C 366/32              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                18.12.1999
       Removal from the register of Case T-385/94 (1)                         Removal from the register of Case T-160/95 (1)
                       (1999/C 366/70)                                                        (1999/C 366/73)
                 (Language of the case: German)                                         (Language of the case: German)
By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Fourth              By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Fourth
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                 Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of               Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Case T-385/94: Johann Wißmüller v Council of the European              Case T-160/95: Harald Meuser v Council of the European
Union and Commission of the European Communities.                      Union and Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ No C 392 of 31.12.1994.                                         (1) OJ No C 248 of 23.9.1995.
       Removal from the register of Case T-397/94 (1)                         Removal from the register of Case T-202/95 (1)
                       (1999/C 366/71)                                                        (1999/C 366/74)
                 (Language of the case: German)                                         (Language of the case: German)
By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Fourth              By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Fourth
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                 Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of               Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Case T-397/94: Gerjet Meyenburg v Council of the European              Case T-202/95: Heinrich Gottmann v Council of the European
Union and Commission of the European Communities.                      Union and Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ No C 400 of 31.12.1994.                                         (1) OJ No C 351 of 30.12.1995.
       Removal from the register of Case T-399/94 (1)                         Removal from the register of Case T-150/96 (1)
                       (1999/C 366/72)                                                        (1999/C 366/75)
                 (Language of the case: German)                                          (Language of the case: French)
By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Fourth              By order of 19 October 1999 the President of the First
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                 Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of               Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Case T-399/94: Josef Speckbacher v Council of the European             Case T-150/96: Austin Rowan v Commission of the European
Union and Commission of the European Communities.                      Communities.
(1) OJ No C 392 of 31.12.1994.                                         (1) OJ No C 354 of 23.11.1996.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hessisches Finanzgericht by order of that court of 7 May 1998 in the case of Döhler GmbH against Hauptzollamt Darmstadt (Case C-2/99)

text:
C 71/16                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  13.3.1999
     products may be used for purposes other than                     Genova (Genoa District Court) of 18 December 1998,
     application to the human body and, consequently, may             which was received at the Court Registry on 4 January
     be prepared specifically for such uses; Article 6(2)             1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Kofisa Italia
     requires Member States to take all measures necessary            Srl against Ministero delle Finanze and against Servizio
     to ensure that the labelling and presentation of                 della Riscossione dei Tributi Ð San Paolo Riscossione
     cosmetic products do not suggest that those products             Genova SpA on the following questions:
     possess characteristics Ð and, therefore, applications
     Ð which they do not. Thus, contrary to what is stated
     in the contested decision, if a product is intended for          (a) May the appeal referred to in Article 243(2) of
     the cleansing of objects or places, it cannot be called a             Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (1) be brought
     cosmetic; it falls instead into some other category of                directly before the judicial authority without referring
     goods, subject to other tax arrangements;                             the matter first to the customs authority?
Ð Since it manifestly does not distinguish between                    (b) Is the power to suspend the contested decision
     evasion, avoidance and abuse Ð defined in                             provided for in Article 244 of Regulation (EEC)
     Article 27(1) and (5) of Council Directive                            No 2913/92 conferred exclusively on the customs
     92/83/EEC (5), but equates all those concepts with                    authority or also on the judicial authority before
     evasion, it does not regard as abuse the attempt to                   which an appeal has been brought?
     benefit, without justification, from more favourable
     tax rules (an instance of which has already occurred in
                                                                      (1) OJ L 302, 19.2.1992, p. 1.
     Italy);
Ð In discarding any limits as to alcoholic content and
     therefore permitting the preparation of products which
     are substantially similar in terms of composition and
     potential applications from alcohol which has been
                                                                      Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hessisches
     completely denatured' Ð to be subject to rules which
                                                                      Finanzgericht by order of that court of 7 May 1998 in the
     are less stringent than those laid down for such
                                                                         case of Döhler GmbH against Hauptzollamt Darmstadt
     alcohol Ð the decision authorises tax discrimination
     between products which lend themselves equally to                                         (Case C-2/99)
     evasion, and such discrimination has repercussions on
     market conditions and consequently on the                                                (1999/C 71/28)
     competitiveness of like products.
                                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
(1) Commission Decision 98/617/EC of 21 October 1998 (OJ
    L 295, 4.11.1998, p. 43) denying authority to Italy to refuse     European Communities by order of the              Hessisches
    the grant of exemption to certain products exempt from excise     Finanzgericht (Finance Court, Hessen) (Seventh Senate) of
    duty under Council Directive 92/83/EEC on the harmonisation       7 May 1998, received at the Court Registry on 5 January
    of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic       1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Döhler
    beverages.                                                        GmbH v Hauptzollamt Darmstadt on the following
(2) OJ L 51, 25.2.1980, p. 1.                                         questions:
(3) OJ L 262, 27.9.1976, p. 169.
(4) OJ L 151, 23.6.1993, p. 32.
(5) OJ L 316, 31.10.1992, p. 21.
                                                                      1. Is the second sentence of Article 7(5) of Commission
                                                                           Regulation (EEC) No 2169/86 of 10 July 1986 laying
                                                                           down detailed rules for the control and payment of the
                                                                           production refunds in the cereals and rice sectors (1), in
                                                                           the version as amended by Regulation (EEC)
                                                                           No 165/89, to be interpreted as meaning that the
                                                                           expression the party concerned' also includes the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di                     purchaser of a product CN 3505 10 50, who has for
Genova by order of that court of 18 December 1998 in                       his part undertaken to the manufacturer and/or
the case of Kofisa Italia Srl against Ministero delle Finanze              supplier of that product to use it exclusively for the
and against Servizio della Riscossione dei Tributi Ð San                   manufacture of products other than those listed in
                 Paolo Riscossione Genova SpA                              Annex I?
                          (Case C-1/99)
                         (1999/C 71/27)                               2. If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:
                                                                           (a) Does the required payment by the purchaser of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         105 % of the highest production refund applicable
European Communities by order of the Tribunale di                              to the product in question during the previous
 ---pagebreak--- 13.3.1999             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 71/17
        12-month period apply irrespective of whether the               Annex III, taking account of the fact that this may,
        security provided by the manufacturer Ð possibly                and in this case does, give rise to differences between
        on account of a knowingly false undertaking by                  the various national laws, with the result that by this
        the party referred to in Question 1 Ð has been                  means the Member States which limit the range of
        released?                                                       containers, like Belgium which limits the range of
                                                                        containers for cider, have at their disposal a measure
                                                                        whose purpose or effect is to restrict the free
    (b) Is it still possible to require payment by the                  movement of goods?
        purchaser of 105 % of the highest production
        refund applicable to the product in question
        during the previous 12-month period if it can no
        longer be determined whether the purchaser gave            2. Having regard to the principle of the free movement
        an undertaking, but it is clear that processing into            of goods, does Directive 75/106/EEC allow Member
        a product other than one listed in Annex I has not              States to implement the directive in such a way that
        taken place or been proved on the part of either                the national legislation prohibits the marketing of
        the purchaser or a subsequent purchaser?                        containers of a quantity not listed in Annex III to the
                                                                        directive, in this case the 33 cl container for the
                                                                        marketing of cider?
3. If the answers to Question 2 are in the affirmative:
                                                                   (1) OJ L 42, 15.2.1975, p. 1.
                                                                   (2) OJ L 308, 4.12.1979, p. 25.
    As from what point in time is the previous 12-month
    period' in the second sentence of Article 7(5) of
    Regulation (EEC) No 2169/86 to be calculated?
(1) OJ L 189, 11.7.1986, p. 12.
                                                                   Reference for a preliminary ruling from the French
                                                                   Conseil d'EÂtat by order of that court of 11 December
                                                                   1998 in the case of Association Greenpeace France,
                                                                   ConfeÂdeÂration Paysanne, Association Ecoropa France and
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de            EÂtienne Vernet, Association Les Amis de la Terre, Lucien
Commerce, Brussels, by judgment of that court of                   Cabanne, SteÂphan Carbonnaux and Guillaume Castaing v
28 December 1998 in the case of Cidrerie Ruwet SA v                French State, in the presence of Novartis Seeds SA and
                                                                                Monsanto Europe SA
Cidre Stassen SA and H. P. Bulmer Ltd, a company under
                          English law                                                       (Case C-6/99)
                        (Case C-3/99)
                                                                                (1999/C 71/30)
                       (1999/C 71/29)
                                                                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the             European Communities by an order of the French Conseil
European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal de              d'EÂtat (Council of State) of 11 December 1998, which was
Commerce (Commercial Court), Brussels, of 28 December              received at the Court Registry on 13 January 1999, for a
1998, which was received at the Court Registry on                  preliminary ruling in the case of Association Greenpeace
7 January 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of            France, ConfeÂdeÂration Paysanne, Association Ecoropa
Cidrerie Ruwet SA v Cidre Stassen SA and H. P. Bulmer              France and EÂtienne Vernet, Association Les Amis de la
Ltd, a company under English law, on the following                 Terre, Lucien Cabanne, SteÂphan Carbonnaux and
questions:                                                         Guillaume Castaing v French State, in the presence of
                                                                   Novartis Seeds SA and Monsanto Europe SA, on the
                                                                   following questions:
1. Does Article 30 of the EC Treaty preclude Council
    Directive 75/106/EEC (1) of 19 December 1974 on the
    approximation of the laws of the Member States
    relating to the making-up by volume of certain                 (1) Must the provisions of Council Directive 90/220/EEC
    prepackaged liquids, as amended by Directive                        of 23 April 1990 (1) be interpreted as meaning that if,
    79/1005/EEC (2), which provides for a transitional                  after an application to place a genetically modified
    period, from allowing Member States, even today,                    organism on the market has been forwarded to the
    some twenty years later and even though during that                 Commission of the European Communities, no
    period of time habits have changed and the 33 cl                    Member State has raised an objection as provided for
    container has become popular and widely used all                    in Article 13(2) of Directive 90/220/EEC, or if the
    over the world, to authorise or not, as they wish, the              Commission of the European Communities has taken
    marketing of containers other than those listed in                  a favourable decision' pursuant to Article 13(4), the


