title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 June 1999 in Case C-394/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Helsingin Käräjäoikeus): Criminal proceedings against Sami Heinonen (Goods contained in travellers personal luggage - Travellers arriving from non-member countries - Duty-free allowances - Prohibition on imports linked to minimum period spent abroad)

text:
C 226/6                   EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                            7.8.1999
     employer, or for that State to be held liable for damage caused to       2. National legislation restricting imports of alcoholic drinks by
     them by failure to transpose the directive correctly, where the               travellers arriving from non-member countries in order to
     events which give rise to the operation of the guarantee provided             maintain public order is not, in principle, contrary to Regulation
     for in the directive occurred prior to the date of accession.                 No 918/83 or Directive 69/169.
                                                                              3. National legislation restricting imports by travellers arriving
(1) OJ C 331 of 1.11.1997.                                                         from third countries of alcoholic drinks, on the basis of the
                                                                                duration of the journey, with a view to combating disturbances
                                                                                of public order connected with the consumption of alcohol, is not
                                                                                contrary to Regulation No 918/83 or Directive 69/169.
                                                                              (1) OJ C 41 of 7.2.1998.
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (Fifth Chamber)
                            of 15 June 1999
in Case C-394/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
the Helsingin Käräjäoikeus): Criminal proceedings against
                           Sami Heinonen (1)
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
(Goods contained in travellers personal luggage — Travellers
arriving from non-member countries — Duty-free allow-                                                    of 15 June 1999
ances — Prohibition on imports linked to minimum period
                              spent abroad)                                   in Case C-421/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                              the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Meaux): Yves Tarantik
                            (1999/C 226/09)                                      v Direction des Services Fiscaux de Seine-et-Marne(1)
                     (Language of the case: Finnish)                          (Article 95 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article
                                                                                90 EC) — Differential tax on motor vehicles)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                                   (1999/C 226/10)
                     in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-394/97: reference to the Court under Article 234                                         (Language of the case: French)
EC (ex Article 177) by the Helsingin Käräjäoikeus, Finland, for
a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings before that
court against Sami Heinonen — on the interpretation of                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Council Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 of 28 March 1983                                               in the European Court Reports)
setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty
(OJ 1983 L 105, p. 1) and Council Directive 69/169/EEC of
28 May 1969 on the harmonisation of provisions laid                           In Case C-421/97: reference to the Court under Article 234
down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to                  EC (ex Article 177) by the Tribunal de Grande Instance de
exemption from turnover tax and excise duty on imports in                     Meaux, France, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
international travel (OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (I),                   pending before that court between Yves Tarantik and Direction
p. 232) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of                              des Services Fiscaux de Seine-et-Marne — on the interpretation
J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, P. Jann (Rappor-                  of Article 95 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
teur), J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann and M. Wathelet,                  Article 90 EC) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy                  J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, J.C. Moitinho de
Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 June 1999, in which it                  Almeida, C. Gulmann, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur),
has ruled:                                                                    Judges; F.C. Jacobs, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy
                                                                              Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 June 1999, in which it
1. National legislation prohibiting or restricting imports of certain         has ruled:
     goods by travellers arriving from non-member countries on
     grounds of public morality, public policy, public security or            National rules on motor vehicle tax such as those in point in the
     protection of health and life of humans is not contrary to Council       main proceedings do not, as a result of the increase in the progression
     Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 of 28 March 1983 setting up a                 coefficient of the tax between the 15-16 CV tax band, on the one
     Community system of reliefs from customs duty and Council                hand, and the tax bands above 18 CV, which contain only imported
     Directive 69/169/EEC of 28 May 1969 on the harmonisation                 vehicles, on the other, have discriminatory or protective effects which
     of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative             are incompatible with the first paragraph of Article 95 of the EC
     action relating to exemption from turnover tax and excise duty           Treaty (now, after amendment, the first paragraph of Article 90 EC)
     on imports in international travel.                                      where:


4.12.1999             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 352/39
       Removal from the register of Case T-322/94 (1)                          Removal from the register of Case T-181/98 (1)
                       (1999/C 352/72)
                                                                                (1999/C 352/73)
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
By order of 25 February 1999 the President of the Fifth
Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from                By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Third
the register of Case T-322/94: Union Carbide Corporation v              Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance
Commission of the European Communities.                                 of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                        the register of Case T-181/98: Georgsmarienhütte Holding
                                                                        GmbH v Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 380 of 31.12.1994.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 1 of 4.1.1999.


title: Case T-55/05: Action brought on 31 January 2005 by Rijn Schelde Mondia France against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               16.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/37

         Action brought on 31 January 2005 by Rijn Schelde Mondia France against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-55/05)
   (2005/C 93/69)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 31 January 2005 by Rijn Schelde Mondia France, having its registered office in Rouen (France), represented by François Citron, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               regard the letter of 7 October 2004 sent by the European Commission to the Directorate General of Customs in file REM 2201 as constitutive of a decision of the European Commission, which adversely affects Rijn Schelde Mondia France and annul it accordingly;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant in the present case objects to the decision allegedly contained in a letter of the Commission dated 7 October 2004 which was sent to the French Directorate General of Customs.
   In this respect, it is to be borne in mind that the applicant company requested the French customs authorities by letter of 31 October 2000 to agree to remit the customs duties which had been notified to it by the Directorate General of Customs of Rouen and Le Havre, in respect of a total amount of EUR 962 058,64. Although the French authorities considered themselves competent to deal with the application for remission of duties, they nevertheless referred the file to the Commission so that the Commission could rule on ‘whether the negligence found was manifest in nature or not’.
   By the contested decision the Commission returned the file to the French customs authorities ‘to be dealt with by your department’. Nonetheless, the Commission did point out to the French authorities that it considered that the applicant was guilty of manifest negligence and recommended further that the applicant be refused the benefit of remission of duties.
   In support of its claims, the applicant asserts that:

               —

               the Commission acted ultra vires in the present case since although it considered itself not to have the power to deal with the application for remission of duties, it nevertheless took a view as to whether the negligence alleged was manifest in nature or not;

               —

               the Commission did not make its decision within the nine-month time-limit laid down in the second paragraph of Article 907 of the regulation implementing the Community Customs Code;

               —

               the Commission failed to observe the duty to give reasons;

               —

               the Commission misused its powers in the present case in so far as it gave its decision as regards its lack of power three years after the file had been sent to it by the French authorities, although it had not known of the argument relating to lack of power initially raised by the applicant itself before the French customs authorities.

         Lastly, the applicant alleges that the Commission made a manifest error in its assessment in this case of the constituent elements of manifest negligence.


title: Case C-4/07: Action brought on 11 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

text:
               24.2.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/20

         Action brought on 11 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-4/07)
   (2007/C 42/37)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Condou-Durande and P. Guerra e Andrade, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               a declaration that, by having failed to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/110/EC on assistance in cases of transit for the purposes of removal by air (1) or, in any case, by having failed to communicate them to the Commission, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for the transposition of the directive into domestic law expired on 6 December 2005.

