title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 January 2005 in Case C-126/04 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven): Heineken Brouwerijen BV v Hoofdproductschap Akkerbouw (Cereals — Import regime — Community tariff quota for barley for malting — Discrimination)

text:
               19.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/1

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fourth Chamber)
   of 13 January 2005
   in Case C-126/04 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven): Heineken Brouwerijen BV v Hoofdproductschap Akkerbouw (1)

   (Cereals - Import regime - Community tariff quota for barley for malting - Discrimination)
   (2005/C 69/02)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   In Case C-126/04: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands), made by decision of 18 February 2004, received at the Court on 8 March 2004, in the proceedings between Heineken Brouwerijen BV and Hoofdproductschap Akkerbouw – the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, E. Juhász and M. Ilešič, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 January 2005, in which it has ruled:
   Consideration of the questions raised has disclosed nothing capable of affecting the validity of Council Regulation (EC) No 1269/1999 of 14 June 1999 and Council Regulation No 822/2001 of 24 April 2001 opening a Community tariff quota for barley for malting falling within CN code 1003 00.

      (1)  OJ C 106 of 30.04.2004.


title: Case C-30/05: Action brought on 28 January 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               2.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/11

         Action brought on 28 January 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-30/05)
   (2005/C 82/24)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 28 January 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by C.F. Durand and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with

                           —

                           Directive 1999/45/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 1999 concerning the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous preparations (OJ 1999 L 200, p. 1); and

                           —

                           Commission Directive 2001/60/EC of 7 August 2001 adapting to technical progress Directive 1999/45/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous preparations (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2001 L 226, p. 5), or, in any event, by not notifying the Commission of such provisions, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives;

               2.

               order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for the transposition of the directives into national law expired on 30 July 2002.


title: Case T-505/13: Order of the General Court of 19 March 2014  — Stichting Sona and Nao v Commission

text:
               12.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/55

         Order of the General Court of 19 March 2014 — Stichting Sona and Nao v Commission
   (Case T-505/13) (1)

   2014/C 142/74
   Language of the case: Dutch
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 344, 23.11.2013.


title: Case T-148/09: Action brought on 9 April 2009 — Trelleborg v Commission

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/52

         Action brought on 9 April 2009 — Trelleborg v Commission
   (Case T-148/09)
   2009/C 141/107
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Trelleborg AB (Trelleborg, Sweden) (represented by: J. Joshua, Barrister and E. Aliende Rodríguez, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul in part Article 1 of the contested decision insofar as it relates to the applicant and in any event at least insofar as it finds the commission of any infringement by the applicant prior to 21 June 1999;

               —

               reduce the fine imposed on the applicant in Article 2 so as to correct the manifest errors in the decision;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 428 Final of 28 January 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA in Case COMP/39406 — Marine Hoses insofar as it holds it liable for participation in a single and continuous infringement in the marine hose sector in the EEA, which consisted of allocating tenders, fixing prices, fixing quotas, fixing sales conditions, geographic market sharing, and the exchange of sensitive information on prices, sales volumes and procurement tenders. Furthermore, it seeks the reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants.
   The applicant puts forward two pleas in law in support of its claims.
   First, it submits that the Commission’s power to impose fines for any period before 21 June 1999 is time barred under Article 25(1) of Regulation 1/2003 as the applicant argues that the Commission made manifest error in fact and law in finding that the applicant had committed a single and continuous infringement.
   Second, it claims that the Commission has no legitimate interest in making a declaratory finding of infringement for the first period which had come to an end in May 1997.


title: Case C-232/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 10 May 2007 — Derby SA v Belgian State

text:
               21.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 170/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 10 May 2007 — Derby SA v Belgian State
   (Case C-232/07)
   (2007/C 170/20)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Cour d'appel de Bruxelles
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Derby SA

      Defendant: Belgian State
   Question referred
   Is the supply of the following services by an agent, acting on behalf of a principal who operates a business of taking bets on horse-races and other sporting events, exempt from VAT pursuant to Article 13(B)(d)(3) (1) of the Sixth Directive, which exempts transactions, including negotiation, concerning deposit accounts, …, payments …: namely, taking of the bets in the name of the principal; recording the bets; confirming to the customer, by the issue of a betting slip, that the bet has been made; collecting the monies; paying out the winnings; assuming sole responsibility, vis-à-vis the principal, for management of the collected monies and for any thefts or losses of money; and receiving remuneration for those activities in the form of a commission from the principal?

      (1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).


title: Case T-387/00: Action brought on 28 December 2000 by Comitato organizzatore del convegno internazionale "Effetti degli inquinamenti atmosferici sul clima e sulla vegetazione" against Commission of the European Communities

text:
24.2.2001              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 61/23
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the selection board rejecting the             —     annul the contested measure;
      application of the applicant in internal competition B/172
      opened by the notice published in Summary No 31/99;
                                                                          —     in the alternative, annul the contested measure and order
—     annul the decision establishing the list of suitable candi-               the defendant Commission to exclude from the agreed
      dates and all decisions taken by the defendant on the                     financing only the item of expenditure evidenced by the
      basis of such decisions;                                                  invoice from Linguistlink Ltd. No 67/91 for
                                                                                LIT 11 900 000 and declare the debt discharged in
                                                                                respect of the other lawful expenditure;
—     order the Parliament to pay the costs.
                                                                          —     order the defendant Commission to pay all the costs of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 the proceedings pursuant of Article 87 of the Rules of
                                                                                Procedure.
The applicant in the present case contests the refusal of the
selection board in internal competition B 7/172 to admit her
to the tests in that competition, the criteria for admission to           Pleas in law and main arguments
which she claims to fulfil.
                                                                          The present application has been made against the measure
In support of her application, she pleads:                                adopted by Directorate General XIX Budget, issued on 10 Octo-
                                                                          ber 2000 under number BUDG/G2/CBI-D(2000)96003569
—     infringement of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations;                requesting repayment and the debit note in relation to contract
                                                                          B4/91/3046/11396 of 20 December 1991, for financing for
—     infringement of Article 5 of Annex III to those Regu-               the applicant Committee. The purpose of that financing
      lations, resulting from a manifest error of assessment;             contract was to enable the organisation of a conference of
                                                                          international studies entitled ‘Effects of atmospheric pollutants
—     breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare and               on climate and vegetation’.
      interests of officials and of the principle of sound
      administration.
                                                                          The applicant states in that regard that:
                                                                          —     The conference followed the normal course in Taormina
                                                                                from 26 to 29 September 1991.
                                                                          —     The cost estimate was calculated at LIT 718 462 500,
                                                                                including VAT.
Action brought on 28 December 2000 by Comitato
organizzatore del convegno internazionale ‘Effetti degli                  —     Immediately after the conference, all the documentation
inquinamenti atmosferici sul clima e sulla vegetazione’                         relating to it was destroyed by a fire at the offices of the
    against Commission of the European Communities                              company which organised the conference. On account of
                                                                                events beyond its control the Organising Committee was
                         (Case T-387/00)                                        unable to recover the original statements and so had to
                                                                                undertake a complex reconstruction of them.
                          (2001/C 61/43)
                                                                          —     Following an initial claim for payment, in response to
                                                                                which the applicant sent documents which, in its view,
                                                                                were more than sufficient to prove and account for the
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                              expenditure incurred, the Commission remained silent
                                                                                for fully two years, giving rise to a legitimate expectation
                                                                                on the part of the Committee that the documentation
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                       had been accepted and that all actions for recovery had
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                      been abandoned.
European Communities on 28 December 2000 by the Comita-
to organizzatore del convegno internazionale "Effetti degli
inquinamenti atmosferici sul clima e sulla vegetazione" (Organ-           —     Instead, and to its great surprise, the Directorate General
ising Committee for the International Conference on ‘The                        concerned repeats its request for repayment, again with-
Effects of Atmospheric Pollutants on Climate and Vegetation’),                  out providing reasons, according to the applicant, and
represented by Paolo Grassi e Giuseppe Russo, with an address                   with no reference to an actual measure annulling the
for service in Luxembourg.                                                      financing.
 ---pagebreak--- C 61/24               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    24.2.2001
In support of its claims, the applicant alleges:                        —    breach of essential procedural requirements, for failing to
                                                                             take into account the fire, an act of God, which prevented
                                                                             the documents provided for in the financing contract
—    breach of essential procedural requirements, inasmuch as                from being sent, and for breach of the audi alteram
     the requests for repayment lack any statement of reasons                partem rule.
     and no indication is given of any evidence or measure on
     the basis of which the debit note was issued. Nor has the          —    misuse of powers in respect of failure to acknowledge
     defendant given reasons for not accepting the probative                 expenditure on translation, for which there was docu-
     value of the documents sent by the applicant.                           mentation.


