C 48/32              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 20.2.1999
       Removal from the register of Case T-193/95 (1)              and Case T-206/97 Olivier Brunet, Luigi Brusa, Peter
                        (1999/C 48/68)                             Cavendish, HeÂleÁne Chraye, Stella da Costa Santos,
                                                                   Tamara Diomede Basili, Christina Laso Sanz, GeÂrard
                                                                   Lhost, Carlos Martinez Mongay, Viriato Monteiro Da
               (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                   Silva, Nicolioulas Panagiotis, Carla Piccinni-Leopardi,
                                                                   Jorge Manuel Pinheiro De Jesus Ferreira, Angelo Salsi and
By order of 30 November 1998, the President of the First           Graham Willmott v. Commission of the European
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European             Communities.
Communities ordered the removal from the register of
Case T-193/95: Fintecna SpA v. Commission of the                   (1) OJ C 142, 10.5.1997, OJ C 166, 31.5.1997, OJ C 181,
European Communities.                                                  14.6.1997, OJ C 228, 26.7.1997, OJ C 318, 18.10.1997 and
                                                                       OJ C 7, 10.1.1998.
(1) OJ C 16, 20.1.1996.
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case T-292/97 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case T-25/97 ( )1
                                                                                (1999/C 48/71)
                        (1999/C 48/69)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                   By order of 1 December 1998, the President of the Fourth
By order of 14 December 1998, the President of the First           Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European             Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
Communities ordered the removal from the register of               removal from the register of Case T-292/97: Assidomän
Case T-25/97: Michael Pulch v. Commission of the                   Kraft Products AB, AB Iggesunds Bruk, Korsnäs AB,
European Communities.                                              Modo Paper AB, Södra Cell AB, Stora Kopparbergs
                                                                   Bergslags AB and Svenska Cellulosa AB (SCA) v.
(1) OJ C 131, 26.4.1997.                                           Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 113, 11.4.1998.
Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-38/97,
T-77/97, T-107/97, T-139/97, T-154/97, T-162/97,
                  T-205/97 and T-206/97 (1)                                Removal from the register of Case T-67/98 (1)
                        (1999/C 48/70)                                                     (1999/C 48/72)
               (Language of the case: French)                                      (Language of the case: French)
By order of 15 December 1998 the President of the First            By order of 11 December 1998, the President of the First
Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First               Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Instance of the European Communities ruled that the                Communities ordered the removal from the register of
following cases be removed from the register: Case                 Case T-67/98: TheÂodore Giannakopoulos v. Commission
T-38/97 Lucette GeÂrard, Case T-77/97 JoseÂ Baiges Planas,         of the European Communities.
Viviane Baretti-Piazzi, David Broderick, Alessandro
Buttice, Peter Grasmann, Timothy Hayes, Louis Hersom,
                                                                   (1) OJ C 208, 4.7.1998.
Owen Jones, Jean-Louis Levy-Gorgeot, Saturno Mallia,
Fenardo Mazza, Yasmine Pire, William Richer, Josefa
Rodriguez Portero, Robert Smyth, Alain Van Hamme and
Fionnuala Walker, Case T-107/97 Suzanne Smetes, Case
T-139/97 Marc Blijweert, Manuel Carvalhosa, Rita
Lehmann, Annette Mills, Glenys Nichol, Jeffery Piper,
Francisco Sentieiro and Guy Thiry, Case T-154/97 Patricia                 Removal from the register of Case T-140/98 (1)
Brunko-Metzger, Mariette Colinet, Christiane Degueldre,                                    (1999/C 48/73)
Nicole Dumont, Emile Espagnet, Paul Fraix, Georgios
Katalagarianakis, Danielle Lardinois, Carlos Alberto Leite
Mateus, Liborio Licata, Alberto Piazzi, Cornelis Pot, Rita                         (Language of the case: French)
Sacca-George, Jacques Simon and Harry Waterschoot,
Case T-162/97 Albert Verleysen, Case T-205/97                      By order of 9 December 1998, the President of the Fourth
Christopher Atkin, David Cornwell and Paul Smeulders               Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European


title: Case T-461/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 September 2007 — Imagination Technologies v OHIM (PURE DIGITAL) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark PURE DIGITAL — Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94)

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/46

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 September 2007 — Imagination Technologies v OHIM (PURE DIGITAL)
   (Case T-461/04) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark PURE DIGITAL - Absolute grounds for refusal - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94)
   (2007/C 269/82)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Imagination Technologies (Kings Langley, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Edenborough, Barrister, and P. Brownlow and N. Jenkins, Solicitors)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Schennen initially and subsequently by D. Botis, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 September 2004 (Case R 108/2004-2), concerning an application for the registration of the word mark PURE DIGITAL as a Community trade mark
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

                  Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 57, 5.3.2005.


title: Case T-115/09: Action brought on 24 March 2009 — Electrolux v Commission

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/42

         Action brought on 24 March 2009 — Electrolux v Commission
   (Case T-115/09)
   2009/C 113/84
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: AB Electrolux (Stockholm, Sweden) (represented by: F. Wijckmans, H. Burez, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the contested decision in its entirety on account of the fact that one or more of the (cumulative) conditions of the Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty are not met or that, in any event, the Commission has failed to ascertain to the requisite legal standard that each of such conditions is met;

               —

               in subsidiary order, annul the decision in its entirety on account of the failure to comply with the duty to state reasons laid down in Article 253 EC;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 5995 final of 21 October 2008 declaring compatible with the common market the restructuring aid to be paid out by the French authorities to FagorBrandt company, subject to a number of conditions [C 44/2007 (ex N 460/2007)]. The applicant is a competitor to the beneficiary of the aid and has participated in the investigation procedure leading to the adoption of the contested decision.
   The applicant claims that the contested decision infringes Article 87(3)(c) EC and the Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (1). In the applicant’s opinion, the holding of the decision is incorrect as a matter of law on account of the fact that one or more of the cumulative conditions of the abovementioned guidelines are not met or that, in any event, the Commission has failed to ascertain to the requisite legal standard that each of such conditions is met. In particular, the applicant submits that the Commission failed to comply with:

               —

               the ‘one time, last time’ condition,

               —

               the condition that restructuring aid may not serve to keep firms artificially alive,

               —

               the conditions as to the assessment of previous unlawful aid,

               —

               the condition that the beneficiary of the aid must be a firm in difficulty,

               —

               the condition that the beneficiary of the aid should not be a newly created firm,

               —

               the condition that the beneficiary of the aid must restore the long-term viability of the beneficiary,

               —

               the condition of imposing compensatory measures to avoid undue distortions resulting from the restructuring aid, and

               —

               the condition that the aid must be limited to the minimum and that a real contribution (free of aid) must be made by the business group.

         Furthermore, the applicant contends that the contested decision infringes the duty to state reasons laid down in Article 253 EC in particular with respect to the arguments advanced by the applicant regarding the structural overcapacity in the sector, the contribution of the beneficiary to the costs of the restructuring plan that must be ‘as high as possible’ and the repayment obligation of previous unlawful aid.

