title: Judgment of the Court of 27 September 2001 in Case C-63/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division (Crown Office)): The Queen v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte: Wieslaw Gloszczuk and Elzbieta Gloszczuk (External relations — Association Agreement between the Communities and Poland — Freedom of establishment — Leave to enter obtained fraudulently)

text:
19.1.2002                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 17/3
     In a situation such as that in the main proceedings, the finding                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
     of the existence of unlawful aid, on the ground that it was not
     authorised by the Commission at the time when it was granted,
     and, as the case may be, of discrimination between producers
     within the meaning of Article 4(b) of the Treaty, in that some                                of 27 September 2001
     producers were subject to the payment of royalties whereas
     others were exempt, cannot lead to producers who have been
     made subject to those royalties being retrospectively exonerated
     from them.                                                              in Case C-63/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                             the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s
                                                                             Bench Division (Crown Office)): The Queen v Secretary
3.   A national court is entitled to make a finding of the existence         of State for the Home Department, ex parte: Wieslaw
     of discrimination between producers, within the meaning of                           Gloszczuk and Elzbieta Gloszczuk (1)
     Article 4(b) of the Treaty, or of aid, within the meaning of
     Article 4(c) of the Treaty and Article 1 of Decision
     No 3632/93, by reason of the royalty system at issue in the
     main proceedings, and it may do so despite the adoption by the          (External relations — Association Agreement between the
     Commission                                                              Communities and Poland — Freedom of establishment —
                                                                                Leave to enter obtained fraudulently)
     —     of Decision 94/995/ECSC of 3 November 1994 ruling
           on financial measures by the United Kingdom in respect
           of the coal industry in the 1994/95 and 1995/96                                              (2002/C 17/04)
           financial years,
     —     of the Decision of 21 December 1994 authorising the
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
           acquisition of Central and Northern Mining Ltd by RJB
           Mining (UK) plc, and
     —     of the decisions contained in the letters of 4 May and
           14 July 1995 sent to the National Association of
           Licensed Opencast Operators in reply to the complaint by
           that association of 19 August 1994.                               In Case C-63/99: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
                                                                             from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s
                                                                             Bench Division (Crown Office), for a preliminary ruling in the
4.   The fact that H.J. Banks & Co. Ltd or the National Association          proceedings pending before that court between The Queen
     of Licensed Opencast Operators                                          and Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte:
                                                                             Wieslaw Gloszczuk et Elzbieta Gloszczuk — on the interpret-
                                                                             ation of Articles 44 and 58 of the Europe Agreement
     —     did not bring an action for annulment under Article 33            establishing an association between the European Communi-
           of the ECSC Treaty against Decision 94/995, the                   ties and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic
           Decision of 21 December 1994 authorising the acqui-               of Poland, of the other part, concluded and approved on behalf
           sition of Central and Northern Mining Ltd by RJB                  of the Community by Decision 93/743/Euratom, ECSC, EC of
           Mining (UK) plc or the decisions contained in the letters         the Council and the Commission of 13 December 1993 (OJ
           of 4 May and 14 July 1995 sent to the National                    1993 L 348, p. 1) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez
           Association of Licensed Opencast Operators,                       Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur),
                                                                             M. Wathelet and V. Skouris (Presidents of Chambers),
                                                                             D.A.O. Edward, J.- P. Puissochet, P. Jann, L. Sevón, R. Schintgen
     —     did not bring an action under Article 35 of the ECSC              and F. Macken, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; H. von
           Treaty to compel the Commission to adopt a position on            Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 27 Sep-
           alleged infringements of Article 4(b) of the Treaty, in so        tember 2001, the operative part of which is as follows:
           far as it concerns discrimination between producers, or of
           the first sentence of Article 9(4) of Decision No 3632/93,
     does not preclude H.J. Banks & Co. Ltd. from pleading those             1.    Article 44(3) of the Europe Agreement establishing an associ-
     infringements before the national courts.                                     ation between the European Communities and their Member
                                                                                States, of the one part, and the Republic of Poland, of the other
                                                                                part, concluded and approved on behalf of the Community by
                                                                                Decision 93/743/Euratom, ECSC, EC of the Council and the
(1) OJ C 20 of 23.1.1999.                                                          Commission of 13 December 1993 is to be construed as
                                                                                establishing, within the scope of application of that Agreement,
                                                                                a precise and unconditional principle which is sufficiently
                                                                                operational to be applied by a national court and which is
                                                                                therefore capable of governing the legal position of individuals.
 ---pagebreak--- C 17/4                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          19.1.2002
     The direct effect which that provision must therefore be                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
     recognised as having means that Polish nationals relying on it
     have the right to invoke it before the courts of the host Member
                                                                                (Second Chamber)
     State, notwithstanding the fact that the authorities of that State
     remain competent to apply to those nationals their own national
     laws and regulations regarding entry, stay and establishment,                                 of 11 October 2001
     in accordance with Article 58(1) of that Agreement.
                                                                           in Case C-77/99: Commission of the European Communi-
2.   The right of establishment, as defined by Article 44(3) of the        ties v Oder-Plan Architektur GmbH, NCC Deutsche Ban
     above Association Agreement, means that rights of entry and                     GmbH, Esbensen Consulting Engineers (1)
     residence, as corollaries of the right of establishment, are
     conferred on Polish nationals wishing to pursue activities of an      (Arbitration clause — Financial support for the energy
     industrial or commercial character, activities of craftsmen, or       sector — Thermie Programme — Non-performance of a
     activities of the professions in a Member State. However, it          contract — Termination — Right to repayment of an
     follows from Article 58(1) of that Agreement that those rights                                       advance)
     of entry and residence are not absolute privileges, inasmuch as
     their exercise may, in some circumstances, be limited by the
     rules of the host Member State governing the entry, stay and                                     (2002/C 17/05)
     establishment of Polish nationals.
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
3.   Articles 44(3) and 58(1) of the above Association Agreement,
     read together, do not in principle preclude a system of prior         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
     control which makes the issue by the competent immigration                                in the European Court Reports)
     authorities of leave to enter and remain subject to the condition
     that the applicant must show that he genuinely intends to take
     up an activity as a self-employed person without at the same
     time entering into employment or having recourse to public            In Case C-77/99: Commission of the European Communities
     funds, and that he possesses, from the outset, sufficient financial   (Agents: R.B. Wainwright and K. Schreyer, assisted by
     resources and has reasonable chances of success. Substantive          M. Núñez-Müller) v Oder-Plan Architektur GmbH, in liqui-
     requirements such as those set out in paragraphs 217 and 219          dation, established in Berlin (Germany), represented by its
     of the United Kingdom Immigration Rules (House of Commons             liquidator, C. Schlote, NCC Deutsche Ban GmbH, formerly
     Paper 395) have as their very purpose to enable the competent         NCC Siab Bau GmbH, established in Fürstenwalde (Germany),
     authorities to carry out such checks and are appropriate for          represented by D. Stoecker, Rechtsanwalt, and Esbensen
     achieving such a purpose.                                             Consulting Engineers, established in Virum (Denmark), rep-
                                                                           resented by D. Stoecker — application by the Commission of
                                                                           the European Communities under Article 181 of the EC Treaty
4.   Article 58(1) of the above Association Agreement must be              (now Article 238 EC) for repayment of an advance paid by the
     construed as meaning that the competent authorities of the host       Commission under the Thermie Programme referred to in
     Member State may reject an application made pursuant to               Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2008/90 of 29 June
     Article 44(3) of that Agreement on the sole ground that, when         1990 concerning the promotion of energy technology in
     that application was submitted, the Polish national was residing      Europe (Thermie programme) (OJ 1990 L 185, p. 1) —
     illegally within the territory of that State because of false         the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: N. Colneric
     representations made to those authorities for the purpose of          (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen and
     obtaining initial leave to enter that Member State on a different     V. Skouris, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; H. von Holstein,
     basis or of non-compliance with an express condition attached         Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
     to that entry and relating to the authorised duration of his stay     11 October 2001, in which it:
     in that Member State. Consequently, those authorities may
     require that national to submit, in due and proper form, a new        1.    By way of judgment by default, orders Oder-Plan Architektur
     application for establishment on the basis of that Agreement                GmbH, jointly and severally with NCC Deutsche Bau GmbH
     by applying for an entry visa to the competent authorities in his           and Esbensen Consulting Engineers, to pay to the Commission
     State of origin or, as the case may be, in another country,                 of the European Communities the sum of EUR 54 510, plus
     provided that such measures do not have the effect of preventing            interest of EUR 12 077.09 for the period from 1 January
     such a national from having his situation reviewed at a later               1995 to 15 January 1999;
     date when he submits that new application.
                                                                           2.    Orders NCC Deutsche Ban GmbH and Esbensen Consulting
                                                                                Engineers, jointly and severally as between each other and with
                                                                                Oder-Plan Architektur GmbH, to pay to the Commission of
(1) OJ C 121 of 1.5.1999.                                                        the European Communities the sum of EUR 54 510, plus
                                                                                interest of EUR 12 077.09 for the period from 1 January
                                                                                1995 to 15 January 1999;
                                                                           3.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;


