               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                    11.8.2001
Action brought on 4 June 2001 by Carlo De Nicola against                   Lastly, the applicant also pleads that Article 39 of the Staff
                 the European Investment Bank                              Regulations is illegal, inasmuch as it allows a person to be
                                                                           relieved of his duties, and even provides for payment of that
                         (Case T-120/01)                                   person’s salary to be stopped, for up to three months, without
                                                                           requiring the facts in issue to be communicated forthwith and
                                                                           at the same time.
                         (2001/C 227/57)
                                                                           (1) OJ C 150 of 19.5.2001, p. 20.
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
An action against the European Investment Bank was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
on 4 June 2001 by Carlo De Nicola, represented by Luigi Isola,
avvocato.
                                                                           Action brought on 31 May 2001 by Laurent Piau against
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                         Commission of the European Communities
—     annul the letter of 6 March 2001 bearing reference
      RH/Ress/2001-483/TP and its enclosure;                                                        (Case T-121/01)
—     annul the letter of 22 May 2001;
                                                                                (2001/C 227/58)
—     annul Article 39 of the Staff Regulations;
—     annul all acts connected with or ensuing from the                                       (Language of the case: French)
      contested measures, or on which those measures are
      based;
                                                                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
—     rule and declare that the Code of Conduct is not applicable          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      to the applicant;                                                    European Communities on 31 May 2001 by Laurent Piau,
                                                                           residing in Nantes, France, represented by Marguerite Faucon-
—     order the European Investment Bank to pay compen-                    net and Pierre Thielen, Avocats, with an address for service in
      sation for the physical, material and non-material damage            Luxembourg.
      suffered, in an amount to be determined during the
      course of the proceedings;                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                                —     Declare that the Commission failed to adopt the necessary
                                                                                measures within a reasonable time following the appli-
                                                                                cant’s complaint on the basis of Article 3 of Regulation
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                  No 17;
                                                                           —     Declare that the Commission is obliged to take the
In the present case, the applicant — who is also the applicant                   necessary measures within one month against the party
in Joined Cases T-7/98, T-208/98 and T-109/99 De Nicola v                        complained against in the applicant’s complaint pursuant
European Investment Bank (EIB) — is contesting various                           to Regulation No 17;
measures which he regards as having been adopted with a
view to obstructing compliance with the judgment delivered                 —     Order the defendant to pay the costs.
on 23 February 2001 in the abovementioned cases (1).
In support of his claims, the applicant pleads:                            Pleas in law and main arguments
—     infringement of the Staff Regulations and the Code of
      Conduct, if and in so far as the latter is applicable,               The applicant states that on 23 March 1998 he lodged a
      inasmuch as the letter of 6 March 2001 introduces a new              complaint with the Commission of the European Communi-
      type of penalty which is not provided for. He claims, in             ties, arguing that the rules applied by Fédération International
      addition, that the enclosure to that letter lays down new            de Football Association (FIFA) to the activity of player’s agent
      rules which are different from and contrary to those                 were contrary to Community law, in particular Articles 49 EC
      provided for in the employment contract, in breach of                and 81 EC (COMP/37.124 Piau/FIFA). The Commission made
      the Charter of Human Rights and the principles of proper             a thorough investigation and on 19 October 1999 sent FIFA a
      conduct and contractual good faith.                                  statement of complaints. On 24 February 2000 the parties
                                                                           presented their views orally. On 31 January 2001 the applicant,
—     failure, as regards the letter from the President of the EIB         since he had not received any statement of position, called on
      — which suspended the applicant from all duties with                 the Commission to respond. To this day, almost three years
      immediate effect and prohibited him from entering his                after the complaint was made, the Commission has not taken
      office — to comply with the obligation to communicate                a clear, explicit position on the problem submitted to it by the
      in advance the facts in issue.                                       applicant.


title: Case C-350/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 4 July 2011 — Argenta Spaarbank NV v Belgische Staat

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 4 July 2011 — Argenta Spaarbank NV v Belgische Staat
   (Case C-350/11)
   2011/C 282/11
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Argenta Spaarbank NV