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 321, p. 26.


title: Case C-121/99: Action brought on 8 April 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
C 188/12                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         3.7.1999
In point 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 2184/97 (1) was the                         — infringement of Article 43 of the Treaty, of the general
Commission therefore entitled to decide that all multi-function                    principles concerning the hierarchy of sources of law
facsimile machines essentially consisting of:                                      and of Article 8(4)(ii) of Regulation No 3760/92 (2);
— a modem                                                                     — manifest inadequacy of the criteria presumably adopted
                                                                                in order to implement the principle of ‘relative stab-
— a scanner                                                                        ility’.
— a printing device                                                       2. Unlawfulness of Article 2(2) and of the Annex (table
                                                                              relating to bluefin tuna), by reason of:
and operating either in an autonomous form or in conjunction
with a computer, fall under tariff heading 8517 21 (facsimile                 — absence of a statement of reasons. The fifth recital in
machines), thus excluding the possibility of determining the                       the preamble to the regulation contains reasoning
dominant function of each machine on a case-by-case basis                          which is merely ostensible, incomprehensible and
and laying down the principle that the printing device is of                       certainly insufficient for the purposes of providing
secondary importance, whatever the machine, provided that it                       any real reasons which might justify the exceptional
falls within the category described?                                               allocation set out in the first table (bluefin tuna) in the
                                                                                annex to the regulation;
(1) Commission regulation of 3 November 1997 concerning the
    classfication of certain goods in the combined nomenclature (OJ           — infringement of Regulation No 3760/92 (Article 8(4))
    L 299, p. 6).                                                                  and breach of the general principles regarding the
                                                                                common agricultural policy, legal certainty and basic
                                                                                guarantees relating to sanctions;
                                                                              — in addition, manifest error with regard to ICCAT;
                                                                              — misuse of powers.
Action brought on 10 April 1999 by the Italian Republic
          against the Council of the European Union                       (1) OJ L 13 of 18 January 1999, p. 54.
                                                                          (2) OJ L 389 of 31 December 1992, p. 1.
                           (Case C-120/99)
                           (1999/C 188/27)
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 10 April 1999 by the Italian Republic, represented by             Action brought on 8 April 1999 by the Commission of
Umberto Leanza, acting as Agent, assisted by Pier Giorgio                 the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
Ferri, Avvocato dello Stato, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Italian Embassy, Rue Marie-Adelaïde.
                                                                                (Case C-121/99)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (1999/C 188/28)
— allow the present application, and consequently,
                                                                          An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
— partially annul Council Regulation (EC) No 49/1999 (1);                 the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 April
                                                                          1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                  represented by Maria Kondou-Durande, of its Legal Service,
                                                                          with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
                                                                          Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Kirchberg.
                                                                          The Commission claims that the Court should:
1. Unlawfulness of Article 2(1) of the regulation (allocation
     of percentages from the share available to the Community             1. declare that, by not communicating the laws, regulations
     of bluefin tuna stocks), by reason of:                                   and administrative provisions required to comply with
                                                                              Commission Directive 97/35/EC (1) of 18 June 1997
     — total absence of a statement of reasons. The recitals in               adapting to technical progress for the second time Council
         the preamble to the regulation do not in any way                     Directive 90/220/EEC on the deliberate release into the
         satisfy the essential guarantee requiring the provision              environment of genetically modified organisms, or by not
         of a statement of the parameters and criteria adopted                adopting the necessary measures to comply therewith, the
         for the purposes of dividing up a total allowable catch              Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
         into national quotas;                                                the Treaty and that directive;
 ---pagebreak--- 3.7.1999              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 188/13
2. order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                      — Failure to provide an adequate statement of reasons for the
                                                                           judgment: the Court of First Instance was unable, without
                                                                           running up against the appellant’s arguments, to reject the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            plea concerning the unique nature of a person’s status,
                                                                           which is a separate plea from that of breach of the principle
                                                                           of equal treatment.
The Member States are required by the binding character of
the third paragraph of Article 189 and of Article 5 of the EC         — Disregard of the principle of conferred powers: neither the
Treaty to adopt the measures needed to transpose directives                Community legislature nor the Community institutions
into national law before the expiry of the period laid down for            may fix, alter or interpret the civil status of officials in their
that purpose and to communicate those measures immediately                 service.
to the Commission. That period expired on 31 July 1997
without the Hellenic Republic having communicated to the
Commission the provisions transposing the directive at issue          — Breach of the principle of the unique nature of the personal
into national law.                                                         status of Community nationals: the appellant’s personal
                                                                           status is governed by Swedish law, according to which a
                                                                           registered partner is to be regarded as a married person.
(1) OJ No L 169, 27.6.1997, p. 72.
                                                                      — Breach of the principles of freedom of movement for
                                                                           workers, equal treatment and non-discrimination.
                                                                      — Infringement of Article 8 of the European Convention on
                                                                           Human Rights: the protection of a person’s private life
                                                                           entails recognition of the existence and effects of a lawfully
                                                                           acquired civil status. The Court of First Instance was wrong
                                                                           to refer to the judgment in Grant (1), since that case
Appeal brought on 13 April 1999 by D against the                           concerned a relationship which was not formally recog-
judgment delivered on 28 January 1999 by the Second                        nised.
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities in Case T-264/97 between D, supported by
the Kingdom of Sweden, and the Council of the European
                                                                      (1) Jugdment of the Court of Justice of 17 February 1998 in Case
                             Union                                        C-249/96.
                       (Case C-122/99 P)
                        (1999/C 188/29)
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 28 January 1999
by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities in Case T-264/97 between D,                  Action brought on 13 April 1999 by the Commission of
supported by the Kingdom of Sweden, and the Council of the            the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
European Union was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 13 April 1999 by D, represented by
Jean-Noël Louis, Gréta-Françoise Parmentier and Véronique                                       (Case C-123/99)
Peere, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange.
                                                                                (1999/C 188/30)
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                      An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
— set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the        the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 13 April
    European Communities (Second Chamber) of 28 January               1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
    1999 in Case T-264/97 D, supported by the Kingdom of              represented by Maria Kondou-Durande, of its Legal Service,
    Sweden, v Council of the European Union                           with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
                                                                      Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
— order the respondent to pay the costs of both sets of               Kirchberg.
    proceedings.
                                                                      The Commission claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments                                       1. declare that, by not communicating the laws, regulations
                                                                           and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
— The Court of First Instance unlawfully altered the subject-              European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC (1)
    matter of the action by confining itself to an examination             of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste,
    of the question whether it was legally open to the Council,            or by not adopting the necessary measures to comply
    by way of an autonomous interpretation, to treat a                     therewith, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its
    registered partnership as equivalent to a marriage.                    obligations under the Treaty and that directive;


title: Case C-365/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 February 2014 — European Commission v EnBW Energie Baden-Württemberg AG, Kingdom of Sweden, Siemens AG, ABB Ltd (Appeal — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Access to documents of the institutions — Documents relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 and Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 — Access refused — Exceptions relating to the protection of investigations, commercial interests and the decision-making process of the institutions — Obligation upon the institution concerned to carry out a specific, individual examination of the content of the documents covered by the request for access)

text:
               14.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/6

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 February 2014 — European Commission v EnBW Energie Baden-Württemberg AG, Kingdom of Sweden, Siemens AG, ABB Ltd
   (Case C-365/12 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Access to documents of the institutions - Documents relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 and Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 - Access refused - Exceptions relating to the protection of investigations, commercial interests and the decision-making process of the institutions - Obligation upon the institution concerned to carry out a specific, individual examination of the content of the documents covered by the request for access))
   2014/C 112/07
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: B. Smulders, P. Costa de Oliveira and A. Antoniadis, Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: EnBW Energie Baden-Württemberg AG, (represented by: A. Hahn and A. Bach, Rechtsanwälte), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: C. Meyer-Seitz, Agent), Siemens AG (represented by: I. Brinker, C. Steinle and M. Holm-Hadulla, Rechtsanwälte), ABB Ltd (represented by: J. Lawrence, Solicitor, H. Bergmann and A. Huttenlauch, Rechtsanwälte)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 May 2012 in Case T-344/08 Enbw Energie Baden-Württemberg v Commission by which the General Court annulled Commission Decision SG.E.3/MV/psi D (2008) 4931 of 16 June 2008 refusing access to the case-file in Case COMP/F/38.899 — Gas insulated switchgear — Erroneous interpretation of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43) and, in particular, of Article 4(2) and (3) thereof.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 22 May 2012 in Case T-344/08 EnBW Energie Baden-Württemberg v Commission;

               2.