title: Removal from the register of C-6/96

text:
No C 199/20              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   28 . 6 . 97
            Removal from the register of C-6/96 (')                                Removal from the register of C-34/96 (')
                             ( 97/C 199/47)                                                       ( 97/C 199/51
By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of                  By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-6/96 ( Reference for a                       from the register of Case C-34/96 (Reference for a
preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di                     preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District                       Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District
Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings             Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings
against Sandro Gallotti .                                                against Maria Paolantoni .
H OJ No C 64, 2 . 3 . 1996 .                                             H OJ No C 95 , 30 . 3 . 1996 .
             Removal from the register of C-7/96 (')                     Removal from the register of Joined Cases C-165/96,
                             ( 97/C 199/48 )                                   C-166/96, C-167/96, C-168/96 and C-169/96 (M
                                                                                ( 97/C 199/52 )
By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                  By order of 13 March 1997 the President of the Fifth
from the register of Case C-7/96 ( Reference for a                       Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European
preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di                     Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District                       Joined Cases C-165/96, C-166/96 , C-167/96, C-168/96
Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings             and C-169/96 : Commission of the European Communities
against Francesco Palermo.                                               v. Portuguese Republic .
(') OJ No C 64, 2 . 3 . 1996 .                                           (') OJ No C 210, 20 . 7. 1996 .
            Removal from the register of C-24/96 (')                               Removal from the register of C-189/96 (')
                              ( 97/C 199/49                                                        ( 97/C 199/53 )
 By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of                 By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
 from the register of Case C-24/96 ( Reference for a                      from the register of Case C-189/96 ( Reference for a
 preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di                    preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
 Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District                       Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District
 Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings             Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings
 against Vittorio Iannilli .                                              against Rosalinda Marchionne .
 ( 1 ) OJ No C 77, 16 . 3 . 1996 .                                        O OJ No C 210, 20 . 7 . 1996 .
            Removal from the register of C-25/96 H                                 Removal from the register of C- 190/96 (')
                              ( 97/C 199/50 )                                                      ( 97/C 199/54 )
 By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of                  By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
 Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
 from the register of Case C-25/96 ( Reference for a                      from the register of Case C-190/96 ( Reference for a
 preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di                     preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
 Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District                       Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District
 Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings             Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings
 against Francesco Cannizzaro .                                           against Amerigo Alari .
  H OJ No C 77, 16 . 3 . 1996 .                                           O OJ No C 210, 20 . 7. 1996 .


title: Case C-189/99: Action brought on 21 May 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