title: Action brought on 17 July 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic (Case C-261/98)

text:
5.9.98                EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 278/27
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                Article 7 of the Directive. However, the Commission
                                                                   also points out that the national decision to adopt an
                                                                   integrated strategy to combat pollution rather than
Under Article 20 of Directive 78/686/EEC, Member States            evaluating the situation substance by substance makes it
which require their own nationals to complete a                    difficult to verify whether Article 7 is being complied
preparatory training period in order to become eligible for        with, in particular as regards the 99 priority substances, if
appointment as a dental practitioner of a social security          the information forwarded to the Commission is not set
scheme could, for a period of eight years following                out in an orderly and transparent or at least non-
notification of the Directive, impose a training period of a       contradictory fashion.
maximum of six months on nationals of other Member
States. That eight-year period expired on 28 July 1986.
However, under Article 17 of the Zulassungsordnung für             In any event, the Commission has reason to conclude that
Vertragszahnärzte (Rules on Admission for Appointed                the Portuguese Republic has not completed identification
Dental Practitioners) the German authorities require               of the substances existing in Portugal which appear on
applicants from other Member States to attend one or               the list of 99 substances and, in relation to those which
three-day courses, in which linguistic proficiency and             it has identified, it has not adopted genuine reduction
knowledge of German social security law are also tested.           programmes and has only partially set quality objectives.
                                                                   In that respect, the Commission considers that the few
(1) OJ L 233, 24.8.1978, p. 1.                                     voluntary agreements with some industrial sectors are
(2) OJ L 233, 24.8.1978, p. 10.                                    not binding and cannot in any event be regarded as
                                                                   programmes within the meaning of Article 7 of the
                                                                   Directive. But even if they were, they do not cover all the
                                                                   industrial sectors and still less do they reduce pollution
                                                                   deriving from various sources.
Action brought on 17 July 1998 by the Commission of the            In addition, as far as the plans for de-pollution of the
  European Communities against the Portuguese Republic             River A Â gueda, Bacia do Guadiana and Bacia de Alcanena
                       (Case C-261/98)                             are concerned, although they may contribute to improving
                                                                   water quality, they do not constitute, from the point of
                        (98/C 278/48)                              view either of geographical cover or of content, timetabled
                                                                   programmes for the reduction of pollution from the 99
                                                                   priority substances, with clear quality objectives and
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought              emission standards.
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
on 17 July 1998 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Francisco de Sousa Fialho,             (1) OJ L 129, 18.5.1976, p. 23.
of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
Cruz, also of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:
                                                                   Action brought on 17 July 1998 by the Commission of the
                                                                     European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium
Ð declare that, by failing to adopt and/or communicate
    to the Commission summaries of the programmes for                                     (Case C-262/98)
    the reduction of pollution incorporating quality
    objectives and the corresponding results in respect of                                 (98/C 278/49)
    the 99 priority substances mentioned in the first indent
    of List II in the Annex to Council Directive 76/464/
    EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by certain               An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
    dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic               before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
    environment of the Community (1), the Portuguese               on 17 July 1998 by the Commission of the European
    Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under            Communities, represented by Frank Benyon, Legal
    Article 7 of that Directive and the third paragraph of         Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
    Article 189 of the EC Treaty,                                  Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
                                                                   Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Ð order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                   The Commission of the European Communities claims
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                that the Court should:
The Commission recognises that the Portuguese                      Ð declare that, by failing to communicate the laws,
authorities have been making efforts to comply with                     regulations and administrative measures necessary in