               Annuls Commission Decision SG.E.3/MV/psi D (2008) 4931 of 16 June 2008 refusing the request made by EnBW Energie Baden-Württemberg AG for access to the case-file in Case COMP/F/38.899 — Gas insulated switchgear, in so far as, by that decision, the European Commission failed to give a decision on EnBW Energie Baden-Württemberg AG’s request to the extent that it sought disclosure of the category 5(b) documents in the file;

               3.

               Dismisses the action brought by EnBW Energie Baden-Württemberg AG before the General Court in Case T-344/08 as to the remainder;

               4.

               Orders the European Commission and EnBW Energie Baden-Württemberg AG to bear their own costs;

               5.

               Orders the Kingdom of Sweden, Siemens AG and ABB Ltd to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 287, 22.9.2012.


title: Action brought on 21 March 1996 by Armel de Kerros against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-40/96)

text:
No C 145/ 12           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   18 . 5 . 96
Action brought on 15 March 1996 by Société Guérin                      Instance of the European Communities on 15 March 1996
Automobiles against the Commission of the European                     by Service pour le Groupement d'Acquisitions ( SGA ),
                             Communities                               established at Istres ( France ), represented by Jean Claude
                          ( Case T-38/96 )                             Fourgoux, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                       Luxembourg at the Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4 , rue
                            ( 96/C 145/22 )                            Béatrix de Bourbon .
                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should :
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      — declare that the Commission has failed to take steps in
Instance of the European Communities on 15 March 1996                      the matter since 6 November 1995 and, in so far as the
by Société Guérin Automobiles, established at Alençon                       Court interprets the silence of the Commission in
 ( France ), represented by Jean Claude Fourgoux, of the Paris              response to the request for interim measures as
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                      tantamount to a refusal, annul that decision,
Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4 , rue Béatrix de Bourbon .
The applicant claims that the Court should :                           — award SGA in any event the sum of ECU 150 000 as
                                                                           damages in addition to those applied for,
— declare that the Commission has wrongfully failed to
     act ,                                                            — order the Commission to pay the costs.
— declare         that   the      Commission     has    incurred
     non-contractual liability towards Guérin Automobiles,             Pleas in law and main arguments
     and order it to pay the applicant compensation for the
     damage, assessed at FF 1 660 912, equivalent to ECU              The applicant, an undertaking carrying on business as an
     237 273 ,                                                         intermediary in the distribution of all makes of motor
                                                                       vehicle, contests the Commission's refusal to act on the
— order the Commission to pay the costs .
                                                                      complaint lodged by it against the pressure applied by PSA
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        on Peugeot and Citroën concessionaires situated in other
                                                                      Member States in order to prevent supplies from reaching
The applicant company, which has already brought an                   agents and to partition the market.
action for a declaration that the Commission unlawfully
refrained from taking a decision in response to its complaint         The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
concerning the imposition by Nissan France of a dealership             in Case T- 1 89/95 SGA v . Commission .
scheme incompatible with Commission Regulation ( EEC )
No 123/85 ('), has now brought fresh proceedings for a
declaration of failure to act, which also concern the
non-adoption by the Commission of a position on the
complaint, but which are based this time on a second formal
notice sent to the Commission on 2 January 1996 in
consequence of the objection of inadmissibility on the
ground of lateness raised by the Commission in the first              Action brought on 21 March 1996 by Armel de Kerros
action . As regards the application in respect of liability, in          against the Commission of the European Communities
which the applicant seeks compensation for the damage                                          Case T-40/96 )
caused by the Commission's conduct, the applicant merely                                       ( 96/C 145/24 )
claims once again the compensation applied for in the first
action, adding the amount of interest which has accrued to
date since the initiation of that action .                                           (Language of tbe case: French)
(M Case T-195/95 , OJ 1995 C 333 , p . 21 .
                                                                      An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                      Instance of the European Communities on 21 March 1996
                                                                      by Armel de Kerros, residing in Grez-Doiceau ( Belgium ),
Action brought on 15 March 1996 by Service pour le                    represented by Jean-Noël Louis, Thierry Demaseure and
Groupement d'Acquisitions ( SGA) against the Commission               Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
                 of the European Communities                          service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
                                                                      SARL, 1 , rue Glesener.
                         ( Case T-39/96 )
                           ( 96/C 145/23 )
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should :
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                      — annul the decision of the Selection Board in competition
An action against the Commission of the European                           COM/T/B/96 not to admit the applicant to the tests in
Communities was brought before the Court of First                          the competition,
 ---pagebreak--- 18 . 5 . 96            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 145/ 13
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                             — order the defendant to pay the costs .
Pleas in law and main arguments                                      Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant, a grade B 5 member of the temporary staff,            The contested decision states that the prohibition
contests the decision of the selection board in internal             precluding the export to other Member States of the
competition COM/T/B/96 refusing to admit the applicant to            products known as 'Andalate' and 'Andalate 20 mg LP',
the tests in the said competition on the ground that he did          alternatively 'Andalat' and 'Andalat-Retard ', agreed in the
not meet the condition of the completion of a minimum of             context of the continuing dealings between the applicant
three years ' uninterrupted service with the European                and its wholesalers in France or Spain, constitutes an
Communities as a member of the temporary staff.                      infringement by the applicant of Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EC
                                                                     Treaty; it enjoins the applicant to cease the infringement and
He points out in that regard that his application was rejected       imposes on it a fine of ECU 3 000 000 .
on account of an interruption of 15 days in the contractual
relations between him and the Commission .                           The applicant contends that its commercial practices are
                                                                     limited to a unilateral fixing of quotas by means of purely
He advances the following pleas in support of his action :           internal measures, without any agreement with the
                                                                     wholesalers . It submits that, in practical terms, the contested
— breach of the right of members of temporary staff to take          decision subjects it, as an undertaking not occupying a
     part in internal competitions and infringement of the           dominant position in the market, to an obligation to
     first paragraph of Article 21 and the first paragraph of        contract. A refusal to supply would in itself be pertinent
     Article 29 of the Staff Regulations, inasmuch as the            from the standpoint of cartel law, in accordance with
     criterion requiring candidates to have completed a              Article 86 , only if the undertaking refusing to supply
     period of uninterrupted service may result in the               dominated the market. The lengthy interpretation by the
     elimination of candidates possessing the same or better         Commission of the sanctions provided for by Article 85
     qualifications than those of other candidates admitted to       ignores the essential element of ' agreement', namely
    the competition,                                                 consensus ad idem, and goes beyond the limits laid down by
                                                                     constitutional and basic law, as well as contravening the
— a manifest error of assessment in the present case, in that        principle of the rule of law and the principle of certainty. In
     it appears that the applicant was in fact in the service of     view of the fact that this was clearly a 'test case ' for the
    the Commission from 16 March 1992 to 31 March                    Commission, in which the Commission was breaking
     1996 .                                                          new legal ground, the imposition of the fine was
                                                                     disproportionate .
                                                                     The applicant further relies, in the alternative, on the fact
                                                                     that the unilateral cutbacks in supplies are justified to a
                                                                     substantial extent by the patent protection existing in the
                                                                     United Kingdom in respect of ' Andalat-Retard'.
Action brought on 21 March 1996 by Bayer AG against the
          Commission of the European Communities
                        ( Case T-41/96 )
                          ( 96/C 145/25 )
                                                                     Action brought on 27 March 1996 by Société de
               (Language of the case: German)                        Distribution de Mécaniques et d'Automobiles against the
                                                                             Commission of the European Communities
An action against the Commission of the European                                             ( Case T-45/96 )
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 21 March 1996                                          ( 96/C 145/26 )
by Bayer AG, Leverkusen ( Federal Republic of Germany ),
represented by Joachim Sedemund, Rechtsanwalt, Cologne,                              (Language of the case: trench)
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
of Aloyse May, 31 , Grand-Rue .                                      An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
The applicant claims that the Court should:                          Instance of the European Communities on 27 March 1996
                                                                     by Société de Distribution de Mécaniques et d'Automobiles,
— annul the defendant's decision ( Case IV/34.279/F3 ) of            established at Istres ( France ), represented by Jean Claude
     10 January 1 996 , which was notified to the applicant on       Fourgoux, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in
     22 January 1996 ,                                               Luxembourg at the Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4, rue
                                                                     Béatrix de Bourbon .
— in the alternative, set aside the fine of ECU 3 million
     imposed on the applicant,                                       The applicant claims that the Court should :
— in the further alternative, reduce the fine,                       — declare that the Commission has failed to act,