text:
C 226/16              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      7.8.1999
Appeal brought on 21 May 1999 by Karola Gluiber against                Pleas in law and main arguments
the order made on 16 March 1999 by the First Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communi-
ties in Case T-147/98 Karola Gluiber versus Council of                 The appellant is contesting an order by which the Court of First
the European Union and Commission of the European                      Instance, without prior notice to the respondents, dismissed as
                         Communities                                   manifestly inadmissible her applications for
                       (Case C-188/99 P)                               — a declaration that certain individual measures taken by
                                                                           German authorities and German courts are null and void;
                        (1999/C 226/25)                                — alternatively, an order requiring the respondent to retract
                                                                           and terminate those measures in accordance with the rules
An appeal against the order made on 16 March 1999 by the                   laid down by the EC Treaty.
First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities in Case T-147/98 Karola Gluiber versus Council
of the European Union and Commission of the European                   She complains that the principle of the right to a fair hearing
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the             has been violated,
European Communities on 21 May 1999 by Karola Gluiber,
represented by Dieter Rogalla, Rechtsanwalt, with an address           She infers that her claim is admissible from the fact that the
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marguit                   Commission is under an obligation to monitor the application
Capus-Leelare, 117 Avenue Gaston Diderich, L-1420 Luxem-               of Directive 76/207/EEC in all Member States and to object to
bourg.                                                                 specific defects until such time as they are eliminated.
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                       (1) Not yet published in the Official Journal.
1. set aside the order made by the Court of First Instance of          (2) OJ L 39 of 14.2.1976, p. 40.
    the European Communities on 16 March 1999 in Case
    T-147/98 (1);
2. declare null and void the individual measures which
    unlawfully discriminate against the appellant on the
    ground of her sex;
3. order the respondent to retract and terminate, in accord-
    ance with the rules laid down by the Treaty on European            Action brought on 21 May 1999 by the Commission of
    Union, the discriminatory measures taken against the               the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
    appellant by the Federal Republic of Germany, as a Member
    State of the Community, and by its federal organs (the
    Länder);                                                                                (Case C-189/99)
4. order the respondent to pay to the appellant the total sum
    of DM 4 877 (four thousand eight hundred and seventy                                        (1999/C 226/26)
    seven German marks) plus interest in respect of periods to
    be fixed, being the expense incurred by the appellant in           An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
    the proceedings brought by her to no avail before the              the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 21 May
    German courts;                                                     1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                       represented by Götz zur Hausen, Legal Adviser and Gregorio
5. order the respondent to pay the costs of the present                Valero Jordana, a member of its Legal Service, with an address
    proceedings;                                                       for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
                                                                       Cruz of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre.
6. alternatively, stay the proceedings pursuant to Article
    82a(1)(b) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice
    in order to enable a preliminary ruling to be obtained from        The applicant claims that the Court should:
    the European Court of Human Rights concerning the
    finding that the incomplete transposition into German law          1. declare that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its
    of Council Directive 76/207/EEC (2) infringes, as regards              obligations under the third indent of Article 3(2), Article 4
    the appellant:                                                         and Article 5 of Council Directive 90/313/EEC (1) of 7 June
                                                                           1990 on the freedom of access to information on the
    (a) Article 6 of the European Convention on Human                      environment by adopting legislation which fails to comply
        Rights (‘ECHR’)                                                    with those provisions of that directive;
    (b) Article 11 of the ECHR;                                        2. declare that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its
                                                                           obligations under Article 5 of the directive cited by
    (c) Article 14 of the ECHR; and                                        permitting high fees laid down by legislation bearing no
                                                                           relation to that transposing the directive to be charged for
    (d) Article 50 of the ECHR.                                            the supply of information; and
 ---pagebreak--- 7.8.1999                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 226/17
3. order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.                           Commission of the European Communities, represented by
                                                                          Mr Peter Oliver, Legal Adviser, acting as agent with an address
                                                                          for service in Luxembourg at the office of Mr Carlos Gómez
                                                                          de la Cruz, Centre Wagner.
Pleas in law and main arguments
— (Legislation does not comply)                                           The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          — declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or
     Law 38/1995 of 12 December (2) on the right of access to                  administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     information on the environment does not comply with the                   Council Directive 96/43/EC (1) amending and consolidating
     third indent of Article 3(2) in so far as it provides that the            Directive 85/73/EEC (2) in order to ensure financing of
     public authorities may refuse to provide information where                veterinary inspections and controls on live animals and
     it relates to files which have been the subject-matter of                 certain animal products and amending Directives
     actions in the past.                                                      90/675/EEC (3) and 91/496/EEC (4) and/or by failing to
                                                                               inform the Commission thereof, Ireland has failed to fulfil
— Further, in imposing an obligation on the public authorities                 its obligations under that Directive, and
     to respond to requests for information ‘as soon as possible
     and within a period of two months’, and to ‘indicate its             — order Ireland to pay the costs.
     reasons for refusing requests for information’, Law
     38/1995 recognises silence on the part of the adminis-
     tration as being sufficient to be an implied rejection of a          Pleas in law and main arguments
     request for information.
— Finally, the necessary legal provisions are not in place                Article 249 EC (ex Article 189), under which a directive shall
     either to establish that information on the environment is           be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member
     free or to fix the prices to be charges for supplying such           State, carries by implication an obligation on the Member
     information; in the latter case, to ensure compliance with           States to observe the period for compliance laid clown in the
     Article 5 of the directive, the charges laid clown may not           directive. That period has expired without Ireland having
     exceed a reasonable cost.                                            enacted the provisions necessary to comply with the directive
                                                                          referred to in the conclusions of the Commission.
— The Commission considers that, in one specific case,
     the Spanish authorities simply mechanically applied an               (1) of 26 June 1996 (OJ L 162, 1.7.1996, p. 1).
     internal rule on charges the application of which is                 (2) of 29 January 1985 on the financing of health inspections and
     contrary to Article 5 of the directive because the charge,               controls of fresh meat and poultrymeat (OJ L 32, 5.2.1985, p. 14).
     which is payable prior to the requested documentation                (3) of 10 December 1990 laying down the principles governing the
     being provided, exceeds a reasonable cost. The Spanish                   organization of veterinary checks on products entering the
     administration failed to take the directive into account and,            Community from third countries (OJ L 373, 31.12.1990, p. 1).
     as it acknowledged, the fee was charged not in respect of            (4) of 15 July 1991 laying down the principles governing the
                                                                              organization of veterinary checks on animals entering the Com-
     the supply of information on the environment but pursu-                  munity from third countries and amending Directives
     ant to national legislation on the supply of technical                   89/662/EEC, 90/425/EEC and 90/675/EEC (OJ L 268, 24.9.1991,
     studies, without regard being had to the definition of                   p. 56).
     information relating to the environment given in Article
     2(a) of the directive.
(1) OJ 1990 L 158, p. 56.
(2) Boletin Oficial de España 297, of 13.12.1995.
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
                                                                          Justice (England and Wales), Queen’s Bench Division,
                                                                          Crown Office, by order of that Court of 14 April 1999, in
                                                                          the case of The Queen against Secretary of State for the
                                                                                Home Department, Ex parte: Manjit Kaur
Action brought on 21 May 1999 by the Commission of                                                  (Case C-192/99)
          the European Communities against Ireland
                                                                                (1999/C 226/28)
                          (Case C-190/99)                                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          European Communities by an order of the High Court of
                          (1999/C 226/27)                                 Justice (England and Wales), Queen’s Bench Division, Crown
                                                                          Office, of 14 April 1999, which was received at the Court
                                                                          Registry on 25 May 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of                 of The Queen against Secretary of State for the Home
Justice of the European Communities on 21 May 1999 by the                 Department, Ex parte: Manjit Kaur, on the following questions:


title: Case C-187/03 P: Appeal brought on 25 April 2003 by Zisis Drouvis against the judgment delivered on 26 February 2003 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-184/00 between Zisis Drouvis and the Commission, supported by the Council

