title: Action brought on 14 February 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic (Case C-43/96)

text:
30 . 3 . 96           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 95/ 11
dues arrangements previously in force — a genuine internal           13 February 1996 by the Commission of the European
charge which is not discriminatory and is consistent with the        Communities, represented by H. Van Lier, Legal Adviser,
letter and spirit of the Treaty establishing the European            and R. Vidal , of its Legal Service,with an address for service
Community ?                                                          in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of
                                                                     its Legal Service, C 252, Wagner Centre .
(M OJ No L 399 , 30 . 12 . 1989, p . 46 .
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                     1 . declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the
                                                                           or, in the subsidiary, by failing to notify, within
Arrondissementsrechtbank te Amsterdam by decision of                       the prescribed period, the laws, regulations or
that court of 1 February 1996 in the case of Koninklijke                   administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Vereeniging ter Bevordering van de Belangen des                            Council Directive 90/377/EEC ( ! ) of 29 June 1990
Boekhandels v. ( 1 ) Free Record Shop BV and ( 2 ) Free
                                                                           concerning a Community procedure to improve the
                  Record Shop Holding NV
                                                                           transparency of gas and electricity prices charged to
                        ( Case C-39/96 )                                   industrial end-users, the Kingdom of Spain'Has failed to
                          ( 96/C 95/ 19 )                                  fulfil its obligations under Articles 5 and 189 of the
                                                                           Treaty establishing the European Community;
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of
the European Communities by a decision of the                        2 . order the defendant to pay the costs .
Arrondissementsrechtbank te Amsterdam ( District Court,
Amsterdam ) of 1 February 1996 , which was received at the           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Court Registry on 13 February 1996 , for a preliminary
ruling in the case of Koninklijke Vereeniging ter Bevordering        The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third
van de Belangen des Boekhandels ( Royal Association for the          paragraph of Article 189 and the first paragraph of Article 5
Promotion of the Interests of the Book Trade ) v. ( 1 ) Free         of the EC Treaty requires Member States to adopt the
Record Shop BV and ( 2 ) Free Record Shop Holding NV on              measures necessary to transpose directives addressed to
the following questions :                                            them into their domestic law before the expiry of the period
                                                                     prescribed for doing so and forthwith to inform the
( 1 ) If an agreement between undertakings or a decision by          Commission thereof. That period expired on 1 July 1991
      an association of undertakings to regulate competition         without the Kingdom of Spain having brought into force the
      came into existence prior to the entry into force of           necessary provisions concerning transparency of gas prices
      Regulation No 17/62 (*) and was notified to the                charged to end-users .
      Commission in good time pursuant to the provisions of
      that Regulation, does that agreement or decision               (') OJ No L 185 , 17. 7. 1990 , p . 16 .
      continue to benefit from the 'provisional validity'
      which notified cartels enjoy according to the case-law
      of the Court of Justice if the Commission has not
      reacted in any way to that notification ?
( 2 ) If the answer is yes : does that 'provisional validity'        Action brought on 14 February 1996 by the Commission of
      continue for an unlimited period ? If the answer is              the European Communities against the French Republic
      no : on what circumstances will the expiry of the                                         Case C-43/96 )
      'provisional validity' then depend ?                                                       ( 96/C 95/21 )
( 3 ) Does the 'provisional validity' apply solely to the
      agreement or decision, as referred to in Question 1 , in       An action against the French Republic was brought before
      the form in which it was notified, or does it also apply       the Court of Justice on 14 February 1996 by the
      to agreements and decisions which have since come              Commission of the European Communities, represented by
      into existence and continue the same cartel agreements         Helene Michard and Enrico Traversa, of its Legal Service,
      in an amended form, in so far as they do not involve any       acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg
      extension or reinforcement of the cartel agreements in         at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre ,
      the light of the operation and realization of the              Kirchberg.
      common market ?
                                                                     The Commission of the European Communities claims that
(') OJ, English Special Edition 1959— 1962, p. 204 .                 the Court should :
                                                                     ( 1 ) declare that, by maintaining in force legislation
                                                                            excluding the deductibility of VAT in respect of means
Action brought on 13 February 1996 by the Commission                        of transport constituting the actual tools of the trade of
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                          the taxable person, the French Republic has failed to
                               Spain                                        fulfil its obligations under the Sixth Council Directive
                        ( Case C-40/96 )                                    77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of
                          ( 96/C 95/20 )                                    the laws of the Member States relating to turnover
                                                                            taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before                   basis of assessment ( ! ), in particular the provisions of
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                         Article 17 ( 2 ) thereof;
 ---pagebreak--- No C 95/ 12              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     30 . 3 . 96
( 2) order the French Republic to pay the costs.                              establish that undertaking as meeting needs in the
                                                                              general interest not having an industrial or commercial
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                           character within the meaning of Article 1 ( b ) of Directive
                                                                              93/37/EEC ( ! ) and make such an undertaking as a whole
                                                                              fall within the scope of that Directive, even if those
Infringement of Article 17 (2 ) of Directive 77/388/EEC:
                                                                              activities form only part of the undertaking's activity
contrary to the contention of the French authorities, the
                                                                              and the undertaking in addition participates in the
exception to the principle of entitlement to deduct the input                 market as a commercial undertaking ?
VAT paid by a taxable person, as referred to in Article 17
( 6 ), cannot be interpreted autonomously in such a way as to
allow Member States to maintain exclusions which are                      2 . In the event that such an undertaking falls within the
general and absolute in scope and which apply to all                          scope of Directive 93/37/EEC only with respect to the
expenditure, including that of a business nature . Article 17                 special and exclusive rights conferred on it, is such an
( 6 ) constitutes a ' standstill ' provision adopted in the absence           undertaking obliged to take organizational measures to
of agreement on a Community list of exclusions from the                       prevent financial means obtained from earnings from
deduction entitlement, covering expenditure which is                          those special and exclusive rights being switched to
intended by its nature to satisfy private needs and which                     other sectors of activity ?
cannot therefore give rise to any deduction entitlement; the
second sentence of the first paragraph thus comprises the                 3 . If a contracting authority starts a project and that
minimum agreement which could be reached at the time                          project is therefore to be classified as a public works
when the Directive was adopted .                                              contract within the meaning of Directive 93/37/EEC,
                                                                              may the intervention of a third party who prima facie
The exclusion of the deduction entitlement in respect of                      does not fall within the personal scope of the Directive
vehicles and mixed-use conveyances cannot be justified by                     have the effect of altering the classification of a project
the difficulty involved in ascertaining and checking on the                   as a public works contract, or should such a proceeding
actual use to which a vehicle is put; the consequences of the                 be regarded as an evasion of the personal scope of the
use by a taxable person of certain assets of his undertaking                  Directive and incompatible with the aim and purpose of
for business and private purposes arise from the framework                    the Directive ?
of the deduction entitlement laid down in Article 17 ( 5 ) of
the Directive .
                                                                          4 . If a contracting authority establishes undertakings for
                                                                              carrying on commercial activities and holds majority
(') OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977 , p . 1 .
                                                                              holdings in them which enable it to exercise economic
                                                                              control over those undertakings, does the classification
                                                                              as a contracting authority then also apply to those
                                                                              associated undertakings ?
                                                                          5 . If a contracting authority transfers funds which it has
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                                   earned from special and exclusive rights conferred on it
Bundesvergabeamt by order of that body of 2 February                          to purely commercial undertakings in which it owns a
1996 in the review procedure of ( 1 ) Mannesmann                              majority holding, does that have the effect that,
Anlagenbau Austria AG, (2 ) J.L. Bacon Gesellschaft mbH,                      regardless of the legal position of the associated
( 3 ) Haustechnische Gesellschaft für Sanitär-, Wärme- und                    undertaking, that undertaking as a whole must let itself
Luft-Technische Anlagen GmbH and ( 4 ) Sulzer Infra                           be treated and behave as a contracting authority within
Anlagen- und Gebäudetechnik Gesellschaft mbH v. Strohal                       the meaning of Directive 93/37/EEC ?
                       Rotationsdruck GmbH
                           ( Case C-44/96
                                                                          6 . If a contracting authority which both meets needs in the
                             ( 96/C 95/22 )                                   general interest not having an industrial or commercial
                                                                              character and also carries on commercial activities
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        establishes operating installations which are capable of
European Communities by an order the Second Senate                            serving both purposes, is the award of the contract for
of the Bundesvergabeamt ( Federal Award Office ) of                           constructing such operating installations to be classified
2 February 19 96 , which was received at the Court Registry                   as a public works contract within the meaning of
on 14 February 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the review                  Directive 93/37/EEC, or does Community law contain
procedure of ( 1 ) Mannesmann Anlagenbau Austria AG, ( 2 )                    criteria according to which such an operating
J.L. Bacon Gesellschaft mbH, ( 3 ) Haustechnische                             installation can be classified either as serving public
Gesellschaft fur Sanitar-, Warme- und Luft-Technische                         needs or as serving commercial activities, and if so,
                                                                              which criteria ?
Anlagen GmbH and ( 4 ) Sulzer Infra Anlagen- und Ge
baudetechnik Gesellschaft mbH v. Strohal Rotationsdruck
GmbH on the following questions :                                         7. Does Article 7 ( 1 ) of Council Regulation ( EEC )
                                                                              No 208 1 /93 ( 2 ) of 20 July 1993 amending Regulation
 1 . Can a provision of a national law, such as Paragraph 3                   ( EEC ) No 2052/88 ( 3 ) on the tasks of the Structural
       of the Staatsdruckereigesetz in the present case, which                Funds and their effectiveness and on coordination of
       confers special and exclusive rights on an undertaking,                their activities between themselves and with the