title: Case T-89/10: Action brought on 24 February 2010 — Republic of Hungary v European Commission

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/67

         Action brought on 24 February 2010 — Republic of Hungary v European Commission
   (Case T-89/10)
   2010/C 100/99
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Hungary (represented by: J. Fazekas, M.Z. Fehér, K. Szíjjártó, agents)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of Article 1(3) and (4) of and Annexes I, point 3.3, and II of Commission Decision [C(2009)10151] concerning the major project ‘M43 Motorway between Szeged and Makó’, forming part of the operational programme ‘Transport’ for Union structural assistance from the European Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund under the Convergence objective in the Republic of Hungary, insofar as those provisions exclude payments of value added tax from eligible expenditure.

               —

               An order that the Commission pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant contests Commission Decision [C(2009)10151] concerning the major project ‘M43 Motorway between Szeged and Makó’, forming part of the operational programme ‘Transport’ for Union structural assistance from the European Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund under the Convergence objective. In that Decision the Commission authorised the grant of a contribution from the Cohesion Fund to that major project. Furthermore, under the section on ‘Non-eligible expenditure’ in Annex I to the contested Decision the Commission refused the proposal of the Hungarian authorities to include payments of value added tax in the project concerned.
   In the grounds for its application the applicant states that, in adopting the contested Decision, the Commission infringed the relevant provisions of European Union law, in particular Article 56(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 (1) and Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1084/2006. (2)

   The applicant considers that Article 3(e) of Regulation No 1084/2006 clearly establishes that recoverable value added tax is not eligible for support in the form of a contribution from the Cohesion Fund. In the opinion of the applicant it follows unequivocally from that provision that non-recoverable value added tax is eligible for support. Accordingly, having regard to the fact that, under European Union or national law on value added tax the beneficiary of the major project which is the subject of the Decision is not a taxable person, so that it cannot claim back the input value added tax charged to it, the applicant argues that, in the contested Decision, it is not open to the Commission to exclude expenditure arising from that tax.
   Furthermore, the applicant complains that, given that the Commission did not consider to be eligible the expenditure which Regulation No 1084/2006 did not include under eligible expenditure whereas the equivalent national legislation expressly mentioned it as eligible expenditure, by the contested Decision, the Commission was depriving the Member States of the powers devolved on them by Article 56(4) of Regulation No 1083/2006.
   The applicant also alleges that the Commission's assertion that the value added tax charged to the beneficiary will be ‘recoverable’ through the value added tax paid on the fee collected by the management of the infrastructure built by the beneficiary is a very wide interpretation of the concept of ‘recoverable value added tax’ used in Article 3(e) of Regulation No 1084/2006, which the wording of that provision does not support, and is, moreover, contrary to the legislation of the European Union on value added tax.
   Finally, the applicant states that neither Regulation No 1083/2006 nor Regulation No 1084/2006 allows an interpretation to the effect that the Commission, when assessing eligible expenditure, including eligible value added tax, could base its decision on the fact that the Member State could have opted for a different legal solution as regards the organisation of the project and the management of the infrastructure. In the opinion of the applicant, running the administration of national infrastructures and related public services is, essentially, the task of the Member States. In that regard, the applicant points out that, provided that they comply with the requirements laid down by the legislation of the Union, the Commission has to accept the option chosen by the Member State, together with the consequences for the assessment of eligible expenditure entailed by the beneficiary’s status as a taxable person or non-taxable person.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (OJ 2006 L 210, p. 25).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1084/2006 of 11 July 2006 establishing a Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 (OJ 2006 L 210, p. 79).


title: Case C-652/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt (Germany) lodged on 7 December 2015 — Furkan Tedemir, legally represented by his parents Derya Tekdemir and Nedim Tekdemir v Kreis Bergstraße

text:
               4.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/2

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt (Germany) lodged on 7 December 2015 — Furkan Tedemir, legally represented by his parents Derya Tekdemir and Nedim Tekdemir v Kreis Bergstraße
   (Case C-652/15)
   (2016/C 118/03)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Furkan Tedemir, legally represented by his parents Derya Tekdemir and Nedim Tekdemir

      Defendant: Kreis Bergstraße

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the aim of efficient management of migration flows constitute an overriding reason in the public interest capable of denying exemption for a Turkish national born in federal territory from the requirement for a residence permit which he could claim by virtue of the standstill clause of Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC/Turkey Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the Development of the Association?

               2.

               If the Court of Justice of the European Union answers the above question in the affirmative: What are the qualitative requirements for the existence of an ‘overriding reason in the public interest’ in relation to the aim of efficient management of migration flows?


title: Case T-505/10: Action brought on 18 October 2010 — Höganäs v OHIM — Haynes (ASTALOY)

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/55

         Action brought on 18 October 2010 — Höganäs v OHIM — Haynes (ASTALOY)
   (Case T-505/10)
   ()
   2010/C 346/108
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Höganäs AB (Höganäs, Sweden) (represented by: L.-E. Ström, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Haynes International, Inc. (Kokomo, USA)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 August 2010 in case R 1530/2009-4;

               —

               Reject the opposition decision No B 85624; and

               —

               Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark “ASTALOY”, for goods in class 6 — Community trade mark application No 3890233

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited: Community trade mark registration No 55400 of the word mark “HASTELLOY”, for goods in class 6

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: The applicant considers that the contested decision infringes Articles 8 and 9 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred in its assessment of likelihood of confusion as well as in its assessment of the similarity of the contested trade mark.


title: Case T-266/13: Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2014 — Brainlab v OHIM (Curve) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark Curve — Absolute ground for refusal — Trade mark contrary to public policy or to accepted principles of morality — Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               10.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 395/45

      Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2014 — Brainlab v OHIM (Curve)
      (Case T-266/13) (1)

      ((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark Curve - Absolute ground for refusal - Trade mark contrary to public policy or to accepted principles of morality - Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
      (2014/C 395/56)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Brainlab AB (Feldkirchen, Germany) (represented by: J. Bauer, lawyer)

         Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, acting as Agent)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 March 2013 (Case R 2073/2012-4), concerning an application for registration of the word mark Curve as a Community trade mark.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Brainlab AG to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 215, 27.7.2013.