      (1)  OJ 2004 C 244, p. 2


title: Case C-561/14: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — Caner Genc v Integrationsministeriet (Reference for a preliminary ruling — EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Decision No 1/80 — Article 13 — Standstill clause — Family reunification — National legislation laying down new, more stringent conditions on access to family reunification for family members, who are not economically active, of economically active Turkish nationals who are resident and have a residence permit in the Member State in question — Condition requiring ties sufficient to enable successful integration)

text:
               13.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/17

      Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — Caner Genc v Integrationsministeriet
      (Case C-561/14) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Decision No 1/80 - Article 13 - Standstill clause - Family reunification - National legislation laying down new, more stringent conditions on access to family reunification for family members, who are not economically active, of economically active Turkish nationals who are resident and have a residence permit in the Member State in question - Condition requiring ties sufficient to enable successful integration))
      (2016/C 211/20)
      Language of the case: Danish

         Referring court

      Østre Landsret

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Caner Genc

         Defendant: Integrationsministeriet

         Operative part of the judgment

      A national measure such as that at issue in the main proceedings, making family reunification between a Turkish worker residing lawfully in the Member State concerned and his minor child subject to the condition that the latter have, or have the possibility of establishing, sufficient ties with Denmark to enable him successfully to integrate, when the child concerned and his other parent reside in the State of origin or in another State, and the application for family reunification is made more than two years from the date on which the parent residing in the Member State concerned obtained a permanent residence permit or a residence permit with a possibility of permanent residence constitutes a ‘new restriction’, within the meaning of Article 13 of Decision 1/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association set up by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, signed in Ankara on 12 September 1963 by the Republic of Turkey, on the one hand, and by the Member States of the EEC and the Community, on the other, and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Decision 64/732/EEC of 23 December 1963.
      Such a restriction is not justified.

         (1)  OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.


title: Action brought on 11 February 1997 by Agnès Hubert against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-28/97)

text:
  No C 131 /20           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   26 . 4 . 97
  Action brought on 11 February 1997 by Agnes Hubert                   The    material   harm     liable to   occur is harm  to    the
     against the Commission of the European Communities                applicant's career, there being a risk that the disputed
                           ( Case T-28/97)                             decisions will prevent or delay her promotion to duties at
                                                                       A 3 level . The non-material harm stems from the fact that
                            ( 97/C 131 /47)                            she has been removed from her duties without that being
                                                                       justified in the interest of the service and the fact that
                                                                       doubt has been cast on her professional abilities.
                  (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 11 February
  1997 by Agnes Hubert, resident in Brussels, represented
  by Marc-Albert Lucas of the Liege Bar, with an address               Action brought on 11 February 1997 by Alain Liberos
  for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Evelyne                    against the Commission of the European Communities
  Korn, 21 Rue de Nassau.
                                                                                ( Case T-29/97)
  The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                    ( 97/C 131 /48 )
  — annul the decision of the appointing authority, notified                           (Language of the case: French)
       to her by a memorandum of 27 March 1996,
       transferring her, or changing her post or duties as
       Head of Unit V.A.3 (Equal Opportunities ) to a post or          An action against the Commission of the European
       duties as Adviser in Directorate E ( Social Policy and
                                                                       Communities was brought before the Court of First
       Action ), and all related decisions,
                                                                       Instance of the European Communities on 11 February
                                                                       1997 by Alain Liberos, residing in Brussels, represented by
  — order the Commission to pay her the provisional sum                Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Liege Bar, with an address for
       of one Belgian franc in damages for the material harm           service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Evelyne Korn,
                                                                       21 Avenue de Nassau .
       liable to be occasioned to her by the contested
       decisions, subject to subsequent increase depending on
       how that harm develops,
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
  — order the Commission to pay her BFR 300 000 in
       damages for the non-material harm occasioned to her
       by the contested decisions,                                     — annul the Commission 's decision definitively placing
                                                                            the applicant in Grade 7 of Category A, Step 3 , by an
                                                                            agreement supplementary to his contract of service,
  — order the Commission to pay the costs .
                                                                       — annul the Commission 's decision of 5 November 1996
  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       rejecting the applicant's administrative complaint of
                                                                            28 March 1996 ,
  By a memorandum of 27 March 1996, the appointing
  authority informed the applicant, an official in Grade A 4,
  Step 2, that it had been decided to change her posting as            — order the Commission to pay the costs.
  Head of Unit V.A.3 and to assign her to the post of
  Adviser to the Director of Directorate E of DG V. That
' decision took effect on 1 April 1996 .                               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
  The applicant considers that Articles 4 and 29 of the Staff
  Regulations have been infringed since, according to the              The applicant is a member of the temporary staff of the
  case-law of the Court of First Instance, a decision to               Commission of the European Communities in Grade A 7,
  transfer an official is subject to the requirements of those         Step 3 . On 1 July 1995 he was appointed to Grade A 7,
  articles. She also alleges that Article 25 of the Staff              Step 1 . By an agreement of 15 March 1996 ,
  Regulations was infringed because no reasons were given              supplementary to his contract of service, he was
  in the memorandum informing her of the disputed                      definitively classed in his current grade .
  decision, and that Article 7 thereof was infringed because,
  according to the case-law of the Court of Justice and of
  the Court of First Instance, decisions to transfer officials         The applicant maintains that his specific professional
  against their will are permissible only if they are based on         training and experience should be given due recognition as
  the interest of the service, which is not the case with the          of 1 July 1995 , the date when his contract took effect.
  disputed decision.                                                   Since, having gained his Maitrise during June 1983 , he


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 April 2003 in Case C-142/00 P: Commission of the European Communities v Nederlandse Antillen (Appeal — Arrangements for association of the overseas countries and territories — Imports of rice originating in the overseas countries and territories — Safeguard measures — Regulations (EC) No 2352/97 and No 2494/97 — Action for annulment — Inadmissibility of the action)

text:
21.6.2003                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                               C 146/3
1.    Declares that:                                                                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
      —     by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, provisions
            requiring the competent authority, before granting a
            permit to undertakings which regenerate waste oils or use                                   of 10 April 2003
            them as fuel, to satisfy itself that health is appropriately
            protected where waste oils are used as fuel and that the          in Case C-142/00 P: Commission of the European Com-
            best available technology not entailing excessive cost is                       munities v Nederlandse Antillen ( 1)
            used where waste oils are regenerated or used as fuel;
                                                                              (Appeal — Arrangements for association of the overseas
                                                                              countries and territories — Imports of rice originating in the
      —     by failing to lay down, within the prescribed period, that
                                                                              overseas countries and territories — Safeguard measures —
            residues from the combustion of waste oils are to be
                                                                              Regulations (EC) No 2352/97 and No 2494/97 — Action
            disposed of in accordance with the obligations flowing
                                                                                for annulment — Inadmissibility of the action)
            from Article 9 of Council Directive 78/319/EEC of
            20 March 1978 on toxic and dangerous waste and, from
            27 June 1995, in accordance with the obligations arising                                     (2003/C 146/04)
            under Article 9 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of
            15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council Directive
            91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991, which were already                                        (Language of the case: Dutch)
            owed by the Member States under Article 9 of Directive
            78/319;                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
      —     by not providing, within the prescribed period, for
            periodical inspection of undertakings which regenerate
            waste oils or use them as fuel, or for examination of             In Case C-142/00 P, Commission of the European Communi-
            trends in the state of technical development and/or of the        ties (Agent: T. van Rijn), supported by French Republic (Agents:
            environment with a view to revising, where necessary,             G. de Bergues and L. Bernheim) and by Council of the
            permits granted to those undertakings;                            European Union (Agents: J. Huber and G. Houttuin): Appeal
                                                                              against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                              European Communities (Third Chamber) of 10 February 2000
      —     by failing to convey to the Commission information                in Joined Cases T-32/98 and T-41/98 Nederlandse Antillen v
            concerning technical expertise and the experience gained          Commission [2000] ECR II-201, seeking to have that judgment
            and results obtained through the application of measures          set aside the other parties to the proceedings being: Nederland-
            taken pursuant to Council Directive 75/439/EEC of                 se Antillen (represented by M. M. Slotboom and P. V. F. Bos)
            16 June 1975 on the disposal of waste oils, as amended            and Kingdom of Spain (Agent: N. Díaz Abad), the Court (Sixth
            by Council Directive 87/101/EEC of 22 December                    Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the
            1986,                                                             Chamber, R. Schintgen, C. Gulmann, V. Skouris and F. Macken
                                                                              (Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet,
                                                                              Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
                                                                              on 10 April 2003, in which it:
      the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      Articles 6(2), 8(2)(a), 13 and 17 of Directive 75/439, as
      amended by Directive 87/101;                                            1.    Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                                European Communities of 10 February 2000 in Joined Cases
                                                                                T-32/98 and T-41/98 Nederlandse Antillen v Commission;
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;                             2.    Dismisses as inadmissible the Nederlandse Antillen’s appli-
                                                                                cations for annulment;
3.    Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.                        3.    Orders the Nederlandse Antillen to pay the costs both at first
                                                                                instance and on appeal;
                                                                              4.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic and the
( 1) OJ C 34 of 05.02.2000.                                                         Council of the European Union to bear their own costs.
                                                                              (1 ) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 12 December 1995 in Joined Cases C-319/93, C-40/94 and C-224/94 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof, Leeuwarden, and the Arrondissementsrechtbank, 's-Hertogenbosch): Hendrik Evert Dijkstra v. Friesland (Frico Domo) Coöperatie BA and Others (Competition - Status of dairy cooperative associations - Fee payable on withdrawal or expulsion - Interpretation of Article 2 of Regulation No 26)

