2.8.2003              EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                   C 184/29
       Removal from the register of Case C-405/00 (1)                         Removal from the register of Case C-345/01 (1)
                         (2003/C 184/54)                                                        (2003/C 184/58)
By order of 9 April 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the               By order of 14 April 2003 the President of the Court of
register of Case C-405/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling          Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
by the Consiglio di Stato): Coopsette Scrl v ANAS, Impresa             from the register of Case C-345/01: Commission of the
Mambrini Costruzioni srl.                                              European Communities v Republic of Austria.
(1) OJ C 372 of 23.12.2000.                                            (1) OJ C 331 of 24.11.2001.
       Removal from the register of Case C-432/00 (1)
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-466/01 (1)
                         (2003/C 184/55)
                                                                                (2003/C 184/59)
By order of 13 May 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the               By order of 6 May 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
register of Case C-432/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling          of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
by the Tribunale Amminstrativo Regionale per la Lombardia):            register of Case C-466/01: Commission of the European
Europetrol SpA v Azienda Lombarda Edilizia Residenziale                Communities v Hellenic Republic.
Milano (A.L.E.R.), Orion SCRL.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 84 of 06.04.2002.
(1) OJ C 28 of 27.01.2001.
Removal from the register of Joined Cases C-66/01 and
                            C-74/01 (1)                                       Removal from the register of Case C-146/02 (1)
                         (2003/C 184/56)                                                        (2003/C 184/60)
By order of 19 March 2003 the President of the Court of                By order of 6 May 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
from the register of Joined Cases C-66/01 and C-74/01 (Refer-          register of Case C-146/02: Commission of the European
ence for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwal-              Communities v Republic of Austria.
tungssenat): Dr Manfred Hückel.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 131 of 01.06.2002.
(1) OJ C 118 of 21.04.2001.
       Removal from the register of Case C-179/01 (1)                         Removal from the register of Case C-267/02 (1)
                         (2003/C 184/57)
                                                                                (2003/C 184/61)
By order of 9 April 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the               By order of 16 April 2003 the President of the Court of
register of Case C-179/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling          Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
by the Consiglio di Stato): Impresa Binda & C. s.p.a. v Comune         from the register of Case C-267/02: Commission of the
di Torino, ED.ART. s.r.l.                                              European Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 200 of 14.07.2001.                                            (1) OJ C 219 of 14.09.2002.


title: Case C-181/02 P: Appeal brought on 15 May 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment delivered on 28 February 2002 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) in Joined Cases T-227/99 and T-134/00 Kvaerner Warnow Werft GmbH v Commission of the European Communities

text:
13.7.2002             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 169/23
European Communities in Case T-218/01 between Laboratoire              ties (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) in Joined Cases
Monique Rémy and Commission of the European Communi-                   T-227/99 and T-134/00 Kvaerner Warnow Werft GmbH v
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European           Commission of the European Communities was brought
Communities on 13 May 2002 by Laboratoire Monique Rémy,                before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
represented by J.F. Pupel, avocat, with an address for service in      15 May 2002 by the Commission of the European Communi-
Luxembourg.                                                            ties, represented by Professor Klaus-Dieter Borchardt of its
                                                                       legal service and Viktor Kreuschitz, legal adviser to the
                                                                       European Commission, with an address for service in Luxem-
The appellant claims that the Court should:                            bourg at the office of Luis Escobar Guerrero, of its legal service,
                                                                       Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.
—     reverse the order of the Court of First Instance of
      21 March 2002;
—     suspend operation of the order in respect of Laboratoire
      Monique Rémy;                                                    The appellant claims that the Court should:
—     order the Commission to pay the costs incurred at first
      instance and in the appeal.                                      (1) set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                             28 February 2002 in Joined Cases T-227/99 and T-134/
                                                                             00 Kvaerner Warnow Werft GmbH v Commission of the
                                                                             European Communities (1);
Pleas and main arguments
—     Failure to respect the right to a fair hearing: although         (2) refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for
      Article 230 EC prescribes a period of two months for                   judgment.
      bringing an appeal, the applicant was able to make use of
      only a few days of that period because it had not been
      informed that it could appeal, as provided for by the
      internal rules of the Commission, as amended after
      November 2001.
—     Unforeseeable circumstances and force majeure: in the days
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
      following the events of 11 September 2001, postal and
      transport services put in place altogether exceptional
      security measures which gave rise to unforeseen and
      indefinite delays. In the instant case, transmittal of the       —     Incomplete appraisal of the legal background to the
      appeal documents was delayed by 6 days longer than the                 authorising decisions: when the meaning and purpose of
      usual delivery period.                                                 the capacity restriction is also regarded as a set-off in
                                                                             conjunction with the specific terms of the undertaking
                                                                             given by the Federal Government, it becomes apparent
                                                                             that, in order not to undermine the aim of the set-off for
                                                                             distortions of competition resulting from the grant of
                                                                             State aid, the capacity restriction had to refer not only to
                                                                             limits on technical capacity but also to restrictions on
                                                                             actual production levels.
Appeal brought on 15 May 2002 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the judgment deliver-
ed on 28 February 2002 by the Court of First Instance of               —     Incorrect interpretation of the authorising decisions: the
the European Communities (Fourth Chamber, Extended                           authorising decisions were based on a concept of ‘capacity
Composition) in Joined Cases T-227/99 and T-134/00                           restriction’ which covered both technical restrictions
Kvaerner Warnow Werft GmbH v Commission of the                               relating to the production plants and limits on actual
                    European Communities                                     production levels.
                       (Case C-181/02 P)
                        (2002/C 169/41)                                (1) Not yet published in the European Court Reports.
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 28 February
2002 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communi-


title: Case T-418/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 September 2007 — La Mer Technology v OHIM — Laboratoires Goëmar (LA MER) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark LA MER — Earlier national word mark LABORATOIRE DE LA MER — Relative ground of refusal — Genuine use of the mark — Article 43(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94))

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/44

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 September 2007 — La Mer Technology v OHIM — Laboratoires Goëmar (LA MER)
   (Case T-418/03) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark LA MER - Earlier national word mark LABORATOIRE DE LA MER - Relative ground of refusal - Genuine use of the mark - Article 43(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94))
   (2007/C 269/79)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: La Mer Technology, Inc. (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: initially, V. von Bomhard, A. Renck and A. Pohlmann, and subsequently, V. von Bomhard and A. Renck, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court of First Instance: Laboratoires Goëmar (Saint-Malo, France) (represented by: E. Baud and S. Strittmatter, lawyers)
   Re:
   Action for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 October 2003 (Case R 814/2000-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Laboratoires Goëmar and La Mer Technology, Inc.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders La Mer Technology, Inc., to pay its own costs and those of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Laboratoires Goëmar.