title: Case F-108/15: Action brought on 27 July 2015 — ZZ and ZZ v Commission

text:
               28.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 320/54

         Action brought on 27 July 2015 — ZZ and ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-108/15)
   (2015/C 320/75)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: ZZ and ZZ (represented by: N. de Montigny and J.N. Louis, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision to limit to five years the period of retroactive recalculation of the flat-rate allowance for overtime to which the applicants are entitled.

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decision of 16 September 2014 of PMO. 1 to limit the payment of the adaptation of the flat-rate allowance for overtime to which the applicants have been entitled since 1 March 2007 and 1 March 2008 respectively, to five years from 1 September 2008, the date on which the PMO discovered the error in the calculation of their remuneration;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicants the adaptation of the flat-rate allowance for overtime from 1 March 2007 and 1 March 2008 respectively, subject to the deduction of the sums already paid and together with default interest on the arrears of that allowance calculated from their deadline for payment until their actual payment at the rate fixed by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations increased by two points;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 13 December 1999 in Case T-268/94, Tyco Toys (UK) Ltd and Others against Commission of the European Communities and Council of the European Union (Common commercial policy — Regulations (EC) No 519/94 and No 747/94 — Import quotas for certain toys from People's Republic of China — Action manifestly unfounded in law)

text:
C 79/24                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        18.3.2000
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              Manufacturing Europe Inc, established in Saint-Nicolas
                                                                         (Belgium), Matchbox Spielwaren and Matchbox Collectibles
                       of 12 January 2000                                GmbH, established in Hösbach (Germany), Tyco Toys France
                                                                         SA, established in Saint-Germain-en-Laye (France), Tyco Toys
in Case T-19/99: DKV Deutsche Krankenversicherung AG                     España, S.A., established in Sant Just Desvern (Spain), Tyco
v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade                 Toys Deutschland GmbH, established in Nuremberg (Germ-
                Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)                            any), Playtime Toys (UK) Ltd, established in Marlow (United
(Community trade mark — Companyline — Absolute                           Kingdom), represented by Charles-Étienne Gudin, of the
ground for refusal — Article (7)(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)                Hauts-de-Seine Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                            No 40/94)                                    at the Chambers of Faltz et associés, 6, rue Heinrich Heine,
                                                                         supported by Toys Manufacturers of Europe, established in
                         (2000/C 79/52)                                  Brussels, represented by Hugues Calvet, of the Paris Bar, with
                                                                         an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                  (Language of the case: German)                         Aloyse May, 31, Grand-rue, and by Hasbro UK Ltd, established
                                                                         in Uxbridge, Middlesex (United Kingdom), represented initially
In Case T-19/99, DKV Deutsche Krankenversicherung AG, a                  by Jacques H.J. Bourgeois and subsequently by Jacques Ghys-
company incorporated under German law, established in                    brecht, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Cologne, Germany, represented by Stephan von Peters-                     Luxembourg at the Chambers of De Bandt, Van Hecke, Lagae
dorff-Campen, Rechtsanswalt, Mannheim and Karlsruhe, with                & Loesch, 11, rue Goethe, against Commission of the European
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc             Communities (Agents: Patrick Hetsch and Marc de Pauw) and
Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe, against Office for Harmonisation in               Council of the European Union (Agents: Bjarne Hoff-Nielsen
the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM),                    and Guus Houttuin), supported by Kingdom of Spain (Agents:
(Agents: Alexander von Mühlendahl and Detlef Schennen) —                 initially, Alberto Navarro González and Gloria Calvo Dı́az, and,
action brought against the decision of the First Board of                subsequently, Navarro González and Rosario Silva Lapuerta) —
Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market            application for, first, the annulment of Article 1 of each of
(Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 November 1998 (Case                      Commission Regulation (EC) No 1012/94 of 29 April 1994
R 72/1998-1), which was notified to the applicant on 19 Nov-             and Regulation (EC) No 1225/94 of 30 May 1994 establishing
ember 1998 — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),               the allocations to traditional and non-traditional importers
composed of: R.M. Moura Ramos, President, V. Tiili and                   respectively from the Community quantitative quotas on
P. Mengozzi, Judges; M.A. Mair, Administrator, for the Regis-            certain products originating in the People’s Republic of China
trar, has given a judgment on 12 January 1999, in which it:              (OJ 1994 L 111, p. 100 and OJ 1994 L 136, p. 40), as well as
                                                                         for a declaration of illegality of Article 1(2) of Council
1. Dismisses the action;
                                                                         Regulation (EC) No 519/94 of 7 March 1994 on common
2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.                                rules for imports from certain third countries and repealing
                                                                         Regulations (EEC) Nos 1765/82, 1766/82 and 3420/83 (OJ
                                                                         1994 L 67, p. 89), and of Article 3(2) of Commission Regu-
(1) OJ C 86 of 27.3.1999.                                                lation (EC) No 747/94 of 30 March 1994 establishing adminis-
                                                                         tration procedures for quantitative quotas on certain products
                                                                         originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 1994 L 87,
                                                                         p. 83), and, secondly, compensation to make good the loss
                                                                         suffered by the applicants as a result of the contested provisions
                                                                         — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed
                                                                         of R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas, President, C.W. Bellamy, P. Lindh ,
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               J.D. Cooke and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an
                                                                         order on 13 December 1999, the operative part of which is as
                     of 13 December 1999                                 follows:
in Case T-268/94, Tyco Toys (UK) Ltd and Others against                  1. The action is dismissed as manifestly unfounded in law.
Commission of the European Communities and Council
                   of the European Union (1)
                                                                         2. The applicants are ordered to bear their own costs and, jointly
(Common commercial policy — Regulations (EC) No 519/94                        and severally, the costs incurred by the Commission and the
and No 747/94 — Import quotas for certain toys from                           Council.
People’s Republic of China — Action manifestly unfounded
                              in law)                                    3. The Kingdom of Spain, Toys Manufacturers of Europe and
                                                                              Hasbro UK Ltd., interveners, shall bear their own costs.
                         (2000/C 79/53)
                   (Language of the case: French)                        (1) OJ C 254 of 10.9.1994.
In Case T-268/94, Tyco Toys (UK) Ltd, Matchbox Toys (UK)
Ltd and Matchbox Collectibles Ltd, established in Rugby
(United Kingdom), Tyco Distribution Europe NV and Tyco