title: Case C-459/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d'État, Belgium, by judgment of that court of 23 November 1999, in the case of ASBL Mouvement contre le Racisme, l'Antisémitisme et la Xénophobie (MRAX) v Belgian State

text:
19.2.2000               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 47/19
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d’État,                   issue of a first residence document or have an expulsion
Belgium, by judgment of that court of 23 November 1999,                      order made against them before the issue thereof?
in the case of ASBL Mouvement contre le Racisme,
l’Antisémitisme et la Xénophobie (MRAX) v Belgian State
                                                                        (1) on the abolition of restrictions on movement and residence within
                                                                            the Community for workers of Member States and their families
                                                                            (OJ L 257, p. 13).
                         (Case C-459/99)                                (2) on the abolition of restrictions on movement and residence within
                                                                            the Community for nationals of Member States with regard to
                                                                            establishment and the provision of services (OJ L 172, p. 14).
                                                                        (3) determining the third countries whose nationals must be in
                                                                            possession of visas when crossing the external borders of the
                          (2000/C 47/30)                                    Member States (OJ L 234, p. 1.).
                                                                        (4) on the coordination of special measures concerning the movement
                                                                            and residence of foreign nationals which are justified on grounds
                                                                            of public policy, public security or public health (OJ L 56, p. 850).
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Conseil d’État
(Council of State), Belgium, by judgment of 23 November
1999, which was received at the Court Registry on 2 December
1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of ASBL Mouvement
contre le Racisme, l’Antisémitisme et la Xénophobie (MRAX)
v Belgian State, on the following questions:
                                                                        Action brought on 1 December 1999 by the Commission
1. Must Article 3 of Directive 68/360 of 15 October      1968 (1),              of the European Communities against Ireland
    Article 3 of Directive 73/148 of 21 May 1973 (2) and
    Regulation No 2317/95 of 25 September 1995 (3), read in                                        (Case C-461/99)
    the light of the principles of proportionality, non-
    discrimination and the right to respect for family life, be
    interpreted as meaning that the Member States may, at the                                       (2000/C 47/31)
    border, send back foreigners who are subject to a visa
    requirement and spouses of Community nationals who
    attempt to enter the territory of a Member State without            An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
    being in possession of an identity document or visa?                Justice of the European Communities on 1 December 1999 by
                                                                        the Commission of the European Communities, represented
                                                                        by Richard Wainwright, Principal Legal Adviser, and Lena
                                                                        Ström, member of the Legal Service, acting as agents, with an
2. Must Article 4 of Directive 68/360 of 15 October 1968                address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
    and Article 6 of Directive 73/148, read in the light of             Gómez de la Cruz, member of the Legal Service of the
    Article 3 of each of those directives and of the principles         Commission, Centre Wagner.
    of proportionality, non-discrimination and the right to
    respect for family life, be interpreted as meaning that
    Member States may refuse to issue a residence document              The Applicant claims that the Court should:
    to the spouse of a Community national who has entered
    their territory in an irregular manner and issue an expulsion       — declare that, in failing to take all the measures necessary to
    order against him?                                                       comply with Article 7 of Directive 75/442/EEC(1) on
                                                                             waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC(2),
                                                                             Article 6 of Council Directive 91/689/EEC (3) on hazardous
3. Do Articles 3 and 4(3) of Directive 68/360, Article 3 of                  waste, and Article 14 of Directive 94/62/EC (4) on packag-
    Directive 73/148 and Article 3(3) of Directive 64/221 of                 ing and packaging waste, Ireland has failed to comply with
    25 February 1964 (4) mean that the Member States may                     these Directives and with its obligations under the Treaty;
    neither withhold a residence document nor expel the
    foreign spouse of a Community national who has entered              — order Ireland to pay the costs.
    the national territory in a regular manner but whose visa
    has expired when application is made for the issue of that
    document?
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
4. Must Articles 1 and 9(2) of Directive 64/221 of 25 Februa-           The Commission considers that the existing general waste
    ry 1964 be interpreted as meaning that the foreign spouses          plans and existing toxic waste plans submitted to it by Ireland
    of Community nationals who are not in possession of                 are unsatisfactory for the purposes of meeting the requirements
    identity documents or a visa or whose visa has expired              of Directive 75/442/EEC, as amended by Directive
    have the right to refer the matter to the competent                 91/156/EEC, Directive 91/689/EEC and Directive 94/62/EC,
    authority mentioned in Article 9 when applying for the              for the following reasons:


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 June 2000 in Joined Cases T-204/97 and T-270/97: EPAC — Empresa para a Agroalimentação e Cereais SA v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — State Aid — Article 92(1) and (3) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87(1) and (3) EC) — Meaning of aid — State guarantee for the financing of a public undertaking — Suspension of aid — No need to adjudicate)