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 19 November 1998 in Case C-284/94: Kingdom of Spain v. Council of the European Union supported by Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment - Common commercial policy - Regulations (EC) No 519/94 and (EC) No 1921/94 - Import quotas for certain toys from the People's Republic of China) (1999/C 1/04)

text:
4.1.1999             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 1/3
     on a time-limit under national law even if that                 3. Orders the Commission of the European Communities
     Member State has not yet amended its national rules                  to bear its own costs.
     in order to render them compatible with those
     provisions.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 351, 10.12.1994.
(1) OJ C 269, 14.9.1996.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 19 November 1998
                       (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                     in Case C-159/96: Portuguese Republic v. Commission of
                    of 19 November 1998                                               the European Communities (1)
in Case C-284/94: Kingdom of Spain v. Council of the                 (Commercial policy Ð Quantitative limits on imports of
European Union supported by Commission of the                        textil products Ð Products originating in the People's
                  European Communities (1)                           Republic of China Ð Additional imports Ð Commission's
                                                                                powers of implementation)
(Action for annulment Ð Common commercial policy Ð
Regulations (EC) No 519/94 and (EC) No 1921/94 Ð                                              (1999/C 1/05)
Import quotas for certain toys from the People's Republic
                           of China)
                         (1999/C 1/04)                                              (Language of the case: Portuguese)
               (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                     In Case C-159/96: Portuguese Republic (Agents: Luís
         published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                     Fernandes and Maria Luísa Durante) v. Commission of
                                                                     the European Communities (Agents: Marc de Pauw and
                                                                     Francisco de Sousa Fialho) Ð application for annulment
                                                                     of the Commission's practice of applying exceptional
In Case C-284/94: Kingdom of Spain (Agents: Alberto                  flexibility' measures in the administration of quantitative
Navarro GonzaÂlez and Gloria Calvo DiaÂz) v. Council of              limits on importation into the European Community of
the European Union (Agents: Bjarne Hoff-Nielsen, Guus                textile products and clothing from non-member countries
Houttuin and Diego Canga Fano), supported by                         and, specifically, of the decision adopted by the
Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                      Commission following the meeting of the Textile
Miguel Díaz-Llanos, Patrick Hetsch and Carlos Gómez de               Committee of 6 March 1996 concerning textile products
la Cruz Ð Application for the annulment of Council                   originating from the People's Republic of China Ð the
Regulation (EC) No 1921/94 of 25 July 1994 amending                  Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: P. J. G. Kapteyn
Regulation (EC) No 519/94 on common rules for imports                (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch, G. F.
from certain third countries (OJ L 198, 30.7.1994, p. 1)             Mancini, H. Ragnemalm and K. M. Ioannou, Judges;
Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of P. J. G.                    A. Saggio, Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl, Principal
Kapteyn, President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini                     Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
(Rapporteur) and J. L. Murray, Judges; P. LeÂger,                    19 November 1998, in which it:
Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has
given a judgment on 19 November 1998, in which it:
                                                                     1. Declares the action inadmissible as regards the claim
                                                                          for annulment of the practice of exceptional
1. Dismisses the application;                                             flexibility' measures followed by the Commission of
                                                                          the European Communities in the administration of
                                                                          quantitative limits on the importation into the
                                                                          Community of textile products and clothing
2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs;                          originating in non-member countries;


title: Case C-610/12: Order of the President of the Court of 23 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Giessen — Germany) — Johannes Peter v Bundeseisenbahnvermögen

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/53

         Order of the President of the Court of 23 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Giessen — Germany) — Johannes Peter v Bundeseisenbahnvermögen
   (Case C-610/12) (1)

   2013/C 344/94
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 101, 6.4.2013.