text:
C 171/10               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         19.7.2003
represented by Vasilios Kontolaimos, State Legal Adviser, and             (d)   The Commission exceeded the limits of its discretion and
Stiliani Kharitaki, Member of the State Legal Service, with an                  infringed the principle of proportionality since it imposed
address for service in Luxembourg at the Greek Embassy, 27                      such a high correction rate on all the islands of the
rue Marie-Adélaïde.                                                             Aegean, ignoring the limited risk of loss for the Fund, the
                                                                                fact that the check was being carried out for the first time,
                                                                                the fact that the Greek authorities complied immediately
                                                                                with the recommendations of its staff, and the magnitude
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                     of the consequences — financial and environmental —
                                                                                which are inversely proportional to the population of
                                                                                each island and may be catastrophic for the smaller
annul, or otherwise amend, Commission Decision C(2003)                          islands (given that preservation of their olive groves and
500 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure                      their survival are dependent upon the grant of aid).
incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of
the EAGGF, in respect of the chapter thereof which concerns
financial corrections to the detriment of the Hellenic Republic.
Otherwise, and entirely in the alternative, the correction
imposed must be restricted: (a) solely to the area of the island
of Lesvos or in the alternative of the island of Rhodes; (b) to
expenditure incurred up until 16 February 2001 at the latest;
and (c) to a maximum rate of 2 %.
                                                                          Appeal brought on 25 April 2003 by Zisis Drouvis against
                                                                          the judgment delivered on 26 February 2003 by the
                                                                          Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities in Case T-184/00 between Zisis
                                                                           Drouvis and the Commission, supported by the Council
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Case C-187/03 P)
The contested decision adopted by the Commission should be
annulled for the following reasons.                                                                (2003/C 171/15)
(a)   It misinterpreted and misapplied Article 11 of Regulation
      No 2019/93, Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Regulation
      No 2837/93, Article 5(2)(c) of Regulation No 729/70 as              An appeal against the judgment delivered on 26 February
      amended by Regulation No 1287/98, and Article 7(4) of               2003 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
      Regulation No 1258/99.                                              the European Communities in Case T-184/00 between Zisis
                                                                          Drouvis and the Commission, supported by the Council as
                                                                          intervener, was brought before the Court of Justice of the
(b)   In the alternative — assuming that the Commission’s                 European Communities on 25 April 2003 by Zisis Drouvis,
      interpretation of the provisions of Regulations No 2019/            represented by Ioannis Stamouolis, of the Athens Bar.
      93 and No 2837/93 is correct — given the manifest lack
      of clarity of the regulations and in accordance with
      the guidelines, any misapplication of the Community                 The appellant claims that the Court should:
      provisions connected with that interpretation that may
      have occurred should not be regarded as proving the                 —     find the appeal lawful and well founded;
      existence of all the imputed deficiencies of the system or
      be taken into account when forming the final decision
                                                                          —     set aside the judgment under appeal delivered by the
      regarding the need for imposition of a general correction
                                                                                Court of First Instance on 26 February 2003 in Case
      and indeed of such a high rate.
                                                                                T-184/00;
(c)   The Commission misappraised the facts established in                —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
      the course of the check and found without sufficient
      reasoning that there were fundamental deficiencies of
      a general nature entailing a particularly high risk of
      Community resources being lost, having first extrapolated           Grounds of appeal
      the findings (which related to the two islands which were
      checked) in an impermissible manner so as to cover all
      the islands of the Aegean. It thereby ignored the special           First ground:                 Erroneous interpretation and
      features which each island displays and vary in accordance                                        application of Article 6(2) ΕU,
      with location, size, population, land morphology, poten-                                          Article 14 of the European Con-
      tial for production, infrastructure and so forth — special                                        vention on Human Rights and
      features which are acknowledged by the very regulations                                           Article 1 of the First Protocol to
      that are applicable in respect of the islands of the Aegean.                                      that Convention.
 ---pagebreak--- 19.7.2003              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 171/11
Second ground:                 Erroneous interpretation and                           by exposing him to asbestos, a carcinogenic substan-
                               application of Articles 42 EC and                      ce which causes incurable serious illnesses,
                               43 EC.
                                                                                —     deliberately attempted against the appellant’s safety
                                                                                at work, by seriously neglecting safety, assessed at
                                                                                EUR 3 500 000 (ITL 7 000 000 000), by analogy
                                                                                with the amounts ordered in respect of each of the
                                                                                victims (totalling some EUR 500 000 or
                                                                                ITL 1 000 000 000) in the judgment in Case 4840/
Appeal brought on 3 May 2003 by Arnaldo Lucaccioni                                    96 of 5 July 1996 delivered by the Pretura Circondar-
against the judgment delivered on 26 February 2003 by                                 iale di Torino (District Magistrate’s Court, Turin) and
the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of                                   the compensation ordered for each of the victims of
the European Communities in Case T-164/01 between                                     the ‘Cermis’ cable car disaster, namely
Arnaldo Lucaccioni and the Commission of the European                                 ITL 4 000 000 000.
                           Communities
                                                                          3.    order the defendant to pay the costs incurred at first
                        (Case C-196/03 P)                                       instance and as a result of the appeal.
                         (2003/C 171/16)
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 26 February
2003 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities in Case T-164/01 between Arnaldo                 1.     The Court of First Instance found that the applicant had
Lucaccioni and the Commission of the European Communities                 already submitted on 15 May 1994 a request relating to non-
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                   material damage suffered prior to the onset of the occupational
Communities on 3 May 2003 by Arnaldo Lucaccioni, rep-                     disease. That request was rejected by the appointing authority
resented by Mauro Cimino, with an address for service in                  by decision of 22 September 1994, against which the applicant
Fermo (AP) (Italy).                                                       brought a complaint on 15 December 1994, in which he no
                                                                          longer mentioned the alleged damage, in particular non-
                                                                          material damage, suffered prior to the onset of the occupational
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          disease; neither did he challenge before the Court of First
                                                                          Instance (Case T-165/95) the rejection of the complaint by
1.   uphold the appeal and, consequently, the application at              the Commission refusing to acknowledge entitlement to
     first instance;                                                      compensation for non-material damage suffered prior to the
                                                                          onset of the occupational disease. Essentially, the applicant
2.   order compensation for biological and non-material                   failed to bring an action within the time-limit for doing so
     damage caused by the defendant between 1967 and                      against the decision of the Commission of 22 September 1994
     1990, under the ordinary law, the Charter of Fundament               refusing to pay compensation for the damage.
     Rights of the European Union and the European Conven-
     tion on Human Rights, irrespective of (or under)
     Article 73 of the Staff Regulations, as a result of the
                                                                          According to the appellant, the reasoning of the Court of First
     inexcusable fault of the institution, which thus incurs
                                                                          Instance is not satisfactory in that it may not be stated with
     liability, inasmuch as it:
                                                                          certainty that the request of 15 May 1994 included a request
                                                                          for compensation for non-material damage suffered prior to
     —      infringed the appellant’s human dignity,                      the onset of the occupational disease. That interpretation is
                                                                          arguable, since what is involved is a letter making a claim and
     —      infringed the appellant’s right to privacy,                   a generic request for compensation following the onset of the
                                                                          illness.
     —      caused continuous and culpable bodily harm to the
            appellant, in that it obliged him to work, giving
            untrue reassurances, in an environment contamin-              2.     The appellant also disputes that the fact that the Court
            ated by asbestos, knowing full well that asbestos is          of First Instance declared inadmissible the request for compen-
            harmful even for persons not at risk,                         sation for biological damage on the ground that a request
                                                                          seeking compensation for damage must contain information
     —      deliberately attempted to harm the appellant, at the          to make it possible to identify the conduct of the institution
            risk of killing him, which is mentioned only to               about which the appellant is complaining and the reasons for
            support the allegation of harm                                which he takes the view that there is a causal link between the
                                                                          conduct and the damage he alleges to have suffered. According
     —      deliberately tortured the appellant over many years           to the appellant, the damage to his health caused by exposure


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 September 1999 in Case C-275/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln): DE + ES Bauunternehmung GmbH v Finanzamt Bergheim (Directive 78/660/EEC - Annual accounts - Principle of a true and fair view - Principle that valuations must be made on a prudent basis - Principle that valuations must be made separately - Global provisions for a number of potential liabilities - Conditions governing the making of provisions)