      Defendant: Belgische Staat

      Question referred

   Does Article 43 EC [now Article 49 TFEU] preclude national tax legislation pursuant to which, for the purposes of the calculation of its taxable profit, a company subject to unlimited tax liability in Belgium cannot apply a deduction in respect of risk capital in the amount of the positive difference between (i) the net book value of the assets of the establishments that that company runs in another Member State of the European Union and (ii) the total liabilities that are imputable to those establishments, whereas it can apply a deduction in respect of risk capital if that positive difference can be imputed to a permanent establishment located in Belgium?


title: Case C-365/06: Action brought on 7 September 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               18.11.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/23

         Action brought on 7 September 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-365/06)
   (2006/C 281/37)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Traversa and E. Montaguti, Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that:

                           —

                           by restricting the activity of preparing and printing pay slips to employment consultants, or persons with equivalent status, registered with the relevant professional associations;

                           —

                           by laying down specific requirements concerning the composition and establishment of data-processing centres;

                           —

                           by making registration with such professional associations subject to a requirement of residence in Italy,

                     the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 43 EC and 49 EC;
               and that:

                           —

                           by prohibiting any person from pursuing any activity as employment consultant unless that person is registered with a professional association in Italy,

                     the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC;

               —

               Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               —

               Restricting the activity of preparing and printing pay slips to employment consultants and other professional groups set out exhaustively in the legislation constitutes a restriction on freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services guaranteed by Articles 43 EC and 49 EC. The activities provided by data-processing centres essentially consist of simply carrying out instructions received from clients. That entails entering data provided by the client onto particular computer software which has been programmed with information provided by that client in accordance with the legislation in force. The work of data processing centres preparing pay slips does not therefore entail any responsibility for calculating an individual employee's net salary on the basis of the relevant legislation, which requires analysis and in-depth knowledge of that legislation. Restricting the activity of preparing and printing pay slips to employment consultants cannot therefore be justified in the light of the need to protect workers' rights since such tasks are essentially executory and do not require specific professional qualifications.

               —

               In order to be able to provide the services of preparing and printing pay slips to small undertakings, data-processing centres must be ‘formed and composed exclusively of persons registered with the relevant professional associations’. ‘That requirement … precludes the board members of foreign parent companies from being founder members or from sitting on the board of management of an Italian subsidiary unless they arrange to be registered with the relevant professional associations. … [This] is a covert form of discrimination which, through the application of a criterion other than nationality, achieves the same result as discrimination which is overtly based on nationality.’ (Opinion of Advocate General Mischo in Case C-79/01 Payroll Data Services [2002] ECR I-8923).

               —

               Italian legislation provides that any person applying for registration with such an association must submit a certificate of residence with the application. If the purpose of the residence requirement is to enable checks to be carried out and, where necessary, action to be taken against providers of services acting in breach of the rules, such a requirement appears wholly disproportionate. Indeed, regardless of the place of residence, it is perfectly possible to carry out checks and, if necessary, impose penalties on any data-processing centre established in any Member State. The residence requirement is not therefore justified by the need to protect workers relied on by the Italian authorities.

               —

               The Italian legislation that is the subject of this action provides, finally, that even data processing centres established in other Member States must, in order to be able to offer their services, have within their internal structure employment consultants who are registered with an Italian professional association. The requirement for employment consultants to be registered with a professional association appears to go beyond what is necessary for the protection of workers and makes the provision of services subject to an actual authorisation procedure on the part of the competent authorities without any distinction being made between permanent and temporary provision of services. To ignore such a distinction would amount to depriving ‘of all practical effectiveness the provisions of the Treaty whose object is, precisely, to guarantee the freedom to provide services’, (Case C-58/98 Corsten [2000] ECR I-7919).


title: Case C-610/13 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 November 2014  — Kingdom of the Netherlands v European Commission (Appeal — EAGGF, EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from European Union financing — Expenditure incurred by the Netherlands)

text:
               12.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/11

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 November 2014 — Kingdom of the Netherlands v European Commission
   (Case C-610/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - EAGGF, EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from European Union financing - Expenditure incurred by the Netherlands))
   (2015/C 007/14)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Appellant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. Bulterman and M. de Ree, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet and H. Kranenborg, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the appeal.