text:
 17. 2 . 96           I EN |               Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 46/3
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      obligations under Article 1 of Regulation (EEC)
                          ( Fifth Chamber)                                 No 2241 /87;
                        of 7 December 1995
                                                                      3 . orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
in     Case    C-52/95 :      Commission   of the      European
               Communities v. French Republic (*)
                                                                      (') OJ No C 87, 8 . 4 . 1995 .
 (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Anchovy catch quotas — Control measures — Obligations
                       of the Member States)
                              96/C 46/04 )
                 (Language of the case: French)                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 12 December 1995
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be          in Joined Cases C-3 19/93 , C-40/94 and C-224/94
          published in the European Court Reports)                    ( references for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof,
                                                                      Leeuwarden,          and    the    Arrondissementsrechtbank,
                                                                      's-Hertogenbosch ): Hendrik Evert Dijkstra v. Friesland
In Case C-52/95 : Commission of the European                                  ( Frico Domo ) Coöperatie BA and Others ( l )
Communities ( Agent: G. Rozet) v. French Republic ( Agents :          (Competition — Status ofdairy cooperative associations —
E. Belliard, G. Mignot and I. Latournarie ) — application for        Feepayable on withdrawal or expulsion — Interpretation of
a declaration by the Court that by not provisionally                                  Article 2 of Regulation No 26)
prohibiting fishing by its vessels of anchovy stocks in ICES
                                                                                96/C 46/05
Zone VIII so as to ensure compliance with the fishing quotas
allocated to it in 1991 and 1992 and by not taking action
against the persons responsible for fishing and                                        (Language of the case: Dutch)
fishing-related activities carried out in respect of such stocks
after fishing was prohibited by the Commission in 1991 and
                                                                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
1992 , the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
under Articles 11 ( 2 ) and 1 of Council Regulation ( EEC )
No 2241 /87 of 23 July 1987 establishing certain control
measures for fishing activities ( OJ 1987 L 207, p. 1 ), as          In Joined Cases C-3 19/93 , C-40/94 and C-224/94 :
amended by Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3483/88 of                  references to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty
7 November 1988 ( OJ 1988 L 306 , p. 2 ), in conjunction             by the Gerechtshof ( Regional Court of Appeal ),
with Article 3 of, and the Annexes to, both Council                  Leeuwarden, and the Arrondissementsrechtbank ( District
Regulation ( EEC ) No 3926/90 of 20 December 1990 fixing,            Court ), ' s-Hertogenbosch ( Netherlands ) for a preliminary
for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, the total         ruling in the proceedings pending before those courts
allowable catches for 1991 and certain conditions under              between Hendrik Evert Dijkstra and Friesland ( Frico domo )
which they may be fished ( OJ 1990 L 378 , p. 1 ) and Council        Coöperatie BA, between Cornelis van Roessel and others
Regulation ( EEC ) No 3882/91 of 18 December 1991 fixing,            and De coöperatieve vereniging Zuivelcoöperatie Campina
for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, the total         Melkunie BA, and between Willem de Bie and others and De
allowable catches for 1992 and certain conditions under              Coöperatie Zuivelcoöperatie Campina Melkunie BA, on the
which they may be fished ( OJ 1991 L 367, p. 1 ) — the Court         interpretation of Article 2 ( 1 ) of Regulation No 26 of the
( Fifth Chamber), composed of D. A. O. Edward                        Council of 4 April 1962 applying certain rules of
( Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, J. -P. Puissochet,          competition to production of and trade in agricultural
J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann and M. Wathelet,               products ( OJ, English Special Edition 1959— 1962, p. 129 )
Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate General ; R. Grass, Registrar,         — the Court, composed of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias,
gave a judgment on 7 December 1995 , in which it:                    President, C. N. Kakouris, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet
                                                                     and G. Hirsch ( Presidents of Chambers ), J. C. Moitinho de
                                                                     Almeida ( Rapporteur ), P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, J. L.
1 . declares that, by not provisionally prohibiting fishing by       Murray, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate
     its vessels of anchovy stocks in ICES Zone VIII so as to        General ; H. A. Rühl , Principal Administrator, for the
     ensure compliance with the fishing quotas allocated to it       Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 December 1995 , in
     in 1991 and 1992, the French Republic has failed to             which it rules :
     fulfil its obligations under Article 1 1 (2) of Council
     Regulation (EEC) No 2241 /87 of 23 July 1987
     establishing certain control measures for fishing                1 . The inapplicability of Article 85 of the Treaty to
     activities;                                                           agreements, decisions and practices offarmers, farmers '
                                                                           associations or associations of such associations is
                                                                           exclusively subject to the conditions laid down in the
2 . declares that, by not taking action against the persons                second sentence of Article 2 (1 ) of Regulation No 26. If
     responsible for fishing and fishing-related activities                an agreement or decision falls within the scope of
     carried out in respect of the stock in question after                 Article 85 (1 ) of the Treaty and the criteria for
     fishing was prohibited by the Commission in 1991 and                  exemption referred to in the second sentence of
     1992, the French Republic has failed to fulfill its                   Article 2 (1 ) of Regulation No 26 are not fulfilled, and it
 ---pagebreak--- No C 46/4              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       17. 2 . 96
    does not qualify for exemption pursuant to                        Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
    Article 85 (3), it is automatically void arid such nullity        judgment on 12 December 1995 , in which it rules :
    has retroactive effect.
                                                                      1 . In order to decide whether fees payable under the
2 . A national court before which a party pleads the nullity                statutes of a cooperative association on withdrawal or
    of a clause in the statutes of an agricultural cooperative              exclusion are compatible with Article 85 (1 ) of the EEC
    on the ground that it infringes Article 85 (1 ) of the                  Treaty, the national court must consider the object of
    Treaty, and before which the cooperative seeks to rely                  the agreement providing for such fees, the effects of that
    on Article 2 (1 ) of Regulation No 26, may continue the                 agreement and whether it affects intra- Community
    proceedings and adjudicate on the dispute if it is clear                trade, taking into account the economic context in
    that the criteria for the application of Article 85 (1) are             which the undertakings operate, the products or services
    not fulfilled, or may declare the clause void under                     covered by the agreement, the structure of the market
    Article 85 (2) if it is certain that that provision does not            concerned and the actual conditions in which it
    fulfil the conditions for application of the exception laid             functions.
    down in Article 2 (1 ) of Regulation No 26 and does not
    qualify for exemption under Article 85 (3). Where there
    is any doubt, the national court may, if it is appropriate        2 . Fees payable under the statutes of a cooperative
    and consistent with the national rules of procedure,                    association on withdrawal or exclusion may fall within
    obtain additional information from the Commission or                    the derogation provided for in Regulation No 26 of the
    allow the parties to seek a decision from the                           Council of 4 April 1962 applying certain rules of
     Commission .                                                           competition to production of and trade in agricultural
                                                                            products only if the agreement providing for them
(•) OJ No C 204 , 28 . 7 . 1993 .
                                                                            concerns a cooperative association belonging to a single
                                                                            Member State, does not cover prices but concerns rather
                                                                            the production or sale ofagricultural products or the use
                                                                            ofjoint facilities for the storage, treatment or processing
                                                                            of such products, and finally does not exclude
                                                                            competition or jeopardize the objectives of the common
                                                                            agricultural policy.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                      of 12 December 1995                             (') OJ No C 274 , 12 . 10 . 1993 .
in Case C-3 99/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Arrondissementsrechtbank, Zutphen ): H.G. Oude
Luttikhuis and Others v. Verenigde Cooperatieve
                  Melkindustrie Coberco BA (*)
(Competition — Statutes of dairy cooperative associations
— Fee payable on withdrawal or expulsion — Article 85 of
                the Treaty and Regulation No 26)                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           ( 96/C 46/06 )                                                       ( Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 12 December 1995
                  (Language of the case: Dutch)                        in Case C-469/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                       the Tribunale di Trieste): Amministrazione delle Finanze
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                       dello Stato v. Chiquita Italia SpA ( J )
         published in the European Court Reports)                      (Direct effect of provisions of the GATT and the Lomé
                                                                                Conventions — Internal taxation)
In Case C-399/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177                                        ( 96/C 46/07 )
of the EEC Treaty from the Arrondissementsrechtbank,
Zutphen ( Zutphen District Court ), ( Holland ), for a                                 (Language of the case: Italian)
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between H.G. Oude Luttikhuis and Others and
Verenigde Cooperatieve Melkindustrie Coberco BA — on                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
 the interpretation of Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EEC Treaty and                    published in the European Court Reports)
 Article 2 ( 1 ) of Regulation No 26 of the Council of 4 April
 1962 applying certain rules of competition to production of
 and trade in agricultural products ( OJ, English Special              In Case C-469/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
 Edition 1959—1962, p. 129 ) — the Court, composed of                  of the EEC Treaty from the Tribunale di Trieste ( District
 G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C. N. Kakouris , D. A. O.        Court, Trieste ) ( Italy ) for a preliminary ruling in the
 Edward ( Rapporteur ), J. -P. Puissochet and G. Hirsch                proceedings pending before that court between
 (Presidents of Chambers ), J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P. J.           Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato and Chiquita
 G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, P. Jann and L.                   Italia SpA — on the interpretation of the General Agreement
 Sevón, Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate General; H. A. Rühl,               on Tariffs and Trade and the ACP-EEC Conventions signed


