C 34/28                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                 5.2.2000
In support of their claims, the applicants allege:                              Removal from the register of Case T-307/97 (1)
— breach of the Staff Regulations, in particular Articles 9                                      (2000/C 34/53)
    and 24a, and Annex II concerning the composition and
    procedure of the bodies provided for in Article 9 of the
    Staff Regulations;                                                                     (Language of the case: English)
— breach of the rules of procedure for Staff Committee                   By order of 10 November 1999, the President of the Fourth
    elections, adopted by the General Assembly of officials on           Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
    19 January 1999;                                                     Communities has ordered the removal from the register
                                                                         of Case T-307/97, B.G.S. Rowlands and E.H.S. Rowlands v
                                                                         Council of the European Union and Commission of the
— breach of the rules concerning the establishment of a Staff            European Communities.
    Committee, adopted by the Commission on 9 April 1968
    and last amended on 22 October 1997;
                                                                         (1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.
— breach of general principles of law, such as the principle
    that all administrative acts or decisions must be based on
    sound and relevant grounds, not vitiated by errors in fact
    or law;
— conduct ultra vires.                                                          Removal from the register of Case T-308/97 (1)
The applicants maintain that the Commission, principally                                         (2000/C 34/54)
through the Director-General of DG IX, decided, in breach of
the above rules and principles, to implement the procedure for
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
renewal of the Brussels Staff Committee, on the view that the
elections of 9, 10 and 11 March 1999, annulled by decision
apparently dated 29 September 1999, could be resumed even                By order of 10 November 1999, the President of the Fourth
though the election results had been annulled. This was done             Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
in the belief that it was unnecessary — quod non — to hold a             Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
General Assembly of officials, not only to establish a new               Case T-308/97, J. Ward, B. Ward and Miss M. Lewis v Council
electoral office but also to fix the date for the new ballot.            of the European Union and Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 17 July 1997 in Case C-334/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg): Krüger GmbH & Co. KG v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Export refunds - Milk products - Discrimination - Assessment of validity - National court - Interim relief - Community Customs Code)