title: Action brought on 11 March 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic (Case C-66/98)

text:
C 137/12             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     2.5.98
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                             reviewing the decision of that authority or before the
Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Wien) (Higher Administrative                    Court of Justice of the European Communities when a
Court, Vienna) by order of that court of 18 December                    question is referred for a preliminary ruling, until legal
1997 in the case of Safet Eyüp v. Landesgeschäftsstelle des             protection is finally granted, to prevent serious and
Arbeitsmarktservice Vorarlberg (Regional office of the                  irreparable damage, and does the fact that a binding
               Vorarlberg employment service)                           decision as to whether the objective requirements are
                       (Case C-65/98)                                   met for freedom of movement under the association
                                                                        agreement is not taken immediately, but at a later date
                        (98/C 137/24)                                   in certain cases, constitute such damage?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European      Communities      by     an    order    of    the
Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Wien) of 18 December 1997,
which was received at the Court Registry on 5 March
1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Safet Eyüp v.
Landesgeschäftsstelle des Arbeitsmarktservice Vorarlberg            Action brought on 11 March 1998 by the Commission of
on the following questions.                                           the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                                                                                (Case C-66/98)
1. Is the concept of members of the family in the first
                                                                                (98/C 137/25)
    sentence of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the
    Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the
    development of the Association between the European
    Economic Community and Turkey to be interpreted as              An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
    meaning that the partner (in a relationship resembling          the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
    marriage with no formal matrimonial bond) of a                  11 March 1998 by the Commission of the European
    Turkish worker also meets the relevant objective                Communities, represented by Paolo Stancanelli, of its
    requirements?                                                   Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service
                                                                    in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
                                                                    Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
2. If a partner is not to be regarded as a member of the
    family:
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
    is the second indent of the first sentence of Article 7 of
    Decision No 1/80 to be interpreted as meaning that, to
    meet the objective requirements, the formal                     1. declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
    matrimonial bond between the Turkish worker and the                 or administrative provisions necessary to comply with:
    family member must have lasted for five years without
    interruption, or is it permissible for periods during               Ð Commission Directive 93/18/EEC of 5 April 1993
    which there is a formal matrimonial bond with a                          adapting for the third time to technical progress
    partner to be interrupted by many years of                               Council      Directive    88/379/EEC      on      the
    cohabitation with the same partner?                                      approximation of the laws, regulations and
                                                                             administrative provisions of the Member States
3. Is the second indent of the first sentence of Article 7 of                relating to the classification, packaging and
    Decision No 1/80 to be interpreted as meaning that                       labelling of dangerous preparations (1),
    the formal dissolution of the matrimonial bond (for
    instance by divorce) with the Turkish worker
                                                                        Ð European Parliament and Council Directive 94/60/
    invalidates all previous periods of compliance, as a
                                                                             EC of 20 December 1994 amending for the 14th
    member of the family, with the conditions as to time?
                                                                             time Directive 76/769/EEC on the approximation
                                                                             of the laws, regulations and administrative
4. Does Community law require that the (directly                             provisions of the Member States relating to
    effective) rights deriving from Articles 6 and 7 of                      restrictions on the marketing and use of certain
    Decision No 1/80 in a Member State for the group of                      dangerous substances and preparations (2),
    people designated therein be safeguarded by providing
    provisional legal protection in certain cases in the
    form of positive (prescriptive) interim measures?                   or by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the
                                                                        Italian Republic has failed to fultil its obligations
5. If question 4 is answered in the affirmative:                        within the meaning of the EC Treaty, and
    is there a need for positive (prescriptive) interim
    measures on the basis of Community law to the effect            2. order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
    that in certain cases (where an applicant invokes rights
    within the meaning of Articles 6 and 7 of Decision              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    No 1/80) the freedom of movement sought on the
    basis of the association agreement is provisionally
    granted for the duration of the proceedings before the          Within the meaning of Article 189 of the EC Treaty,
    competent administrative authority, before the court            according to which a directive is to be binding, as to the
 ---pagebreak--- 2.5.98                EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 137/13
result to be achieved, on each Member State to which it is                  Removal from the register of C-261/97 (1)
addressed, Member States are required to observe the time
                                                                                (98/C 137/26)
limits laid down in directives for their transposition. That
time limit expired on 1 July 1994 in respect of Directive
93/18/EEC and on 20 December 1994 in respect of
Directive 94/60/EC without the Italian Republic having             By order of 11 February 1998 the President of the Court
brought into force the necessary provisions in order to            of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
comply therewith.                                                  removal from the register of Case C-261/97 (reference for
                                                                   a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'Appel, Douai): Karl
(1) OJ L 104, 29.4.1993, p. 46.                                    Heinz Baumann v. Urssaf Lille.
(2) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994, p. 1.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 271, 6.9.1997.
                                                  COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                          4. orders the Commission to pay the costs.
                      of 17 March 1998
                                                                   (1) OJ C 333, 9.12.1995.
in Case T-183/95: Giuseppe Carraro v. Commission of the
                  European Communities (1)
(Officials Ð Article 24 of the Staff Regulations Ð Duty to
provide assistance Ð Decision implicitly rejecting a
                            request)
                                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        (98/C 137/27)
                                                                                of 19 March 1998
                                                                   in Case T-74/96: Georges Tzoanos v. Commission of the
               (Language of the case: Italian)                                       European Communities (1)
                                                                   (Officials Ð Decision ordering removal from post Ð
In Case T-183/95: Giuseppe Carraro, an official of the             Action for annulment Ð Concurrent disciplinary
Commission of the European Communities, assigned to                proceedings and criminal proceedings Ð Errors of
the Joint Research Centre, Ispra, residing at Ispra (Italy),       assessment Ð Right to a fair hearing Ð Articles 12, 13,
represented by Giuseppe Marchesini, advocate with a right          14, 21 and 86 of the Staff Regulations Ð Principle of
of audience before the Italian Court of Cassation, with an         proportionality Ð Principle of equal treatment Ð Misuse
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                                         of powers)
Ernest Arendt, 8-10 rue Mathias Hardt, v. Commission of                                    (98/C 137/28)
the European Communities (Agent: Gianluigi Valsesia) Ð
application, first, for annulment of the decision of the
Commission implicitly rejecting the request for assistance                        (Language of the case: French)
submitted by the applicant on 28 July 1994 and, second,
for compensation Ð the Court of First Instance (Third              In Case T-74/96: Georges Tzoanos, a former official of the
Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili, President, and C. P. BrieÈt       Commission of the European Communities, residing in
and A. Potocki, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator,        Brussels, represented by Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 March                with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
1998, in which it:                                                 Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2, rue du Fort Rheinsheim, v.
                                                                   Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
                                                                   Gianluigi Valsesia, Denis Waelbroeck and Olivier
1. annuls the decision of the Commission implicitly                Speltdoorn) Ð application for annulment of the decision
    rejecting the request for assistance submitted by the          of the Commission of 22 June 1995 removing the
    applicant on 28 July 1994;                                     applicant from his post without loss of entitlement to a
                                                                   retirement pension and for annulment of the decision of
                                                                   19 February 1996 expressly rejecting the complaint lodged
2. orders the Commission to pay the applicant the token            by the applicant on 21 September 1995 against the
    sum of ECU 1 by way of compensation for the non-               decision of 22 June 1995 Ð the Court of First Instance
    material damage suffered;                                      (Fourth Chamber), composed of: P. Lindh, President, and
                                                                   K. Lenaerts and J. D. Cooke, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal
                                                                   Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
3. dismisses the remainder of the action;                          19 March 1998, in which it:


title: Joined Cases C-141/12 and C-372/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 July 2014 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Middelburg, Raad van State — Netherlands) — YS (C-141/12), Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel (C-372/12) v Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel (C-141/12), Ms (C-372/12) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data — Directive 95/46/EC — Articles 2, 12 and 13 — Concept of ‘personal data’  — Scope of the right of access of a data subject — Data relating to the applicant for a residence permit and legal analysis contained in an administrative document preparatory to the decision — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Articles 8 and 41)