title: Removal from the register of C-290/95

text:
No C 40/ 14           1 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       8 . 2 . 97
the cover capital of the pension less the accrued rights ) or                     Removal from the register of C-290/95 (')
only to the subrogation as such ?                                                                    ( 97/C 40/30 )
(') Offical Journal, English Special Edition 1971 ( II ), p. 416 .
                                                                        By order of 2 October 1996 the President of the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                        removal from the register of Case C-290/95 : Commission
                                                                        of the European Communities v. Italian Republic .
                                                                        (') OJ No C 286 , 28 . 10 . 1995 .
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour du Travail
( Fourth Chamber), Brussels, by judgment of that court of
11 December 1996 in the case of Europieces SA against
Wilfried Sanders and Automotive Industries Holding
                             Company SA
                          ( Case C-399/96 )                                       Removal from the register of C-3 19/95 (')
                              97/C 40/28 )                                                           ( 97/C 40/31 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  By order of 23 September 1 996 the President of the Court
European Communities by judgment of the Cour du                         of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Travail (Higher Labour Court ) ( Fourth Chamber ),                      removal from the register of Case C-319/95 : Commission
Brussels, of 11 December 1996 , which was received at the               of the European Communities v. Ireland .
 Court Registry on 17 December 1996 , for a preliminary
 ruling in the case of Europieces SA against Wilfried                   (') OJ No C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .
 Sanders and Automotive Industries Holding Company SA
 on the following question :
 Does Council Directive 77/ 187/EEC (') of 14 February
 1977 on the approximation of the laws of the Member
 States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in                      Removal from the register of C-4 10/95 (')
 the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts                                          ( 97/C 40/32 )
 of businesses apply where a company in liquidation
 transfers all or part of its assets to another company                  By order of 27 September 1996 the President of the Court
 which then issues orders to a worker which the company                  of Justice of the Fluropean Communities has ordered the
 in liquidation says must be carried out ?                               removal from the register of Case C-410/95 ( reference for
                                                                         a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Commerce de
 O O J No L 61 , 5 . 3 . 1977, p . 26 .                                  Nice ): SA Societe des Grands Garages Mediterraneens ,
                                                                         Societe Nissan France v. Societe Nice Ouest Automobiles .
                                                                         (") OJ No C 46 , 17 . 2 . 1996 .
 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal
 Correctionnel, Charleroi, by judgment of that court of
  21 October 1996 in the case of Ministere Public v. Jean
                                Harpegnies                                         Removal from the register of C- 18/96 (')
                           ( Case C-400/96 )                                                           ( 97/C 40/33 )
                              ( 97/C 40/29 )
                                                                          By order of 8 October 1 996 the President of the Court of
  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                         from the register of Case C- 18/96 : Commission of the
  European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal
  Correctionnel ( Criminal Court ), Charleroi , of 21 October            European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium .
  1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on
                                                                          (■) OJ No C 77, 16 . 3 . 1996 .
  17 December 1996, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
  Ministere Public ( Public Prosecutor ) v. Jean Harpegnies on
  the following question :
  Is Belgian legislation, in so far so it still requires approval
  by the Belgian authorities of plant-protection products                          Removal from the register of C-l 34/96 ( 1 )
  marketed in another Member State, in ' breach of the rules
  on the free movement of goods in the Community, as laid                                               ( 97/ C 40/34 )
  down in Article 30 of the EEC Treaty ?
                                                                          By order of 3 October 1996 the President of the Court of
                                                                          Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Campania (Naples) by order of that court of 19 November/11 December 1997 in the case of RI.SAN Srl against Municipality of Ischia and GEPI SpA - now called Italia Investimenti SpA (Italinvest SpA) (Case C-108/98)