title: Case C-450/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht Korneuburg by order of 11 November 1999 in the case of Seiko Kabushiki Kaisha v Bajrami Sinavere

text:
C 34/16               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      5.2.2000
Appeal brought on 26 November 1999 by the European                     — Breach of the contractual rules applicable to relations
Investment Bank against the judgment delivered on                          between the EIB and its staff: the Court of First Instance
28 September 1999 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of                     wrongly considered that it could apply ‘by analogy’ the
First Instance of the European Communities in Case                         rule in Article 91(1) of the Staff Regulations of officials of
T-140/97 between Michel Hautem and the European                            the European Communities. By ordering the EIB to pay the
                        Investment Bank                                    arrears of remuneration from the date of dismissal, the
                                                                           Court of First Instance adopted a statutory approach which
                                                                           cannot be applied to the EIB.
                       (Case C-449/99 P)
                         (2000/C 34/30)
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 28 September
1999 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities in Case T-140/97 between Michel
Hautem and the European Investment Bank was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
on 26 November 1999 by the European Investment Bank,
represented by Giannangelo Marchegiani, Director of Legal
Affairs, acting as Agent, assisted by Georges Vandersanden,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
Jean-Philippe Minnaert, of its Legal Directorate, Boulevard            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht
Konrad Adenauer.                                                       Korneuburg by order of 11 November 1999 in the case of
                                                                                Seiko Kabushiki Kaisha v Bajrami Sinavere
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Case C-450/99)
— Set aside points 1 and 2 of the operative part of the
    judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance on
    28 September 1999 in Case T-140/97;                                                         (2000/C 34/31)
— Order the respondent to bear his own costs.
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by order of 11 November 1999 from
                                                                       the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Regional Court, Korneuburg),
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        which was received at the Court Registry on 26 November
                                                                       l999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Seiko Kabushiki
                                                                       Kaisha v Bajrami Sinavere on the following question:
— Incorrect assessment of the legal nature of the facts,
    incorrect reasoning: the Court of First Instance wrongly
                                                                       On a proper construction of Article 1 thereof, is Council
    — considered that Mr Hautem had not carried on a                   Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 of 22 December 1994 laying
         professional activity of a commercial nature, whereas         down measures to prohibit the release for free circulation,
         it — correctly — reached that conclusion in the similar       export, re-export or entry for a suspensive procedure of
         case of Mr Yasse (Case T-141/97),                             counterfeit and pirated goods (Official Journal of the European
                                                                       Communities L 341 of 30 December 1994) also applicable to
                                                                       situations in which goods of the type specified therein are, in
    — considered that Mr Hautem had not made use of his                the course of transit between two countries not belonging to
         belonging to the EIB, had not involved the EIB, and           the European Community, temporarily detained by the cus-
         had not personally used its property,                         toms authorities in a Member State on the basis of that
                                                                       regulation, at the request of a holder of rights who claims that
                                                                       his rights have been infringed and whose undertaking does not
    — declined to attribute any legal value to the use of false        have its registered office in a country belonging to the
         documents and false statements in a procedure for             European Community?
         dismissal based on unauthorised commercial activity,
    — declined to attach importance to the unauthorised
         commercial activity in Andorra of Mr Hautem’s
         spouse.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 27 January 2005 in Case C-92/03: Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 75/439/EEC — Disposal of waste oils — Priority to processing by regeneration)

text:
               2.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/3

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 27 January 2005
   in Case C-92/03: Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 75/439/EEC - Disposal of waste oils - Priority to processing by regeneration)
   (2005/C 82/05)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   In Case C-92/03: action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 28 February 2003 – Commission of the European Communities (Agents: A. Caeiros and M. Konstantinidis) v Portuguese Republic (Agents: L. Fernandes and M. Lois) supported by: Republic of Finland (Agent: A. Guimaraes-Purokoski) – the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann, R. Schintgen and J. Klučka, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 27 January 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to give priority to the processing of waste oils by regeneration where the technical, economic and organisational constraints so allow, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(1) of Council Directive 75/439/EEC of 16 June 1975 on the disposal of waste oils, as amended by Council Directive 87/101/EEC of 22 December 1986;

               2.

               Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Republic of Finland to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 112 of 10.05.2003.


title: References for a preliminary ruling by the Diikitiko Protodikio (Administrative Court of First Instance), Athens, by a decision of that court of 30 March 1995 in the cases of A. Kapasakalis, D. Skiathitis and A. Kouyangas v. Greek State (Cases C-225/95, C-226/95 and C-227/95)