      (1)  OJ C 47, 21.2.2004.


title: Case T-46/00: Action brought on 23 February 2000 by AS Kvitsjoen against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
13.5.2000               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 135/21
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             Action brought on 23 February 2000 by AS Kvitsjoen
                                                                          against the Commission of the European Communities
— declare that the Commission infringed essential procedural
     requirements in the consultation process;                                                   (Case T-46/00)
— find that EEC Regulation No 2790/99 of 22 December                                            (2000/C 135/39)
     1999 does not mention abuse of economic dependance as
     one of the restrictions on competition set out in Article 4,
     even in the event of cumulative effect;                                               (Language of the case: Dutch)
— annul Regulation No 2790/99 of 22 December 1999;                      An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                European Communities on 23 February 2000 by AS Kvitsjoen,
                                                                        a company incorporated under Norwegian law, having its
                                                                        registered office in Norway, represented by K. Storalm, of the
                                                                        Stavanger (Norway) Bar, J.P. Hoekstra, of the Amsterdam
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         (Netherlands) Bar, and G. Vanquathem, of the Bar of Knokke-
                                                                        Heist (Belgium), with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                        the Chambers of M. Michel, 48 Avenue de la Gare.
The applicants challenge Regulation EC No 2790/99 of
22 December 1999 on the application of Article 81(3) of the             The applicant claims that the Court should:
Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted
practices (1). This is a block exemption regulation in that it is
intended to cover all forms of ‘vertical’ practice in all sectors       — declare the action to be admissible and well founded;
of the economy. It is also intended to cover exclusive and
selective car distribution if the regulation currently in force in      — consequently,           annul       Commission         Decision
the car sector is not renewed when it expires.                              SG(99)D/10760 of 22 December 1999;
                                                                        — make the appropriate order as to costs.
In support of their application, the applicants argue, inter alia,
that the consultations leading up to adoption of the regulation
were not carried out in a manner consistent with the spirit of
the Treaty, and more specifically Article 83(1), which requires         Pleas in law and main arguments
a minimum level of transparency when dealing with objections
and a minimum degree of explanation as to why they are
dismissed. In general, the true impact of the modernisation             The Netherlands authorities brought proceedings against the
programme on competition in terms of the fate of small and              vessel M600 (the property of the applicant) on the ground that
medium-sized enterprises and their significantly increased              it was using illegal nets and deliberately fishing for sole.
economic dependance was passed over silently and hidden
from the decision-making and consultative bodies to whom
that very information was indispensable.                                The applicant contends that the Netherlands authorities are
                                                                        doing all within their power to keep certain Norwegian fishing
                                                                        vessels out of Community waters and thereby to create
The applicants further state that the renewal of the contested          additional fishing opportunities for, in particular, vessels flying
regulation was presented as merely being a procedural matter            the Dutch flag. The applicant claims that the Netherlands
which did not justify or effect any amendment to the Treaty.            authorities have been pressurising the Commission to with-
However, in the view of the applicants, the regulation in               draw the fishing licences for the aforementioned Norwegian
question changes the spirit, if not the letter, of the Treaty. It       vessels.
calls into question certain issues which were already settled,
in particular as regards the retrospective consequences of
                                                                        The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision
automatic invalidity which remains the formal position under
                                                                        SG(99)D/10760 of 22 December 1999 withdrawing the fish-
Article 81(2) and the principle of prohibition which also
remains the formal position under Article 81(1).                        ing licence and special fishing permit of the fishing vessel
                                                                        ‘Kvitsjoen’ and providing that no fishing licence or special
                                                                        fishing permit may be issued to it before 30 June 2000.
(1) OJ 1999 L 336, p. 21.
                                                                        Relations between the European Communities and Norway
                                                                        are governed by Council Regulation (EC) No 50/1999 of
                                                                        18 December 1998 laying down, for 1999, certain measures
                                                                        for the conservation and management of fishery resources
                                                                        applicable to vessels flying the flag of Norway.
 ---pagebreak--- C 135/22               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    13.5.2000
The applicant alleges:                                                   — misuse of powers: the importation of EU/OCT sugar and
                                                                             mixtures from the OCTs arises directly from the OCT
— infringement of the rights of defence and the principle of                 decision, and is a result intended by the Council;
    open administration;
                                                                         — the declaration that Article 308d of Regulation
— infringement of the procedural rules laid down in Articles                 No 2454/93 is applicable is incompatible with Article 109
    5 and 6 of Regulation (EC) No 2943/95;                                   of the OCT decision.
— infringement of the principle of proportionality;
— misuse of power.
                                                                         Action brought on 1 March 2000 by British Steel Limited
                                                                           against the Commission of the European Communities
Action brought on 25 February 2000 by Rica Foods (Free
Zone) NV against the Commission of the European                                                   (Case T-48/00)
                           Communities
                                                                                (2000/C 135/41)
                          (Case T-47/00)
                         (2000/C 135/40)                                                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 1 March 2000 by British Steel
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                Limited, represented by John Pheasant and Matthew Readings,
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               Solicitors, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
European Communities on 25 February 2000 by Rica Foods                   Chambers of Arendt & Medernach, 8-10 rue Mathias Hardt.
(Free Zone) NV, a company incorporated under the laws of
Aruba, established in Oranjestad, Aruba, represented by G. van
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
der Wal, Advocaat with a right of audience before the
Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of A. May, 398 Route d’Esch.                  — annul Article 2 of the Commission decision of 8 December
                                                                             1999, C(1999) 4154 final;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         — annul Article 1 of this decision;
— annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 2423/1999 of
    15 November 1999 introducing safeguard measures in                   — annul the fine imposed in respect of Article 1;
    respect of sugar falling within CN code 1701 and mixtures
    of sugar and cocoa falling within CN codes 1806 10 30                — in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed in respect of
    and 1806 10 90 originating in the overseas countries and                 Article 1;
    territories (OJ 1999 L 294, p. 11);
                                                                         — order the Commission to repay the fine or, in the
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                     alternative, the amount by which it is reduced together
                                                                             with interest on the whole or, as the case may be, such
                                                                             amount by which it is reduced from the date of payment by
Pleas in law and principal arguments                                         British Steel to the date of repayment by the Commission;
— Regulation No 2423/1999 is incomprehensible; at any                    — order the Commission to pay British Steel’s costs in these
    rate, it contains an insufficient statement of reasons: in               proceedings.
    support of the safeguard measures, the Commission cites
    difficulties in respect of which no details are given;
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
— manifest errors with regard to the facts;
— the fixing of a minimum price for imports of EU/OCT                    In the contested decision the Commission held that several
    sugar from the OCTs constitutes an infringement of Article           producers of seamless steel tubes infringed Article 81 (1) EC
    109(1) and (2) of the OCT decision;                                  and imposed a fine, inter alia, on the applicant.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 24 January 2000 in Case T-179/98: José Guĳarro and Others v Council (Officials — Interest in bringing an action — Abstract and general interest — Measure adversely affecting officials — None — Manifestly inadmissible)