text:
4.12.1999                 EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 352/7
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 14 September 1999
                       of 14 September 1999
                                                                               in Case C-375/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
in Case C-275/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                      the Tribunal de Commerce de Tournai): General Motors
the Finanzgericht Köln): DE + ES Bauunternehmung                                                   Corporation v Yplon SA (1)
                 GmbH v Finanzamt Bergheim (1)
(Directive 78/660/EEC — Annual accounts — Principle of                         (Directive 89/104/EEC — Trade marks — Protection —
a true and fair view — Principle that valuations must be                       Non-similar products or services — Trade mark having a
made on a prudent basis — Principle that valuations must                                                     reputation)
be made separately — Global provisions for a number of
potential liabilities — Conditions governing the making of
                               provisions)                                                                (1999/C 352/14)
                            (1999/C 352/13)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                    (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-275/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                  In Case C-375/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Finanzgericht                      the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunal de
Köln, Germany, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                     Commerce (Commercial Court) de Tournai (Belgium) for a
pending before that court between DE + ES Bauunternehmung                      preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
GmbH and Finanzamt Bergheim — on the interpretation of                         court between General Motors Corporation and Yplon SA —
the Fourth Council Directive (78/660/EEC) of 25 July 1978                      on the interpretation of Article 5(2) of the First Council
based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty on the annual accounts                 Directive (89/104/EEC) of 21 December 1988 to approximate
of certain types of companies (OJ 1978 L 222, p. 11) — the                     the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President                1989 L 40, p. 1) — the Court, composed of: J.-P. Puissochet
of the Fifth Chamber, P. Jann, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur),                     (President of the Third and Fifth Chambers), acting for the
L. Sevón and M. Wathelet, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General;                 President, P. Jann (President of Chamber), J.C. Moitinho de
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 September                      Almeida, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), J.L. Murray, D.A.O. Ed-
1999, in which it has ruled:                                                   ward, H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet and R. Schintgen, Judges;
                                                                               F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
The Fourth Council Directive (78/660/EEC) of 25 July 1978 based                judgment on 14 September 1999, in which it has ruled:
on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty on the annual accounts of certain
types of companies requires provision to be made for potential
liabilities under warranties, such as those in question in the main            Article 5(2) of the First Council Directive (89/104/EEC) of
proceedings, as obligations arising in law before the date of the              21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States
balance sheet but whose effects will not become apparent until after           relating to trade marks is to be interpreted as meaning that, in order
that date. A single provision for all such potential liabilities must be       to enjoy protection extending to non-similar products or services, a
made where, as in the present case, a global valuation is the most             registered trade mark must be known by a significant part of the
appropriate way of ensuring that the expenditure to be shown under             public concerned by the products or services which it covers. In the
Liabilities represents a true and fair view of its amount. In the absence      Benelux territory, it is sufficient for the registered trade mark to be
of Community rules specifically applying to the method and criteria            known by a significant part of the public concerned in a substantial
for evaluating provisions for charges and liabilities, those provisions        part of that territory, which part may consist of a part of one of the
should be determined under the conditions laid down by the national            countries composing that territory.
legislation of the various Member States, on condition, however, that
the annual accounts give a true and fair view of the assets, financial
position and the profit or loss of the company and that the provisions
do not exceed in amount the sums which are necessary.
                                                                               (1) OJ C 387 of 20.12.1997.
(1) OJ C 295 of 27.9.1997.


title: Action brought on 24 July 1996 by Edouard Dubois et Fils SA against the Commission of the European Communities and the Council of the European Union (Case T-113/96)

text:
No C 318/ 10          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    26 . 10 . 96
Communities ( Agents : Jean-Marie Stenier and Jan                    Action brought on 24 July 1996 by Edouard Dubois et Fils
Inghelram ) — application for the annulment of the decision          SA against the Commission of the European Communities
of 12 July 1993 establishing the applicant's staff report for                   and the Council of the European Union
the period from 1 January 1990 to 31 December 1991 and,                                      ( Case T-l 13/96 )
in so far as necessary, the decision notified on 22 February
                                                                                ( 96/C 318/22 )
1 994 expressly rejecting his complaint against that report —
the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber), composed of: A.
Saggio, President, V. Tiili and R. M. Moura-Ramos, Judges;                           (Language of the case: French)
B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
given a judgment on 26 September 1996 , in which it:
                                                                     An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities and the Council of the European Union was
1 . dismisses the application;                                       brought before the Court of First Instance on 24 July 1996
                                                                     by Edouard Dubois et Fils SA, having its seat at Roubaix
2 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.                      ( France ), represented by Pierre Ricard, Avocat au Conseil
                                                                     d'Etat, and Alain Crosson du Cormier, of the Paris Bar, with
                                                                     an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
(') OJ No C 174, 25 . 6 . 1994 .
                                                                     Marc Feiler, 67 rue Ermesinde .
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                     — declare the defendants liable, within the meaning of the
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                second paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty, for
                                                                          the damage caused to the applicant by the repercussions
                        of 10 July 1996                                   on its activities as 'commissionnaire agree en douane '
in Case T-208/95 : Miwon Co . Ltd v. Commission of the                    ( authorized customs agent) of application of the Single
                  European Communities ( 1 )                              European Act establishing an area for the free movement
(Dumping — Monosodium glutamate — Commission                              of goods and services within the frontiers of the Member
Regulation finding a breach of a price undertaking and                    States from 1 January 1993 ,
imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty — Action for
annulment — Subsequent adoption of a regulation                      — order the defendants jointly to pay the applicant a sum of
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty — Case not                        FF 112 339 702 as compensation for that damage,
                   proceeding to judgment)
                          ( 96/C 318/21 )                            — order the defendants to pay the costs .
               (Language of the case: English)                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
In     Case  T-208/95 :     Miwon    Co . Ltd   established  at      The applicant company, whose principal business is that of
Dongdaemun-Ku ( Seoul, Republic of Korea ), represented              forwarding agent and connected activities, states that, in 16
by Jean-Francois Bellis, of the Brussels Bar, with an address        of its establishments situated at various points on French
for service in Luxembourg at the chambers of A. F. Brausch,          territory, it availed itself of the ministerial authorization
8 rue Zithe, v. Commission of the European Communities               which it had been granted pursuant to the Code des
                                                                     Douanes ( Customs code ) to act as an authorized customs
( Agent: Nicholas Khan ) — application for the annulment of
Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 1754/95 of 18 July 1995              agent, a profession which, for varying remuneration, carries
imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of               out on behalf of others, customs formalities consisting in the
monosodium glutamate originating in Indonesia , the                  detailed declaration of goods crossing frontiers for the
                                                                     purposes of the collection of duties .
Republic of Korea, Taiwan and Thailand ( 2), in so far as it
concerns Miwon Co . Ltd — the Court of First Instance
( Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition ), composed of: R.             The applicant also states that application, from 1 January
Schintgen, President, and R. Garcia-Valdecasas, V. Tiili, J.         1993 , of the Single European Act establishing an area
Azizi and R. Moura-Ramos, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has            without internal frontiers for the member countries had
made an order on 10 July 1996 , in which it orders :                 profound repercussions from the financial and social point
                                                                     of view on the businesses operated by authorized customs
                                                                     agents . It points out, first, that the measures taken by the
1 . the case is not to proceed to judgment;                          Community authorities to mitigate those problems could
                                                                     only very partially make up for the considerable effects of
2 . each party shall bear its own costs.                             the abolition of the internal frontiers of the Community for
                                                                     the profession of authorized customs forwarding agents
                                                                     and, secondly, that those measures were not compensatory
(•) OJ No C 351 , 30 . 12 . 1995 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 170, 1995 , p . 4 .
                                                                     in nature at all but sought solely to alleviate the exceptional
                                                                     financial burden incurred in the management of
                                                                     forwardings depots which were required to continue
                                                                     operating until 31 December 1992 .
 ---pagebreak--- 26 . 10 . 96           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 318/ 11
The applicant asks that the second paragraph of Article 215             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
of the EC Treaty be applied on the basis of the no-fault
liability to which the functioning of the institutions gave rise        The applicant, an undertaking incorporated under German
and, in the alternative, on the basis of the Community                  law which wishes to advertise by fax, contests the
authorities' liability for fault.                                       Commission 's refusal to adopt a position on its complaint
                                                                        against the Federal Republic of Germany following the
In the context of no-fault liability, it relies on the concept of       judgment of the Bundesgerichtshof ( Federal Court of
public liability for breach of the principle of equality in             Justice ) of 25 October 1 995 , which restricted advertising by
bearing public burdens, claiming that application of the                fax solely to cases in which the recipient has expressly or by
system of an ' area without frontiers' instituted by the Single         implication consented to the receipt of such
Act caused to it, as an authorized customs agent, exceptional           communications .
special and direct damage . The consequence of the abolition
of the authorized customs agent's activities was a massive              That refusal is incompatible both with the Community
reduction in the turnover of certain businesses in the sector           competition rules and with the principles governing the
and, much more seriously, the disappearance of some of                  setting-up and functioning of the internal market. In
them .                                                                  particular, the effect of the abovementioned judgment of the
                                                                        Bundesgerichtshof has been to strengthen the market
As regards liability for the fault of the Community's agents,           position of large undertakings in the advertising industry
the applicant maintains that, in the context of the legislative         ( the print and broadcasting media ). In addition, that
action of the Community which caused the damage , the                   judgment constitutes an obstacle to the creation of a
Community authorities disregarded the vested rights of                  homogeneous market .
customs agents and the principle of the protection of
legitimate expectations .
Referring to the nature of the damage , the applicant states
that as a result of the establishment of the European Area , in
its activities as a forwarding agent which it had pursued for a         Action brought on 26 July 1996 by Thai Bicycle Industry
considerable length of time, it abruptly suffered two-fold                   Co . Ltd against the Council of the European Union
damage in the form of: ( a ) the practically total and definitive                               ( Case T-l 18/96 )
loss of its business as a customs agent, and ( b ) the                                            ( 96/C 318/24 )
exceptional costs of running its business when it was
 required to face up to the unexpectedness of events, above                             (Language of the case: English)
 all in the social area , but also in the technical and
 administrative areas .
                                                                        An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                         brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                         Communities on 26 July 1996 by Thai Bicycle Industry Co .
                                                                         Ltd , represented by Jean-Frangois Bellis and Richard Luff,
                                                                         with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
 Action brought on 29 July 1996 by Intertronic-F. Cornells               of A. F. Brausch, 8 rue Zithe .
 GmbH against the Commission of the European
                            Communities
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should :
                         ( Case T- 11 7/96 )
                                                                         — annul Council Regulation ( EC ) No 648/96 of 28 March
                           ( 96/C 318/23 )
                                                                              1996 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on
                                                                              imports of bicycles originating in, inter alia, Thailand in
                 (Language of the case: German)                               so far as it imposes a definitive anti-dumping duty on
                                                                              bicycles manufactured by the applicant,
 An action against the Commission of the European
 Communities was brought before the Court of First                            and
 Instance of the European Communities on 29 July 1996 by
 Intertronic-F . Cornelis GmbH, Emden ( Federal Republic of              — order      the   Council    to  bear   the   costs   of  these
 Germany ), represented by Professor Schumacher, Bremen                       proceedings .
 ( Germany ), and Wilhelm Wiltfang, Rechtsanwalt,
 Krummhorn ( Germany ).                                                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
 The applicant claims that the Court should :                            The applicant, a limited company established under the laws
                                                                         of Thailand, specializing in the production of bicycles and
 — declare that the defendant has failed, contrary to the EC              bicycle and motorcycle parts , challenges the imposition of
     Treaty, to put a stop to the implementation by the                   anti-dumping duties on its exports to the European
     enforcement authorities of the Federal Republic of                   Community .
     Germany, and by the legally established associations for
     the promotion of commercial interests , of the ban on                The applicant submits that the institutions have committed
     advertising by fax, constituting a breach of the                     two manifest errors in determining its dumping margin :
     prohibition of restraints of trade ;
                                                                          The applicant's dumping margin has been artificially
  — order the defendant to pay the costs .                                inflated, contrary to Article 2 ( 3 ) ( b ) ( ii ) of Council