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/2

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 July 2014 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Middelburg, Raad van State — Netherlands) — YS (C-141/12), Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel (C-372/12) v Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel (C-141/12), Ms (C-372/12)
   (Joined Cases C-141/12 and C-372/12) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data - Directive 95/46/EC - Articles 2, 12 and 13 - Concept of ‘personal data’ - Scope of the right of access of a data subject - Data relating to the applicant for a residence permit and legal analysis contained in an administrative document preparatory to the decision - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 8 and 41))
   2014/C 315/02
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring courts

   Rechtbank Middelburg, Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: YS (C-141/12), Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel (C-372/12)

      Defendants: Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel (C-141/12), Ms (C-372/12)

      Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               Article 2(a) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data must be interpreted as meaning that the data relating to an applicant for a residence permit contained in an administrative document, such as the ‘minute’ at issue in the main proceedings, setting out the grounds that the case officer puts forward in support of the draft decision which he is responsible for drawing up in the context of the procedure prior to the adoption of a decision concerning the application for such a permit and, where relevant, the data in the legal analysis contained in that document, are ‘personal data’ within the meaning of that provision, whereas, by contrast, that analysis cannot in itself be so classified.

               2)

               Article 12(a) of Directive 95/46 and Article 8(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that an applicant for a residence permit has a right of access to all personal data concerning him which are processed by the national administrative authorities within the meaning of Article 2(b) of that directive. For that right to be complied with, it is sufficient that the applicant be in possession of a full summary of those data in an intelligible form, that is to say a form which allows that applicant to become aware of those data and to check that they are accurate and processed in compliance with that directive, so that he may, where relevant, exercise the rights conferred on him by that directive.

               3)

               Article 41(2)(b) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that the applicant for a residence permit cannot rely on that provision against the national authorities.

      (1)  OJ C 157, 2.6.2012.

      OJ C 303, 6.10.2012.


title: Case C-559/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 29 November 2010 — Deli Ostrich NV v Belgische Staat

text:
               19.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/18

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 29 November 2010 — Deli Ostrich NV v Belgische Staat
   (Case C-559/10)
   2011/C 55/32
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Deli Ostrich NV

      Defendant: Belgische Staat

      Question referred

   The Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen asks the Court of Justice to give a ruling on which tariff subheading should be applied, as at the date of the declaration of 22 October 2007, in respect of import duties on meat from camels which, indisputably, are not kept in captivity.


title: Case T-458/15: Judgment of the General Court of 30 November 2016 — Automobile Club di Brescia v EUIPO — Rebel Media (e-miglia) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark e-miglia — Earlier EU word marks MILLE MIGLIA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               23.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/25

         Judgment of the General Court of 30 November 2016 — Automobile Club di Brescia v EUIPO — Rebel Media (e-miglia)
   (Case T-458/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark e-miglia - Earlier EU word marks MILLE MIGLIA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 022/32)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Automobile Club di Brescia (Brescia, Italy) (represented by: F. Celluprica and F. Fischetti, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Rampini, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Rebel Media Ltd (Wilmslow, United Kingdom) (represented by: P. Schotthöfer and F. Steiner, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 June 2015 (Case R 1990/2014-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Automobile Club di Brescia and Rebel Media.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Dismisses the cross-claim;

               3.

               Orders Automobile Club di Brescia and Rebel Media Ltd to bear their own costs and each pay half of the costs of EUIPO.

      (1)  OJ C 328, 5.10.2015.


title: Case C-461/04: Action brought on 22 October 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
               18.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/8

         Action brought on 22 October 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-461/04)

      (Language of the case: Dutch)

   (2004/C 314/17)
   An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 October 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by C. O'Reilly and R. Troosters, acting as Agents.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2001/55/EC (1) of 20 July 2001 on minimum standards for giving temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons and on measures promoting a balance of efforts between Member States in receiving such persons and bearing the consequences thereof, or at least by failing to forward those provisions to the Commission, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The period within which Directive 2001/55/EC had to be transposed expired on 31 December 2002.

      (1)  OJ L 212 of 07.08.2001, pp. 12-23.


title: Case C-586/16 P: Appeal brought on 17 November 2016 by Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd, formerly Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd, Ranbaxy (UK) Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 8 September 2016 in Case T-460/13: Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd, formerly Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd, Ranbaxy (UK) Ltd v European Commission

text:
               30.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/22

         Appeal brought on 17 November 2016 by Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd, formerly Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd, Ranbaxy (UK) Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 8 September 2016 in Case T-460/13: Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd, formerly Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd, Ranbaxy (UK) Ltd v European Commission
   (Case C-586/16 P)
   (2017/C 030/27)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd, formerly Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd, Ranbaxy (UK) Ltd (represented by: R. Vidal, A. Penny, Solicitors, B. Kennelly QC, Barrister)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the General Court’s Judgment in Case T-460/13 insofar as it dismisses their application to annul the decision of the European Commission of 19 June 2013 in Case COMP/39226 — Lundbeck (citalopram), which found an infringement by object of Article 101(1) TFEU and Article 53 EEA, insofar as it concerns the Appellants;

               —

               Annul Article 1(4) of the Decision insofar as it concern the Appellants;

               —

               Annul Article 2(4) of the Decision insofar as it imposes fines on the Appellants or, in the alternative, reduce the amount of the fine; and

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the Appellants’ legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter and any other measures that this Court considers appropriate.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               The General Court misapplied the test for demonstrating an infringement of Article 101(1) ‘by object’ established by the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘CJEU’) in Cartes Bancaires v Commission C-67/13 P, ECLI: EU:C:2014:2204 (‘Cartes Bancaires’). The agreement between the Appellants and H. Lundbeck A/S (‘Lundbeck’) which took effect on 16 June 2002 (the ‘Agreement’2) was not by its very nature harmful to competition. Its purpose was prima facie to settle a patent dispute between the Appellants and Lundbeck. Whether the Agreement was in fact harmful to competition required the Commission to examine its effects.

               2.

               In finding that there was material ‘potential competition’ in existence between the Appellants and Lundbeck at the time of the Agreement, the General Court manifestly distorted the evidence in the Court’s file. The Commission was required to demonstrate objectively that the Appellants had a real concrete possibility of entering the market in an economically viable manner. The evidence demonstrated that (a) such entry was not a real or concrete possibility, either objectively or in terms of economic viability, prior to the expiry of the Agreement; and (b) in the negotiations leading to the Agreement, the Appellants had no incentive to be truthful regarding their readiness to enter the market and tricked Lundbeck into agreeing both to supply its own product to the Appellants at a discounted price and making a payment to the Appellants. This in fact allowed the Appellants to enter the market immediately which crucially they could not otherwise have done. The General Court failed to take account of the key distinction between the Appellants and the other generic manufacturers who entered into agreements with Lundbeck, which is the Appellants had no realistic and concrete possibility of obtaining an marketing authorization within the timeframe of the Agreement.

               3.