text:
C 163/28                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      10.6.2000
        ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                         of 24 January 2000                                                        of 23 March 2000
   in Case T-179/98: José Guijarro and Others v Council (1)                in Case T-266/99: Librairie de Rome v European Parlia-
                                                                                ment (1)
(Officials — Interest in bringing an action — Abstract and
general interest — Measure adversely affecting officials —                 (Public service contract — Invitation to tender — Selection
                 None — Manifestly inadmissible)                           criteria — Rejection of tender — Action manifestly
                                                                                unfounded in law)
                            (2000/C 163/54)
                                                                                (2000/C 163/55)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-179/98: José Cuenda Guijarro, an official of the
Council of the European Union, residing in Brussels, Eva                   In Case T-266/99: Librairie de Rome, established in Brussels,
Hellgren, an official of the Council of the European Union,                represented by L. Dehin and C. Bruls, of the Liege Bar, with an
residing in Brussels, Petri Samuli Laaksonen, an official of the           address for service in Luxembourg at the chambers of C. Duro,
Council of the European Union, residing in Brussels, Hans                  3 Rue de la Chapelle, v European Parliament (Agents: T. Millett
Lund, an official of the Council of the European Union,                    and A. Neergaard) — application for annulment of the
residing in Brussels, Daniel Marlier, an official of the Council of        Parliament’s decision to award to a tenderer other than the
the European Union, residing in Masnuy-Saint-Jean (Belgium),               applicant the contract for the provision of fitted kiosk premises
Maria Augusta Santos, an official of the Council of the                    for the sale of newspapers — the Court of First Instance
European Union, residing in Brussels, Agneta Sederowsky, an                (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, and
official of the Council of the European Union, residing in                 A. Potocki and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made
Brussels, Jacqueline Willems, an official of the Council of the            an order on 23 March 2000, the operative part of which is as
European Union, residing in Tervuren (Belgium), and Noé                    follows:
Youssouroum, an official of the Council of the European
Union, residing in Brussels, represented by J.-N. Louis and                1. The action is dismissed.
F. Parmentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
in Luxembourg at the office of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue               2. The defendant shall pay the costs.
de Cessange, against the Council of the European Union
(Agents: F. Van Craeyenest, M. Bauer and D. Waelbroeck) —
application for the annulment of the Council decision of                   (1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.
12 January 1998 rejecting, first, the applicants’ request that
certain safety, health protection and environmental measures
at the workplace be taken in respect of the Council’s ‘Justus
Lipsius’ Building in Brussels and, secondly, the claim for
compensation in respect of non-material damage which they
claim to have suffered as a result of faults, omissions and
instances of negligence by the institution in relation to the
state of that building — the Court of First Instance (Fifth
Chamber), composed of R. Garcia Valdecasas, President of the               Action brought on 27 March 2000 by Nicolás Martinez
Chamber, P. Lindh, and J.D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,                  Rey and Others v Council of the European Union
has given a judgment on 24 January 2000, in which it:
                                                                                (Case T-73/00)
1. Dismisses the action as manifestly inadmissible;
                                                                                (2000/C 163/56)
2. Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and to pay half of
      the defendant’s costs;
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
3. Orders the defendant to pay half of its costs.
                                                                           An action against the Council of the European Union was
( 1) OJ C 397 of 19.12.1998.                                               brought before the Court of First Instance on 27 March 2000
                                                                           by Nicolás Martı́nez Rey and Others, of Coruña, Spain,
                                                                           represented by Ramón Garcı́a-Gallardo and Marı́a Dolores
                                                                           Domı́nguez Pérez, with chambers in Brussels at 19 Square de
                                                                           Meeûs.