title: Case T-137/99: Action brought on 3 June 1999 by Natalia Martinez Paramo and Others against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 246/38                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     28.8.1999
Decision           contested    Refusal of registration by the             Decision        contested     Refusal of registration by the
before the Board of             examiner                                   before the Board of           examiner
Appeal:                                                                    Appeal:
Grounds for action:             — Infringement          of    Article      Grounds for action:           — Infringement of Article 7(1)(b)
                                    7(1)(b)of Regulation (EC) No                                             of Regulation (EC) No 40/94
                                    40/94                                                                — Misapplication of Article
                                — Misapplication of Article                                                  7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No
                                    7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No                                            40/94.
                                    40/94.
Action brought on 1 June 1999 by Taurus-Film GmbH &                        Action brought on 3 June 1999 by Natalia Martinez
Co. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                   Paramo and Others against the Commission of the Euro-
               Market (Trade Marks and Designs)                                                  pean Communities
                          (Case T-136/99)                                                          (Case T-137/99)
                          (1999/C 246/76)                                                          (1999/C 246/77)
                    (Language of the case: German)                                            (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the                    An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 1                   ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
June 1999 by Taurus-Film GmbH & Co., whose registered                      European Communities on 3 June 1999 by Natalia Martinez
office is in Unterföhring (Germany), represented by Büsing,                Paramo and 33 Others, represented by Eric Boigelot, of the
Muffelmann & Theye, Rechtsanwälte, Bremen, with an address                 Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch and                    Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim.
Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe.
                                                                           The applicants claim that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           — annul the decision of Roger Fry, the head of unit DG IX,
1. Set aside the defendant’s decision of 19 March 1999 and                     sent to the applicants on 23 March 1999 and giving them
    order the defendant:                                                       notice of the termination of their contracts as of 30 June
                                                                               1999, and declare void the expiry date of 30 June 1999
    (a) to permit registration of Community trade mark                         fixed for each applicant’s contract;
         application No 400481 in respect of all provisions of
         services of Classes 38, 41 and 42 for which registration          — annul, in so far as is necessary, the legal characterisation of
         is still refused (as shown in the index in Annex K 2);                the applicants’ contracts, in that each applicant’s contract
         and                                                                   is in fact a renewal for an unlimited period of a contract
                                                                               awarded under Article 2(a) of the conditions of employ-
    (b) refund the appeal fee to the applicant.                                ment of other servants (hereinafter ‘the conditions’);
2. Order the defendant to pay the costs of the current dispute             — order the defendant to pay the costs.
    and the necessary expenses of the applicant for the
    procedure before the Board of Appeal.
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           The applicants, who have already brought an action for the
Trade mark:                     Word ‘Cine Comedy’ — Appli-                annulment of the procedures and tests for the internal
                                cation No 404053                           competitions COM/T/A/2/98 and COM/T/B/2/98 (1), now chal-
                                                                           lenge the termination on 30 June 1999 of their contracts as
Goods or services:              ‘Parts of the services in Classes 38,      temporary staff, notified to them by letter of the head of unit
                                41, 42’                                    DG IX of 23 March 1999.
 ---pagebreak--- 28.8.1999             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 246/39
In support of the present application, the applicants rely upon:         — Annul the contested decision;
— infringement of Articles 2(a), 2(b), 3(a), 8, 9, 13, 14 and
    15 of the conditions and breach of general principles of             — Order the European Parliament to pay AICS the sum of
    law, including the principles of equal treatment, non-                    FRF 1 million as compensation for the damage suffered,
    discrimination and proportionality. According to the appli-               pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 215 of the
    cants, their contracts are in fact contracts of indefinite                Treaty of Rome.
    duration resulting from a second renewal of their contracts
    appointing them as temporary staff pursuant to Article
    2(a) of the conditions;
— infringement of Articles 10, paragraph 1, and 12 of the                Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
    conditions and breach of the principle of having due regard
    for the welfare of officials and the principle of legitimate
    expectations. By its conduct, the Commission has preju-
                                                                         The applicant, an undertaking which hires out chauffeur-driver
    diced the interests of the service and jeopardised the careers
                                                                         cars, submitted a tender for private passenger road transport
    of the applicants;
                                                                         services, using chauffeur-driver cars and mini-buses, in the
                                                                         urban district of Strasbourg from the point of arrival (stations
— infringement of Articles 47(2)(a) and 74(2)(a) of the                  and airport) to places of work and vice versa within a radius of
    conditions and breach of the principle of law which                  20 km around the European Parliament buildings (Call for
    requires that an administrative act be supported by legit-           tenders No 99/S 18-8765/FR lot 1).
    imate reasons which are admissible and relevant and
    contain no errors of fact or law. By taking the contested
    action and notifying the applicants on 23 March 1999
    that their contractual relationships would end on 30 June            By letter of 7 April 1999 (the contested measure), the Director
    1999, the defendant failed to satisfy the requirements in            General for Administration of the European Parliament in-
    the applicable provisions in that a contract of indefinite           formed the applicant that its tender had not been successful.
    duration may only be terminated on giving the proper                 At a meeting with the Director General for Administration on
    notice.                                                              13 April 1999, the applicant’s manager received the
                                                                         impression that the Parliament had renewed the contract with
                                                                         a competitor, Coopérative Taxi 13. By letters of 15 and 19
(1) Case T-117/99.                                                       April 1999, the applicant forwarded certain information
                                                                         concerning the French legislation governing taxi operations. By
                                                                         letter of 4 May 1999 the Director General for Administration
                                                                         informed the applicant that the Parliament had observed all
                                                                         the rules and procedures concerning the conclusion of public
                                                                         service contracts.
Action brought on 8 June 1999 by Alsace International                    In support of its application, the applicant submits that:
         Car Services (AICS) v European Parliament
                                                                         — the conditions under which the European Parliament
                        (Case T-139/99)                                       probably concluded the contract with the applicant’s
                                                                              competitor are vitiated by irregularities: the alleged contract
                        (1999/C 246/78)                                       concluded with Coopérative Taxi 13 or with any other taxi
                                                                              company was concluded in breach of the French legislation
                                                                              applicable to taxi operations and contributes to discrimi-
                                                                              nation to the detriment of other operators of passenger
                   (Language of the case: French)                             vehicles which responded to the abovementioned call for
                                                                              tenders;
An action against the European Parliament was brought before
the Court of First Instance on 8 June 1999 by Alsace
International Car Services (AICS), whose registered office is in         — the Parliament’s terms for fixing the prices of the services
Strasbourg, France, represented by Corinne Imbach and Anne                    by contract do not meet the requirements of French law;
Dissler, of the Strasbourg Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marguit Capus-Leclerc, 117
Avenue Gaston Diderich.                                                  — the European Parliament infringed the principle of non-
                                                                              discrimination which is regarded as a fundamental prin-
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:                 ciple of Community law.
— Declare that the reasons for the refusal of the tender
    submitted by AICS are discriminatory and infringe the
    prohibition of discrimination which is regarded as a
    principle of Community law;