text:
2. 9. 95              I EN |                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 229/13
      be reutilized may be the subject of a legal transaction or        Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
      quoted on public or private commercial lists ?                    Correctionnel, Liege, by judgment of that court of 7 June
                                                                        1995 in criminal proceedings against Bent Erik Carlsen, the
(!) OJ No L 78 , 26 . 3 . 1991 , p . 32 .                               civil party to the proceedings being Georges Vanhalle, in his
( 2 ) OJ No L 377, 31 . 12 . 1991 , p . 20 .                            capacity as President of the Association Pharmaceutique
( 3 ) OJ No L 30, 6 . 2 . 1993 , p . 1 .                                                                Beige
                                                                                Case C-231 /95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 229/26 )
References for a preliminary ruling by the Diikitiko                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Protodikio ( Administrative Court of First Instance ), Athens,          European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal
by a decision of that court of 30 March 1995 in the cases of            Correctionnel ( Criminal Court), Liege, of 7 June 1995 ,
A. Kapasakalis, D. Skiathitis and A. Kouyangas v. Greek                 which was received at the Court Registry on 5 July 1995 , for
                                  State
                                                                        a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings against Bent
          ( Cases C-225/95 , C-226/95 and C-227/95 )                    Erik Carlsen, the civil party to the proceedings being
                            ( 95/C 229/24 )                             Georges Vanhalle, in his capacity as President of the
                                                                        Association Pharmaceutique Beige, on the following
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  question :
European Communities by decisions of the Administrative
Court of First Instance, Athens, of 30 March 1995 , which               Do the pharmacists' statutory monopoly to supply sterile
were received at the Court Registry on 28 June 1995 , for               articles, and the correspondig prohibition forbidding
a preliminary ruling in the cases of A. Kapasakalis,                    distributors of such articles to sell them directly to doctors,
D. Skiathitis and A. Kouyangas v. Greek State on the                    dentists, veterinary surgeons and midwives or to scientific
following questions :                                                   establishments or hospitals — a prohibition not applying to
                                                                        such sales to private individuals — which are the result of
1 . Does the result to be achieved by Council Directive                 the application of Articles 1 and 44 of the Royal Decree of
      89/48/EEC ( ] ) entail the recognition of rights in favour        6 June 1960 in conjunction with Royal Decree No 78 of
      of the individuals to whom it relates ?                           10 November 1967, constitute a measure having equivalent
                                                                        effect to a quantitative restriction, contrary to Articles 30
2 . Is the content of those rights sufficiently precise to              and 36 of the Treaty of Rome of 25 March 1957 ?
      enable them to be deduced solely on the basis of the
      framework laid down in the provisions of that
      Directive ?
3 . Is there a causal link between the infringement of the
      obligation flowing from the provisions of Article 12 of           Action brought on 5 July 1995 by the Commission of the
      the Directive by the Greek State and the demage which                 European Communities against the French Republic
      the applicant claims to have suffered ?                                                   ( Case C-234/95 )
(') OJ No L 19 , 24 . 1 . 1989 , p . 16 .                                                          ( 95/C 229/27 )
                                                                        An action against the French Republic was brought before
                                                                        the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 July
                                                                        1995 by the Commission of the European Communities,
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht              represented by Hendrik van Lier, Legal Adviser, acting as
Wiesbaden by order of 18 April 1995 in the case of Simone               Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                   Moll v. Berhane Mesghena                             office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Center,
                          ( Case C-229/95 )                             Kirchberg.
                             ( 95/C 229/25 )
                                                                        The Commission claims that the Court should :
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Arbeitsgericht                   1 . declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
 ( Labour Court) Wiesbaden of 18 April 1995 which was                        administrative measures needed to comply with Council
received at the Court Registry on 3 July 1995 , for a                        Directive 92/50/EEC ( J ) relating to the coordination of
preliminary ruling in the case of Simone Moll v. Berhane                     procedures for the award of public service contracts, the
Mesghena on the following question :                                         French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                             that Directive, in particular Article 44 thereof;
 May a cleaning contract relating to specific premises
constitute a part of a business within the meaning of                   2 . in the alternative, declare that in any event, by failing
 Directive 77/187/EEC ( M ?                                                  forthwith to inform the Commission of such measures,
                                                                             the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
 (') OJ No L 61 , 5 . 3 . 1977, p . 26 .                                     under those same provisions;
                                                                         3.  order the French Republic to pay the costs .


title: Case T-174/03: Action brought on 20 May 2003 by Franco Cozzani against Commission of the European Communities

text:
2.8.2003               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 184/41
Action brought on 20 May 2003 by Franco Cozzani against                    European Communities, manifest error of assessment and an
          Commission of the European Communities                           alleged breach of the principle of equal treatment, the principle
                                                                           that officials should have reasonable career prospects, the
                                                                           principle that legitimate expectations should be protected and
                          (Case T-174/03)                                  of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials.
                          (2003/C 184/91)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           Action brought on 21 May 2003 by Norbert Schmitt
An action against the Commission of the European Commu-                            against European Agency for Reconstruction
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 20 May 2003 by Franco Cozzani,
residing in Brussels, represented by Éric Boigelot, lawyer.                                          (Case T-175/03)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                         (2003/C 184/92)
—     annul the decision of 14 August 2002 of the authority                                    (Language of the case: French)
      empowered to conclude contracts of employment not to
      include the applicant's name on the list of officials and
      members of the temporary staff remunerated under
      research credits eligible for promotion/regrading in 2002,           An action against European Agency for Reconstruction was
      which was published in the Administrative Notices of                 brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
      14 August 2002 (IA 70-2002);                                         Communities on 21 May 2003 by Norbert Schmitt, residing in
                                                                           Köllerbach (Germany), represented by Lothar Polanz, lawyer.
—     in so far as necessary, annul the decision of 16 August
      2002 of the authority empowered to conclude contracts                The applicant claims that the Court should:
      of employment of 16 August 2002 to promote or regrade
      to A4 officials and members of the temporary staff                   —     annul the dismissal of 25 February 2003 by the Director
      remunerated under research credits appearing in the list                   of the European Agency for Reconstruction;
      published in Administrative Notices of 14 August 2002
      (IA 71-2002);                                                              in the alternative
—     annul the implied rejection of the applicant's complaint,            —     order the defendant to pay damages to the applicant
      which was submitted in accordance with Article 90(2) of                    equivalent to two years' salary to compensate him for
      the Staff Regulations on 11 November 2002, entered in                      the financial loss resulting from having lost his job;
      the register that day under No R/573/02, seeking the
      annulment of the contested decision;                                 —     order the European Agency for Reconstruction to pay the
                                                                                entire costs.
—     in consequence of those annulments, add the applicant's
      name to the list of eligible officials and regrade him to
      Grade A4 in the 2002 promotions procedure;
—     order the defendant to pay him EUR 15 000 in damages                 Pleas in law and main arguments
      for non-material damage and for having damaged his
      career;                                                              The applicant in these proceedings challenges the termination
                                                                           by the defendant of the contract for an indefinite term
—     order the defendant to pay the costs, in accordance with             between them.
      Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of
      First Instance.
                                                                           In support of his claims, he alleges that the manner in which
                                                                           he was dismissed is contrary to the general principles
                                                                           governing the European civil service and, in particular the
                                                                           general principles of legality legitimate expectations, sound
                                                                           administration and proportionality. The applicant also refers
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            to the fact that the administrative authority did not call him to
                                                                           interview prior to the dismissal.
In support of his application, the applicant alleges infringement
of the second paragraph of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations             The applicant also alleges failure to provide a statement of
consisting in an alleged failure to provide reasons for the                reasons.
decision not to promote him, infringement of Articles 10 and
15 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the


title: Case C-169/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation de Belgique by judgment of that court of 4 April 2005, in URADEX SCRL v Union Professionelle de la Radio et de la Télédistribution, abbreviated as RTD and Société Intercommunale pour la Diffusion de la Télévision, abbreviated as BRUTELE

text:
               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/28

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation de Belgique by judgment of that court of 4 April 2005, in URADEX SCRL v Union Professionelle de la Radio et de la Télédistribution, abbreviated as RTD and Société Intercommunale pour la Diffusion de la Télévision, abbreviated as BRUTELE
   (Case C-169/05)
   (2005/C 143/44)
   Language of the case: French
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by judgment of the Cour de Cassation de Belgique (Belgium) of 4 April 2005, received at the Court Registry on 15 April 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between URADEX SCRL v Union Professionelle de la Radio et de la Télédistribution, abbreviated as RTD and Société Intercommunale pour la Diffusion de la Télévision, abbreviated as BRUTELE, on the following question:
   Must Article 9(2) of Council Directive 93/83/EEC of 27 September 1993 on the coordination of certain rules concerning copyright and rights related to copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission (1) be interpreted as meaning that, where a collecting society is deemed to be mandated to manage the rights of a copyright owner or holder of related rights who has not transferred the management of his rights to a collecting society, that society does not have the power to exercise that rightholder's right to grant or refuse authorisation to a cable operator for cable retransmission, since it is mandated only to manage the pecuniary aspects of that rightholder's rights?