title: Action brought on 28 December 1998 by the Kingdom of Spain against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-480/98)

text:
C 71/14                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                  13.3.1999
(3) On the correct interpretation of Article 4(1) of                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     Commission Decision 97/534/EC:
                                                                        1. The present case does not concern a loan made by a
     (a) must specified risk material be removed and                        State organisation to an undertaking for investment
         stained at the point of production; and                            purposes; instead, it relates to the recovery of a debt
                                                                            due in respect of unpaid social security contributions,
     (b) is the point of production for those purposes the                  to be effected in one of the ways provided for in the
         place at which the animals are slaughtered?                        social security legislation and under the circumstances
                                                                            laid down therein.
(4) If the answer to Question 1 is No, may a Member                         To attach different conditions to the deferral of
     State nonetheless justify under Article 36 of the Treaty               payment of the debt, and to impose an interest rate
     on the grounds of the protection of human health                       different from the statutory rate, as advocated by the
     measures including a prohibition on the importation                    Commission, would entail an act contrary to the
     from another Member State of:                                          Spanish social security legislation which the Spanish
                                                                            legislature alone is competent to adopt, as provided
     (a) specified risk material within the meaning of the                  for by Article 118 of the Treaty.
         said Decision;
                                                                        2. The Commission appears to question the lawfulness of
         or                                                                 the very system of deferral or payment in instalments
                                                                            which exists under Spanish law; however, it is not
                                                                            empowered to pronounce on the lawfulness of that
     (b) bovine heads       containing     such   specified   risk
                                                                            system, the determination thereof being a matter
         material?
                                                                            falling within the legislative competence of the State.
(1) Council Directive 89/662/EEC of 11 December 1989
    concerning veterinary checks in intra-Community trade with a        3. In accordance with the normal regulatory practice
    view to the completion of the internal market (OJ L 395,                regarding the deferral of debts due to the social
    30.12.1989, p. 13).                                                     security authorities, Royal Decree No 505/85 on the
(2) Commission Decision 97/534/EC of 30 July 1997 on the                    organisation and operation of the FOGASA refers to
    prohibition of the use of material presenting risks as regards          the application of the statutory interest rate
    transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (Text with EEA                determined in accordance with Article 1 of the 1984
    relevance) (OJ L 216, 8.8.1997, p. 95).                                 Law. The present case does not concern State aid but
                                                                            relates instead to the application of legislation laying
                                                                            down generally applicable rules.
                                                                        4. The general nature of the application of the statutory
                                                                            interest rate to agreements concerning the repayment
Action brought on 24 December 1998 by the Kingdom                           of wages and salaries paid by FOGASA and the
of Spain against the Commission of the European                             deferral of debts due to the social security authorities
                          Communities                                       is such as to preclude the existence of any unlawful
                                                                            State aid.
                        (Case C-479/98)
                         (1999/C 71/24)                                 5. The contested decision is based on an           inaccurate
                                                                            comparison, in that it treats a creditor      seeking to
                                                                            recover a debt due to it in the same way as   an investor
An action against the Commission of the European                            who is seeking to obtain an economic          benefit by
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of                      granting a loan.
the European Communities on 24 December 1998 by the
Kingdom of Spain, represented by M. López-Monís
Gallego, Abogado del Estado, acting as Agent, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Spanish
Embassy, 4-6 Boulevard Emmanuel Servais.
                                                                        Action brought on 28 December 1998 by the Kingdom
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             of Spain against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
                                                                                (Case C-480/98)
(1) annul the Commission's decision of 28 October 1998
     concerning State aid granted to SNIACE, of                                                (1999/C 71/25)
     Torrelavega, Cantabria;
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European
(2) order the defendant institution to pay the costs.                   Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
 ---pagebreak--- 13.3.1999                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 71/15
the European Communities on 28 December 1998 by the                              Exchequer and to the social security fund by four
Kingdom of Spain, represented by R. Silva de Lapuerta,                           undertakings, two of which are insolvent and the
Abogado del Estado, acting as Agent, with an address for                         other two of which are not trading, constitutes public
service in Luxembourg at the Spanish Embassy, 4-6                                aid which is incompatible with the common market.
Boulevard Emmanuel Servais.
                                                                            4. O b l i g a t i o n t o r e c o v e r t h e a i d
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                As regards that repayment obligation, apart from the
(1) annul the Commission's decision of 14 October 1998
                                                                                fact that the amount to be repaid is not quantified,
    concerning aid granted by Spain to the undertakings in
                                                                                interest cannot accrue in relation to undertakings
    the MAGEFESA group and their successor
                                                                                which are the subject of insolvency proceedings.
    undertakings;
(2) order the defendant institution to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                            Action brought on 31 December 1998 by the Italian
1. I n f r i n g e m e n t o f A r t i c l e 9 2 ( 1 ) o f t h e E C        Republic against the Commission of the European
    Tr e a t y                                                                                Communities
                                                                                (Case C-482/98)
    The Kingdom of Spain considers that the partial                                                    (1999/C 71/26)
    non-payment by the companies INDOSA, CUNOSA,
    MIGSA and GURSA of certain sums due to the social
    security fund and to the Hacienda PuÂblica (Exchequer)                  An action against the Commission of the European
    does not constitute aid incompatible with the common                    Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
    market, since that non-payment results from the                         the European Communities on 31 December 1998 by the
    application of a general rule of law governing any                      Italian Republic, represented by Professor Umberto
    undertaking which is the subject of insolvency                          Leanza, acting as Agent, assisted by Oscar Fiumara,
    proceedings or which has incurred debts due to the                      Avvocato dello Stato, with an address for service in
    social security authorities or to the Hacienda PuÂblica,                Luxembourg at the Italian Embassy, 5 Rue
    and the undertakings alleged to have been granted the                   Marie-Adelaïde.
    aid have not been treated in a different way.
    Furthermore, this is not a case in which any advantage                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
    has been provided, either directly or indirectly, by
    means of State funds, inasmuch as neither the                           Ð Annul the Commission's decision, referring the matter
    Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (Social                             back to the Commission for review (1);
    Security General Fund) nor the Agencia Estatal de la
    Administración Tributaría (State Fiscal Administration
    Agency) nor the Diputación Foral de Vizcaya                             Ð Order the Commission to pay the costs.
    (Government of the Province of Biscay) has at any
    time remitted any debts owed to them by those
    undertakings; on the contrary, they have taken all legal                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    steps within their powers in order to recover the debts
    due to them.
                                                                            The Commission's decision is erroneous and vitiated on
                                                                            the following grounds:
2. B r e a c h o f t h e p r i n c i p l e o f l e g a l c e r t a i n t y
                                                                            Ð It affirms, in general contrast with point 7.4 of Annex I
    The contested decision is not clear or precise and does                      to Council Directive 80/232/EEC (2) concerning certain
    not enable the Kingdom of Spain to ascertain the                             cosmetic products, that cosmetic products may be
    obligations which that decision imposes on it or,                            produced from impure alcohol; moreover, it does not
    consequently, to exercise its rights of defence and to                       appear from the decision that the Community
    adopt the measures which it considers appropriate; it                        scientific bodies have addressed the question, even
    therefore breaches the principle of legal certainty.                         though it was constantly urged by the Italian
                                                                                administrative authorities throughout the procedure
3. A b s e n c e o f a s t a t e m e n t o f r e a s o n s                       that they be consulted;
    The Commission has failed to state in the contested                     Ð In contrast to Article 1(1) of Council Directive
    decision the reasons why the non-payment of certain                          76/768/EEC (3), as amended by Council Directive
    unspecified sums to the State and Provincial Public                          93/35/EEC (4), it endorses the argument that cosmetic