text:
22.7.2000                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 211/17
                                                           COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 13 June 2000
                           of 25 May 2000
                                                                            in Joined Cases T-204/97 and T-270/97: EPAC — Empresa
in Case T-77/95 RV: Union Française de l’Express (Ufex)                     para a Agroalimentação e Cereais SA v Commission of
and Others v Commission of the European Communi-                                            the European Communities (1)
                                 ties (1)
                                                                            (Action for annulment — State Aid — Article 92(1) and (3)
                                                                            of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87(1) and
(Competition — Rejection of a complaint — Community                         (3) EC) — Meaning of aid — State guarantee for the
interest — Appeal — Case referred back by the Court of                      financing of a public undertaking — Suspension of aid —
                                Justice)                                                         No need to adjudicate)
                                                                                (2000/C 211/35)
                           (2000/C 211/34)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            In Joined Cases T-204/97 and T-270/97: EPAC — Empresa
                                                                            para a Agroalimentação e Cereais SA, established in Lisbon,
                                                                            represented by J. Mota de Campos, of the Lisbon Bar, with an
In Case T-77/95 RV: Union Française de l’Express (Ufex),                    address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of J. Calvo
formerly Syndicat Français de l’Express International (SFEI),               Barasan, 34 Boulevard Ernest Feltgen, against the Commission
established in Roissy-en-France, France, DHL International,                 of the European Communities (Agents: D. Triantafyllou and
established in Roissy-en-France, Service CRIE, established in               A.A.M. Alves Vieira) — application, in Case T-204/97, for the
Paris, and May Courrier, established in Paris, represented by               annulment of Commission Decision 97/433/EC of 30 April
E. Morgan de Rivery, of the Paris Bar, and J. Derenne, of the               1997 requiring the Portuguese Government to suspend the aid
Brussels and Paris Bars, with an address for service in                     in the form of a State guarantee granted to the undertaking
Luxembourg at the Chambers of A. Schmitt, 7 Val Sainte-                     EPAC — Empresa Para a Agroalimentação e Cereais SA (OJ
Croix, v Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                    1997 L 186, p. 25) and, in Case T-270/97, for the annulment
R. Lyal and J.-Y. Art) — application for annulment of                       of Commission Decision 97/762/EC of 9 July 1997 on
Commission Decision SG (94) D/19144 of 30 December 1994                     measures taken by Portugal to assist EPAC — Empresa Para a
rejecting the complaint of 21 December 1990 by Syndicat                     Agroalimentação e Cereais SA (OJ 1997 L 311, p. 25) — the
Français de l’Express International — the Court of First                    Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition),
Instance (Second Chamber), composed of: J. Pirrung, President,              composed of J.D. Cooke, President of the Chamber, R. Garcı́a-
R.M. Moura Ramos and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; B. Pastor,                        Valdecasas, P. Lindh, J. Pirrung and M. Vilaras, Judges; A. Mair,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on              Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 13 June
25 May 2000, in which it:                                                   2000, the operative part of which is as follows:
1. Annuls Commission Decision SG (94) D/19144 of                            1. Cases T-204/97 and T-270/97 are joined for the purposes of
     30 December 1994 rejecting the complaint of 21 December                     the judgment;
     1990 by Syndicat Français de l’Express International (SFEI),
     now Union Française de l’Express (Ufex);                               2. The action in Case T-270/97 is dismissed;
                                                                            3. There is no need to adjudicate on the action in Case T-204/97;
2. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay all the
     costs incurred by the applicants before the Court of First Instance    4. The applicant is ordered to bear its own costs and those incurred
     and the Court of Justice.                                                   by the Commission in Case T-270/97;
                                                                            5. The applicant is ordered to bear its own costs and those incurred
                                                                                by the Commission in Case T-204/97.
(1) OJ C 137 of 3.6.95.
                                                                            (1) OJ No C 318, 18.10.1997 and No C 370, 6.12.1997.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Stockholms Tingsrätt by order of that court of 15 September 1997 in the case of Ulla-Brith Andersson and Susanne Wåkerås-Andersson v. the Swedish State (Case C-321/97)