title: Case C-608/15 P: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 July 2016 — Panasonic Corp. v MT Picture Display Co. Ltd, European Commission (Appeal — Rules of Procedure of the Court — Article 181 — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Global market for cathode ray tubes for television sets and computer monitors — Agreements and concerted practices on pricing, market-sharing, customer-allocation and output-limitation — Rights of the defence — Statement of objections — Content)

text:
               19.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/16

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 July 2016 — Panasonic Corp. v MT Picture Display Co. Ltd, European Commission
   (Case C-608/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Rules of Procedure of the Court - Article 181 - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Global market for cathode ray tubes for television sets and computer monitors - Agreements and concerted practices on pricing, market-sharing, customer-allocation and output-limitation - Rights of the defence - Statement of objections - Content))
   (2016/C 343/24)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Panasonic Corp. (represented by: R. Gerrits, advocaat, M. Hoskins QC, and M. Gray, Barrister)

      Other parties to the proceedings: MT Picture Display Co. Ltd, European Commission (represented by: A. Biolan and V. Bottka, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Panasonic Corp. shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 1 July 1999 in Case C-155/98 P: Spyridoula Celia Alexopoulou v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal - Action declared manifestly unfounded or manifestly inadmissible - Officials - Classification in grade)

text:
28.8.1999               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 246/7
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                          (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 1 July 1999
                           of 1 July 1999
                                                                           in Case C-173/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                           the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles): Sebago Inc., Ancienne
                                                                                Maison Dubois et Fils SA v G-B Unic SA (1)
in Case C-155/98 P: Spyridoula Celia Alexopoulou v
        Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                           (Trade mark — Exhaustion of a trade-mark proprietor’s
                                                                                rights — Proprietor’s consent)
(Appeal — Action declared manifestly unfounded or mani-
  festly inadmissible — Officials — Classification in grade)                                            (1999/C 246/13)
                          (1999/C 246/12)                                                         (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           (Provisional translation: the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           In Case C-173/98: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
                                                                           (ex Article 177) from the Cour d’appel (Court of Appeal),
                                                                           Brussels, Belgium, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
(Provisional translation: the definitive translation will be published     pending before that court between Sebago Inc., Ancienne
                   in the European Court Reports)                          Maison Dubois et Fils SA and G-B Unic SA — on the
                                                                           interpretation of Article 7(1) of the First Council Directive
                                                                           89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws
                                                                           of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40,
In Case C-155/98 P: Spyridoula Celia Alexopoulou, an official              p. 1) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
of the Commission of the European Communities, residing in                 J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, P. Jann, J.C. Moitin-
Brussels (Belgium), represented by Olivier Slusny, of the                  ho de Almeida, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur) and D.A.O. Edward,
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the             Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy
Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim —                      Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 1 July
appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance of the             1999, in which it has ruled:
European Communities (First Chamber) of 13 February 1998
in Case T-195/96 Alexopoulou v Commission [1998] ECR-SC
I-A-51 and II-117, seeking to have that order set aside, the               Article 7(1) of the First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21
other party to the proceedings being Commission of the                     December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States
European Communities (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and Julian                relating to trade marks, as amended by the Agreement on the
Currall) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:                         European Economic Area of 2 May 1992, must be interpreted as
J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, J.C. Moitinho de               meaning that:
Almeida, C. Gulmann, L. Sevón (Rapporteur) and M. Wathelet,
Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy                — the rights conferred by the trace mark are exhausted only if the
Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 1 July                    products have been put on the market in the Community (in the
1999, in which it:                                                              European Economic Area since the Agreement on the European
                                                                                Economic Area entered into force) and that provision does not
                                                                                leave it open to the Member States to provide in their domestic
1. Dismisses the appeal;                                                        law for exhaustion of the rights conferred by the trade mark in
                                                                                respect of products put on the market in non-member countries;
2. Orders Spyridoula Celia Alexopoulou to pay the costs.
                                                                           — for there to be consent within the meaning of Article 7(1) of that
                                                                                directive, such consent must relate to each individual item of the
                                                                                product in respect of which exhaustion is pleaded.
(1) OJ C 258 of 15.8.1998.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.