               In any event, no penalty should have been imposed on the Appellants. At the time of the Agreement, the Commission’s Guidelines did not treat such an agreement as constituting an infringement ‘by object’. It was a novel case in which Lundbeck had prima facie protection from competition in the form of its patents and regulatory barriers where the Appellants in fact improved their ability to compete with Lundbeck on the relevant market, by obtaining discounted supplies of Lundbeck’s product which the Appellants could label as their own. The Appellants' penalty ignored the novelty of the infringement and the Commission's unreasonable delay: notice of the investigation could easily have been provided to the Appellants more than five years prior to the actual notice.


title: Case F-5/13: Action brought on 15 January 2013 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               27.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 123/29

         Action brought on 15 January 2013 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-5/13)
   2013/C 123/51
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: J. Grayston, G. Pandey, M. Gambardella, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment of the decision not to include the applicant on the reserve list of the EPSO/AD/205/10 competition.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 09.03.2012 of the Selection Board and of the European Personnel Selection Office (hereinafter ‘EPSO’), notified in the EPSO’s account in which it was confirmed not to include the applicant's name in the reserve list of the competition (EPSO competition EPSO/AD/205/10 (customs field), which was the reply to the ‘Request for review of reasoning tests’ presented by the applicant;

               —

               annul the decision of 23.12.2011 of the Selection Board and of EPSO, notified in the EPSO’s account in which the applicant was notified that his name was not placed on the ‘reserve list’ (the database of successful candidates) as he did not obtain the necessary pass marks in the verbal reasoning tests;

               —

               annul EPSO and the Selection Board implied decision, never served upon the applicant, not to grant him disclosure the documents he requested with letter of 31.12.2011 (Request for review);

               —

               annul EPSO’s implied rejection of the Applicant’s Complaint under Article 90 (2) of the Staff Regulation of Officials of the European Union;

               —

               annul EPSO Notice of competition EPSO/AD/205/10 (customs field), published in OJ C 292 A/1 of 28.10.2010;

               —

               annul in its entirety the ‘reserve list of the competition EPSO/AD/205/10 (customs field)’ published in the OJ C 22 A/1 of 27.01.2012;

               —

               order that the Commission to bear the Applicant’s costs.


title: Case T-200/09: Action brought on 25 May 2009 — Abertis Infraestructuras v Commission

text:
               18.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 167/20

         Action brought on 25 May 2009 — Abertis Infraestructuras v Commission
   (Case T-200/09)
   2009/C 167/39
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Abertis Infraestructuras SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: M. Roca Junyent and P. Callol García, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of the contested decision, an order that the Commission pay the costs and any other appropriate order in law.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The measure against which this action is brought is the same as in Case T-58/09 Schemaventotto v Commission (OJ 2009 C 82, p. 34); namely, the legal act by virtue of which the European Commission closed proceedings under Article 21 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ 2004 L 24, p. 1) (‘RCC’) relating to control of the concentration between the applicant and Autostrade S.p.A. (Case COMP/M. 4388 — Abertis/Autostrade).
   In support of its action, the applicant claims that:

               —

               The European Commission failed to fulfil its legal obligations by closing proceedings commenced under Article 21, without stating that infringements committed by Italy had harmed the rights of Abertis; and, in the alternative, the Commission erred in its analysis of compatibility with Community law and thereby failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 21 RCC.

               —

               The Commission disregarded the essential procedural requirements established in Article 21 RCC. That infringement invalidates the Commission’s acts, by preventing full achievement of the objectives of Article 21 RCC.

               —

               The Commission infringed the obligation to state the reasons for its acts.

               —

               The Commission misused its powers because it issued a decision pursuant to a provision, Article 21 RCC, which did not permit it to issue that decision, which is within the scope of Article 226 EC, and thereby rendered nugatory the safeguards of Article 21 RCC, deprived Article 21 RCC of effectiveness and denied protection to the proposed concentration which the Commission itself had previously approved.

               —

               The Commission infringed the general principles of legal certainty, good administration and the protection of legitimate expectations by failing to take action against the Member State, in circumstances where it had no discretion, thereby damaging the confidence of traders.

               —

               Lastly, and in the alternative, the applicant claims that the Commission erred in its analysis of the new regulatory framework introduced by the Italian Republic given that there has not been established a regulatory framework which ensures that, in any future cross-border mergers within the motorways sector in Italy, undertakings receive equal treatment in accordance with the rules of Community law.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 June 2001 in Case C-368/00: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Quality of bathing water — Inadequate implementation of Directive 76/160/EEC)

text:
C 212/6                   EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                    28.7.2001
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Third Chamber)
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                            of 14 June 2001
                                                                                of 21 June 2001
in Case C-368/00: Commission of the European Communi-
                   ties v Kingdom of Sweden (1)
                                                                             in Case C-30/99: Commission of the European Communi-
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                                              ties v Ireland (1)
Quality of bathing water — Inadequate implementation of
                        Directive 76/160/EEC)
                                                                             (Free movement of goods — Precious metals — Compulsory
                            (2001/C 212/09)                                                             hallmark)
                     (Language of the case: Swedish)                                                (2001/C 212/10)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)                                            (Language of the case: English)
In Case C-368/00: Commission of the European Communities                     In Case C-30/99: Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: L. Ström) v Kingdom of Sweden (Agent: A. Kruse) —                    (Agents: R.B. Wainwright and M. Shotter) v Ireland (Agent:
application for a declaration that, by failing to take all                   M.A. Buckley, assisted by A.M. Collins) supported by United
necessary measures to ensure that the quality of bathing water               Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent:
conforms to the limit values laid down by Council Directive                  R. Magrill, assisted by M. Hoskins) — application for a
76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975 concerning the quality of                      declaration that:
bathing water (OJ 1976 L 31, p. 1) and by failing to adhere to
the minimum sampling frequencies laid down by that directive,
the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under             —    by prohibiting the marketing in Ireland with the descrip-
Articles 4(1) and 6(1) of that directive — the Court (Third                       tion and indication of fineness which they bear in their
Chamber) composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamb-                         country of origin, of articles made from precious metals
er, J.-P. Puissochet and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur),                       (gold, silver or platinum) lawfully manufactured and
Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has                   marketed in other Member States but not complying with
given a judgment on 14 June 2001, in which it:                                    the Irish provisions concerning standards of fineness, or
                                                                                by obliging these imports to replace their hallmarks with
                                                                                those for the appropriate lower official Irish standard of
1.    Declares that, by failing to take all necessary measures to ensure          fineness;
      that the quality of bathing water conforms to the mandatory
      limit values laid down by Council Directive 76/160/EEC of              —    by requiring articles made from precious metals (gold,
      8 December 1975 concerning the quality of bathing water,                    silver or platinum) imported from another Member State,
      and by failing to adhere to the minimum sampling frequencies                and marketed in Ireland, to bear a sponsor’s mark
      laid down by that directive, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed               indicative of the maker, worker or dealer in such articles,
      to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4(1) and 6(1) of that              registered by the Wardens and Commonalty of Gold-
      directive;                                                                  smiths of the city of Dublin which appoints the Assay
                                                                                Master by which these articles are intended to be struck
2.    Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.                              with the approved hallmark, when these articles already
                                                                                bear a sponsor’s mark conforming to the legislation of
                                                                                the Member State of origin;
(1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.                                                   —    by requiring articles made from precious metals (gold,
                                                                                silver or platinum) imported from another Member State,
                                                                                and marketed in Ireland, which have been lawfully struck
                                                                                in another Member State With a hallmark stamped by a
                                                                                body which offers guarantees of independence, and which
                                                                                offers appropriate information to consumers, to bear an


title: Case C-208/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Superior de Justicia, Castilla-La-Mancha, Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo del Tribunal, Sección Segunda, by order of 3 April 2001 in the case of Isabel Parras Medina and Adelina Paras Medina v Conséjeria de Agricultura de la Junta, de Comunidades de Castilla-La-Mancha