text:
1 . 11 . 97             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 331 /13
Appeal brought on 12 September 1997 by the European                   Action brought on 16 September 1997 by the Commission
Parliament against the judgment delivered on 10 July                  of the European Communities against the Federal
1997 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance                                  Republic of Germany
of the European Communities in Case T-36/96 between                                          ( Case C-320/97)
        Giuliana Gaspari and the European Parliament
                         Case C-3 16/97 P)                                                     ( 97/C 331/24 )
                          ( 97/C 331/23 )
                                                                      An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
                                                                      brought before the Court of Justice on 16 September 1997
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 10 July 1997              by the Commission of the European Communities,
by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the            represented by Klaus-Dieter Borchardt, of its Legal
European Communities in Case T-36/96 between Giuliana                 Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
Gaspari and the European Parliament was brought on                    Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
12 September 1997 by Manfred Peter, Head of Division in               also of the Commission's Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
the Legal Service, and Antonio Caiola, of the same                    Kirchberg.
Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the General Secretariat of the European
Parliament, Kirchberg.                                                The Commission claims that the Court should :
The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:
                                                                      1 . declare that, by failing to adopt the measures
                                                                          necessary to comply with Directive 94/3 7/EC (')
— annul the contested judgment delivered by the Court                     within the period prescribed, the Federal Republic of
     of First Instance on 10 July 1997 in Case T-36/96                    Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
     Giuliana Gaspari v. European Parliament ('),                         EC Treaty and that Directive,
— make the form of order sought by the Parliament                     2 . order the defendant to pay the costs.
     before the Court of First Instance, namely:
     — declare the application unfounded,                             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     — order the applicant to pay the costs,
                                                                      The binding character of the third paragraph of Article 189
                                                                      and the first paragraph of Article 5 of the Treaty requires
— as to the costs before the Court of Justice, to make                Member States to transpose directives addressed to them
     such an order as seems equitable to the Court.                   into national law so that they take full effect before the
                                                                      period prescribed for transposition expires. Although that
                                                                      time-limit expired on 31 July 1995, the Federal Republic
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   of Germany had not adopted the necessary provisions.
Breach of Community law:                                              H OJ L 194, 29 . 7. 1994, p . 65 .
— The application should have been dismissed as
     inadmissible since the pleas in law raised were not put
     forward in the prior administrative complaint.
— The Court of First Instance wrongly considered that                 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Stockholms
     the contested measure did not contain a statement of             Tingsratt by order of that court of 15 September 1997 in
     reasons or a sufficient statement of reasons . It is for         the case of Ulla-Brith Andersson and Susanne Wakeras
     the official concerned to show that the opinion of the                          Andersson v. the Swedish State
     examining doctor is not justified. If that were not the                                 ( Case C-321/97)
     case, the entire system laid down in Article 59 ( 1 ) of
     the Staff Regulations would no longer make sense .                                        ( 97/C 331 /25 )
— The Court of First Instance wrongly raised of its own
     motion a plea based on a supposed breach of the                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     rights of the defense .                                          European Communities by order of the Stockholms
                                                                      Tingsratt ( District Court, Stockholm ) of 15 September
                                                                      1997, received at the Court Registry on 17 September
(>) OJ C 252, 16 . 8 . 1997, p. 29 .
                                                                      1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ulla-Brith
                                                                      Andersson     and    Susanne       Wakeras-Andersson   v.  the
                                                                      Swedish State on the following questions:
 ---pagebreak--- C 331/ 14              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    1 . 11 . 97
1 . Is Article 6 of the EEA Agreement to be interpreted as                   administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     meaning that the legal principles laid down by the                      the Seventeenth Commission Directive 94/32/EC (')
     Court of Justice in, inter alia, Joined Cases C-6/90 and                of 29 June 1994 adapting to technical progress
     C-9/90 Francovich are part of EEA law, so that a State                  Annexes II, III, V, VI and VII of Council Directive 76/
     can be liable in damages towards an individual for not                  768/EEC (2 ) on the approximation of the laws of the
     properly implementing Council Directive 80/987/EEC                      Member States relating to cosmetic products, the
     of 20 October 1980, on the approximation of the laws                    Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
     of the Member States relating to the protection of                      under that Directive;
     employees in the event of the insolvency of the
     employer ( l ), during the period in which the State was
     only party to the EEA Agreement and had not acceded              2 . order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
     to the EU ?
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
2. If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, is
     Article 6 of the EEA Agreement to be interpreted as
     meaning that Directive 80/987/EEC as well as the
     legal principles which the Court of Justice laid down            Pleas in law and main arguments correspond to those set
     in, inter alia, Joined Cases C-6/90 and C-9/90                   out in Case C-320/97 ( 3 ), the period prescribed in the
     Francovich prevail over domestic law if the State has            Directive expired on 30 June 1995 .
     not implemented the aforementioned directive in the
     proper way ?                                                     W OJ L 181 , 15 . 7. 1994, p . 31 .
                                                                      (2 ) OJ L 262, 27. 9 . 1976 , p . 169 .
                                                                      ( 3 ) See p. 13 of this Official Journal .
3 . If the answer to Question 1 is the negative, does a
     State 's accession to the EU mean that Directive 80/
     987/EEC as well as the legal principles which the
     Court of Justice laid down in Francovich prevail over
     domestic law even in regard to circumstances
     occurring during a period in which the State was only
     party to the EEA Agreement but before its accession              Action brought on 17 September 1997 by the Commission
     to the EU if the State has not implemented the                   of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
     aforementioned directive in the proper way ?                                                      Belgium
                                                                                (Case C-323/97)
(M OJL283 , 28 . 10. 1980, p. 23 .
                                                                                ( 97/C 331 /27)
                                                                      An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
                                                                      before the Court of Justice on 17 September 1997 by the
                                                                      Commission of the European Communities, represented
Action brought on 17 September 1997 by the Commission                 by Pieter Van Nuffel, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent,
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                    with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
                               Belgium                                Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, also of the Commission's Legal
                         ( Case C-322/97)                             Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                           ( 97/C 331/26 )
                                                                      The Commission claims that the Court should:
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
before the Court of Justice on 17 September 1997 by the                1 . declare that, by failing to bring into force, within the
Commission of the European Communities, represented                          period prescribed, the laws, regulations and
by Pieter Van Nuffel, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent,                 administrative provisions necessary to comply with
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of                   Council Directive 94/80/EC of 19 December 1994
Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, also of the Commission's Legal                      laying down detailed arrangements for the exercise of
Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                           the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in
                                                                             municipal elections by citizens of the Union residing in
                                                                             a Member State of which they are not nationals ( ! ),
The Commission claims that the Court should :                                the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
                                                                             obligations under that Directive;
 1 . declare that, by failing to bring into force, within
      the period prescribed, the laws, regulations and                 2 . order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 April 2004 in Case C-77/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Central Administrativo): Empresa de Desenvolvimento Mineiro SGPS SA (EDM) v Fazenda Pública (Sixth VAT Directive — Articles 2, 4(2), 13B(d) and 19(2) — Meaning of ‘economic activities’ — Meaning of ‘incidental financial transactions’ — Services effected for consideration)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/6

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 29 April 2004
   in Case C-77/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Central Administrativo): Empresa de Desenvolvimento Mineiro SGPS SA (EDM) v Fazenda Pública (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Articles 2, 4(2), 13B(d) and 19(2) - Meaning of ‘economic activities’ - Meaning of ‘incidental financial transactions’ - Services effected for consideration)
   (2004/C 118/11)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   In Case C-77/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC from the Tribunal Central Administrativo (Portugal) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Empresa de Desenvolvimento Mineiro SGPS SA (EDM), formerly Empresa de Desenvolvimento Mineiro SA (EDM), and Fazenda Pública, intervener: Ministério Público, on the interpretation of Articles 2, 4(2), 13B(d) and 19(2) of 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) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans and S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 April 2004, in which it has ruled:

               1.

               In a situation such as that in the main proceedings:

                           —

                           activities which consist in the simple sale of shares and other securities, such as holdings in investment funds, do not constitute economic activities within the meaning of Article 4(2) of 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, and therefore do not come within the scope of that directive;
                           placements in investment funds do not constitute supplies of services ‘effected for consideration’ within the meaning of Article 2(1) of Sixth Directive 77/388 and therefore likewise do not come within the scope thereof;
                           the amount of turnover relating to those transactions must consequently be excluded from the calculation of the deductible proportion referred to in Articles 17 and 19 of that directive;

                           —

                           by contrast the annual granting by a holding company of interest-bearing loans to companies in which it has a shareholding and placements by that holding company in bank deposits or in securities, such as Treasury notes or certificates of deposit, constitute economic activities carried out by a taxable person acting as such within the meaning of Articles 2(1) and 4(2) of Sixth Directive 77/388;
                           however, the said transactions are exempted from value added tax under points 1 and 5 of Article 13B(d) of that directive;
                           in calculating the deductible proportion referred to in Articles 17 and 19 of Sixth Directive 77/388, those transactions are to be regarded as incidental transactions within the meaning of the second sentence of Article 19(2) thereof in so far as they involve only very limited use of assets or services subject to value added tax; although the scale of the income generated by financial transactions within the scope of Sixth Directive 77/388 may be an indication that those transactions should not be regarded as incidental within the meaning of that provision, the fact that income greater than that produced by the activity stated by the undertaking concerned to be its main activity is generated by such transactions does not suffice to preclude their classification as ‘incidental transactions’;
                           it is for the national court to establish whether the transactions concerned in the main proceedings involve only very limited use of assets or services subject to value added tax and, if so, to exclude interest generated by those transactions from the denominator of the fraction used to calculate the deductible proportion.