text:
C 209/20              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     4.7.98
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale                      companies for the management of local public
Amministrativo Regionale per Emilia-Romagna, Parma                       services, within the meaning of 4(6) of Law No 95 of
Division, by order of that court of 10 March 1998 in the                 29 March 1995 (converting into law, with
case of Teckal Srl against Municipality of Viano (Reggio                 amendments, Decree-Law No 26 of 31 January
Emilia) and AGAC Ð Azienda Gas-Acqua Consorziale di                      1995), even where that participation purports to be
                        Reggio Emilia                                    for the purpose of promoting employment or the re-
                       (Case C-107/98)                                   employment of workers' already assigned to the
                                                                         service the management of which is at issue, having
                        (98/C 209/38)                                    regard to Article 5 of Law No 184 of 22 March 1971
                                                                         establishing GEPI SpA, which gives GEPI the same
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   task of contributing to the maintenance and growth
European Communities by an order of the Parma Division                   of employment levels facing temporary difficulties,
of the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per Emilia-                    such as to demonstrate the specific possibility of
Romagna (Regional Administrative Court for Emilia-                       reorganising the undertakings concerned', in the
Romagna) of 10 March 1998, which was received at the                     manner set out therein;
Court Registry on 14 April 1998, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Teckal Srl against Municipality of Viano             (b) whether, on the basis of the abovementioned
(Reggio Emilia) and AGAC Ð Azienda Gas-Aqua                              legislation governing GEPI SpA (later Italinvest SpA)
Consorziale di Reggio Emilia, on the following question:                 there may be applicable to this case the derogation
                                                                         provided for in Article 90(2) of the Treaty according
Whether the award by a Municipality of the contract for                  to which undertakings entrusted with the operation
the management of the heating installations of certain                   of services of general economic interest . . . shall be
municipal buildings to a consortium of municipalities                    subject to the rules contained in this Treaty, in
constitutes a case of direct award of contract of the kind               particular to the rules on competition, in so far as the
referred to in Article 6 of Council Directive 92/50/EEC (1)              application of those rules does not obstruct the
and whether the legislative provisions and regulations                   performance in law or in fact, of the particular tasks
which provide for that award of contract are compatible                  assigned to them'.
with the provisions of the Treaty.
(1) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 1.
                                                                    References for preliminary rulings by the Tribunal
                                                                    Económico-Administrativo Regional de CatalunÄa by
                                                                    orders of that court of 19 December 1997 in Cases
                                                                    C-110/98 to C-115/98, C-117/98, C-120/98 and C-125/
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale                 98 to C-146/98, of 30 January 1998 in Cases C-121/98 to
Amministrativo Regionale della Campania (Naples) by                 C-124/98 and C-147/98 and of 25 February 1998 in
order of that court of 19 November/11 December 1997 in              Cases C-116/98, C-118/98 to C-119/98, Gabalfrisa S.A.
the case of RI.SAN Srl against Municipality of Ischia and           and Others v. Administración Estatal de la Agencia
GEPI SpA Ð now called Italia Investimenti SpA (Italinvest                               Tributaria (A.E.A.T.)
                               SpA)
                                                                                (Cases C-110/98 to C-147/98)
                       (Case C-108/98)
                                                                                (98/C 209/40)
                        (98/C 209/39)
                                                                    References have been made to the Court of Justice of the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the              European Communities by orders (all received at the
European Communities by an order of the Tribunale                   Court Registry on 14 April 1998) of the Tribunal
Amministrativo Regionale della Campagna (Regional                   Económico-Administrativo        Regional    de     CatalunÄa
Administrative Court for la Campania) (Naples), of                  (Regional Economic and Administrative Court, Catalonia)
19 November/11 December 1997, which was received at                 of 19 December 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the cases
the Court Registry on 9 April 1998, for a preliminary               of (C-110/98) Gabalfrisa S.A. (Rec. 08/19095/95), (C-111/
ruling in the case of RI.SAN Srl against Municipality of            98) Marcelino Martín Almeida (Rec. 08/6419/96), (C-112/
Ischia and GEPI SpA Ð now called Italia Investimenti                98) Tarragona 161, S.A. (Rec. 08/6187/96), (C-113/98)
SpA (Italinvest SpA), on the following questions:                   Nova Ametlla, S.L. (Rec. 95/97), (C-114/98) Habitats del
                                                                    Golf, S.A. (Rec. 08/1344/97), (C-115/98) Habitats del
(a) whether the provisions of Article 55 of the Treaty              Golf, S.A. (Rec. 08/1345/97), (C-117/98) Pascual García
     (which is applicable inter alia to the services sector         García (Rec. 08/11067/96), (C-120/98) Gran Vía
     by virtue of the reference in Article 66 of the Treaty),       Zaragoza, S.A. (Rec. ac. 08/11917 and 08/3564/97),
     pursuant to which the provisions of this Chapter              (C-125/98) PlaÂcida JimeÂnez, S.L. (Rec. 08/10022/96),
     shall not apply, so far as any given Member State is           (C-126/98) HidroeleÂctrica de Rueda, S.L. (Rec. ac. 08/
     concerned, to activities which in that State are               9778/96 and 08/10347/96), (C-127/98) Arus Vilasar, S.L.
     connected, even occasionally, with the exercise of             (Rec. ac. 08/8539/96 and 08/10684/96), (C-128/98)
     official authority', must be interpreted so widely as to       Crisbachs Coloma, S.L. (Rec. 08/6417/96), (C-129/98)
     include the activities of GEPI SpA (later Italinvest           Minulis-2, C.B. (Rec. ac. 08/3923/96 and 08/5553/96),
     SpA) as a participant in local authorities' mixed              (C-130/98) Agrupación EnergeÂtica Hospital General de


title: Action brought on 9 March 1995 by Interhotel, Sociedade Internacional de Hotéis, SARL, against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-81/95)