title: Case T-382/00: Action brought on 22 December 2000 by Monsanto Company against the Council of the European Union

text:
C 61/20               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     24.2.2001
By the contested decisions, the Commission declared a pro-               —     award the sum of 120 000 euro, subject to increase or
posed concentration between Salzgitter AG and Mannes-                          decrease during the course of the proceedings, by way of
mannröhren-Werke AG to be compatible with the common                           compensation for the non-material damage suffered by
market pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 and author-                     the applicant as a result of the irregular or incomplete
ised the proposed concentration pursuant to Article 66(2) CS.                  information gathered by the defendant in relation to the
                                                                               applicant’s personal file and the state of uncertainty and
                                                                               worry in which he has been placed with regard to his
The applicants are contesting the decisions on the basis of the                future career;
fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC and the second paragraph
of Article 33 CS. They consider that the contested measures              —     award the sum of 25 000 euro, subject to increase or
are of direct and individual concern to them.                                  decrease during the course of the proceedings, by way of
                                                                               compensation for the material damage suffered by the
                                                                               applicant as a result of his having been rejected as a
The applicants complain, in their criticism of the Commission,                 candidate for the post to be filled and of his having thus
that the contested decisions omit any examination of the facts                 lost an opportunity of promotion;
and law with regard to individual product markets which are
directly affected by the concentration, despite the fact that            —     order the Commission to pay all the costs.
the proposed concentration radically alters the structural
conditions of competition on those markets. In addition, the
Commission has unlawfully omitted to examine from a factual              Pleas in law and main arguments
and legal standpoint the effects of the concentration which
result from the fact that the concentration has led to inter-
linking between Salzgitter AG and third parties. That inter-             The applicant in the present case contests the refusal by the
linking is liable significantly to prejudice the effectiveness of        appointing authority to appoint him to the post of head of the
competition on the markets concerned.                                    unit responsible for ‘Motor vehicles and other means of
                                                                         transport’.
                                                                         In support of his claims, he puts forward the following pleas
                                                                         in law:
                                                                         —     infringement of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations and of
                                                                               the obligation to provide a statement of reasons;
                                                                         —     infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, of the
Action brought on 19 December 2000 by Carmelo Mor-                             rules governing the promotion procedure and of the
ello against the Commission of the European Communi-                           principle of equal treatment;
                                ties
                                                                         —     a manifest error of assessment in the present case;
                         (Case T-376/00)                                 —     misuse of power and infringement of Article 7 of the
                                                                               Staff Regulations.
                          (2001/C 61/38)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         Action brought on 22 December 2000 by Monsanto
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                            Company against the Council of the European Union
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 19 December 2000 by Carmelo
Morello, residing in Brussels, represented by Jacques Sambon                                      (Case T-382/00)
and Pierre Paul Van Gehuchten, of the Brussels Bar.
                                                                                (2001/C 61/39)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
—     annul the Commission’s decision appointing another
      person to post COM/113/99 IV/F/2 ‘Motor vehicles and               An action against the Council of the European Union was
      other means of transport’, corresponding to a grade                brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
      A5/A4 post of Head of Unit;                                        Communities on 22 December 2000 by Monsanto Company,
                                                                         a company established under the laws of Delaware (USA),
—     annul the Commission’s decision rejecting the application          represented by Clive Stanbrook Q.C. and Wilko van Weert, of
      of the applicant for the post in question;                         Stanbrook & Hooper, Brussels.
 ---pagebreak--- 24.2.2001              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 61/21
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  (b) the Council wilfully disregarded the findings of the
                                                                                CVMP.
—     annul the Council Decision of 28 September 2000
      amounting to a refusal to adopt a Maximum Residue                 2.   Breach of principle of proportionality in light of the
      Limit under Regulation No 2377/90, with regard to                      special circumstances of the case, namely:
      recombinant bovine somatotrophin;
                                                                             (a)   that there is no scientific evidence of a risk to human
                                                                                health;
—     order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the
      Council.                                                               (b) that milk or milk products are imported from third
                                                                                countries where BST is administered to cows; and
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              (c)   any public-health objective has already been more
                                                                                than adequately assured through the adoption of a
                                                                                ban on the marketing of BST.
The applicant is a life sciences company, in the business of
developing products to meet the growing global need for                 3.   Wrongful or disproportionate application of the pre-
food. It has developed a veterinary medicinal product called                 cautionary principle.
sometribove. This product is classified as a recombinant bovine
somatotrophin (‘BST’) and when administered to dairy cows
has the effect of increasing their milk production. Before              (1) OJ 1990 L 224, p. 1.
veterinary products, such as sometribove, can be put on the
Community market, a maximum residue limit (‘MRL’) must be
established, in conformity with Article 7 of Council Regulation
No 2377/90 laying down a Community procedure for the
establishment of maximum residue limits of veterinary med-
icinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin (1).
                                                                        Action brought on 22 December 2000 by Beamglow Ltd.,
On 14 January 1997, the Commission decided to reject the                against the Council of the European Union, the European
request for the inclusion of sometribove (bovine somatropine)           Parliament and the Commission of the European Com-
in Annex II to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90, in spite                                         munities
of the fact that the Committee for Veterinary Medicinal
Products (‘CVMP’) had come to the conclusion that it was not
necessary for the protection of public health to establish MRL                                   (Case T-383/00)
for BST and had recommended the inclusion of this product
in the list of substances not subject to MRL in Annex II. This                                    (2001/C 61/40)
decision was annulled by the Court of First Instance.
As the result of the judgment, the Commission decided to send                             (Language of the case: English)
the file back to the CVMP for a new opinion on BST. In July
1999, the CVMP re-evaluated BST taking into account all                 An action against the Council of the European Union, the
the latest available scientific information and confirmed its           European Parliament and the Commission of the European
previous opinion that residues of BST are safe and that BST             Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
should therefore be included in Annex II. On 13 July 2000,              of the European Communities on 22 December 2000 by
the Commission submitted to the Council its final proposition           Beamglow Ltd., a company incorporated under the laws of
for inclusion of BST in Annex II. On 28 September 2000, the             the United Kingdom, represented by Denis Waelbroeck, of
Council decided not to adopt the Commission’s proposal. It is           Liedekerke Siméon Wessing Houthoff, Brussels (Belgium).
this decision that is challenged by the applicant in the present
case.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant contends that the contested decision should be            —    order the European Community, as represented here
annulled for the following reasons:                                          by the Council of the European Union, the European
                                                                             Parliament and the Commission of the European Com-
                                                                             munities, as jointly and severally liable, to repair the
1.    Infringement of Article 3 of Regulation No. 2377/90.                   damage suffered by the applicant as a result of the
      The applicant maintains that:                                          unlawful behaviour of the European Community and to
                                                                             set the amount of compensation at GBP 2 042 000 for
      (a)   the Council could not reject the Commission’s                    the period up to December 2000 plus GBP 79 000 per
            proposal in the absence of any new information or                month from that date to the date of judgment or any
            any reassessment of existing information on the                  other amount reflecting the actual damage suffered by
            bases of which the opinion of the CVMP might be                  the applicant as established by it in the course of the
            called into question;                                            proceedings;


title: Case C-159/07: Order of the President of the Court of 30 July 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

text:
               8.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/35

         Order of the President of the Court of 30 July 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-159/07) (1)