               2)

               Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 31, 1.2.2014.


title: Case C-166/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof by judgment of that court of 31 March 2005 in Heger Rudi GmbH v Finanzamt Graz-Stadt

text:
               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/28

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof by judgment of that court of 31 March 2005 in Heger Rudi GmbH v Finanzamt Graz-Stadt
   (Case C-166/05)
   (2005/C 143/43)
   Language of the case: German
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by judgment of the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Higher Administrative Court) (Austria) of 31 March 2005, received at the Court Registry on 13 April 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Heger Rudi GmbH and Finanzamt Graz-Stadt on the following question:
   Does the grant of the right to fish by means of a transfer of fishing permits for valuable consideration constitute a ‘supply of services connected with immovable property’ within the meaning of Article 9(2)(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment?


title: Case T-736/16: Action brought on 20 October 2016 — Amira and Others v Commission and ECB

text:
               19.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 475/21

         Action brought on 20 October 2016 — Amira and Others v Commission and ECB
   (Case T-736/16)
   (2016/C 475/31)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Maria Amira (Athens, Greece) and 15 other applicants (represented by S. Pappas and I. Ioannidis, lawyers)

      Defendants: European Central Bank, European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               order the European Union and/or the European System of Central Banks (ESCB) to compensate for the amounts described in the application corresponding to the damage that the applicants suffered from their illegal participation in the restructuring of the Greek government debt, due to the activation of the retrofit Collective Action Clauses;

               —

               alternatively, order the Union and/or the European Central Bank (ECB) to compensate the applicants for the amounts described in the application corresponding to the damage suffered from the illegal exclusion of Greece’s official sector creditors from the restructuring of the Greek government debt;

               —

               in any case, order the ECB to compensate the applicants for the damages described in the application for each applicant emanating from the illegal exclusion of the ESCB from the restructuring of the Greek government debt;

               —

               order the ECB and/or the Union to bear the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Union’s and/or the ECB’s and the ESCB’s actions were taken ultra vires and contrary to Articles 120-126, 127 and 352(1) TFEU.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the ECB’s and the ESCB’s actions regarding in particular the ESCB’s exclusion from the restructuring violate Article 123 TFEU.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Union’s and/or the ECB’s and the ESCB’s actions violate the applicants’ right to property protected under Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Union’s and/or the ECB’s and the ESCB’s actions violate free movement of capital protected under Article 63 TFEU.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Union’s and/or the ECB’s and the ESCB’s actions violate the applicants’ right to equal treatment protected under Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 March 2003 in Case T-166/02: José Pedro Pessoa e Costa v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Decision to institute disciplinary proceedings — Decision rejecting a request for transfer to the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction)