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 24 September 1996 in Case T-494/93: Compagnie Continentale (France) v. Commission of the European Communities (Emergency assistance given by the Community to the States of the former Soviet Union - Invitation to tender - Action for annulment - Admissiblity)

text:
No C 336/26           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                  9 . 11 .
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                Patrick Chabrier, of the Paris Bar, with an address for
                    of 24 September 1996                               service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt,
                                                                       8— 10 Rue Mathias Hardt, v. Commission of the European
in Case T-491 /93 : Richco Commodities Ltd v. Commission
                                                                       Communities ( Agents : Marie-Jose Jonczy and Nicholas
              of the European Communities ( ! )                        Khan ) — application for, first, annulment of the decision of
(Emergency assistance given by the Community to the States             the Commission of 1 April 1993 addressed to the
of the former Soviet Union — In vitation to tender — Action            Vnesheconombank and, second, restoration of its rights
for annulment — Admissibility — Action for damages —                   against Credit Lyonnais — the Court of First Instance
                          Admissibility)                               ( Third Chamber ), composed of: C. P. Briët, President, and
                          ( 96/C 336/54 )                              B. Vesterdorf and A. Potocki, Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez,
                                                                       Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                       24 September 1996 , in which it:
                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                       1 . dismisses the action as inadmissible;
In Case T-491 /93 : Richco Commodities Ltd , established at
Hamilton ( Bermuda ), represented by P. V. F. Bos and J. G.
A. van Zuuren, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an address for               2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs.
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Loesch, 1 1
Rue Goethe, v. Commission of the European Communities
                                                                       (') OJ No C 231 , 27 . 8 . 1993 .
( Agents : Berend Jan Drijber, Nicholas Khan and, at the
hearing, Marie-Jose Jonczy ) — application for, first,
annulment of the decision of the Commission of 1 April
1993 addressed to the Vnesheconombank and , second ,
damages for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant by
reason of the contested decision — the Court of First
Instance ( Third Chamber ), composed of: C. P. Briët,
President, and B. Vesterdorf and A. Potocki , Judges ; J.
Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
given a judgment on 24 September 1996 , in which it:                                       of 24 September 1996
                                                                       in Case T-5 09/93 : Richco Commodities Ltd v. Commission
 1 . dismisses    the     application     for    annulment     as
     inadmissible ;                                                                  of the European Communities f 1 )
                                                                       (Emergency assistance given by the Community to the States
2 . dismisses the objection of inadmissibility inasmuch as it          of the former Soviet Union — Invitation to tender — Action
     concerns the claim for compensation for the damage                               for annulment — Admissiblity)
     allegedly suffered by the applicant;                                                        ( 96/C 336/56 )
3 . orders the procedure relating to that claim for
     compensation to be continued in relation to the                                   (Language of the case: Dutch)
     substance:
4.   reserves the costs .                                              In Case T-509/93 : Richco Commodities Ltd, established at
                                                                       Hamilton ( Bermuda ), represented by P. V. F. Bos and J. G.
(') OJ No C 231 , 27 . 8 . 1993 .                                      A. van Zuuren, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an address for
                                                                       service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Loesch , 1 1
                                                                       Rue Goethe, v. Commission of the European Communities
                                                                       ( Agents : Berend Jan Drijber, Nicholas Khan and, at the
                                                                       hearing, Marie-Jose Jonczy ) — application for annulment of
                                                                       the decision of the Commission of 12 July 1993 addressed to
                                                                       the State Export-Import Bank of Ukraine — the Court of
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               First Instance ( Third Chamber ), composed of: C. P. Briët,
                    of 24 September 1996                               President, and B. Vesterdorf and A. Potocki , Judges ; J.
                                                                       Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
in Case T-494/93 : Compagnie Continentale ( France ) v.
                                                                       given a judgment on 24 September 1996 , in which it:
        Commission of the European Communities ( ! )
 (Emergency assistance given by the Community to the States
 of the former Soviet Union — Invitation to tender — Action             1 . dismisses the action as inadmissible;
               for annulment — Admissiblity)
                          ( 96/C 336/55 )                              2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                (Language of the case: French)                          (!) OJ No C 282 , 20 . 10 . 1993 .
In Case T-494/93 : Compagnie Continentale ( France ),
established at Levallois-Perret ( France ), represented by


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) of 23 January 1997 in Case C-153/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State van België): Andre en Co. NV v. Belgian State (Monetary compensatory amounts - Exemption)

text:
8 . 3 . 97           fWl                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 74/5
The reference quantity allocated to a producer by a                  than that fixed in the .case of immediate payment, in
Member State in 1984 under the additional levy system is             default of which their vehicle will be impounded.
attached to all the land, owned or leased, which is
operated by the producer for milk production, even if part           H OJ No C 87, 8 . 4 . 1995 .
of the land is situated in another Member State. On expiry
of a lease, the reference quantity reverts to the lessor,
where the former lessee does not intend to continue milk
production.
H OJ No C 43 , 12. 2 . 1994 .
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( Fourth Chamber)
                                                                                of 23 January 1997
                                                                     in Case C-153/95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                     the Raad van State van Belgie ): Andre en Co. NV v.
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                          Belgian State (')
                        ( Sixth Chamber)                                   (Monetary compensatory amounts — Exemption)
                      of 23 January 1997                                                        ( 97/C 74/09 )
in Case C-29/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen: Eckehard                               (Language of the case: Dutch)
         Pastoors, Trans-cap GmbH v. Belgian State (')
(Road transport — Council Regulations (EEC) No 3820/
    85 and 3821/85 — Implementing national provisions)                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
                           ( 97/C 74/08 )
                                                                     In Case C-153/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                 (Language of the case: Dutch)                       of the EC Treaty from the Raad van State, Belgium, for a
                                                                     preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
                                                                     court between Andre en Co. NV and Belgian State — on
                                                                     the interpretation of Commission Regulation ( EEC )
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       No 926/80 of 15 April 1980 on exemption from the
           published in the European Court Reports)                  application of monetary compensatory amounts in certain
                                                                     cases ( OJ No L 99 , 1980, p. 15 ) — the Court ( Fourth
                                                                     Chamber), composed of: C. N. Kakouris ( Rapporteur )
In Case C-29/95 reference to the Court under Article 177             acting as President, P. J. G. Kapteyn and H. Ragnemalm,
of the EC Treaty by the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te               Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett,
Antwerpen ( Belgium ) for a preliminary ruling in the                Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
proceedings pending before that court between Eckehard               23 January 1997, in which it has ruled:
Pastoors, Trans-Cap GmbH and Belgian State — on the
interpretation of Article 6 of the EC Treaty and the
general principle of equality laid down by Community law              1 . Article 8 (2) (b) of Commission Regulation (EEC)
— the Court composed of: G. F. Mancini, President of                      No 926/80 of 15 April 1980 on exemption from the
Chamber, J. L. Murray, C. N. Kakouris ( Rapporteur ),                     application of monetary compensatory amounts
P. J. G. Kapteyn and G. Hirsch, Judges, Advocate-General;                 (MCAs) in certain cases is to be interpreted as
 G. Tesauro, L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar,                applying also where the exported product had
has given a judgment on 23 January 1997, in which it                      previously been imported within the six months
rules :                                                                   preceding its exportation.
Article 6 of the EC Treaty precludes national legislation             2. Article 8 (2) (b) of Regulation (EEC) No 926/80 is to
 adopted in implementation of Council Regulation (EEC)                    be interpreted as meaning that, in order to refuse
 No 3820/85 of 20 December 1985 on the harmonization                      exemption from payment of MCAs, it is sufficient for
 of certain social legislation relating to road transport and             the same product to be exported within six months
 Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821 /85 of 20 December                      of its importation, irrespective of whether it was
 1985 on recording equipment in road transport which, in                  imported by the same or another trader.
 cases of infringement, imposes only on non-residents who
 opt for continuation of the normal criminal proceedings              H OJ No C 189 , 22 . 7 . 1995 .
 against them rather than for immediate payment of the
 prescribed fine the obligation to deposit a fixed sum by
 way of security in respect of each offence, which is higher