   (2007/C 297/70)

      Language of the case: Portuguese

   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 117, 26.5.2007.


title: Case C-142/03: Action brought on 31 March 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

text:
24.5.2003              EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 124/13
Action brought on 31 March 2003 by the Commission of                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
                                                                        —     Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force the
                         (Case C-142/03)                                      laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary
                                                                              to comply with Commission Directive 2000/52/EC ( 1) of
                                                                              26 July 2000 amending Directive 80/723/EEC on the
                         (2003/C 124/21)                                      transparency of financial relations between Member
                                                                              States and public undertakings, the Portuguese Republic
                                                                              has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of
                                                                              Directive 2000/52/EC;
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 31 March            —     declare in any event that, by failing to communicate
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                              forthwith those provisions to the Commission, the Portu-
represented by Fernando Castillo de la Torre and Niels Bertil                 guese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Rasmusen, members of its Legal Service, with an address for                   Article 2 of Directive 2000/52/EC;
service in Luxembourg.
                                                                        —     order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     declare that the Kingdom of Spain has infringed Article 91
      of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December                Pleas in law and main arguments
      1993 on the Community trade mark ( 1) by having
      failed to communicate to the Commission the list of
      Community trade mark courts;                                      The period prescribed for implementation of the directive
                                                                        expired on 31 July 2001.
—     order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
                                                                        (1 ) OJ L 193 of 29 July 2000, p. 75.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The Member States are under an obligation to designate,
within three years following entry into force of the regulation,
‘Community trade mark courts’ and to communicate to the
Commission their names and their territorial jurisdiction. That
information should have been communicated by 15 March                   Appeal brought on 31 March 2003 by Philip Morris
1997 at the latest.                                                     International, Inc., against the judgment delivered on
                                                                        15 January 2003 by the Second Chamber (Extended
                                                                        Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the
( 1) OJ L 11 of 14.1.1994, p. 1.                                        European Communities in joined cases T-377/00, T-379/
                                                                        00, T-380/00, T-260/01 and T-272/01 between Philip
                                                                        Morris International, Inc., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Hold-
                                                                        ings, Inc., RJR Acquisition Corp., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco
                                                                        Company, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco International Inc., and
                                                                        Japan Tobacco, Inc., and Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities, supported by European Parliament,
                                                                        Kingdom of Spain, French Republic, Italian Republic,
Action brought on 31 March 2003 by Commission of the                    Portuguese Republic, Republic of Finland, Federal Repub-
  European Communities against the Portuguese Republic                  lic of Germany, Hellenic Republic, Kingdom of the
                                                                                Netherlands
                         (Case C-144/03)
                                                                                (Case C-146/03 P)
                         (2003/C 124/22)
                                                                                (2003/C 124/23)
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 31 March
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,                     An appeal against the judgment delivered on 15 January 2003
represented by M. França and J. Flett, acting as Agents, with an        by the Second Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court
address for service in Luxembourg.                                      of First Instance of the European Communities in joined cases


title: Case C-322/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main by order of that court of 10 August 2001 in the case of Deutscher Apothekerverband e.V. against DocMorris NV and Jacques Waterval

text:
C 348/10               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     8.12.2001
1.   Declares that, by not adopting, within the prescribed period,            (c)    Are questions 1, 1(a) and 1(b) to be assessed
     the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to                differently in the light of Articles 28 and 30 EC if
     comply fully with Council Directive 96/48/EC of 23 July 1996                    the imported medicines in question are medicines
     on the interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail                   authorised in the importing State, which a pharmacy
     system, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations              in an EU Member State previously obtained from
     under that Directive.                                                           wholesalers in the importing State?
2.   Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                      2.   Is it compatible with Articles 28 and 30 EC for a national
                                                                              prohibition on advertising medicines by mail order,
                                                                              prescription medicines and medicines available only
(1) OJ C 45 of 10.2.2001.                                                     through pharmacies that are authorised in the State of
                                                                              origin but not the importing State to be interpreted so
                                                                              broadly that the Internet presentation of a pharmacy of
                                                                              an EU Member State, which in addition to presentation
                                                                              of its business describes individual medicines with their
                                                                              product name, prescription status, package size and price
                                                                              and at the same time offers the possibility of ordering
                                                                              those medicines by means of an on-line order form, is
                                                                              classified as prohibited advertising, with the result that
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht                         cross-border orders of medicines by internet including
Frankfurt am Main by order of that court of 10 August                         delivery of those orders is at the very least made
2001 in the case of Deutscher Apothekerverband e.V.                           substantially more difficult?
        against DocMorris NV and Jacques Waterval
                                                                              (a)    Having regard to Article 1(3) of Directive
                         (Case C-322/01)                                             2000/31/EC (1) of 8 June 2000 (‘Directive on elec-
                                                                                tronic commerce’), do Articles 28 and 30 EC require
                                                                                the Internet presentation of a pharmacy of an EU
                         (2001/C 348/17)                                             Member State, as described above, or parts of that
                                                                                presentation, to be excluded from the definition of
                                                                                advertising to the general public for the purposes
                                                                                of Articles 1(3) and 3(1) of Council Directive
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                               1992/28/EEC (2), of 31 March 1992 on the advertis-
European Communities by order of the Landgericht Frankfurt                           ing of medicinal products for human use, in order
am Main (Regional Court, Frankfurt am Main) of 10 August                             to make it practically possible to offer certain
2001, received at the Court Registry on 21 August 2001, for                          information society services?
a preliminary ruling in the case of Deutscher Apothekerver-
band e.V. v Doc Morris NV and Jacques Waterval on the                         (b) Can any restriction of the definition of advertising
following questions:                                                                 that may be required under Articles 28 and 30 EC
                                                                                be justified by the consideration that on-line order
1.   Are the principles of the free movement of goods under                          forms containing only the minimum information
     Article 28 et seq. of the Treaty infringed by national                          necessary for placing an order, and/or other parts of
     legislation which prohibits human medicines, which are                          the Internet presentation of a pharmacy of an EU
     required to be handled only through pharmacies, from                            Member State, are comparable with trade catalogues
     being imported commercially from other EU Member                                and/or price lists within the meaning of Article 1(4)
     States in mail-order business through authorised phar-                          of Directive 92/28/EEC?
     macies on the basis of individual orders placed by
     consumers over the Internet?                                        3.   If some aspects of the Internet presentation of a pharmacy
                                                                              of an EU Member State infringe provisions concerning
     (a)   Does such a national prohibition constitute a                      the advertising of medicines, is it to be inferred from
           measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative                 Articles 28 and 30 EC that cross-border trade in medicines
           restriction on imports within the meaning of                       which does take place with the help of such a presentation
           Article 28 of the EC Treaty?                                       must be regarded as legally permissible despite the
                                                                              prohibited advertising, in order more effectively to
                                                                              implement the principle of the free movement of goods
     (b) If it does, is Article 30 EC to be interpreted as                    across borders?
           meaning that a national prohibition designed to
           protect the health and life of humans is justified if,
           before prescription medicines are sent out, a doctor’s
           original prescription must have been produced to              (1) OJ L 178, 17.7.2000, p. 1.
           the pharmacy sending out the medicines? In such a             (2) OJ L 113, 30.4.1992, p. 13.
           situation, what requirements should be placed on
           that pharmacy as regards control of the order,
           packaging and receipt?