text:
C 227/10               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      11.8.2001
6.    Prior to the entry into force of Regulation (EC)                     Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal
      No 2700/2000 (2) of the European Parliament and of                   Superior de Justicia, Castilla-La-Mancha, Sala de lo Conten-
      the Council of 16 November 2000, which amended                       cioso-Administrativo del Tribunal, Sección Segunda, by
      Article 221(3) of the Community Customs Code, was                    order of 3 April 2001 in the case of Isabel Parras Medina
      there any provision of Community law which provided                  and Adelina Paras Medina v Conséjeria de Agricultura de
      for the suspension of the period of three years for post-                  la Junta, de Comunidades de Castilla-La-Mancha
      clearance recovery as soon as an appeal is lodged?
                                                                                (Case C-208/01)
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 of 24 July 1979 on the
    post-clearance recovery of import duties or export duties which                                 (2001/C 227/16)
    have not been required of the person liable for payment on goods
    entered for a customs procedure involving the obligation to pay        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    such duties (OJ 1979 L 197, p. 1).                                     European Communities by order of 3 April 2001 by the
(2) Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 of the European Parliament                Tribunal Superior de Justicia, Castilla-La-Mancha, Sala de lo
    and of the Council of 16 November 2000 amending Council
                                                                           Contencioso-Administrativo del Tribunal, Sección Segunda
    Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Cus-
    toms Code (OJ 2000 L 311, p. 17).                                      (Second section of the Administrative-law Chamber of the
                                                                           High Court of Justice, Castilla-La-Mancha) which was received
                                                                           at the Court Registry on 18 May 2001, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                           in the case of Isabel Parras Medina and Adelina Paras Medina v
                                                                           Conséjeria de Agricultura de la Junta de Comunidades de
                                                                           Castilla-La-Mancha on the following questions:
                                                                           1.    Must the scope of the concept of force majeure used in
                                                                                Article 12 of Regulation No 1294/96 of 4 July 1996 be
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-                         altered so as to equate to that of unforeseen and
richtshof by order of that court of 25 April 2001 in the                         compelling circumstances, as described in this decision,
case of Dr Tilmann Klett against the Federal Minister for                        of such a kind that negligence as regards compliance with
                 Education, Science and Culture                                  the time-limit in question would not be regarded as such?
                                                                           2.    Are the consequences provided for in the abovemen-
                         (Case C-204/01)                                         tioned Article 12 in the nature of a sanction or a penalty
                                                                                and, if that is the a case, does that fact contribute to the
                                                                                need to alter the scope of the said concept of force majeure?
                         (2001/C 227/15)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgerichts-
hof of 25 April 2001, received at the Court Registry on
16 May 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Dr Tilmann Klett against the Federal Minister for Education,
Science and Culture on the following question:                             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundespa-
                                                                           tentgericht by order of that court of 10 April 2001 in the
                                                                                case of Henkel KGaA
Are Article 19b of Council Directive 78/686/EEC (1) of 25 July
1978 concerning the mutual recognition of diplomas, certifi-
cates and other evidence of the formal qualifications of                                            (Case C-218/01)
practitioners of dentistry, including measures to facilitate the
effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to                                     (2001/C 227/17)
provide services, as amended by the Act of Accession, Official
Journal C 241 of 29 August 1994; p. 218, Article 12 EC and                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Article 39 EC, and Article 1; read in conjunction with Article 3           European Communities by order of the Bundespatentgericht
and Article 9, of Council Directive 93/16/EEC (2) to facilitate            (Federal Patents Court) of 10 April 2001 which was received
the free movement of doctors and the mutual recognition of                 at the Court Registry on 29 May 2001, for a preliminary ruling
their diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal                  in the case of Henkel KGaA on the following questions on the
qualifications, to be interpreted as precluding legislation under          interpretation of Article 3(1)(b), (c) and (e) of First Council
which admission to a training course in dentistry covered by               Directive 89/104/EEC(1) of 21 December 1988 to approximate
Article 19b of Directive 78/686/EEC requires a degree in                   the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ
medicine obtained at an Austrian university?                               1989 L 40, p. 1):
                                                                           1.    In the case of three-dimensional trade marks which
(1) OJ 1978 L 233, p. 1.                                                         consist of the packaging of goods which are normally
(2) OJ 1993 L 165, p. 1.                                                         traded in packaged form (such as liquids, for example) is
                                                                                the packaging of the goods to be equated with the shape
                                                                                of the goods for the purpose of trade mark law in such a
                                                                                way that


title: Joined Cases T-432/03 and T-95/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 October 2006 — Dehon v Parliament (Officials — Vacant post — Compliance with a judgment of the Court of First Instance annulling an appointment decision — Article 29(1) of the Staff Regulations — Organisation of an internal competition)

text:
               16.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 310/11

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 October 2006 — Dehon v Parliament
   (Joined Cases T-432/03 and T-95/05) (1)

   (Officials - Vacant post - Compliance with a judgment of the Court of First Instance annulling an appointment decision - Article 29(1) of the Staff Regulations - Organisation of an internal competition)
   (2006/C 310/20)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Jean Dehon (Hagen, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Orlandi, X. Martin, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: H. von Hertzen, A. Bencomo Weber and A. Lukosiute, Agents)
   Re:
   In Case T-432/03, application for annulment of the European Parliament's decision to organise an internal competition to fill the post of deputy head of the French translation division advertised in vacancy notice No 9192 and, in Case T-95/05, application for annulment of the Parliament's decision of 29 April 2004 appointing M.S. to that post.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the actions;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 47, 21.2.2004.


title: Case C-687/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München (Germany) lodged on 30 December 2013 — Fliesen-Zentrum Deutschland GmbH v Hauptzollamt Regensburg

text:
               15.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/3

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München (Germany) lodged on 30 December 2013 — Fliesen-Zentrum Deutschland GmbH v Hauptzollamt Regensburg
   (Case C-687/13)
   2014/C 78/07
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht München

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Fliesen-Zentrum Deutschland GmbH

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Regensburg

      Question referred

   Is Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 917/2011 of 12 September 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ceramic tiles originating in the People’s Republic of China (1) valid?

      (1)  OJ 2011 L 238, p. 1.


title: Case C-348/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 November 2013 — Council of the European Union v Manufacturing Support & Procurement Kala Naft Co., Tehran, European Commission (Appeal — Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Measures directed against the Iranian oil and gas industry — Freezing of funds — Obligation to state reasons — Obligation to substantiate the measure)

text:
               8.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/6

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 November 2013 — Council of the European Union v Manufacturing Support & Procurement Kala Naft Co., Tehran, European Commission
   (Case C-348/12 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Measures directed against the Iranian oil and gas industry - Freezing of funds - Obligation to state reasons - Obligation to substantiate the measure)
   2014/C 39/10
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro, acting as Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Manufacturing Support & Procurement Kala Naft Co., Tehran (represented by: F. Esclatine and S. Perrotet, avocats), European Commission (represented by M. Konstantinidis and E. Cujo, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal lodged against the judgment of the General Court in Case T-509/10 Manufacturing Support & Procurement Kala Naft, by which the General Court annulled, in so far as they concern Manufacturing Support & Procurement Kala Naft Co., Tehran, Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39); Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 of 26 July 2010 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 25); Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 81); Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1) — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — List of persons, bodies and entities to which the freezing of funds applies — Errors of law — Admissibility — Governmental organisation status of the entity concerned — Ability of such an organisation to rely on the protection of fundamental rights — Burden of proof

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 25 April 2012 in Case T-509/10 Manufacturing Support & Procurement Kala Naft v Council;

               2.