title: Case C-488/01 P: Appeal brought on 17 December 2001 by J.C. Martinez against the judgment of 2 October 2001 delivered by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-222/99, T-327/99 and T-329/99 between J.C. Martinez and Ch. de Gaulle, the Front National, E. Bonino and Others and the European Parliament

text:
C 84/48               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        6.4.2002
     is discrimination between MEP’s who are members of a               European Communities in Joined Cases T-222/99, T-327/99
     political group and non-attached MEP’s, it refuses to              and T-329/99 between J.C. Martinez and Ch. de Gaulle, the
     accept that this unequal treatment is a ground for                 Front National, E. Bonino and Others and the European
     annulment of the contested measure. Even though an                 Parliament was brought before the Court of Justice of the
     exception of the illegality of Rule 29(1) of the rules has         European Communities on 17 December 2001 by J.C.
     not been raised by the applicants, it is nevertheless the          Martinez.
     case that the members of the TDI group suffer from
     discriminatory treatment in the light of the contested
     decision.
                                                                        The appellant claims that the Court should:
     The Court of First Instance has not drawn the correct
     inferences from the abandonment by the European
                                                                        —     declare admissible the appeal brought by Mr Martinez
     Parliament of its previous practice, nor from the unequal
                                                                              against the judgment of 2 October 2001 of the Court of
     treatment imposed on the TDI group in comparison
                                                                              First Instance of the European Communities,
     with the ‘Groupe pour l’Europe des démocraties et des
     différences’. Lastly, the Court of First Instance could not
     reject the observations evidencing the political affinity of       —     find that there has been an infringement of Community
     the TDI group, even though the facts relied on post-date                 law by the Court of First Instance,
     the contested measure.
—    Failure to observe the regulatory traditions common                —     quash the limbs and grounds of the contested judgment
     to the Member States: in refusing to draw the legal                      in whole or in part,
     consequences from comparative law and to find discrimi-
     nation by the measure at issue, the Court of First
                                                                        —     rule in accordance with the law, set aside the contested
     Instance fails to apply the rules and principles governing
                                                                              judgment, or, in the alternative, remit the case to the
     Community law.
                                                                              Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                              pursuant to Article 54 of the Statute of the Court of
—    Infringement of essential procedural requirements: the                   Justice,
     scope of the contested measure is wider than that of
     interpretation of the rules.
                                                                        —     order the European Parliament to pay the whole of the
                                                                              costs.
—    Presumption of misuse of procedure: the Court of First
     Instance fails to appreciate the reality of the misuse of
     procedure which may be inferred from various examples
     of amendments to the rules, clearly showing that there is
     indeed a desire on the part of the European Parliament to
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
     reduce systematically the rights of some of its members.
                                                                        Four pleas are identical to the first four pleas submitted in Case
                                                                        C-486/01 P (1).
                                                                        —     Infringement of the principle of democracy: the Court of
                                                                              First Instance wrongly rejected this plea on the basis of a
                                                                              failure to raise an objection of illegality against the
Appeal brought on 17 December 2001 by J.C. Martinez                           Parliament’s Rules of Procedure.
against the judgment of 2 October 2001 delivered by the
Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Joined Cases T-222/99,                          —     Infringement of the principle of freedom of association:
T-327/99 and T-329/99 between J.C. Martinez and Ch. de                        the Court of First Instance does not show how the fact of
Gaulle, the Front National, E. Bonino and Others and the                      making the constitution of a group of MEP’s subject to a
                     European Parliament                                      requirement of political affinities constitutes a legitimate
                                                                              ground if this maintains discrimination between non-
                                                                              attached MEP’s and members of a constituted political
                       (Case C-488/01 P)                                      group.
                         (2002/C 84/83)
                                                                        (1) See page 47 of this Official Journal.
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 2 October 2001
by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the


title: Case C-434/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by judgment of that Court of 10 October 2003 in the appeal in cassation brought by P. Charles and T.S. Charles-Tĳmens against the Inspector of Taxes

text:
13.12.2003             EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 304/15
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          —     there is no possibility of choosing to include capital
                                                                               goods, or goods or a service treated as such, wholly in
                                                                               the assets of an undertaking where the acquirer uses those
In so far as it makes the use of construction products including               goods or that service both within the undertaking and
tubes of polyethylene imported from other Member States                        outside it (in particular for private purposes);
subject to an approval procedure, Article 17 of Decree-Law
No 38/382 constitutes a measure having effect equivalent to a            —     there is, related to this, also no possibility of deducting
quantitative restriction on imports prohibited by Article 28                   directly and wholly the tax charged on the acquisition of
EC. The Portuguese authorities have not explained why tubes                    those goods or that service; and
of polyethylene should constitute a danger to human life or
health and have not put forward any other overriding reasons.
                                                                         —     there is no provision for the charging of VAT as intended
                                                                               in Article 6(2)(a) of the Sixth Directive,
The authorities of the Member States are not entitled to
demand, where there is no need, technical or chemical analyses           compatible with the Sixth Directive — in particular
or laboratory tests when those analyses or tests have already            Article 17(1), (2) and (6) and Article 6(2) thereof?
been performed in another Member State and the results are
available to those authorities or can, at their request, be made
available.                                                               (1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
                                                                             harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
                                                                             turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
The Portuguese authorities are obliged, in accordance with the               basis of assessment (OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1).
Court of Justice’s case-law, to take into account certificates
issued by certification bodies in other Member States which,
although they are not members of the European Association
for Technical Approval in Construction, are recognised to be
suitable bodies for the purposes of certifying the products in
question. In this instance the Portuguese authorities have failed
to do so.
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the hof van beroep
(1) OJ L 321 of 30 December 1995, p. 1.
                                                                         te Antwerpen by interlocutory judgment of that Court of
                                                                         7 October 2003 in the proceedings between 1. British
                                                                         American Tobacco International Limited, 2. N.V. Newman
                                                                         Shipping & Agency Company, and the Belgian State,
                                                                                Ministry of Finance
                                                                                (Case C-435/03)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden by judgment of that Court of 10 October
2003 in the appeal in cassation brought by P. Charles and                                         (2003/C 304/23)
    T.S. Charles-Tijmens against the Inspector of Taxes
                        (Case C-434/03)
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by interlocutory judgment of the hof
                        (2003/C 304/22)                                  van beroep te Antwerpen (Court of Appeal, Antwerp) of
                                                                         7 October 2003, received at the Court Registry on 14 October
                                                                         2003, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between
                                                                         1. British American Tobacco International Limited, 2. N.V.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   Newman Shipping & Agency Company, and the Belgian State,
European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad der                    Ministry of Finance on the following questions:
Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of 10 Octo-
ber 2003, received at the Court Registry on 13 October 2003,             1.    Can there be a ‘supply of goods’ within the meaning of
for a preliminary ruling in the appeal in cassation brought by                 the Sixth VAT Directive (1), with the consequence that
P. Charles and T.S. Charles-Tijmens against the Inspector of                   VAT can be charged:
Taxes on the following question:
                                                                               —     in the absence of any consideration?
Is a statutory scheme such as that set out in section 3.4.1
above, which was already in existence before the Sixth                         —     in the absence of transfer of the right to dispose
Directive (1) was adopted and under which:                                           freely of the goods as owner?