text:
18 . 10 . 97          EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 318/ 1
                                                                   I
                                                             (Information)
                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                         COURT OF JUSTICE
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                   1 . Article 17 (1 ) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 840/68
                                                                           of 27 June 1968 on the common organization of the
                        of 17 July 1997
                                                                           market in milk and milk products, as amended by
in Case C-334/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                  Regulation (EEC) No 3904/87, read in conjunction
the Finanzgericht Hamburg): Kriiger GmbH & Co. KG v.                       with its Annex which refers to subheading 2101 10 of
               Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (')                              the combined nomenclature, as established in the
                                                                           Annex to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of
(Export refunds — Milk products — Discrimination —                         23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature
Assessment of validity — National court — Interim relief                   and on the Common Customs Tariff, in the version
                 — Community Customs Code)                                 contained in Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2505/
                         ( 97IC 318/01
                                                                           92, is to be interpreted as allowing export refunds
                                                                           to be granted in respect of milk products contained
                                                                           in both preparations with a basis of coffee and
                                                                           preparations with a basis of extracts, essences or
                (Language of the case: German)                             concentrates of coffee.
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be        2 . Article 244 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92
           published in the European Court Reports)                        of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community
                                                                           Customs Code is not applicable to demands for
                                                                           repayment of export refunds.
In Case C-334/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Finanzgericht ( Finance Court)
Hamburg ( Germany), for a preliminary ruling in the                    3 . A national court may suspend implementation of a
proceedings pending before that court between Kriiger                      national    administrative   decision    based    on    a
GmbH & Co. KG v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas — on                           Community act only if:
( i ) the validity of Article 17 ( 1 ) of Council Regulation
( EEC ) No 804/68 of 27 June 1968 on the common
                                                                           — that court entertains serious doubts as to the
organization of the market in milk and milk products
 ( Official Journal, English Special Edition 1968 I, p. 176 ),                 validity of the Community act and, if the validity
as amended by Regulation ( EEC) No 3904/87 ( OJ L 370,                         of the contested act is not already in issue before
30 . 12. 1987, p. 1 ), read in combination with its Annex,                     the Court of Justice, itself refers the question to
and on the consequences of any declaration of invalidity                       the Court of Justice,
and ( ii ) the interpretation of Article 244 of Council
Regulation ( EEC ) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992                           — there is urgency, in that the interim relief is
establishing the Community Customs Code ( OJ L 302,                            necessary to avoid serious and irreparable damage
 19 . 10 . 1992, p. 1 ) and Article 177 of the EC Treaty —                     being caused to the party seeking the relief,
the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias,
 President, J. L. Murray and L. Sevon ( Presidents of
 Chambers ), P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, D. A. O.                        — the national court takes due account of the
Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann,                                  Community interest, and
H. Ragnemalm and R. Schintgen ( Rapporteur), Judges :
 M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy
 Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                     — in its assessment of all those conditions, the
 17 July 1997, in which it has ruled:                                          national court respects any decisions of the Court
 ---pagebreak--- C 318/2                  EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    18 . 10 . 97
          of Justice or the Court of First Instance ruling on               provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
          the lawfulness of the Community act or on an                      93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures
          application for interim measures seeking similiar                 for the award of public supply contracts, the Italian
          interim relief at Community level.                                Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
                                                                            first subparagraph of Article 34 (1 ) of that directive;
4 . The second paragraph of Article 177 of the EC                      2 . dismisses the remainder of the application;
     Treaty does not preclude a national court which has
     ordered suspension of implementation of a national
     administrative decision and referred to the Court for a           3 . orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
     preliminary ruling a question on the validity of the
      Community act on which the decision is based from
                                                                       (') OJ C 131 , 26 . 4 . 1997.
     granting leave to appeal against its decision.
(') OJ C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 16 September 1997
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                              in Case C-279/94: Commission of the European
                          ( Sixth Chamber)                                           Communities v. Italian Republic ( l )
                           of 17 July 1997                             (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                       Obligation to give prior notification pursuant to Directive
        in Case C-43/97: Commission of the European                                                  83/189/EEC)
               Communities v. Italian Republic ( 1 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 318/03 )
(Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 93/36/EEC —
       Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                            ( 97/C 318/02 )
                                                                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                  (Language of the case: Italian)                                 published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                       In Case C-279/94: Commission of the European
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be        Communities ( Agents : Antonio Aresu, then Paolo
           published in the European Court Reports)                    Stancanelli ) v. Italian Republic ( Agent: Umberto Leanza,
                                                                       assisted by Pier Giorgio Ferri ) — application for a
                                                                       declaration that, in adopting Law No 257 of 27 March
In Case C-43/97: Commission of the European                            1992 laying down rules concerning the cessation of the
Communities ( Agent: Paolo Stancanelli ) v. Italian Republic           use of asbestos, without having notified the draft Law to
( Agent: Professor Umberto Leanza, assisted by Ivo                     the Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil
M. Braguglia ) — application for a declaration that, by                its obligations pursuant to the first subparagraph of
failing to adopt within the prescribed period the laws,                Article 8 ( 1 ) — or, in the alternative, Article 9(1 ) — of
regulations and administrative provisions necessary to                 Council Directive 83/189/EEC of 28 March 1983 laying
comply with Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June                     down a procedure for the provision of information in the
1993 coordinating procedures for the award of public                   field of technical standards and regulations ( OJ L 109,
supply contracts ( OJ L 199, 9 . 8 . 1993 , p. 1 ) and by              26 . 4. 1983 , p. 8 ), as amended by Directive 88/182/EEC
failing to notify those provisions, the Italian Republic has           ( OJ L 81 , 26 . 3 . 1988 , p. 75 ) — the Court ( Sixth
failed to fulfil its obligations under the first subparagraph          Chamber), composed of: G. F. Mancini, President of the
of Article 34(1 ) of that Directive — the Court ( Sixth                Chamber, J. L. Murray, G. Hirsch, H. Ragnemalm
Chamber), composed of: G. F. Mancini, President of the                 ( Rapporteur) and R. Schintgen, Judges; N. Fennelly,
Chamber, J. L. Murray, G. Hirsch, H. Ragnemalm                         Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
( Rapporteur ) and R. Schintgen, Judges; C. O. Lenz,                   Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 September 1997, in
                                                                       which it:
Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment
on 17 July 1997, in which it:
                                                                        1 . declares that, in adopting Law No 257 of 27 March
                                                                             1992 laying down rules concerning the cessation of
 1 . declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed                the use of asbestos, without having notified the draft
      period the laws, regulations and administrative                        Law to the Commission, the Italian Republic has


title: Case C-45/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof, by order of that court of 14 December 2000 in the case of Christoph-Dornier-Stiftung für Klinische Psychologie against Finanzamt Giessen