title: Case T-163/04: Action brought on 30 April 2004 by M. Schäfer against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               9.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/18

         Action brought on 30 April 2004 by M. Schäfer against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case T-163/04)
   (2004/C 251/35)
   Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2) of the Rules of Procedure language in which the application was submitted: German
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 30 April 2004 by M. Schäfer, Bergisch-Gladbach (Germany), represented by I. Reese, lawyer.
   KoKa Verwaltung GmbH, Hamburg (Germany), was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               vary the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 12 December 2003 so as to order the Office to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings for restitutio in integrum and in the appeal proceedings;

               —

               in the alternative, vary the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market so as to order KoKa Verwaltung GmbH to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings for restitutio in integrum and in the appeal proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   On 26 December 2000, the applicant filed with the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market an application for registration of the figurative mark ‘Mike's Meals on Wheels’ as a Community trade mark for services in Classes 35 and 42. Relying on its earlier German marks, namely the figurative mark ‘MIKE'S SANDWICH MARKET’ and the word mark ‘MIKE’, KoKa Verwaltung GmbH entered opposition on the ground of a likelihood of confusion.
   The Opposition Division rejected the opposition and ordered the opponent to pay the costs. The opponent objected to that decision and applied for restitutio in integrum. It also brought an appeal seeking to have the decision annulled in its entirety and the proceedings stayed pending the ruling on the application for restitutio in integrum.
   By decision of 16 June 2003, the Opposition Division granted the application for restitutio in integrum and resumed the opposition proceedings.
   By the contested decision, the Board of Appeal held that the appeal had become devoid of purpose. The appeal proceedings were therefore discontinued and the appeal fee was reimbursed. The Board of Appeal also ordered each of the parties to bear the costs incurred by them in the appeal proceedings.
   The action brought by the applicant challenges that ruling on costs. He claims that the Office failed to exercise properly the discretion enjoyed by it under Article 81(4) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 in the event that the proceedings are discontinued. The applicant was in no way responsible for the initiation of and need to conduct appeal proceedings. The appeal proceedings were the result of, first, the incorrect postcode in the Office's letterhead and, secondly, the appellant's exhaustion of the entire period prescribed for the submission of evidence of use. The applicant had no control over either of those two causes of the proceedings for restitutio in integrum and the appeal proceedings. Under Article 81 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94, the ruling on costs is a matter of unfettered discretion. That unfettered discretion includes the possibility of ordering the Office to pay the costs. Moreover, it is an infringement of the applicant's fundamental rights to deny him compensation for his costs and trouble.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 January 2003 in Case C-257/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the l'Immigration Appeal Tribunal): Nani Givane and Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Freedom of movement for workers — Regulation (EEC) No 1251/70 — Right of workers to remain in the territory of a Member State after having been employed in that State — Right of residence of members of the family of a deceased worker — Requirement of the worker's continuous residence for at least two years)

text:
22.2.2003               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                 C 44/5
1.    Dismissed the action;                                                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
2.    Ordered the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
( 1) OJ C 211 of 22.7.2000.
                                                                                of 9 January 2003
                                                                             in Case C-257/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                             the l’Immigration Appeal Tribunal): Nani Givane and
                                                                              Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department (1)
          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                    (Freedom of movement for workers — Regulation (EEC) No
                                                                             1251/70 — Right of workers to remain in the territory of a
                                                                             Member State after having been employed in that State —
                         of 9 January 2003                                   Right of residence of members of the family of a deceased
                                                                             worker — Requirement of the worker’s continuous residence
in Case C-178/00: Italian Republic v Commission of the                                              for at least two years)
                   European Communities ( 1)
(EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — 1995 financial year                                                    (2003/C 44/09)
— Cereals — Durum wheat — Soft wheat, barley and corn)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                           (2003/C 44/08)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       In Case C-257/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
                   in the European Court Reports)                            EC by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal (United Kingdom) for
                                                                             a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
                                                                             court between Nani Givane and Others and Secretary of State
                                                                             for the Home Department, on the interpretation of Article 3(2)
In Case C-178/00: Italian Republic (Agent: U. Leanza, assisted               of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1251/70 of 29 June 1970
by D. Del Gaizo) against Commission of the European                          on the right of workers to remain in the territory of a Member
Communities (Agents: E. de March and L. Visaggio, assisted by                State after having been employed in that State (OJ, English
A. Dal Ferro) — application for partial annulment of the                     Special Edition 1970 (II), p. 402), the Court (Fifth Chamber),
Commission’s Decision 2000/197/EC of 1 March 2000                            composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber,
amending Decision 1999/187/EC on the clearance of the                        C.W.A. Timmermans, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann and A. Rosas
accounts presented by the Member States in respect of the                    (Rapporteur), Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass,
expenditure for 1995 of the Guarantee Section of the European                Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 January 2003, in which
Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2000                    it has ruled:
L 61, p. 15) in so far as it made financial adjustments to certain
expenses declared by Italy — the Court of Justice (Fifth
Chamber), composed of M. Wathelet, President of the Chamb-
er, and D.A.O. Edward, A La Pergola, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and                On a proper construction of the first indent of Article 3(2) of
                                                                             Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1251/70 of 29 June 1970 on
S. von Bahr, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass,
Registrar, gave a judgment on 9 January 2003, in which it:                   the right of workers to remain in the territory of a Member State after
                                                                             having been employed in that State the period of two years’ continuous
                                                                             residence required by that provision must immediately precede the
1.    Dismissed the action;                                                  worker’s death.
2.    Ordered the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.
( 1) OJ C 211 of 22.7.2000.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 28 October 1999 in Case T-210/95: European Fertilizer Manufacturers' Association (EFMA) v Council of the European Union (Anti-dumping duties — Elimination of injury — Target price — Profit margin on the costs of production)