title: Case C-281/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van Beroep voor het bedrĳfsleven by judgment of that Court of 26 June 2003 in the proceedings between 1. Cindu Chemicals B.V., 2. Rütgers VFT AG, 3. Touwen & Co B.V., 4. Pearl Paint Holland B.V., 5. Elf Atochem Nederland B.V., 6. Zĳlstra & Co. Verf B.V. and 7. B.V. Chemische Producten Struyk & Co. and College voor de toelating van bestrĳdingsmiddelen

text:
C 251/2                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                       18.10.2003
European Communities (Agents: J.-M. Stenier, M. Bavendamm                        member countries and aligning exemptions from tax and
and I. Ní Riagáin Düro) — the Court (First Chamber),                             from customs duty in the context of travel?
composed of M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, P. Jann
and A. Rosas (Rapporteur), Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 10 July
                                                                          ( 1)  OJ L 350, p. 12.
2003, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                          ( 2)  OJ L 345, p. 9.
                                                                          ( 3)  OJ L 105, p. 1.
                                                                          ( 4)  OJ L 133, p. 6.
1.   The appeal is dismissed;
2.   Mr. Di Pietro is ordered to pay the costs.
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van
(1) OJ C 19 of 25.1.2003.
                                                                          Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven by judgment of that
                                                                          Court of 26 June 2003 in the proceedings between
                                                                          1. Cindu Chemicals B.V., 2. Rütgers VFT AG, 3. Touwen
                                                                          & Co B.V., 4. Pearl Paint Holland B.V., 5. Elf Atochem
                                                                          Nederland B.V., 6. Zijlstra & Co. Verf B.V. and 7. B.V.
                                                                          Chemische Producten Struyk & Co. and College voor de
                                                                                toelating van bestrijdingsmiddelen
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht
für ZRS (Zivilrechtssachen) Wien by order of that Court                                             (Case C-281/03)
of 30 September 2002 in the case of DLD Trading
Company Import-Export spol. s.r.o. against Republic                                                 (2003/C 251/04)
                             of Austria
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                          (Case C-216/03)                                 European Communities by judgment of the College van
                                                                          Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court for Trade
                          (2003/C 251/03)                                 and Industry) of 26 June 2003, received at the Court Registry
                                                                          on 30 June 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
                                                                          between 1. Cindu Chemicals B.V., 2. Rütgers VFT AG,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    3. Touwen & Co B.V., 4. Pearl Paint Holland B.V., 5. Elf
European Communities by order of the Landesgericht für                    Atochem Nederland B.V., 6. Zijlstra & Co. Verf B.V. and 7. B.V.
ZRS (Zivilrechtssachen) Wien (Regional Civil Court, Vienna)               Chemische Producten Struyk & Co. and College voor de toelating
of 30 September 2002, received at the Court Registry on                   van bestrijdingsmiddelen on the following question:
19 May 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of DLD
Trading Company Import-Export spol. s.r.o. against Republic
of Austria on the following questions:                                    Does the Substances Directive permit a Member State to lay
                                                                          down additional conditions for the placing on the market and
                                                                          use of a biocidal product the active substance of which is
1.   Are Regulation (EC) No 3316/94 (1) and Regulation (EC)               included in Annex I to the Substances Directive?
     No 2744/981 (2) compatible with the provisions of
     Community law relating to exemptions from customs
     duties, in particular Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 (3) and
     the principle of the Customs union?
2.   If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
     Did the retroactive entry into force of Regulation (EC)              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van
     No 2744/98 infringe the principles of legal certainty or             Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven by judgment of that
     the protection of legitimate expectations?                           Court of 26 June 2003 in the proceedings between Arch
                                                                          Timber Protection BV and College voor de toelating
                                                                          van bestrijdingsmiddelen; party to these proceedings:
3.   Are Article 5(8) of Directive 69/169/EEC (4) and the                      Stichting Behoud Leefmilieu en Natuur Maas en Waal
     national provisions transposing it, namely Paragraph 3a
     of the Verbrauchssteuer-befreiungsverordnung (Regulation                                       (Case C-281/03)
     on exemptions from excise duties) and the Umsatzsteuer-
     Verordnung, (Turnover Tax Regulations) (BGBl II                                                (2003/C 251/05)
     No 326/1997), incompatible with the purposes of harmo-
     nising turnover tax and excise duty within the Member                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     States, liberalising and facilitating travel to and from non-        European Communities by judgment of the College van


title: Removal from the register of C-87/96

text:
10. 1. 98             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 7/11
national deriving taxable income from employment in                         Removal from the register of C-376/95 (1)
Germany without having a permanent residence or usual                                        (98/C 7/28)
abode there and his spouse, who is not permanently
separated from him and likewise has no permanent
residence or usual abode in Germany and earns income               By order of 10 October 1997, the President of the Court
abroad, are not to be treated as persons subject to                of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
unlimited taxation for the purposes of applying                    removal from the register of Case C-376/95 (reference for
Paragraph 26.1, sentence 1, EStG (joint assessment) on the         a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova):
ground that the combined income of the spouses for the             Cesare Regnoli & Figlio Srl v. Amministrazione delle
calendar year in question does not fall to at least 90 %           Finanze dello Stato.
within the German EStG, or that the income not subject
to the German EStG amounts to more than DM 24 000?                 (1) OJ C 16, 20. 1. 1996.
         Removal from the register of C-229/95 (1)                           Removal from the register of C-19/96 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 7/29)
                          (98/C 7/25)
                                                                   By order of 20 October 1997, the President of the Court
By order of 24 September 1997, the President of the Court          of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the             removal from the register of Case C-19/96 (Reference for
removal from the register of Case C-229/95 (reference for          a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Travail (Labour
a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Wiesbaden):           Court) Nivelles): Vito Casano v. Institut National
Simone Moll v. Berhane Mesghena.                                   d'Assurance Maladie InvaliditeÂ, Union Nationale des
                                                                   MutualiteÂs Libres.
(1) OJ C 229, 2. 9. 1995.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 77, 16. 3. 1996.
         Removal from the register of C-333/95 (1)
                          (98/C 7/26)                                        Removal from the register of C-86/96 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 7/30)
By order of 10 October 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the             By order of 10 October 1997, the President of the Court
removal from the register of Case C-333/95 (reference for          of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova): F.lli          removal from the register of Case C-86/96 (reference for a
Carli SpA and Others v. Amministrazione delle Finanze              preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova, Sezione
delle Stato.                                                       Prima Civile): Palmera SpA v. Amministrazione delle
                                                                   Finanze dello Stato.
(1) OJ C 351, 30. 12. 1995.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 133, 4. 5. 1996.
         Removal from the register of C-348/95 (1)
                                                                             Removal from the register of C-87/96 (1)
                          (98/C 7/27)
                                                                                (98/C 7/31)
By order of 7 October 1997, the President of the Court of          By order of 10 October 1997, the President of the Court
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the                of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-348/95 (reference for          removal from the register of Case C-87/96 (reference for a
a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal                     preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova, Sezione
Administrativo): FaÂbrica de Queijo Eru Portuguesa Lda. v.         Prima Civile): Cesare Regnoli & Figlio Srl v.
MinisteÂrio PuÂblico and Fazenda PuÂblica.                         Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato.
(1) OJ C 351, 30. 12. 1995.                                        (1) OJ C 133, 4. 5. 1996.