               Dismisses the action for annulment brought by Manufacturing Support & Procurement Kala Naft Co., Tehran;

               3.

               Orders Manufacturing Support & Procurement Kala Naft Co., Tehran to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union in relation both to the proceedings at first instance and to the appeal proceedings;

               4.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs both of the proceedings at first instance and of the appeal proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 287, 22.9.2012.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 12 December 1996 in Case T-16/91 RV: Rendo NV and Others v. Commission of the European Communities (Competition - Implied rejection of a complaint - Statement of reasons - Appeal - Referral of a case back to the Court of First Instance - Continuation of the proceedings - Costs)

text:
No C 40/ 16           LIN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                             8 . 2 . 97
2 . orders the applicants jointly and severally to pay all              the Commission of the European Communities, residing at
     the costs incurred in this case, including the costs               Stutensee ( Germany ), and Vittorino Tebaldi , an official of
     relating to the proceedings for interim relief;                    the Commission of the European Communities, residing at
                                                                        Marxzell-Burbach ( Germany ), represented by Jean-Noel
3.   orders the interveners to hear their own costs .                   Louis, Thierry Demaseure, Veronique Leclercq and Ariane
                                                                        Tornel , of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
(') 01 No C 188 , 10 . 7 . 1993 .                                       Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 1
                                                                        Rue Glesener, v. Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities (Agent: Gianluigi Valsesia ), supported by
                                                                        Council of the European Union ( Agents : Yves Cretien ,
                                                                        Antonio Lucidi and Diego Canga Fano ) and Federal
                                                                        Republic of Germany ( Agents : Ernst Röder, Bernd Kloke
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               and Sabine Maass ) — application for annulment of the
                      of 11 December 1996                               pay slips issued for the period from 1 July 1 994 to
                                                                        31 December 1994 pursuant to Council Regulation
in Case T-49/95 : Van Megen Sports Group BV v.                          ( ECSC, EC , Euratom ) No 3161 /94 of 19 December 1994
        Commission of the European Communities (')                      adjusting, with effect from I July 1994 , the remuneration
(Competition — Article 85 of the EC Treaty — Proof of                   and pensions of officials and other servants of the
the infringement — Fine — Statement of the reasons for                  European Communities and the weightings applied thereto
                            the decision )                              ( OJ No L 335 , 23 . 12 . 1994 , p. 1 ), inasmuch as those pay
                                                                        slips apply retroactively a specific weighting for Karlsruhe
                            ( 97/C 40/40 )                              fixed at 99,8 — the Court of First Instance ( Fourth
                                                                        Chamber ), composed of: K. Lenaerts , President, and R
                  (Language of the case: Dutch)                         Lindh and J. D. Cooke , Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez,
                                                                        Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
In Case T-49/95 : Van Megen Sports Group BV, formerly                    11 December 1996 , in which it:
Van Megen Tennis BV, established in Eindhoven
( Netherlands ), represented by Antonius Wouters Willems,
Advocaat, Eindhoven , with an address for service in                     1.   dismisses the action ;
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Loesch , 1 1 Rue
Goethe, v. Commission of the European Communities
                                                                        2 . orders     the    applicants ,     the   defendant      and       the
( Agents : Francisco Enrique Gonzalez Diaz and Wouter                         interveners to hear their own costs .
Wils ) — application for annulment of Commission
Decision 94/987/EC of 21 December 1994 relating to a
proceeding pursuant to Article 85 of the EC Treaty ( IV/                 (') O No C ; 315 , 25 . 11 . 1995 .
 32.948 — IV/34.590 : Tretorn and others ) ( OJ No L 378 ,
 31 . 12 . 1994 , p. 45 ) — the Court of First Instance ( Fourth
 Chamber ), composed of: K. Lenaerts, President of the
 Chamber, P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges ; J. Palacio
 Gonzalez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
 judgment on 11 December 1996 , in which it:
                                                                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 1 . dismisses the application;                                                                of 12 December 1996
                                                                         in    Case   T-16/91       RV:     Rendo    NV   and      Others       v.
 2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs.                                      Commission of the European Communities (')
 (>) OJ No C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995 .                                          (Competition — Implied rejection of a complaint —
                                                                         Statement of reasons — Appeal — Referral of a case back
                                                                          to the Court of First Instance — Continuation of the
                                                                                proceedings — Costs)
                                                                                ( 97/C 40/42 )
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                       of 11 December 1996                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
 in   Case    T-177/95 :      Patrick  Barraux   and    Others   v.
          Commission of the European Communities (')                      In Case T-16/91 RV: Rendo NV, established at Hoogeveen
                                                                          ( Netherlands ), Centraal Overijsselse Nutsbedrijven NV,
                  (Officials — Specific weighting)
                                                                          established     at      Almelo       ( Netherlands ),     Regionaal
                              ( 97/C 40/41 )                              Energiebedrijf Salland NV, established at Deventer
                                                                          ( Netherlands ), represented by Tom R. Ottervanger, of the
                   (Language of the case: French)                         Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                          the Chambers of Stef Oostvogels, 13 Rue Aldringen v.
  In Case T-177/95 : Patrick Barraux, an official of the                  Commission of the European Communities ( Agent: Berend
  Commission of the European Communities, residing at                     Jan Drijber ), supported by Samenverkende Elecktriciteits
  Karlsruhe ( Germany ), Klaus Kammerichs, an official of                 produktiebedrijven          NV,     established       at    Arnhem
 ---pagebreak--- 8 . 2 . 97             I EN 1                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 40/ 17
( Netherlands ), represented initially by Martijn van Empel ,            Parfumerie, established in Paris, represented by Robert
subsequently by Onno W. Brouwer, of the Amsterdam Bar,                   Collin, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                         Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8—10
Chambers of Marc Loesch , 1 1 Rue Goethe — application                   Rue Mathias Hardt, Comité de Liaison des Syndicats Eu
for the partial annulment of Commission Decision                         ropéens de l'Industrie de la Parfumerie et des Cosmétiques,
91 /50/EEC of 16 January 1991 relating to a proceeding                   established in Brussels, represented by Stephen Kon , Solici
under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty [ IV/32.732 —                         tor, and Melanie Thill-Tayara , of the Paris Bar, with an
IJsselcentrale { IJC ) and Others , OJ No L 28 , 2 . 2 . 1991 ,          address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Wi
p. 32 ) — the Court ( Second Chamber, Extended                           nandy and Err, 60 Avenue Gaston Diderich , and Federa
Composition ), composed of: H. Kirschner, President, B.                  tion Européenne des Parfumeurs Détaillants , established in
Vesterdorf, C. W. Bellamy, A. Kalogeropoulos and A.                      Paris , represented by Rolland Verniau , of the Lyon Bar,
Potocki , Judges; Registrar : J. Palacio Gonzalez, gave a                with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
judgment on 12 December 1996 , the operative part of                     Chambers of Nico Schaeffer, 12 Avenue de la Porte-Neuve
which is as follows :                                                    — application for annulment of Commission Decision
                                                                         92/33/EEC of 16 December 1991 relating to a proceeding
1 . Commission Decision 91 /50/EEC of 16 January 1991                    under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty ( IV/33.242 — Yves
      relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC               Saint Laurent Parfums ) ( OJ No L 12 , 18 . 1 . 1992 , p. 24 )
       Treaty (JV/32.732 — IJsselcentrale (1JC) and Others)              — the Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber, Extended
      is annulled in so far as it rejects the applicants '               Composition ), composed of H. Kirschner, President, and
       complaint with regard to the import restrictions                  B. Vesterdorf, C. W. Bellamy, A. Kalogeropoulos and A.
      applicable      during       the    period     before     the      Potocki , Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for
       Elektriciteitswet 1989 entered into force.                        the Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 December 1996 , in
                                                                         which it :
2 . The applicants are ordered to bear their own costs and
      jointly and severally to pay half of the costs incurred            1 . annuls        Commission Decision         92/33/EEC of
       by the Commission and the intervener before the                         16 December 1991 relating to a proceeding under
      judgment of the Court of First Instance of                              Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (IV/33.242 — Yves Saint
       18 November 1992 , the defendant and the intervener                     Laurent Parfums) in so far as it decides that a
       each being ordered to bear the other half of their                     provision allowing Yves Saint Laurent to treat
       costs .                                                                retailers ' applications less favourably merely because
                                                                              perfumery represents a minority of their activities is
3 . The Commission is ordered to pay the costs incurred                       not covered by Article 85 ( 1 ) of the Treaty;
       after the judgment of the Court of Justice, with the
       exception of the intervener s costs, which shall be               2 . dismisses the remainder of the action;
       borne by the intervener.
                                                                         3 . orders the applicant to pay the costs of the
 (') OJ No C 101 , 18 . 4 . 1991 .                                             Commission and of the intervener Yves Saint Laurent
                                                                               Parfums SA , and to bear its own costs;
                                                                         4 , orders each of the other interveners , the Fédération
                                                                               des Industries de la Parfumerie, the Comité de Liaison
                                                                               des Syndicats Européens de l'Industrie de la Parfume
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                     rie et des Cosmétiques and the Fédération Européenne
                        of 12 December 1996                                    des Parfumeurs Détaillants, to bear its own costs.
 in Case T-19/92 : Groupement d'Achat Edouard Leclerc v.
          Commission of the European Communities (')                      (') OJ No C 90 , 10 . 4 . 1992 .
 (Selective     distribution     system —      Luxury     cosmetic
                                products)
                             ( 97/C 40/43 )
                   (Language of the case: French)                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 12 December 1996
 In Case T-19/92 : Groupement d'Achat Edouard Leclerc,
 established in Paris, represented by Mario Amadio and                    in Case T-87/92 : BVBA Kruidvat v. Commission of the
  Gilbert Parléani, of the Paris Bar, with an address for                                     European Communities (')
 service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Philippe Hoss,                  (Selective     distribution      system —  Luxury     cosmetic
  15 Cote d'Eich , against Commission of the European                                                    products)
  Communities ( Agents : initially Bernd Langeheine, then
  Berend Jan Drijber and Hervé Lehman ), supported by                                                 ( 97/C 40/44 )
  Yves Saint Laurent Parfums SA, established in Neuilly-sur-
  Seine, France , represented by Dominique Voillemot and                                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
  Arnaud Michel , of the Paris Bar, with an address for
  service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jacques                        In Case T-87/92 : BVBA Kruidvat, established in Antwerp,
  Loesch, 1 1 Rue Goethe, Federation des Industries de la                 Belgium, represented by Onno Willem Brouwer, of the