text:
8.1.2000                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 6/21
                                                         COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                       of 28 October 1999                                                       of 9 November 1999
in Case T-210/95: European Fertilizer Manufacturers’
 Association (EFMA) v Council of the European Union (1)                   in Case T-102/98: Christina Papadeas v Committee of the
                                                                                Regions of the European Union (1)
(Anti-dumping duties — Elimination of injury — Target
       price — Profit margin on the costs of production)                  (Officials — Internal competition — Non-admission to the
                                                                          oral tests — Assessment by the Selection Board — Principle
                                                                          of non-discrimination — Principle of sound administration
                                                                           and the duty to have due regard for the welfare of officials)
                           (2000/C 6/36)
                                                                                (2000/C 6/37)
                    (Language of the case: English)
In Case T-210/85: European Fertilizer Manufacturers’ Associ-                                 (Language of the case: French)
ation (EFMA), established in Zurich (Switzerland), represented
by Dominique Voillemot and Olivier Prost, of the Paris Bar,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Carlos Zeyen, 67 Rue Ermesinde, supported by French Repub-                In Case T-102/98: Christina Papadeas, a former member of the
lic (Agents: Catherine de Salins, Gautier Mignot, and, in the             temporary staff of the Committee of the Regions, residing in
oral procedure, Sujiro Seam) v Council of the European Union              Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersanden, and Laura
(Agents: initially by Yves Cretien and Antonio Tanca, then                Levi, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
solely by Mr Tanca, assisted by Hans-Jürgen Rabe and Georg                Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 2-4 Rue
Berrisch), supported by Commission of the European Com-                   Beck, v Committee of the Regions of the European Union
munities (Agent: Nicholas Khan) — application for the annul-              (Agents: Jordi Garcia-Petit and Denis Waelbroeck) — appli-
ment of Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2022/95 of                cation for annulment of the decision of the Selection Board in
16 August 1995 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on                 Internal Competition C/01/97 not to admit the applicant to
imports of ammonium nitrate originating in Russia (OJ                     the oral tests in that competition — the Court of First
1995 L 198, p. 1) — the Court (Second Chamber, Extended                   Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of J.D. Cooke, President,
Composition), composed of: A. Potocki, President, K. Lenaerts,            R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges; J. Palacio González,
C.W. Bellamy, J. Azizi and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; A. Mair,                  Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgement on 9 No-
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                 vember 1999, the operative part of which is as follows:
28 October 1999, in which it:
                                                                          1. The decision of the Selection Board in Internal Competition
1. Dismisses the application;                                                  C/01/97 not to admit the applicant to the oral tests is annulled.
2. Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and pay the costs of        2. The Committee of the Regions is ordered to pay the costs in their
     the Council. The Commission and the French Republic shall bear            entirety.
     their own costs.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.
(1) OJ C 31 of 3.2.1996.