               2.

               Operations such as those at issue in the main proceedings, carried out by the members of a consortium in accordance with the provisions of a consortium contract and corresponding to the share assigned to each of them in that contract, do not constitute supplies of goods or services ‘effected for consideration’ within the meaning of Article 2(1) of Sixth Directive 77/388, nor, consequently, a taxable transaction under that directive. The fact that such operations are carried out by the member of the consortium which manages it is irrelevant in that respect. On the other hand, where the performance of more of the operations than the share thereof fixed by the said contract for a consortium member involves payment by the other members against the operations exceeding that share, those operations constitute a supply of goods or services ‘effected for consideration’ within the meaning of that provision.

      (1)  OJ C 118, 21.4.2001.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 October 2003 in Case C-307/02: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2000/21/EC — Labelling of dangerous substances — Failure to transpose)

text:
C 289/8                  EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                            29.11.2003
      —    it is carried out under strictly supervised conditions and         gations under Article 3 of that directive, the Court (Second
           on a selective basis;                                              Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen, President of the
                                                                              Chamber, V. Skouris and N. Colneric (Rapporteur), Judges;
      —    it applies only to certain birds in small numbers;                 C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given
                                                                              a judgment on 16 October 2003, in which it:
      —    mention is made of:
           (a)    the species which are subject to the derogations;           1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and
                                                                                administrative measures necessary to comply with Commission
           (b) the means, arrangements or methods authorised for                    Directive 2000/21/EC of 25 April 2000 concerning the list
                  capture or killing;                                               of Community legislation referred to in the fifth indent of
                                                                                Article 13(1) of Council Directive 67/548/EEC, the French
           (c)    the conditions of risk and the circumstances of time              Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of
                  and place under which such derogations may be                     that directive;
                  granted;
                                                                              2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
           (d) the authority empowered to declare that the required
                  conditions obtain and to decide what means,
                  arrangements or methods may be used, within what            (1) OJ C 247 of 12.10.2002.
                  limits and by whom;
           (e)    the controls which will be carried out.
(1) OJ C 169 of 13.7.2002.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Second Chamber)
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 16 October 2003
                         (Second Chamber)
                                                                              in Case C-325/02: Commission of the European Communi-
                        of 16 October 2003                                                ties v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)
in Case C-307/02: Commission of the European Communi-                         (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to
                     ties v French Republic (1)                                                 transpose Directive 98/81/EC)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive                                             (2003/C 289/15)
2000/21/EC — Labelling of dangerous substances — Failure
                             to transpose)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                          (2003/C 289/14)
                                                                              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     (Language of the case: French)                                               in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                              In Case C-325/02, Commission of the European Communities
                                                                              (Agents: U. Wölker and F. Simonetti) v Grand Duchy of
                                                                              Luxembourg (Agent: P. Gramegna): Application for a declar-
In Case C-307/02, Commission of the European Communities                      ation that, by transposing only part of Article 1 of and
(Agent: L. Ström) v French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues                    Annexes IV and V to Council Directive 98/81/EC of 26 October
and D. Petrausch): Application for a declaration that, by failing             1998 amending Directive 90/219/EEC on the contained use
to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions                  of genetically modified micro-organisms (OJ 1998 L 330,
necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2000/21/EC                      p. 13), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
of 25 April 2000 concerning the list of Community legislation                 obligations under Article 2 of that directive, the Court
referred to in the fifth indent of Article 13(1) of Council                   (Second Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen, President of
Directive 67/548/EEC (OJ 2000 L 103, p. 70), or in any                        the Chamber, V. Skouris and N. Colneric (Rapporteur), Judges;
event not immediately informing the Commission of those                       F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
provisions, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obli-                judgment on 16 October 2003, in which it:


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 January 2003 in Case C-439/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat im Land Niederösterreich): Libor Cipra Vlastimil Kvasnicka v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Mistelbach (Road transport — Social legislation — Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 — Breaks and rest periods — Crew consisting of more than one driver — Jurisdiction of the Court to interpret the AETR Agreement — Principle of legal certainty)

text:
22.2.2003                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                   C 44/9
1.    Declares that, by allowing discriminatory, advantageous rates           1.    In the case of transport by more than one driver, Article 8(2) of
      for admission to museums, monuments, galleries, archaeological                Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 on the harmonisation
      digs, parks and gardens classified as public monuments, granted               of certain social legislation relating to road transport applies as
      by local or decentralised State authorities only in favour of                 a lex specialis that prevails over paragraph 1 of that article.
      Italian nationals and persons resident within the territory of                Consequently, those provisions are not to be applied cumulat-
      those authorities running the cultural sites in question, who are             ively.
      aged over 60 or 65 years, and by excluding from such
      advantages tourists who are nationals of other Member                   2.    The same interpretation applies to Article 8(1) and (2) of the
      States and non-residents who fulfil the same objective age                    European Agreement concerning the Work of Crews of Vehicles
      requirements, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its                   engaged in International Road Transport (AETR).
      obligations under Articles 12 EC and 49 EC;
                                                                              3.    It is for the national court to determine, having regard to the
2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                                 facts of the main proceedings, whether it is appropriate to apply
                                                                                the provisions of Regulation No 3820/85 or those of that
                                                                                agreement.
( 1) OJ C 348 of 8.12.2001.
                                                                              4.    Examination of Article 8(1) and (2) of Regulation No 3820/
                                                                                85 in the light of the principle of legal certainty has failed to
                                                                                disclose any matters of such a kind as to affect its validity.
                                                                              (1 ) OJ C 31 of 2.2.2002.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                         of 16 January 2003
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
in Case C-439/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat im Land Niederöster-
reich): Libor Cipra Vlastimil Kvasnicka v Bezirk-                                                        (Fifth Chamber)
                shauptmannschaft Mistelbach (1)
                                                                                of 16 January 2003
(Road transport — Social legislation — Regulation (EEC)
No 3820/85 — Breaks and rest periods — Crew consisting                        in Case C-462/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
of more than one driver — Jurisdiction of the Court                                    the Halmstads tingsrätt): Ulf Hammarsten ( 1)
to interpret the AETR Agreement — Principle of legal
                               certainty)
                                                                              (Common organisation of the markets in the flax and hemp
                                                                              sector — Articles 28 EC and 30 EC — National legislation
                            (2003/C 44/16)                                    prohibiting all cultivation and possession of hemp without
                                                                                prior authorisation)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (2003/C 44/17)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                                                (Language of the case: Swedish)
                                                                              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
In Case C-439/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234                                        in the European Court Reports)
EC by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat im Land Niederös-
terreich (Austria) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
pending before that court between Libor Cipra Vlastimil
Kvasnicka and Bezirkshauptmannschaft Mistelbach, on the                       In Case C-462/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
interpretation and validity of Article 8(1) and (2) of Council                EC by the Halmstads tingsrätt (Sweden) for a preliminary ruling
Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 of 20 December 1985 on the                        in criminal proceedings before it against Ulf Hammarsten on
harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road                  the interpretation of Articles 28 EC and 30 EC and of
transport (OJ 1985 L 370, p. 1), the Court (Fifth Chamber),                   the Community legislation applicable to the cultivation and
composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber,                           marketing of hemp, the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, S. von Bahr and A. Rosas                        M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, A. La
(Rapporteur), Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass,                   Pergola (Rapporteur), P. Jann and A. Rosas, Judges; C. Stix-
Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 January 2003, in which                  Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
it has ruled:                                                                 judgment on 16 January 2003, in which it has ruled:


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 September 2003 in Case C-197/99 P: Kingdom of Belgium v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — ECSC Treaty — State aid — Fifth Steel Aid Code — Commission Decision 97/271/ECSC prohibiting certain financial assistance to a steel undertaking — Article 33 of the ECSC Treaty — Infringement)

text:
1.11.2003               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                               C 264/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       established in Clabecq (Belgium), applicant at first instance, the
                                                                             Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President
                                                                             of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, F. Macken (Rapporteur), N. Col-
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                     neric and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate
                                                                             General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 Sep-
                                                                             tember 2003, in which it:
                      of 11 September 2003
in Case C-197/99 P: Kingdom of Belgium v Commission                          1.   Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
               of the European Communities (1)                                    25 March 1999 in Case T-37/97 Forges de Clabecq v
                                                                                Commission, in so far as:
(Appeal — ECSC Treaty — State aid — Fifth Steel Aid
Code — Commission Decision 97/271/ECSC prohibiting                                —     it distorted the scope of Commission Decision 97/271/
certain financial assistance to a steel undertaking —                                   ECSC of 18 December 1996, ECSC steel — Forges de
       Article 33 of the ECSC Treaty — Infringement)                                    Clabecq declaring that certain financial assistance granted
                                                                                to Forges de Clabecq was incompatible with the internal
                                                                                market,
                         (2003/C 264/01)
                                                                                —     it is vitiated by a failure to state reasons, in breach of
                    (Language of the case: French)                                      Article 30 and the first paragraph of Article 46 of the
                                                                                ECSC Statute of the Court of Justice;
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                            2.   Dismisses the remainder of the appeal;
                                                                             3.   Dismisses the action for annulment brought by Forges de
                                                                                Clabecq SA;
In Case C-197/99 P, Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: A. Snoecx,
assisted by J.-M. De Backer, G. Vandersanden and L. Levi),
supported by Compagnie belge pour le financement de                          4.   Orders the Kingdom of Belgium, the Commission of the
l’industrie SA (Belfin), represented by M. van der Haegen,                        European Communities and the Compagnie belge pour le
D. Waelbroeck and A. Fontaine, avocats, with an address for                       financement de l’industrie SA to bear the costs they incurred
service in Luxembourg: Appeal against the judgment of the                         before the Court of Justice.
Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth
Chamber, Extended Composition) of 25 March 1999 in Case
T-37/97 Forges de Clabecq v Commission [1999] ECR II-859,
seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other parties                   (1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.
to the proceedings being: Commission of the European
Communities, represented by G. Rozet, acting as Agent, with
an address for service in Luxembourg, defendant at first
instance, Forges de Clabecq SA, a company in receivership


title: Action brought on 7 August 1997 by Micheline Becret-Danieau and others against the European Parliament (Case T-232/97)