title: Case C-121/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État (France) lodged on 18 December 2014 — Association nationale des opérateurs détaillants en énergie (ANODE) v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’économie, de l’industrie et du numérique, Commission de régulation de l’énergie, GDF Suez

text:
               1.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/8

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État (France) lodged on 18 December 2014 — Association nationale des opérateurs détaillants en énergie (ANODE) v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’économie, de l’industrie et du numérique, Commission de régulation de l’énergie, GDF Suez
   (Case C-121/15)
   (2015/C 178/08)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d'État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Association nationale des opérateurs détaillants en énergie (ANODE)

      Defendants: Premier ministre, Ministre de l’économie, de l’industrie et du numérique, Commission de régulation de l’énergie, GDF Suez

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the intervention of a Member State consisting in requiring the incumbent supplier to offer to supply final consumers with natural gas at regulated tariffs, but which does not preclude competing offers from being made at prices lower than those tariffs by the incumbent supplier or alternative suppliers, be regarded as leading to a situation whereby price levels for the supply of natural gas to final consumers are determined independently of free market forces and as constituting, by its very nature, an obstacle to the achievement of a competitive market in natural gas, as referred to in Article 3(1) of Directive 2009/73/EC (1)?

               2.

               If the first question is to be answered in the affirmative, what criteria should be used to assess the compatibility with Directive 2009/73/EC of such State intervention in the price of the supply of natural gas to final consumers?
               In particular:

                           (a)

                           To what extent and under what conditions does Article 106(2) TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 3(2) of Directive 2009/73/EC, enable Member States to pursue, by intervening in prices for the supply of natural gas to consumers, objectives other than maintaining the price of supply at a reasonable level, such as ensuring secure supply and territorial cohesion?

                           (b)

                           In the light of the objectives of secure supply and territorial cohesion, does Article 3(2) of Directive 2009/73/EC permit a Member State to intervene in determining the price of the supply of natural gas on the basis of the principle that the incumbent supplier’s costs be covered in full, and may the costs intended to be covered by the tariffs include components other than the portion representing long-term supply?

      (1)  Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 2003/55/EC (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 94).


title: Case C-273/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 22 June 2006 — Auto Peter Petschenig GmbH v Toyota Frey Austria GmbH

text:
               2.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/18

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 22 June 2006 — Auto Peter Petschenig GmbH v Toyota Frey Austria GmbH
   (Case C-273/06)
   (2006/C 212/31)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Handelsgericht Wien
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Auto Peter Petschenig Gmbh

      Defendant: Toyota Frey Austria GmbH
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is the first indent of Article 5(1)(1)(a) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 of 28 June 1995 on the application of Article 85(3) of the Treaty to certain categories of motor vehicle distribution and servicing agreements (‘Regulation (EC) No 1475/95’) (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the mere entry into force of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 of 31 July 2002 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices in the motor vehicle sector (‘Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002’) (2) and the consequent mere adjustment of a distribution system, which was in line with Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 and was exempt under that regulation, to meet the requirements for exemption of a selective distribution system in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 is to be regarded as necessitating reorganisation within the meaning of the first indent in the first paragraph of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1475/95?

               2.

                  If the answer to the first question is in the negative: Is the first indent in the first paragraph of Article 5(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 of 28 June 1995 on the application of Article 85(3) of the Treaty to certain categories of motor vehicle distribution and servicing agreements (‘Regulation (EC) No 1475/95’) to be interpreted as meaning that the mere loss — in relation to selective distribution systems — of the territorial protection previously afforded to authorised dealers, even if combined with the authorisation of repairers who are not authorised dealers in those makes, which was not previously allowed under Regulation (EC) 1475/95, represents reorganisation within the meaning of the first indent in the first paragraph of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1475/95, or is it necessary to show that reorganising measures have actually been taken?

      (1)  OJ L 145, p. 25.

      (2)  OJ L 203, p. 30.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 October 2000 in Case C-155/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretore di Treviso, Sezione Distaccata di Oderzo): Giuseppe Busolin and Others v Ispettorato Centrale Repressione Frodi — Ufficio di Conegliano — Ministero delle Risorse Agricole, Alimentari e Forestali (Agriculture — Common organisation of the agricultural markets — Market in wine — Compulsory distillation scheme)

text:
27.1.2001               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                                  C 28/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       Examination of the questions raised has disclosed no factor of such a
                                                                             kind as to affect the validity of Article 39(3), (4) and (11) of Council
                          (First Chamber)                                    Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 of 16 March 1987 on the common
                                                                             organisation of the market in wine, as amended by Council Regulation
                       of 19 October 2000                                    (EEC) No 1566/93 of 14 June 1993, or of Commission Regulation
                                                                             (EC) No 343/94 of 15 February 1994 opening compulsory
in Case C-155/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                    distillation as provided for in Article 39 of Council Regulation (EEC)
the Pretore di Treviso, Sezione Distaccata di Oderzo):                       No 822/87 and derogating for the 1993/94 wine year from certain
Giuseppe Busolin and Others v Ispettorato Centrale                           detailed rules for the application thereof.
Repressione Frodi — Ufficio di Conegliano — Ministero
       delle Risorse Agricole, Alimentari e Forestali (1)
                                                                             (1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.
(Agriculture — Common organisation of the agricultural
markets — Market in wine — Compulsory distillation
                               scheme)
                           (2001/C 28/01)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (First Chamber)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                of 7 November 2000
In Case C-155/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Pretore di Treviso,              in Case C-168/98: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg v Euro-
Sezione Distaccata di Oderzo (Treviso Magistrates’ Court,                                              pean Parliament (1)
Oderzo Division), Italy, for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings pending before that court between Giuseppe                       (Action for annulment — Freedom of establishment —
Busolin and Others and Ispettorato Centrale Repressione Frodi                Mutual recognition of diplomas — Harmonisation — Obli-
— Ufficio di Conegliano — Ministero, delle Risorse Agricole,                 gation to state reasons — Directive 98/5/EC — Practice of
Alimentari c Forestali — on the validity of Article 39(3), (4)               the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member
and (11) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 of 16 March                   State other than that in which the qualification was acquired)
1987 on the common organisation of the market in wine (OJ
1987 L 84, p. 1), as amended by Council Regulation (EEC)
No 1566/93 of 14 June 1993 (OJ 1993 L 154, p. 39), and of                                                 (2001/C 28/02)
Commission Regulation (EC) No 343/94 of 15 February 1994
opening compulsory distillation as provided for in Article 39
of Council Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 and derogating for                                           (Language of the case: French)
the 1993/94 wine year from certain detailed rules for the
application thereof (OJ 1994 L 44, p. 9) — the Court
(First Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Chamber, A. La Pergola, and P. Jann (Rapporteur), Judges;                                         in the European Court Reports)
G. Cosmas, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                    In Case C-168/98: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agents:
19 October 2000, in which it has ruled:                                      originally represented by N. Schmit and subsequently by