text:
3 . 6 . 95             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 137/29
Action brought on 6 March 1995 by Syndicat Fran^ais de               certain activities to which objection was taken in the
L'Express International ( SFEI ), DHL International,                 complaint.
SERCIVE CRIE and MAY COURIER against the
          Commission of the European Communities                     The applicants maintain that, by rejecting their complaint,
                        ( Case T-77/95 )                             the Commission infringed Articles 86 and 190 of the EC
                          ( 95/C 137/67 )
                                                                     Treaty and also the principles of proper administration and
                                                                     non-discrimination. They also consider that the contested
                                                                     decision is vitiated by misuse of powers and manifest errors
                                                                     of assessment of the Community interest.
                 (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 6 March 1995 by
Syndicat Fran^ais de PExpress International ( SFEI ), DHL
International, SERVICE CRIE and MAY COURIER,                         Action brought on 9 March 1995 by Interhotel, Sociedade
established in France, represented by Eric Morgan de                 Internacional de Hoteis, SARL, against the Commission of
Rivery, of the Paris Bar, and Jacques Derenne, of the                                   the European Communities
Brussels and Paris Bars, with an address for service in                                        ( Case T-81/95 )
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alex Schmitt, 62 Avenue                                            ( 95/C 137/68 )
Guillaume .
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
The applicants claim that the Court should :
                                                                     An action against the Commission of the European
— annul the Commission's decision SG(94)D/19144 of                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
     30 December 1994 , and                                          Instance of the European Communities on 9 March 1995 by
                                                                     Interhotel, Sociedade Internacional de Hoteis, SARL, whose
                                                                     registered office is in Lisbon, Rua Castilho, No 50, 5th floor,
— order the Commission to pay the costs .                            represented by Dr Jose Miguel Alarcao Judice, of the Lisbon
                                                                     Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
                                                                     of Dr Victor Gillen, Avocat, 13 Rue Aldringen.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should :
The applicants point out that they lodged with the
Commission a complaint against the French Post Office and            — annul the Commission's decision of 28 December
the French State with a view to obtaining a finding of                     1994,
infringement of Articles 86 and 90 of the EC Treaty in the
context of the market in international rapid delivery
services . In their complaint the applicants maintained that as      — order the Commission to pay the costs .
a result of State measures the French Post Office was
supplying the Societe Frangaise de Messagerie                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Internationale ( SFMI ), a company dependent on the Post
Office, with logistical and commercial assistance which had          The action challenging the legality of the Commission's
enabled it immediately to penetrate, from the market in              decision is well founded, first, on the ground of breach of the
basic postal services in which the Post Office holds a               general principles of law, such as stability, legal certainty
statutory monopoly, the related market in international              and the protection of legitimate expectations and, secondly,
rapid delivery services and, in some three years, to acquire         on the ground of the inadequate statement of the reasons on
the first place in that market at the expense of private             which it is based, entailing a breach of the applicant's
undertakings which were there before it.                             acquired rights .
The applicants state that the Commission decided to reject           ( a ) The applicant points out in the first place that, in the
their complaint on the grounds, first, that the taking into                 factual and legal context which must be considered for
account of the Community interest justified not initiating an               the purposes of a correct appraisal of its action and of
investigation under Article 86 into the facts alleged and,                  the responsibilities demanded of it, its conduct of the
secondly, that the decision not to oppose a concentration                   operation and the Commission's own assessment show
between certain postal authorities and the undertaking TNT                  that the irreproachable way in which the rules in force
had shown that the operation envisaged, in the postal sector                and , as soon as they were known, the applicable
and with at least one of the participants against whom the                  instructions were at all times complied with is not open
complaint was directed , would have made it possible to                     to question . This is true of all the alterations alleged by
mitigate or indeed eliminate some of the anti-competitive                   the Commission and of all the expenditure it regards as
conduct for which the French Post Office and the SFMI                       ineligible, which means that that expenditure will have
could have been responsible, precisely in the context of                    to be regarded as properly effected and accepted . A
 ---pagebreak--- No C 137/30             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    3 . 6 . 95
      different construction entails a breach of the principles         The applicant claims that the Court should :
      of legal certainty and of the protection of legitimate
      expectations.
                                                                        — annul the decision of the President of the European
                                                                            Parliament of 19 December 1994 retiring her, pursuant
      The applicant also maintains that there can be no                     to Article 50 of the Staff Regulations, from her post as
      doubts whatever concerning the manner in which,                       Director General of Translation and General Services,
      despite all the legal , economic and social circumstances
      existing at the time and despite its inexperience and the
      almost total lack of instructions and guidelines , the            — annul any previous implied decision retiring the
      training operation fulfilled all the objectives laid down.            applicant pursuant to Article 50 of the Staff
      The applicant finds it unacceptable that in these                     Regulations,
      circumstances it can be penalized for failure, as alleged
      in the contested decision, to deal with certain
                                                                        — annul the implied and/or express decision of the
      procedural matters, which, incidentally, it was not                   appointing authority rejecting the applicant's complaint
      required to do .                                                      submitted on 21 February 1995 ,
      The applicant considers , finally, that in view of the
      period of time that has already elapsed — the contested           — reinstate the applicant in her post or in a similar post
      decision was taken about eight years after the                        corresponding to her grade and duties, with payment of
      procedure was initiated — and above all in view of the                any arrears of salary due on the actual date of the
      manifest impossibility of reconstituting all the facts,               retirement until reinstatement, together with interest at
      testimony and documents relating to the action carried                the rate of 8 % per annum,
      out, and given that the period of time that elapsed
      represented considerable damage to the applicant, the             — order the defendant to pay the costs .
      contested decision should be annulled for breach of the
      principles of legal certainty and of the protection of
      legitimate expectations and for the Commission 's                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
      failure to comply with the principle of proper
      administration and the duty of care .
                                                                        The applicant contests the decision of the President of the
( b ) The applicant further considers that the contested                European Parliament retiring her, pursuant to Article 50 of
      decision should be annulled , in so far as it relates to the      the Staff Regulations, from her post as Director General of
      'expenditure not approved in the initial request', on the         Translation and General Services .
      grounds of infringement of acquired rights and of the
      inadequacy of the reasons given for the Commission's              She claims first that Articles 7, 25 , 27 and 60 of the Staff
      decision which approved the initial request submitted .           Regulations, and also the general principles of equality and
      The contested decision should also be annulled, in so             distributive justice, have been infringed, in that the
      far as it relates to the expenditure indicated under the          contested decision was not adopted in the interests of the
      headings ' functioning and management of courses —                service, that concept having been replaced by the alleged
      teaching staff', 'preparation of courses ', 'equipment            expediency involved in having to take account of the
      and non-durable goods ' and ' normal depreciation', for           enlargement of the European Union, and in that it is not
      failure to give any reasons for the reductions decided            apparent from the contested measure that the facts in
      upon .                                                            question were seriously and scrupulously examined .
                                                                        Secondly, the applicant submits that the contested decision
                                                                        does not meet the requirements with regard to stating
                                                                        reasons, laid down in the second paragraph of Article 25 of
                                                                        the Staff Regulations , and that it is also vitiated by a
Action bought on 13 March 1995 by Carmen Gomez de                       manifest error of assessment and by misuse of powers .
     Enterria y Sanchez against the European Parliament
                          ( Case T-82/95 )                              She also considers that the defendant institution has
                            ( 95/C 137/69 )                             infringed Article 50 of the Staff Regulations in that it
                                                                        decided not to assign her to another post corresponding to
                 (Language of the case: French)                         her grade and duties . Such a consequence cannot be the
                                                                        automatic result of that provision. Furthermore, with
                                                                        respect to her career, her merits and her age, the
An action against the European Parliament was brought                   administration has failed in its duty to have regard for her
before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                        interests and has failed to respect the expectation she
Communities on 13 March 1995 by Carmen Gomez de                         entertained that the institution would ensure that her career
Enterrfa y Sanchez, residing in Luxembourg ( Grand Duchy                would follow a normal course .
of Luxembourg ), represented by Eric Boigelot, of the
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the    Chambers       of Louis      Schiltz,  2   Rue    du   Fort
Rheinsheim .


title: Appeal brought on 19 February 1996 by Windpark Groothusen GmbH & Co. Betriebs KG against the judgment delivered on 13 December 1995 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-109/94 between Windpark Groothusen GmbH & Co. Betriebs KG and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-48/96 P)