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber) of 16 July 1998 in Case T-162/96: Sandro Forcheri v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Secondment in the interest of the service - Temporary posting - Entitlement to secondment differential allowance - Discretion of the administration)

text:
C 299/32              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 26.9.98
judgment on 16 July 1998, the operative part of which is           3. the remainder of the action is dismissed;
as follows:
                                                                   4. the Commission is ordered to pay the costs.
1. the action is dismissed;
                                                                   (1) OJ C 370, 7.12.1996.
2. each party shall bear its own costs.
(1) OJ C 354, 23.11.1996.
                                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (First Chamber)
                                                                                of 14 July 1998
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                          in Case T-192/96: Giorgio Lebedef v. Commission of the
                      (Second Chamber)                                               European Communities (1)
                       of 16 July 1998                             (Staff committee Ð Procedures Ð Amendment of the staff
in Case T-162/96: Sandro Forcheri v. Commission of the             committee rules Ð General assembly Ð Electoral system
                  European Communities (1)                                                Ð Admissibility)
(Officials Ð Secondment in the interest of the service Ð                                    (98/C 299/53)
Temporary posting Ð Entitlement to secondment                                     (Language of the case: French)
 differential allowance Ð Discretion of the administration)
                        (98/C 299/52)                              In Case T-192/96: Giorgio Lebedef, an official at the
                                                                   Commission of the European Communities, residing in
                (Language of the case: French)                     Senningerberg (Luxembourg), represented by Gilles
                                                                   BouneÂou, of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for
In Case T-162/96: Sandro Forcheri, an official of the              service in Luxembourg at his Chambers at 4, rue de
Commission of the European Communities, residing in                l'Avenir, against the Commission of the European
Brussels, represented by Marc-Albert Lucas, of the LieÁge          Communities (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and Julian
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the              Currall) Ð application for the annulment, in whole or in
Chambers of Evelyne Korn, 21, rue de Nassau, against the           part, of the genral assembly of the staff of the
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Julian             Commission assigned to Luxembourg of 5 December 1995
Currall and Denis Waelbroeck) Ð application for                    and of the decision to amend the staff committee rules
annulment, first, of the decision of the Commission of             adopted by that assembly as well as all other subsequent
12 December 1995 rejecting the applicant's request to              acts adopted pursuant to that decision Ð the Court of
have the temporary duties taken on by him recognised and           First Instance (First Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf,
for payment of the differential allowance and, second, of          President, R. M. Moura Ramos and P. Mengozzi, Judges;
the decision of the Commission of 24 July 1996 declaring           Blanca Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
that the applicant is acting as head of division of Unit 4         gave a judgment on 14 July 1998, in which it:
(Common Customs Tariff), Directorate B (Customs),
                                                                   1. dismisses the action;
Directorate General XXI (Customs and Direct Taxation)
and recognising the temporary nature of the posting in so          2. the parties shall bear their own costs.
far as the date on which that decision is to take effect is
set at 1 August 1996 for a fixed term of one year and not          (1) OJ C 54, 22.2.1997.
for an indefinite period as from 29 October 1992 Ð the
Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of A.
Kalogeropoulos, President, C. W. Bellamy and J. Pirrung,
Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a
judgment on 16 July 1998, the operative part of which is
as follows:                                                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
1. the decisions of the Commission of 12 December 1995
                                                                                of 16 July 1998
     and 24 July 1996 are annulled except in so far as the
     second decision recognises the temporary nature of the        in Case T-199/96: Laboratoires Pharmaceutiques Berga-
     applicant's posting;                                          derm SA and Jean-Jacques Goupil v. Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
2. the Commission is ordered to pay to the applicant the           (Cosmetic products Ð Directive 76/768/EEC Ð Directive
     monthly differential allowance referred to in                 95/34/EC Ð Sun-creams and bronzing-products Ð Public
     Article 7(2) of the Staff Regulations to which he                health Ð Non-contractual liability of the Community)
     would have been entitled if he had been called on to
     occupy, temporarily, the post of Head of Unit XXI.B.4                                  (98/C 299/54)
     on 24 March 1993, together with default interest at                          (Language of the case: French)
     the rate of 8 % per annum with effect from the dates
     on which those payments should have been made and             In Case T-199/96: Laboratoires Pharmaceutiques Berga-
     until complete payment is made;                               derm SA, established at Rungis (France), and Jean-Jacques