text:
C 124/20                 EN                            Official Journal of the European Union                                           24.5.2003
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: J. Currall)                     2.     Dismisses the remainder of the application as inadmissible.
— application for, first, annulment of the decision of the
Commission of 29 July 2001 fixing the applicant’s place of                     3.     Orders the Commission to bear, in addition to its own costs,
recruitment at Brussels and refusing to grant her the daily                           half of the costs incurred by the applicant.
subsistence allowance and, secondly, for an order requiring
the Commission to pay the applicant the amounts correspond-                    4.     Orders the applicant to bear half of his costs.
ing to her entitlement stemming from her place of recruitment
being fixed at Rome — the Court of First Instance (Single-                     (1 ) OJ C 180, 27.7.2002.
judge Chamber); Blanca Pastor, Deputy Registrar, gave a
judgment on 5 March 2003, in which it:
1.     dismisses the application;
2.     orders the parties to bear their own costs.                                    ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 20 March 2003
( 1) OJ C 44 of 16.2.2002.
                                                                               in Case T-76/94: Rendert Jansma v Council of the Euro-
                                                                               pean Union and Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties ( 1)
                                                                               (Action for damages — Non-contractual liability — Milk —
                                                                               Additional levy — Reference quantity — Producer having
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   entered into a non-marketing undertaking — Sale of the
                                                                               SLOM holding — Limitation period — No need to adjudi-
                                                                                cate)
                           of 13 March 2003
                                                                                (2003/C 124/36)
in Case T-166/02: José Pedro Pessoa e Costa v Commission
                 of the European Communities ( 1)                                                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
(Officials — Decision to institute disciplinary proceedings
— Decision rejecting a request for transfer to the European                    In Case T-76/94: Rendert Jansma, residing in Engelbert (Nether-
       Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction)                         lands), represented by E.H. Pijnacker Hordijk and H.J. Bronk-
                                                                               horst, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
                                                                               against Council of the European Union (Agent: A.-M. Colaert)
                            (2003/C 124/35)
                                                                               and Commission of the European Communities (Agents: T. van
                                                                               Rijn and H.-J. Rabe) — application for compensation under
                      (Language of the case: French)                           Article 178 and the second paragraph of Article 215 of the EC
                                                                               Treaty (now Article 235 EC and the second paragraph of
                                                                               Article 288 EC) for damage suffered by the applicant as a
                                                                               result of his having been prevented from marketing milk by
In Case T-166/02: José Pedro Pessoa e Costa, official of the                   virtue of Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 March
Commission of the European Communities, residing in Lisbon,                    1984 adopting general rules for the application of the levy
represented by J.N. Louis, E. Marchal and A. Coolen, lawyers,                  referred to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the
with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Com-                        milk and milk products sector (OJ 1984 L 90, p. 13), as
mission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall, F.                    supplemented by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1371/84
Clotuche-Duvieusart and D. Waelbroeck) — application for                       of 16 May 1984 laying down detailed rules for the application
annulment, first, of the decision of the Commission of 3 July                  of the additional levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation
2001 to institute disciplinary proceedings against the applicant               (EEC) No 804/68 (OJ 1984 L 132, p. 11) — the Court of First
and, second, of its decision of 23 July 2001 rejecting the                     Instance (First Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President,
request of the Director of the European Monitoring Centre for                  R.M. Moura Ramos and H. Legal, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
Drugs and Drug Addiction that the applicant be transferred to                  made an order on 20 March 2003, the operative part of which
that body — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber),                       is as follows:
composed of K. Lenaerts, President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger,
Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has                  1.     There is no longer any need to adjudicate.
given a judgment on 13 March 2003 in which it:
                                                                               2.     The defendant is to bear its own costs.
1.     Annuls the decision of the Commission of 23 July 2001
       rejecting the request of the Director of the European Monitoring        (1 ) OJ 1994 C 90.
       Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction that the applicant be
       transferred to that body.


title: Case C-135/02: Action brought on 11 April 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

text:
1.6.2002              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 131/13
(2) order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                     Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                       The period for transposing the directive expired on 29 May
                                                                       1999.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                       (1) OJ L 181 of 9.7.1997, p. 1.
The time-limit for transposition expired on 14 March 2000.
(1) OJ L 77 of 14.3.1998, p. 36.
                                                                       Action brought on 16 April 2002 by the Commission of
                                                                       the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
                                                                                Luxembourg
                                                                                (Case C-142/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 131/25)
Action brought on 11 April 2002 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Federal Republic
                           of Germany
                                                                       An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                                                       brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                        (Case C-135/02)                                ties on 16 April 2002 by the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities, represented by M. Patakia, acting as Agent, with
                                                                       an address for service in Luxembourg.
                        (2002/C 131/24)
                                                                       The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                       the Court should:
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-           (1) declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations
ties on 11 April 2002 by the Commission of the European                      and administrative measures necessary in order to comply
Communities, represented by Josef Christian Schieferer, of the               with Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament and
Legal Service of the Commission of the European Communi-                     of the Council of 16 February 1998 to facilitate practice
ties, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of             of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a
Luis Escobar Guerrero, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre                   Member State other than that in which the qualification
C 254, Kirchberg.                                                            was obtained (1), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has
                                                                             failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
                                                                       (2) order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
The Commission claims that the Court should:
1.    Declare that, by failing within the prescribed period to
      notify to the Commission, or failing to adopt the laws,          Pleas in law and main arguments
      regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
      comply with Directive 97/23/EC (1) of the European
      Parliament and of the Council of 29 May 1997 on                  The time-limit for transposition expired on 14 March 2000.
      the approximation of the laws of the Member States
      concerning pressure equipment, the Federal Republic of
      Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC
      Treaty and that directive;                                       (1) OJ L 77 of 14.3.1998, p. 36.
2.    Order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.