title: Case T-264/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 24 September 2008 — DC-Hadler Networks v Commission (Public supply contracts — TACIS programme — Decision to annul the call for tenders — Application for annulment — Duty to state reasons)

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/37

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 24 September 2008 — DC-Hadler Networks v Commission
   (Case T-264/06) (1)

   (Public supply contracts - TACIS programme - Decision to annul the call for tenders - Application for annulment - Duty to state reasons)
   (2008/C 285/67)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: DC-Hadler Networks SA (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Muller, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: initially by E. Cujo and P. Kuijper, and subsequently by M. Wilderspin and E. Cujo, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Application to annul the Commission decision of 14 July 2006 to annul the tender procedure in respect of Europe Aid/122742/C/SUP/RU relating to the supply of IT and office equipment for the information network and of social integration and rehabilitation-related equipment for the disabled in the federal district of the Volga (Russian Federation).
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the Commission decision of 14 July 2006 annulling the tender procedure in respect of Europe Aid/122742/C/SUP/RU;

               2.

               Orders the Commission and DC-Hadler Networks to pay their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 294, 2.12.2006.


title: Case T-119/01: Action brought on 1 June 2001 by Pescanova SA against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 245/20               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         1.9.2001
                                                        COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Action brought on 1 June 2001 by Pescanova SA against                           lay down any procedure for reducing or recovering
         Commission of the European Communities                                 assistance granted to joint companies set up in accordance
                                                                                with the Agreement, neither does it refer to any Com-
                                                                                munity legislation providing for such procedure. More-
                          (Case T-119/01)                                       over, the Commission has not specified at any time
                                                                                throughout the procedure what actual provisions of the
                                                                                EC/Argentina Agreement or conditions laid down in the
                         (2001/C 245/34)                                        decision granting the assistance it considers to have been
                                                                                infringed by the applicant. The applicant takes the view
                                                                                that there has been no infringement of any of the
                                                                                provisions of the EC/Argentina Agreement or of the
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                              decision granting the assistance and the contested
                                                                                decision must be annulled on the ground that the
                                                                                Commission erred in its assessment of an infringement
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                       for which there is no legal basis.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 1 June 2001 by Pescanova SA,
whose registered office is at Chapela, Pontevedra (Spain),               —      Breach of the principle of sound administration and of the
represented by Antonio Creus, Begoña Uriarte and Salvador                      rights of the defence: The Commission has taken no account
Rodrı́guez.                                                                     of the applicant’s complaints, which have been submitted
                                                                                to it on numerous occasions throughout the administrat-
                                                                                ive procedure.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         —      Failure to provide a statement of reasons: First, the Com-
                                                                                mission does not mention in the contested decision what
—     annul the Commission’s decision of 19 March 2001 in
                                                                                provisions of applicable legislation it considers to have
      so far as it reduces the contribution granted to that
                                                                                been infringed. Secondly, neither does it mention the
      undertaking by way of Commission Decision C(94)
                                                                                facts which led the Orense to cease fishing in Argentinian
      3834/4 final of 21 December 1994 for a project relating
                                                                                waters, so that it did not set out the reasons why it
      to the setting up of a joint company in the fishing sector;
                                                                                considered that those facts could not be regarded as force
                                                                                majeure, capable of justifying the reduction of the amount
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                                    of the contribution to be repaid, nor did it set out the
                                                                                grounds on which it decided not to allow such reduction.
                                                                         —      Breach of the principles of legal certainty and legitimate
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 expectations: The applicant could not in any event have
                                                                                imagined that the Commission would initiate a procedure
                                                                                to reduce the contribution, since such a procedure is not
The contested decision, which was adopted on the basis of                       provided for in the applicable legislation, not least in
Regulation No 4253/88 (1), in particular Article 24 thereof,                    view of the practice of the Commission at the time and
and on the basis of the EC/Argentina Agreement (2), finds that                  its lack of reaction when the company informed the
the Community contribution amounting to EUR 1 824 813                           Argentinian authorities that it was leaving Argentinian
granted in 1994 to the applicant is to be reduced to                            waters.
EUR 472 818 over three months, with effect from the date of
the decision. According to the decision, the reason for reducing
the contribution was that the fishing vessel Orense, which was
transferred to Argentina when the joint company was set up,              (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988,
ceased to fish in Argentinian waters, without the prior                      laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC)
authorisation of the Commission, eighteen months after the                   No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the
creation of the company, which is tantamount to a serious                    different Structural Funds between themselves and with the
change in the conditions laid down for the granting of the                   operations of the European Investment Bank and the other
assistance.                                                                  existing financial instruments (OJ 1988 L 374. p. 1).
                                                                         (2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3447/93 of 28 September 1993 on
                                                                             the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Economic
                                                                             Community and the Argentine Republic on relations in the sea
In support of its arguments seeking the annulment of the                     fisheries sector (OJ 1993 L 318, p. 1).
contested decision, the applicant claims:
—     Lack of legal basis: The contested decision lacks a proper
      legal basis, since the EC/Argentina Agreement does not


title: Case T-363/13: Action brought on 10 July 2013 — Harper Hygienics v OHIM — Clinique Laboratories (CLEANIC intimate)

text:
               21.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/18

         Action brought on 10 July 2013 — Harper Hygienics v OHIM — Clinique Laboratories (CLEANIC intimate)
   (Case T-363/13)
   2013/C 274/30
   Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Harper Hygienics S.A. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: R. Rumpel, legal adviser)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Clinique Laboratories LLC (New York, United States of America)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 April 2013 (Case R 606/2012-5) in so far as it refuses registration of ‘CLEANIC intimate’ as a Community trade mark for all goods in Classes 3 and 16 and for certain goods in Class 5;

               —

               amend the contested decision by registering the trade mark for all goods and services applied for;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: figurative trade mark containing the word elements ‘CLEANIC intimate’ for goods in Classes 3, 5 and 16 — Application No 009 217 531 for a Community trade mark

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Clinique Laboratories LLC

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade marks No 54 429 for goods in Classes 3, 14, 25 and 42 and No 2 294 429 for goods in Classes 35 and 42

      Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition upheld in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: Breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (1) as regards establishment of the similarity of the trade marks and of the likelihood of confusion on the part of consumers, and breach of Article 8(5) of that regulation

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).