      (1)  OJ L 248 of 6.10.1993, p. 15.


title: Case C-138/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven by order of that court of 22 March 2005 in Stichting Zuid-Hollandse Milieufederatie v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit(intervener: LTO Nederland)

text:
               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/22

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven by order of that court of 22 March 2005 in Stichting Zuid-Hollandse Milieufederatie v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit(intervener: LTO Nederland)
   (Case C-138/05)
   (2005/C 143/31)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) of 22 March 2005, received at the Court Registry on 25 March 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Stichting Zuid-Hollandse Milieufederatie and Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit (intervener: LTO Nederland) on the following questions:

               1.

               May Article 8 of the Plant Protection Products Directive (1) be applied by the national court after the period referred to in Article 23 thereof has expired?

               2.

               Must Article 16 of the Biocidal Product Directive (2) be interpreted as having the same meaning as Article 8(2) of the Plant Protection Products Directive?

               3.

               Must Article 8(2) of the Plant Protection Products Directive be interpreted as a standstill obligation in the sense that a Member State has the power to alter the existing system or practice only in so far as this results in an assessment in connection with the authorisation of plant protection products which is consistent with this directive?

               4.

               If the answer to Question 3 is in the negative:
               Does Article 8(2) of the Plant Protection Products Directive impose limits on amendments to national rules concerning the placing on the market of biocidal products, and if so what limits?

               5.

               If the answer to Question 4 is in the negative:
               By what criteria is it necessary to assess whether there are measures liable seriously to compromise achievement of the result prescribed by the directive?

               6.

               If the answer to Question 2 is in the negative:

                           (a)

                           Must Article 8(2) of the Plant Protection Products Directive be interpreted as meaning that, where a Member State authorises the placing on the market in its territory of plant protection products containing active substances not listed in Annex I to that directive that were already on the market two years after the date of notification of that directive, regard must also be had to the provisions of Article 4 thereof?

                           (b)

                           Must Article 8(2) of the Plant Protection Products Directive also be interpreted as meaning that, where a Member State authorises the placing on the market in its territory of plant protection products containing active substances not listed in Annex I to that directive that were already on the market two years after the date of notification of that directive, regard must also be had to the provisions of Article 8(3) thereof?

               7.

               Must Article 8(3) of the Plant Protection Products Directive be interpreted as meaning that an examination of an new application of a plant protection product already on the market, whereby it is considered whether there are unacceptable risks to the operator/worker, human health and the environment in connection with a temporary measure as referred to in Article 16aa of the Law on Pesticides, is to be regarded as a review within the meaning of Article 8(3) thereof?

               8.

               Must Article 8(3) of the Plant Protection Products Directive be interpreted as meaning that it contains only rules relating to the provision of data before a review or must it be construed as meaning that the requirements set out therein are also relevant to the way in which a review must be organised and carried out?

      (1)  Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ L 230, 19/08/1991 p. 1)

      (2)  Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (OJ L 123, 24/04/1998 p. 1)


title: Judgment of the Court of 30 September 2003 in Case C-94/02 P: Établissements Biret et Cie SA v Council of the European Union (Appeal — Directives 81/602/EEC, 88/146/EEC and 96/22/EC — Prohibition on the use of certain substances having a hormonal action — Prohibition on the importation from third countries of meat from farm animals to which those substances have been administered — Application for damages — Direct effect of the WTO Agreement and the agreements annexed thereto — Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures — Recommendations and decisions of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body)

text:
15.11.2003               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 275/19
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       of 30 September 2003                                                         of 30 September 2003
in Case C-93/02 P: Biret International SA v Council of the                   in Case C-94/02 P: Établissements Biret et Cie SA v Council
                         European Union (1)                                                       of the European Union (1)
(Appeal — Directives 81/602/EEC, 88/146/EEC and 96/22/                       (Appeal — Directives 81/602/EEC, 88/146/EEC and 96/22/
EC — Prohibition on the use of certain substances having a                   EC — Prohibition on the use of certain substances having a
hormonal action — Prohibition on the importation from                        hormonal action — Prohibition on the importation from
third countries of meat from farm animals to which those                     third countries of meat from farm animals to which those
substances have been administered — Application for dam-                     substances have been administered — Application for dam-
ages — Direct effect of the WTO Agreement and the                            ages — Direct effect of the WTO Agreement and the
agreements annexed thereto — Agreement on the Appli-                         agreements annexed thereto — Agreement on the Appli-
cation of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures — Rec-                         cation of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures — Rec-
ommendations and decisions of the WTO Dispute Settlement                     ommendations and decisions of the WTO Dispute Settlement
                                 Body)                                                                       Body)
                          (2003/C 275/32)                                                              (2003/C 275/33)
                     (Language of the case: French)                                               (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                                               in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-93/02 P, Biret International SA, a company in                      In Case C-94/02 P, Établissements Biret et Cie SA, established
judicial liquidation, established in Paris (France) (represented             in Paris (France), (represented by S. Rodrigues): Appeal against
by M. de Thoré and S. Rodrigues): Appeal against the judgment                the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                   Communities (First Chamber) of 11 January 2002 in Case
(First Chamber) of 11 January 2002 in Case T-174/00 Biret                    T-210/00 Biret et Cie v Council [2002] ECR II-47, seeking to
International v Council [2002] ECR II-17, seeking to have that               have that judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings
judgment set aside, the other parties to the proceedings being:              being: Council of the European Union, (Agents: J. Carbery and
Council of the European Union, (Agents: J. Carbery and                       F. P. Ruggeri Laderchi), supported by United Kingdom of Great
F. P. Ruggeri Laderchi), supported by United Kingdom of Great                Britain and Northern Ireland, (Agents: P. M. Ormond), and
Britain and Northern Ireland, (Agent: P. M. Ormond), and                     Commission of the European Communities, (Agents: T. Chris-
Commission of the European Communities, (Agents: T. Chris-                   toforou and A. Bordes), the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrí-
toforou and A. Bordes), the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrí-                  guez Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet (Rappor-
guez Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet (Rapporte-           teur), R. Schintgen and C.W.A. Timmermans (Presidents of
ur), R. Schintgen and C.W.A. Timmermans (Presidents of                       Chambers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann, V. Skouris,
Chambers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann, V. Skouris,                   F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues,
F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues,                Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal
Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal                     Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                    30 September 2003, in which it:
30 September 2003, in which it:
                                                                             1.    Dismisses the appeal;
1.    Dismisses the appeal;
                                                                             2.    Orders Établissements Biret et Cie SA to bear its own costs and
2.    Orders Biret International SA to bear its own costs and to pay               to pay two thirds of the costs of the Council of the European
      two thirds of the costs of the Council of the European Union;                Union;
3.    Orders the Council of the European Union to bear one third of          3.    Orders the Council of the European Union to bear one third of
      its own costs;                                                               its own costs;
4.    Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern                4.    Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
      Ireland and the Commission of the European Communities to                    Ireland and the Commission of the European Communities to
      bear their own costs.                                                        bear their own costs.
(1) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.                                                    (1) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.