text:
13 . 4 . 96             | EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 108/5
— the disputed possibility for depreciation, afforded by                  Appeal brought on 19 February 1996 by Windpark
       Paragraph 82 ( f) of the Einkommensteuer-Durcb                    Groothusen GmbH & Co. Betriebs KG against the
       fiihrungsverordnung ( income tax implementation                    judgment delivered on 13 December 1995 by the First
       regulation ), is consistent with the inherent logic of the         Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
       German tax system, and does not diverge fundamentally                   Communities in Case T-109/94 between Windpark
       from normal ( linear, degressive ) depreciation methods .                  Groothusen GmbH & Co . Betriebs KG and the
       In so far as the Commission considers that the tax                           Commission of the European Communities
       systems distort the conditions of competition in the                                       ( Case C-48/96 P )
       common market, the relevant legislative provisions of
       the Member States should have been assimilated in                                             ( 96/C 108/09 )
       accordance with Article 101 of the EC Treaty. In the
       final analysis, singling out individual elements of tax law        An appeal against the judgment delivered on 13 December
       undermines the national tax system and amounts to a                1995 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
       disregard of the national fiscal sovereignty retained by           the European Communities in Case T-109/94 between
       the Member States,                                                 Windpark Groothusen GmbH & Co . Betriebs KG and the
                                                                          Commission of the European Communities (') was brought
— even if it were permissible to single out that individual               before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
       national tax provision from the non-harmonized rules               19 February 1996 by Windpark Groothusen GmbH & Co .
       on the taxation of undertakings, the Commission should             Betriebs KG, of Groothusen-Krummhorn ( Germany )
       not have classified Paragraph 82 ( f) of the Ein                  represented by Detlef Schumacher and Benno Grunewald,
       kommensteuer-Durcbfuhrungsverordnung as aid . The                  Rechtsanwàlte, Heidelberger StraEe 7, D-28203 Bremen .
       possibility for depreciation afforded by Paragraph 82 ( f)
       of the Einkommensteuer-Durchfiihrungsverordnung
       does not give rise to any transfer at the State's expense ( in     The appellant claims that the Court should :
       the form of a shortfall in tax revenue ); the fiscal effects of
       degressive depreciation — to which the Commission                  1 , set aside the contested judgment of 13 December
       does not object, and which is feasible in all sectors - and              1995 ;
       of depreciation pursuant to Paragraph 82 ( f) of the
       Einkommensteuer-Durchfubrungsverordnung are on                     2 , annul the decisions of the Commission refusing to grant
       the whole equivalent. Depreciation pursuant to
                                                                               the appellant aid pursuant to the Thermie Regulation
       Paragraph 82 ( f) of the Einkommensteuer-Durch                          ( notified by communication of 13 January 1994 from
       fubrungsverordnung does not increase the volume of                       the Energy Directorate-General supplementing the
       depreciation applied to the assets of undertakings; it
                                                                                communication of 5 August 1993 from the Energy
       does not result, over the service life of an aircraft, or the
                                                                                Directorate-General );
       period during which it is retained by the undertaking, in
       any reduction of the tax due , nor does it afford the
        undertaking — in relation to the service life or period of         3 , order the respondent to adopt a decision in favour of the
        retention of the asset — any interest advantage arising                 appellant, with due regard to the interpretation of the
        from the depreciation .                                                 law undertaken by the Court of Justice, providing for
                                                                                the grant of aid in a sum not exceeding ECU
        Even if it were in fact the case that aid to a specific sector          918 028 ;
        is involved, there would in any event be no question of
        any distortion of competition, since the German rules on           4 , order the respondent to pay the costs of the proceedings
        depreciation are less favourable than those applied in                  at first instance and of the appeal .
        numerous other Member States of the Community, and
        Germany has, in comparative terms , one of the highest
        tax burdens,                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
— the contested decision does not contain a sufficient                     — infringement of the right to full legal protection,
        statement of reasons; in particular, the Commission does
        not attach sufficient weight to the results of the                 — infringement of the fifth paragraph of Article 173 of the
        investigations submitted to it, despite the fact that one of            EC Treaty: that provision does not require a person who
        them was commissioned by the defendant itself,                          is directly and individually concerned by a decision to try
                                                                                to ascertain the nature of the decision and the reasons on
— ( in the alternative ) Article 92 ( 3 ) (c ) of the EC Treaty has             which it is based . On the contrary, the legal aspects are
        wrongly been left out of consideration . The special                    complied with where , at the applicant's request, the
        depreciation at issue promotes the protection of the                     decision and the reasons on which it is based are
        environment ( acquisition of new aircraft which                         communicated,
        experience has shown to be quieter and more economic
        to use ).
                                                                           — infringement of the rule requiring a statement of reasons
                                                                                to be given,
 ( 1 ) Only civil aviation undertakings are involved .
                                                                           — infringement of the fundamental legal rules concerning
                                                                                the right to a fair hearing,
 ---pagebreak--- No C 108/6              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                           13 . 4 . 96
— misuse of discretionary powers : the fact that the                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    European Commission adopts, in its entirety, a decision
    made by the Thermie Committee does not mean that                     — The appellant maintains that, by rigidly linking the
    that decision is free from errors committed in the                          judgment in Baiwir (2 ) to the applicability of Article 32
    exercise of discretionary powers . Moreover, the                            of the Staff Regulations, relating to recruitment, or
    judgment fails to recognize that that committee is not                      Article 46 , relating to promotion, the Court of First
    composed of independent technical experts ;                                 Instance arrived at an erroneous conclusion . The
                                                                                appellant maintains that the principle emerging from the
— infringement of the third paragraph of Article 175 of the                     judgment in question is that of equality of treatment
    EC Treaty and of the fourth paragraph of Article 173                        between successful internal and external candidates as
    and Article 176 thereof.                                                    regards taking into account the professional experience
                                                                                acquired by them prior to their entry into service .
(') OJ No C 31 , 3 . 2 . 1996 , p . 18 .
                                                                         — The Court of First Instance wrongly applied
                                                                                Article 87 ( 3 ) of its Rules of Procedure; the appellant was
                                                                                forced to bring legal proceedings by reason of his
                                                                                inability to obtain from the defendant any convincing
                                                                                explanations concerning his regrading .
Appeal brought on 20 February 1996 by Nicolaos Progoulis
against the order made on 15 December 1995 by the Fifth                  (') OJ No C 64, 2 . 3 . 1996 .
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                   ( 2 ) Judgment of 28 . 9 . 1993 in Case T-l 03/92, OJ No C 287,
    Communities in Case T-131 /95 between Nicolaos                             23 . 10 . 1993 , p . 10 .
      Progoulis and the Commission of the European
                           Communities
                         Case C-49/96 P
                          ( 96/C 108/10 )
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Vergabe
An appeal against the order made on 15 December 1995 by                  iiberwachungsausschul? des Bundes ( Public Procurement
the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                  Awards Supervisory Board of the Federal Republic) First
European Communities in                  Case T-131 /95   between        Chamber, of 5 February 1996 in public procurement
Nicolaos Progoulis and the Commission of the European                    awards supervisory proceedings between Dorsch Consult
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the                         Ingenieurgesellschaft mbH, the applicant, and
European Communities on 20 February 19 96 by Nicolaos                            Bundesbaugesellschaft Berlin mbH, the awarding
Progoulis , represented by Konstantinos Adamantopoulos                                                        authority
and Vassilios Akritidis , of the Athens Bar, with an address                                             ( Case C-54/96 )
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arsène
                                                                                ( 96/C 108/11 )
Kronshagen, 12 Boulevard de la Foire .
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
The appellant claims that the Court should :
                                                                        European Communities by order of the Vergabe
1,  set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of the            uberwachungsausschutë des Bundes ( First Chamber ) of 5
    European Communities of 15 December 1995 in Case                     February 1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on
    T-131 /95 ('), in so far as, first, it dismisses his                21 February 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the public
    application as inadmissible and, second , it orders him to          procurement awards supervisory proceedings between
    pay all of the costs ;                                              Dorsch Consult Ingenieurgesellschaft mbH, the applicant,
                                                                         and Bundesbaugesellschaft Berlin mbH, the awarding
2 , annul the decision of the defendant, addressed to the               authority, on the following question :
    appellant by letter of 20 March 1995 , rejecting his
    application to be regraded in step 2 of grade B1 with                is Article 41 of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June
    retroactive effect from 1 March 1983 and for the                     1 992 ( 1 ) to be interpreted to the effect that after
    financial consequences of the regrading applied for to be            30 June 1993 the bodies set up by the Member States in
                                                                         accordance         with      Council       Directive 89/665/EEC      of
    taken into account and calculated retroactively from
    1 March 1983 , together with compound legal interest at              21 December 1989 to review decisions taken by the
    the annual rate of 10% ;                                            contracting authorities as regards contract award
                                                                         procedures falling within the scope of Directives
3 , adopt measures of organization of procedure on the                   71 /305/EEC and 77/62/EEC are also competent to review
    basis of Article 45 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court           decisions taken in procedures for the award of public service
    of Justice of the European Communities, in accordance                contracts within the meaning of Directive 92/50/EEC on the
    with the application made by the appellant in                        grounds that such decisions have allegedly infringed
    paragraph 18 of the appeal ;                                         Community law in the field of public procurement or
                                                                         national rules implementing that law ?
4 , order the defendant to pay the costs of the appeal
    together with all of the costs incurred in Case T-131 /95            (>) OJ 1992 L 209 , p . 1 .
    before the Court of First Instance of the European
    Communities .


title: Case F-58/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 19 March 2015 — Marcuccio v Commission (Exclusion of the representative of a party from the proceedings — Failure to designate a new representative — Applicant no longer responding to communications from the Tribunal — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               4.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 146/47

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 19 March 2015 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case F-58/13) (1)

   ((Exclusion of the representative of a party from the proceedings - Failure to designate a new representative - Applicant no longer responding to communications from the Tribunal - No need to adjudicate))
   (2015/C 146/63)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: A., lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s request for compensation for the harm suffered as a result of the infringement alleged of the applicant’s right to confidentiality caused by the defendant’s sending a letter concerning him to a lawyer who did not represent him.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action in Case F-58/13 Marcuccio v Commission.

               2.