text:
18 . 10 . 97          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 318/31
— pursuant to Articles 178 and 215 of the EC Treaty,                 — the loss due to the lower reference quantity in the
     order the Commission to make good any damage,                        early part of the year, and
     with interest thereon, caused to the applicants by the
     wrongful adoption of Regulation ( EC ) No 1155/97,
                                                                     — the loss caused by the new Member States' arguments.
— make any additional order the Court considers
     necessary for the purposes of determining the damage
     caused to the applicants, and
                                                                     Action brought on 7 August 1997 by Micheline Becret-
                                                                         Danieau and others against the European Parliament
— declare that the Commission pay the costs incurred in
     the making of this application .                                                        ( Case T-232/97 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 318/60 )
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
The applicants are members of the Dole group of                      An action against the European Parliament was brought
companies, a group engaged in the worldwide business of              before the Court of First Instance of the European
producing, processing, distributing and marketing quality            Communities on 7 August 1997 by Micheline Becret-
branded fruit products, primarily fresh fruit and                    Danieau, residing at Bertrange ( Luxembourg ), Jeremiah
vegetables and packaged fruits and nuts . The applicants             Cadogan, residing at Steinsel ( Luxembourg), Madeleine
are registered as Category A operators, as defined by                Mesenburg, residing at Biwer ( Luxembourg), Rainer
Article 2 ( a ) of Commission Regulation ( EEC) No 1442/93           Moriarty, residing at Colmar-Berg ( Luxembourg), Anne-
of 10 June 1993 laying down detailed rules for the                   Marie Nilles, residing at Mamer ( Luxembourg ), Teresa
application of the arrangements for importing bananas                Rodrigues, residing at Mondercange ( Luxembourg ),
into the Community ( OJ L 142, 12 . 6 . 1993 , p, 6 ).               Fernando Simões, residing at Munsbach ( Luxembourg ),
                                                                     Jean-Louis Spellini , residing at Bascharage ( Luxembourg),
                                                                     Jeanne Pica-Borruto, residing at Thionville ( France ) and
                                                                     Nicole Schulte, residing at Leudelange ( Luxembourg),
The application concerns the administration by the                   represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Veronique Leclercq,
Commission of the rules governing the allocation of the              Ariane Tornel and Framboise Parmentier, of the Brussels
applicants' licence entitlement for the import of bananas            Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
within the third-country tariff-rate quota established by            offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .
Article 18 ( 1 ) of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/93 of
 13 February 1993 . It arises out of the adoption by the
 Commission of an excessively severe reduction coefficient           The applicants claim that the Court should:
 based on an incorrect reference quantity figure which
illegally reduces the applicants' licence entitlement for the        — annul the decisions expressly rejecting their requests
 1997 marketing year.                                                     for reimbursement of the sums wrongly deducted in
                                                                          respect of household grants,
 As a result of the incorrect reference quantities, the
                                                                     — order the defendant to reimburse to them all sums
 applicants were denied their legal right to import bananas
 up to the maximum of their legal entitlement. In addition,               wrongly deducted and to pay interest thereon at the
 the applicants are also denied their future entitlement to                rate of 8 % per annum from the date when each
 import Category A bananas for those marketing years for                   deduction was made until the date of reimbursement,
 which 1997 is a reference year. This erodes and thus
 infringes the applicants' fundamental rights protected by           — order the defendant to pay the costs .
 Community law, such as the right to property and the
 right to pursue a professional or trade activity. Whereas in
 Article 19 ( 2 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/93 the Council         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 acted to ensure avoidance of erosion between Categories A
 and B, the Commission has created a system which allows              The applicants, officials of the European Parliament
 erosion of rights within each category. The loss which will          whose spouses receive a household grant, state that up
 be suffered by the applicants as a result of the                     until July 1996 the defendant deducted, pursuant to
 Commission's breach of a superior rule of law arises from:           Article 67 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations of officials, the
                                                                      household grant received by their spouses from the family
                                                                      allowances to which they were entitled. In July 1996 they
 — the fact that the share of the Category A quota                    were informed that, in consequence of the judgment
      allocated to the applicants is less than it would have          delivered by the Court of First Instance on 11 June 1996
      been had the Commission calculated the reduction                in Case T-147/95 Pavan v. Parliament, and having
      coefficient using correct reference quantity figures.           considered the conditions governing the award of the
 ---pagebreak--- C 318/32                 EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  18 . 10 . 97
grant in question, the administration had concluded that                taken into account for the transfer of pension rights
the grant could no longer be regarded as an allowance of                should be calculated for each transfer separately. In its
like nature to the household allowance provided for in                  submission, the conversion calculations used by the
Article 1 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations and that it             applicant would result in a number of years of
had therefore been decided that it would no longer deduct               pensionable service greater than the number of years in
that grant from the household allowance paid to the                     which the applicant was affiliated to the Danish pension
applicants . The applicants thereupon requested retroactive             funds in question.
reimbursement of all of the sums deducted together with
default interest. Those requests were rejected by the                   The applicant considers in that respect that the wording of
defendant .
                                                                        Article 11 ( 2 ) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations is
                                                                        perfectly clear, in that it concerns retirement pension rights
The pleas in law and main arguments advanced by the                     acquired through the pursuit by an official of an activity
applicants against those rejection decisions are the same as            in an employed or self-employed capacity before he took
those in Case T-181 /97 (').                                            up his duties. The 'period' of prior service is thus credited
                                                                        and taken into account in calculating the retirement
(') Case T-181 /97 Meyer and Others v. Court of Justice ( OJ            pension provided for in the Staff Regulations. It follows,
    C 252 , 16 . 8 . 1997, p. 35 ).                                     in his submission, that both the wording and the rationale
                                                                        of the Staff Regulations require the Community institution
                                                                        to take into account the whole of the rights acquired by
                                                                        the official concerned before he took up his duties.
                                                                        What is to be taken into account in that respect is, he
Action brought on 8 August 1997 by Folmer Bang                         argues, the retirement pension rights acquired by reason of
                                                                        those activities, whether or not those activities were on an
      Hansen against the Commission of the European
                              Communities                               employed basis. The Commission should therefore have
                                                                        taken into account all contributions giving rise to pension
                           ( Case T-233/97 )                            rights, the essential point being to define the rights to
                             ( 97/C 318/61 )                            which those contributions gave rise . It is those rights, the
                                                                        applicant argues, and not, in themselves, the contributions
                                                                        and the funds to which they are paid, which underlie the
                   (Language of the case: French)                       letter and the spirit of the provision of the Staff
                                                                        Regulations cited above .
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                       There is therefore nothing to prevent the transfer amounts
Instance of the European Communities on 8 August 1997                   in question — even though emanating from two different
by Folmer Bang-Hansen, residing in Overijse ( Belgium ),                funds, each establishing as far as it is concerned the
represented by Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an              amount of the actuarial equivalent — from being added
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                    together in order to determine the number of years of
Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim.                                pensionable service to be taken into account and the
                                                                        resulting credit. In the applicant's submission, it is only
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             the aggregation of rights which corresponds to the
                                                                        intention of the Community legislature, since it is the
                                                                        whole of those rights which he has acquired by way of
— annul the decision of 16 October 1996 ( Reference                     retirement pension.
     IX.B.6/LAD ) ( 96 ) 14687), signed by E. Tserepa ( Head
     of the Transfers Sector ), whereby the Commission
     decided that the limitation of the period to be taken              The applicant ends by arguing that any general provision
     into account for a transfer of pension rights was to be            for implementing the rules in the Staff Regulations
     calculated separately for each transfer, and therefore             which supports the interpretation put forward by the
     refused the applicant's request to aggregate transfers             Commission should be regarded as unlawful .
     from Andelspensionsforeningen and Juristernes Pen
     sionskasse,
— order the Commission to pay the costs .
                                                                        Action brought on 6 August 1997 by Franco Campoli
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                        against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                Case T-235/97
The applicant complains of the Commission's refusal to                                           ( 97/C 318/62 )
 aggregate transfers emanating from two Danish pension
 funds to which he had successively contributed before he
took up his duties with the Commission, for the purposes                                (Language of the case: Italian)
 of calculating the period to be taken into account on a
transfer of pension rights. The Commission justified its                An action against the Commission of the European
refusal on the basis that the limitation of the period to be             Communities was brought before the Court of First