               6.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/30

         Decision No 1/2006 of the Tribunal
   adopted at the meeting of the full Tribunal on 15 February 2006
   on the assignment of cases to Chambers
   (to be published in the OJ)
   (2006/C 108/55)
   By Decision 2005/C 322/09 of 30 November 2005 on the criteria for the assignment of cases to Chambers (OJ 2005 C 322, p. 17), the Tribunal decided to assign a number of cases to the Third Chamber, regardless of the subject-matter involved, at regular intervals to be determined at a meeting of the full Tribunal.
   At the meeting of the full Tribunal on 15 February 2006, that interval was fixed at every seventh case, according to its number in the list of new actions, the list beginning with the first new case brought before the Tribunal, that is to say, Case F-118/05.
   As was stated in the abovementioned decision, derogations may be made from that rule for reasons of connections between cases and to ensure a balanced and reasonably diversified workload within the Tribunal.

      Luxembourg, 15 February 2006.

            The Registrar

         W. HAKENBERG

            The President

         P. MAHONEY


title: ORDER OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) of 28 November 1996 in Case C-119/96 P Susan Ryan-Sheridan v. European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Appeal - Officials - Employees of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions - Recruitment procedure - Rejection of an internal candidate)

text:
22 . 2 . 97             EN |                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 54/9
                  ORDER OF THE COURT                                      the Order was suspended with effect from 19 October
                         ( Fourth Chamber )                               1983 , he was authorized to conduct proceedings in his
                                                                          own name by decision of 23 February 1996 .
                      of 28 November 1996
in Case C- 11 9/96 P Susan Ryan-Sheridan v. European                      By orders of 5 December 1996 the Court ( Fifth Chamber )
Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working                      ordered as follows :
                            Conditions (')
                                                                          1 . The appeals of Mr Orlando Lopes are inadmissible.
(Appeal — Officials — Employees of the European
Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working
                                                                          2 . The cases shall he removed from the register of the
Conditions — Recruitment procedure — Rejection of an
                                                                               Court of Justice.
                         internal candidate)
                             ( 97/C 54/ 15 )                              (') ECR-SC 1996 II , p . 185 and p . 239 .
                (Language of the case: French)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will he
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                          Appeal brought on 5 December 1996 by J. Antonissen
                                                                          against the order of the President of the Court of First
In Case C-l 19/96 P: Susan Ryan-Sheridan, an employee of                  Instance of the European Communities of 29 November
the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living                     1996 in Case T-l 79/96 R between, on the one hand, J.
and Working Conditions, represented by Marc-Albert                        Antonissen and, on the other hand, the Council of the
Lucas , of the Liege Bar, with an address for service in                  European Union and the Commission of the European
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Evelyne Korn , 21 Rue de                                               Communities
Nassau , — appeal against the judgment of the Court of
                                                                                ( Case C-393 /96 P1R1 )
First Instance (Third Chamber ) of 15 February 1996 in
Case T-589/93 Ryan-Sheridan v. European Foundation for                                               ( 97/C 54/ 17 )
the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions
[ 1996 ] ECR-SC 11-0000 , seeking to have that judgment set               An appeal against the order of the President of the Court
aside, the other party to the proceedings being European                  of First Instance of the European Communities of
Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working                      29 November 1996 in Case T-l 79/96 R between , on the
Conditions ( Agents : Clive Purkiss, Terry Sheehan and                    one hand, J. Antonissen and , on the other hand, the
Denis     Waelbroeck ),        the  Court    ( Fourth    Chamber ),       Council of the European Union and the Commission of
composed of: J. L. Murray, President of the Chamber,                      the European Communities was brought before the Court
P. J. G. Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ) and H. Ragnemalm , Judges;                of Justice of the European Communities on 5 December
C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, made                   1996 by J. Antonissen, represented by PL . H. Pijnacker
an order on 28 November 1996 , the operative part of                      Hordijk, of the Amsterdam Bar, and M. T. P. J. van Oers,
which is as follows :
                                                                          of the Hague Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                          Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Frieden, 62 Avenue
1 . The appeal is dismissed.                                              Guillaume .
2 . The appellant is ordered to pay the costs.                            The appellant claims that the Court should :
(') OJ No C 158 , 1 . 6 . 1996 .                                          — set aside the order of the President of the Court of
                                                                               First Instance of 29 November 1996 in Case T-179/
                                                                               96 R,
                                                                          — refer the case back to ( the President of) the Court of
                                                                               First Instance for judgment, and
                  ORDER OF THE COURT
                       of 5 December 1996
                                                                          — order the Council and the Commission to pay the
                                                                               costs .
in Joined Cases C-174/96 P and C-175/96 P Orlando
   Lopes v. Court of Justice of the European Communities                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                             ( 97/C 54/ 16 )
                                                                          — Breach of Article 186 of the EC Treaty and of the
                                                                               obligation to state reasons in that the President ruled,
Appeals against the judgments delivered on 29 February                         on incomprehensible and incorrect grounds, that the
1996 by the Court of First Instance of the European                            interim measures sought in part corresponded exactly
Communities in Cases T-547/93 and T-280/94 Lopes v.                            to the relief sought in the main application and in part
Court of Justice brought on 6 May 1996 ('), signed only                        amounted to a claim for payment in advance of
by Mr Orlando Lopes, accompanied by a certificate of the                       compensation for future and uncertain damage, and
General Council of the Order of Advocates of Portugal,                         thus did not constitute interim measures within the
according to which , although his entry in the register of                     meaning of Article 186 of the EC Treaty,


title: Case C-549/14: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret — Denmark) — Finn Frogne A/S v Rigspolitiet ved Center for Beredskabskommunikation (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 2004/18/EC — Article 2 — Principle of equal treatment — Obligation of transparency — Contract for the supply of a complex communications system — Difficulties in performance of the contract — Disagreement of the parties in regard to areas of responsibility — Settlement — Reduction in the scope of the contract — Transformation of a rental of equipment into a sale of equipment — Material amendment to a contract — Justification by the objective expediency of achieving a settlement agreement)

text:
               31.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/4

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret — Denmark) — Finn Frogne A/S v Rigspolitiet ved Center for Beredskabskommunikation
   (Case C-549/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Directive 2004/18/EC - Article 2 - Principle of equal treatment - Obligation of transparency - Contract for the supply of a complex communications system - Difficulties in performance of the contract - Disagreement of the parties in regard to areas of responsibility - Settlement - Reduction in the scope of the contract - Transformation of a rental of equipment into a sale of equipment - Material amendment to a contract - Justification by the objective expediency of achieving a settlement agreement))
   (2016/C 402/04)
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Højesteret

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Finn Frogne A/S

      Defendant: Rigspolitiet ved Center for Beredskabskommunikation

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 2 of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts must be interpreted as meaning that, following the award of a public contract, a material amendment cannot be made to that contract without a new tendering procedure being initiated even in the case where that amendment is, objectively, a type of settlement agreement, with both parties agreeing to mutual waivers, designed to bring an end to a dispute the outcome of which is uncertain, which arose from the difficulties encountered in the performance of that contract. The position would be different only if the contract documents provided for the possibility of adjusting certain conditions, even material ones, after the contract had been awarded and fixed the detailed rules for the application of that possibility.

      (1)  OJ C 127, 20.4.2015.