title: Case C-253/11 P: Appeal brought on 25 May 2011 by Alstom, T&D Holding, formerly Areva T&D Holding SA, Alstom Grid SAS, formerly Areva T&D SA, Alstom Grid AG, formerly Areva T&D AG against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 3 March 2011 in Joined Cases T-117/07 and T-121/07 Areva and Others v Commission

text:
               16.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/19

         Appeal brought on 25 May 2011 by Alstom, T&D Holding, formerly Areva T&D Holding SA, Alstom Grid SAS, formerly Areva T&D SA, Alstom Grid AG, formerly Areva T&D AG against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 3 March 2011 in Joined Cases T-117/07 and T-121/07 Areva and Others v Commission
   (Case C-253/11 P)
   2011/C 211/37
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellants: Alstom, T&D Holding, formerly Areva T&D Holding SA, Alstom Grid SAS, formerly Areva T&D SA, Alstom Grid AG, formerly Areva T&D AG (represented by: J. Derenne and A. Müller-Rappard, lawyers)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Areva, European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 3 March 2011 in Cases T-117/07 and T-121/07 Areva SA, Areva T&D Holding SA, Areva T&D AG, Areva T&D SA and Alstom v European Commission;

               —

               if the Court of Justice considers that the state of the proceedings is such as to permit final judgment in the matter:

                           —

                           principally, set aside the following provisions of Commission Decision C(2006) 6762 final of 24 January 2007 (Case COMP/F/38.899 — Gas insulated switchgear):

                                       —

                                       Article 1(b) [Alstom],

                                       —

                                       Article 1(d) [Alstom Grid AG (formerly Areva T&D AG)],

                                       —

                                       Article 1(e) [T&D Holding (formerly Areva T&D Holding SA)],

                                       —

                                       Article 1(f) [Alstom Grid SAS (formerly Areva T&D SA)],

                                       —

                                       Article 2(b) [Alstom],

                                       —

                                       Article 2(c) [Alstom, Alstom Grid AG (formerly Areva T&D AG), T&D Holding (formerly Areva T&D Holding SA) and Alstom Grid SAS (formerly Areva T&D SA)];

                           —

                           in the alternative, substantially reduce the fines imposed on the appellants;

                           —

                           order the Commission to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings before the General Court;

               —

               if the Court of Justice considers that the state of the proceedings is not such as to permit final judgment in the matter, refer the case back to a Chamber of the General Court with a different composition and reserve the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellants put forward five pleas in support of their appeal.
   By their first plea, which is in two parts, the appellants allege infringement of Article 269 TFEU by the General Court in so far as it holds that the Commission's decision is sufficiently reasoned. In this respect, they criticise, first, the General Court for holding, in paragraphs 90 to 99 of the judgment under appeal, that the Commission reasoned to the requisite legal standard its finding that Alstom was jointly and severally liable with Areva T&D SA and Areva T&D AG on the basis that Alstom failed to rebut the presumption of exercise of decisive influence over its subsidiaries, even though the Commission failed to respond to the evidence adduced by Alstom in order to rebut that presumption (first part). The appellants criticise, second, the General Court for holding, in paragraph 200 of the judgment under appeal, that the Commission was entitled not to provide an explanation on the reasons why two companies which do not form a single economic entity on the date of adoption of a decision can have a fine imposed on them for which they are jointly and severally liable.
   By their second plea, the appellants allege infringement by the General Court of Articles 36 and 53 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, in conjunction with Article 263 TFEU, in so far as the General Court substitutes, in paragraphs 101 to 110 (first part), 148 to 150 (second part) and 214 to 216 (third part) of the judgment, its own reasoning for that of the Commission by retrospectively adding to the contested decision reasons which do not appear in that decision. Similarly, Alstom and Others criticise the General Court for holding, in paragraph 206 of the judgment under appeal, that two companies which do not form an economic unit on the date of adoption of the contested decision can have a fine imposed on them for which they are jointly and severally liable (fourth part).
   The third plea, alleging imposition by the General Court of a probatio diabolica in breach of Article 101 TFEU, and in particular in breach of the rules governing the attributability to a parent company of the activities of its subsidiary and of the principles of the right to a fair hearing and the presumption of innocence enshrined in Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, is in two parts. The appellants submit that:

               (a)

               first, by upholding the Commission's attribution of liability for the activities of its subsidiaries to their parent company Alstom and by applying the case-law principles of the presumption of exercise of decisive influence, the General Court failed to have regard, in paragraphs 84 to 110 of the judgment under appeal, to the right to a fair hearing and the principle of the presumption of innocence, by adopting, in the context of attribution of liability, a definition of exercise of decisive influence by a parent company over its subsidiary which bears no relation to actual conduct on the market in question and, therefore, by rendering that presumption non-rebuttable;

               (b)

               second, the General Court erred in law, in paragraphs 144 to 152 of the judgment under appeal, in the assessment of the exercise of decisive influence by Areva T&D Holding SA over Areva T&D SA and Areva T&D AG during the period from 9 January to 11 May 2004.

         The fourth plea alleges breach by the General Court of the concept of joint and several liability in so far as the General Court holds, in paragraphs 214 to 216 of the judgment under appeal, that joint and several liability determines the shares of the respective contributions of the companies on which a fine has been imposed jointly and severally (first part) and in so far as the General Court infringes, in paragraphs 232 to 236 and 238 to 242 of the judgment under appeal, the principle of legal certainty and the principle that the penalty must be specific to the offender, as well as Article 13 TEU, since there has been a delegation of the Commission's power to determine the liability of each of the undertakings punished.
   The fifth plea alleges that the General Court infringed its obligation to respond to the pleas raised in so far as it misinterprets, in paragraphs 223 to 230 of the judgment, the scope of the plea alleging breach of the right to an effective remedy and to judicial protection and does not therefore respond to the plea raised but to another plea which was not raised.


title: Case C-248/17 P: Appeal brought on 11 May 2017 by Bank Tejarat against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 14 March 2017 in Case T-346/15: Bank Tejarat v Council

text:
               31.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/19

         Appeal brought on 11 May 2017 by Bank Tejarat against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 14 March 2017 in Case T-346/15: Bank Tejarat v Council
   (Case C-248/17 P)
   (2017/C 249/30)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Bank Tejarat (represented by: S. Zaiwalla, P. Reddy, A. Meskarian, Solicitors, M. Brindle QC, T. Otty, R. Blakeley, Barristers)

      Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               allow this appeal and set aside paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Court's order contained in the second judgment;

               —

               allow the Bank's re-listing application;

               —

               annul the contested measures insofar as they apply to the Bank; and

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs of the appeal and the costs of the proceedings before the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The General Court erred in law in that it wrongly attributed no and/or insufficient weight to the evidence adduced by the Bank and thereby distorted the key evidence relevant to the question as to whether the allegations in the contested reasons were substantiated by the Council.
   Regardless of the outcome of the first ground of appeal, the General Court erred in law in that it distorted the key evidence relevant to the question as to whether the allegations in the contested reasons were substantiated by the Council and/or erroneously placed the burden of proof of the Bank.
   In respect of both the first and second grounds of appeal, had the General Court applied the correct principles and/or had it not distorted the evidence referred to above, it would have annulled the contested measures.
   The General Court erred in law in holding that the Council was entitled to re-list the Bank on the basis of reasons that could and should have been advanced prior to the first judgment and that the Council’s conduct did not violate Article 266 TFEU as well as the principles of res judicata and/or legal certainty and/or finality and/or effectiveness and/or the right to effective judicial protection and/or the Bank’s rights under Article 47 of the EU Charter and/or under Article 6 and Article 13 ECHR and/or its rights to good administration and/or the principle of proportionality.