title: Case T-262/02: Action brought on 30 August 2002 by Raiffeisenlandesbank Niederösterreich-Wien AG against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 274/30              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     9.11.2002
The applicant submits that the decision must be set aside if           The applicant claims that the Court should:
only because it infringes the obligation to state reasons
under Article 253 EC. Furthermore, the defendant infringed
Article 81 EC by assessing incorrectly in law the nature of the        —     annul the Commission decision of 11 June 2002 in a
rounds of meetings which were investigated. On an objective                  proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case COMP/36.571/
assessment of the facts, the defendant should have recognised                D-1 — Austrian Banks);
that there was predominantly disagreement between the banks
in question. The incorrect assessment of the facts leaves its
mark on the whole of the contested decision and must                   —     in the alternative, annul Articles 3 and 4 of that decision
                                                                             in so far as they relate to the applicant;
therefore result in its complete annulment. The decision also
infringes Article 81 EC because the rounds of meetings
investigated were not capable of affecting trade between               —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
Member States.
The applicant further contends that Article 3 of the contested
decision must be annulled in the absence of fault, a precon-
dition under Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17/62. Given the           Pleas in law and main arguments
purely national nature of the rounds of meetings and the fact
that they were rooted in a specifically Austrian context — with
the participation of Austrian State authorities — the applicant
was unable to discern their unlawful content and their                 The proceeding conducted by the defendant was directed
purported ability to affect trade between Member States.               against regular meetings of banks in Austria (‘Bankenrunden’).
                                                                       By the contested decision the Commission found that the
                                                                       applicant — together with seven other Austrian banking
                                                                       institutions — had infringed Article 81 EC by participating in
Furthermore the defendant, in breach of Article 15(2) of
Regulation No 17/62, infringed essential principles governing          agreements and concerted practices concerning prices, charges
                                                                       and advertising measures, designed to restrict competition on
the calculation of fines and in particular misapplied on many
                                                                       the Austrian banking market from 1 January 1995 until
counts its own guidelines on the method for setting fines. First
                                                                       24 June 1998. The Commission imposed fines on the banks
of all, it is wrong to accept that there was a ‘very serious
                                                                       concerned.
infringement’, and the defendant failed to take account of
numerous mitigating circumstances. Finally, the fine must be
substantially reduced for the further reason that the defendant,
by misapplying the notice on the non-imposition of fines in
                                                                       The applicant submits that the rounds of meetings between
cartel cases, had no regard at all to the applicant’s extensive
                                                                       the Austrian banks could not appreciably affect trade between
cooperation.
                                                                       States. The Commission misapplied Article 81(1) EC in the
                                                                       contested decision. The arrangements in question were limited
                                                                       to the territory of the Republic of Austria. The Commission
                                                                       adduced no conclusive evidence as to why the arrangements
                                                                       were none the less supposed to have been capable of appreci-
                                                                       ably affecting trade between States. In particular, it was not
                                                                       demonstrated that they had the effect of partitioning the
                                                                       market.
Action brought on 30 August 2002 by Raiffeisenlandes-
bank Niederösterreich-Wien AG against the Commission
                of the European Communities                            The applicant further contends that the Commission did not
                                                                       prove that the applicant acted with intent or negligently. The
                                                                       Commission misapplied Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17/
                        (Case T-262/02)
                                                                       62. It imposed a fine despite an absence of proof that the
                                                                       applicant’s staff had acted with intent or negligently. The
                        (2002/C 274/53)                                Commission fails to have regard to the fact that the question
                                                                       of fault does not turn on knowledge of the prohibition on
                                                                       cartels but primarily on knowledge of the facts which render
                 (Language of the Case: German)                        that prohibition applicable in a specific case. Furthermore,
                                                                       the Commission considers fault only with regard to the
                                                                       requirement that competition be restricted and does not ask
                                                                       itself whether the applicant’s staff were in a position to
                                                                       recognise the alleged effects between Member States. That was
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-              not the case.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 30 August 2002 by Raiffeisenlan-
desbank Niederösterreich-Wien AG, established in Vienna,
represented by H. Wollmann, Lawyer.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) 12 March 2002 in Case C-168/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Linz): Simone Leitner v TUI Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG (Directive 90/314/EEC — Package travel, package holidays and package tours — Compensation for non-material damage)

text:
18.5.2002                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 118/11
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                          (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 15 January 2002
                            12 March 2002
                                                                           in Case C-171/00 P: Alain Libéros v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
in Case C-168/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Landesgericht Linz): Simone Leitner v TUI
                Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG (1)                              (Appeal — Possibility for the Judge-Rapporteur in the Court
                                                                           of First Instance to hear and determine a case sitting as a
                                                                           single Judge — Member of the temporary staff — Classifi-
                                                                                cation in grade — Professional experience)
(Directive 90/314/EEC — Package travel, package holidays
and package tours — Compensation for non-material dam-
                                  age)                                                                 (2002/C 118/16)
                           (2002/C 118/15)                                                       (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   (Language of the case: German)                                               in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                         In Case C-171/00 P: Alain Libéros (avocat: M.-A. Lucas) —
                                                                           appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                           the European Communities (single judge) of 9 March 2000 in
                                                                           Case T-29/97 Libéros v Commission[2000] ECR SC I-A-43
                                                                           and II-185, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other
                                                                           party to the proceedings being Commission of the European
In Case C-168/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234                 Communities (Agent: J. Currall, assisted by B. Wägenbaur), the
EC by the Landesgericht Linz (Austria) for a preliminary ruling            Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the
in the proceedings pending before that court between Simone                Chamber, A. La Pergola, L. Sevón, M. Wathelet and C.W.A.
Leitner and TUI Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, on the                          Timmermans (Rapporteur), Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate
interpretation of Article 5 of Council Directive 90/314/EEC of             General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
13 June 1990 on package travel, package holidays and package               gave a judgment on 15 January 2002, in which it:
tours (OJ 1990 L 158, p. 59), the Court (Sixth Chamber),
composed of: N. Colneric, President of the Second Chamber,
acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber, C. Gulmann                  1.    Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
(Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, V. Skouris and J.N. Cunha                        European Communities of 9 March 2000 in Case T-29/97
Rodrigues, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,                      Libéros v Commission;
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
on 12 March 2002, in which it has ruled:
                                                                           2.    Annuls the decisions of the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities of 15 March 1996, definitively classifying
                                                                                Mr Libéros in Grade A 7, and of 5 November 1996, rejecting
Article 5 of Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 on                     his complaint against that classification decision;
package travel, package holidays and package tours is to be interpreted
as conferring, in principle, on consumers a right to compensation for
non-material damage resulting from the non-performance or                  3.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay
improper performance of the services constituting a package holiday.             all the costs of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance
                                                                                and the Court of Justice.
(1) OJ C 192 of 8.7.2000.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 192 of 8.7.2000.


title: Case C-38/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg Megyei Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 26 January 2012 — Felső-Tisza-vidéki Környezetvédelmi és Vízügyi Igazgatóság v Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal Központi Szerve

text:
               28.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 126/4

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg Megyei Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 26 January 2012 — Felső-Tisza-vidéki Környezetvédelmi és Vízügyi Igazgatóság v Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal Központi Szerve
   (Case C-38/12)
   2012/C 126/08
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg Megyei Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Felső-Tisza-vidéki Környezetvédelmi és Vízügyi Igazgatóság

      Defendant: Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal Központi Szerve

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 143b(4) and (5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that, for 2008, the sloping sides of dykes and embankments constructed in order to prevent flooding are excluded from the single area payment scheme (SAPS) financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund, even in cases where, as at 30 June 2003 and thereafter, the pasture planted on it has been well kept, by being mown regularly and used for grazing, and constitutes area which is maintained in good agricultural condition?

               2.

               Is Article 143b(4) and (5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 to be interpreted as meaning that areas that have a secondary agricultural use are excluded from single area payments?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001; (OJ 2003 L 270, p. 1).