               Mr Marcuccio shall bear his own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 352, 30.11.2013, p. 26.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 24 October 1996 in Case C-72/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Netherlandse Raad van State): Aannemersbedrijf P. K. Kraaijeveld BV and Others v. Gedeputeerde Staten van Zuid-Holland (Environment - Directive 85/337/EEC - Assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment)

text:
 11 . 1 . 97          I EN |                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 9/5
      back coupon for an amount stated on the packaging                 Azevedo, 61 rue de Gasperich — the Court ( Sixth
      of those items entitles the customer, if he proves                Chamber), composed of: C. N. Kakouris, acting for the
      purchase of one of those items and satisfies other                President of the Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn and H.
      conditions printed on the coupon, to present the                  Ragnemalm ( Rapporteur), Judges; A. La Pergola,
      coupon to the manufacturer in return for payment of               Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
      the stated amount, and (c) a customer purchases such              judgment on 24 October 1996, in which it:
      an item from a retailer, presents the coupon to the
      manufacturer and is paid the stated amount, the
      taxable amount is equal to the selling price charged by           1 . Dismisses the appeal.
      the manufacturer, less the amount indicated on the
      coupon and refunded. The same applies if the original
      supply is made by the manufacturer to a wholesaler
      rather than directly to a retailer.                               2 . Orders the appellant to pay the costs.
H OJ No C 386, 31 . 12 . 1994, p . 8 .                                  0 ) OJ No C 87, 8 . 4 . 1995 , p . 5 .
(2 ) OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 .
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           ( Sixth Chamber)                                                    of 24 October 1996
                        of 24 October 1996
                                                                        in Case C-72/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
in Case C-32/95 P: Commission of the European                           the Netherlandse Raad van State): Aannemersbedrijf P. K.
Communities v. Lisrestal — Organização Gestão de                        Kraaijeveld BV and Others v. Gedeputeerde Staten van
           Restaurantes Colectivos Lda and Others (^                                             Zuid-Holland (M
(European Social Fund — Decision reducing financial                     (Environment — Directive 85/337/EEC — Assessment of
assistance initially granted — Infringement of the rights of            the effects of certain public and private projects on the
     the defence — Right of interested parties to be heard)                                        environment)
                               ( 97/C 9/08 )                                                        ( 97/C 9/09 )
               (Language of the case: Portuguese)                                       (Language of the case: Dutch)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
            published in the European Court Reports)                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-32/95 P: Commission of the European
Communities ( Agents: Ana Maria Alves Vieira and                        In Case C-72/95 : reference to the Court pursuant to
Nicholas Khan ) — appeal against the judgment of the                    Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Nederlandse Raad
Court of First Instance of the European Communities of                  van State ( Netherlandse State Council ) for a preliminary
6 December 1994 in Case T-450/93 Lisrestal and Others v.                ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
Commission [ 1994] ECR 11-1177, seeking to have that                    between Aannemersbedrijf P. K. Kraaijeveld BV and
judgment set aside in part, the other parties to the                    Others v. Gedeputeerde Staten van Zuid-Holland — on
proceedings being: Lisrestal — Organização Gestão de                    the interpretation of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of
Restaurantes Colectivos Lda, a company incorporated                     27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain
under Portuguese law, established in Almada ( Portugal ),               public and private projects on the environment ( 2 ) and on
Gabinete Tecnico de Informática Lda ( GTI ), a company                  the duty of national courts to ensure that a directive
incorporated under Portuguese law, established in Lisbon,               having direct effect is complied with, although no
Lisnico — Serviço Marítimo Internacional Lda, a                         individual has invoked it — the Court, composed of: G. C.
company incorporated under Portuguese law, established                  Rodriguez Iglesias, President, G. F. Mancini, J. L. Murray,
in Almada, Rebocalis — Rebocagem e Assistência                          L. Sevón ( Rapporteur), Presidents of Chambers, C. N.
Maritima Lda, a company incorporated under Portuguese                   Kakouris, P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, D. A. O.
law, established in Almada, and Gaslimpo — Sociedade de                 Edward, J. -P. Puissochet. G. Hirsch and M. Wathelet,
Desgasificação de Navios SA, a company incorporated                     Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General; D. Louterman-
under Portuguese law, established in Almada, represented                Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
by Manuel Rodrigues, of the Lisbon Bar, with an address                 given a judgment on 24 October 1996 , in which it has
for service in Luxemburg at the Chambers of Angelo Alves                ruled :
 ---pagebreak---  No C 9/6               LIN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       11 . . 97
  1 . The expression 'canalization and flood-relief works ' in                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
       point 10 (e) of Annex II to Council Directive 85/337/                                       ( Sixth Chamber )
       EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects
       of certain public and private projects on the                                           of 24 October 1996
       environment must be interpreted as including certain              in Case C-73/95 P: Viho Europe BV v. Commission of the
       types of work on a dyke running alongside waterways.                European Communities, supported by Parker Pen Ltd ( 1 )
                                                                          (Competition — Groups of companies — Article 85 (1 ) of
                                                                                the EC Treaty)
 2 . The expression 'canalization and flood-relief works ' in                                          ( 97/C 9/10 )
       point 10 (e) of Annex II to Directive 85/337/EEC is to
       be interpreted as including not only construction of a
       new dyke but also modification of an existing dyke                                 (Language of the case: French)
       involving its relocation, reinforcement or widening,
       replacement of a dyke by constructing a new dyke in                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
       situ, whether or not the new dyke is stronger or wider                      published in the European Court Reports)
       than the old one, or a combination of such works.
                                                                         In Case C-73/95 P: Viho Europe BV (Agent: Werner
                                                                         Kleinmann ) — appeal against the judgment of the Court
                                                                         of First Instance of the European Communities ( First
 3 ) — Article 4 (2) of Directive 85/337/EEC and
                                                                         Chamber ) of 12 January 1995 in Case T-102/92 Viho v.
           point 10 (e) of Annex II must be interpreted as
                                                                         Commission [ 1995] ECR 11-17, seeking to have that
           meaning that a Member State which establishes the
                                                                         judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings
           criteria or thresholds necessary to classify projects
                                                                         being Commission of the European Communities ( Agent:
           relating to dykes at a level such that, in practice,
                                                                         Bernd Langeheine ), supported by Parker Pen Ltd, — the
           all such projects are exempted in advance from the
                                                                         Court ( Sixth Chamber), composed of: G. F. Mancini,
           requirement of an impact assessment exceeds the               President of the Chamber, C. N. Kakouris and H.
           limits of its discretion within the meaning of
                                                                         Ragnemalm ( Rapporteur), Judges; C. O. Lenz, Advocate
           Articles 2 (1 ) and 4 (2) of the Directive unless all
                                                                         General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on
           projects excluded could, when viewed as a whole,              24 October 1996, in which it:
           be regarded as not being likely to have significant
           effects on the environment.
                                                                         1 . Dismisses the appeal.
       — Where under national law a court must or may                    2 . Orders the appellant to pay the costs.
           raise of its own motion pleas in law based on a
           binding national rule which have not been put                 (!) OJ No C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995 , p . 10 .
           forward by the parties, it must, for matters within
           its jurisdiction, examine of its own motion
           whether the legislative or administrative
           authorities of the Member State have remained
           within the limits of their discretion within the
           meaning of Articles 2 (1 ) and 4 (2) of the
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
           Directive, and take account thereof when
           examining the action for annulment.                                                    ( Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 24 October 1996
                                                                        in     Case   C-76/95 : Commission of the European
      — Where that discretion has been exceeded and
                                                                                Communities v. Royale Beige SA ( J )
           consequently the national provisions must be set
           aside in that respect, it is for the authorities of the       (Officials — Insurance against accidents and occupational
           Member State, according to their respective                                                   diseases)
           powers, to take all the general or particular                                              ( 97/C 9/11 )
           measures necessary to ensure that projects are
           examined in order to determine whether they are
           likely to have significant effects on the                                     (Language of the case: French)
           environment and, if so, to ensure that they are
           subject to an impact assessment.                                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
0 ) OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 , p . 8 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 175 , 5 . 7. 1985 , p. 40 .                               In Case C-76/95 : Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities ( Agents: Julian Currall, assisted by Jean-Luc
                                                                        Fagnart) v. Royale Beige SA ( Counsel: Francois van der
                                                                        Mensbrugghe ) — application for an order that the insurers
                                                                        pay the Commission the lump sum allegedly due from the