text:
C 134/4                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                         5.5.2001
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfi-                      Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Special Com-
nanzhof, by order of that court of 14 December 2000                        missioners (United Kingdom), by order of 6 February
in the case of Christoph-Dornier-Stiftung für Klinische                    2001, in the case of Océ van der Grinten NV against
           Psychologie against Finanzamt Giessen                                           Inland Revenue Commissioners
                          (Case C-45/01)                                                             (Case C-58/01)
                         (2001/C 134/06)                                                            (2001/C 134/07)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof                       European Communities by an order of the Special Com-
(Federal Finance Court) of 14 December 2000, received at the               missioners (United Kingdom) of 6 February 2001, which was
Court Registry on 2 February 2001, for a preliminary ruling in             received at the Court Registry on 12 February 2001, for a
the case of Christoph-Dornier-Stiftung für Klinische Psycholog-            preliminary ruling in the case of Océ van der Grinten NV
ie against Finanzamt Giessen on the following questions:                   against Inland Revenue Commissioners, on the following
                                                                           questions:
1.   Does psychotherapeutic treatment, given in an out-
     patient facility provided by a foundation (charitable                 1.    In the circumstances set out in the Order for reference, is
     establishment) employing qualified psychologists who                        the 5 % charge specified in sub-paragraph (a)(ii) of
     are licensed under the Medical Practitioners Law (Heil-                     Article 10.3 of the UK/Netherlands Double Taxation
     praktikergesetz) but who are not registered as doctors,                     Convention 1980 (‘the 5 % charge’) a withholding tax on
     qualify as ‘closely related activities’ to hospital and medical             profits which a subsidiary distributes to its parent com-
     care within the meaning of Article 13A(1)(b) of Directive                   pany within article 5.1 of Council Directive
     77/388/EEC (1)?                                                             90/435/EEC (1) of 23 July 1990 (‘the Directive’)?
2.   In order for there to be an ‘other duly recognized                    2.    If the 5 % charge is such a withholding tax is its effect
     establishment of a similar nature’ within the meaning of                    preserved as a consequence of Article 7.2 of the Directive?
     Article 13A(1)(b) of Directive 77/388/EEC, must there be
     a formal recognition procedure or can recognition also
                                                                           3.    If the 5% charge is preserved only as a consequence of
     derive from other regulations (e.g. regulations concerning
                                                                                article 7.2 of the Directive, is Article 7.2 invalid for want
     the assumption of costs by authorities responsible for the
                                                                                of reasoning or failure to consult the ESC and the
     provision of social security) which apply equally to
                                                                                European Parliament, with the result that it does not have
     hospitals, centres for medical treatment and other estab-
                                                                                the effect of preserving the right of the United Kingdom
     lishments?
                                                                                to charge the 5 % tax?
     Is an exemption from tax unavailable to the extent that
     the authorities responsible for providing social security
     do not reimburse, or only partially reimburse, patients               (1) on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of
                                                                               parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States (OJ
     for the costs of psychotherapeutic treatment given by the                 L 225, 20.08.1990, p. 6).
     aforementioned employees of the plaintiff?
3.   Is the psychotherapeutic treatment provided by the
     plaintiff exempt from tax on the basis of the neutrality of
     value added tax, because the psychotherapists it employs
     could have provided the same treatment on a tax-exempt
     basis under Article 13A(1)(c) of Directive 77/388/EEC if
     they had provided it themselves as self-employed taxable
     persons?
                                                                           Action brought on 12 February 2001 by the Commission
4.   Is the plaintiff entitled to rely on the tax exemption of             of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
     its transactions involving psychotherapeutic treatment
     under Article 13A(1)(b) and (c) of Directive 77/388/EEC?                                        (Case C-59/01)
     Pending the decision of the Court of Justice of the
     European Communities, the appeal proceedings are
     stayed.                                                                                (2001/C 134/08)
                                                                           An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
(1) OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.                                                   Court of Justice of the European Communities on 12 February
                                                                           2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                           represented by Christina Tufvesson and Antonio Aresu, acting
                                                                           as Agents.


title: Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 February 2005 in Case C-250/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia in Giorgio Emanuele Mauri v Ministero della Giustizia, Commissione per gli esami di avvocato presso la Corte d'appello di Milano (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Access to the profession of advocate — Rules on the examination for authorisation to practise as an advocate)

text:
               14.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 115/8

      ORDER OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 17 February 2005
   in Case C-250/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia in Giorgio Emanuele Mauri v Ministero della Giustizia, Commissione per gli esami di avvocato presso la Corte d'appello di Milano (1)

   (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Access to the profession of advocate - Rules on the examination for authorisation to practise as an advocate)
   (2005/C 115/17)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case C-250/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia, (Italy), made by decision of 13 November 2002, received at the Court on 11 June 2003, in the proceedings between Giorgio Emanuele Mauri and Ministero della Giustizia, Commissione per gli esami di avvocato presso la Corte d'appello di Milano — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, R. Schintgen, J. Makarczyk and J. Klučka, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 17 February 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:
   Articles 81 EC, 82 EC and 43 EC do not preclude a rule, such as that laid down by Article 22 of Royal Decree-Law No 1578 of 27 November 1933, in the version applicable at the time of the facts in the main proceedings, which provides that, in connection with the examination regulating access to the profession of advocate, the examination committee is to be composed of five members appointed by the Minister for Justice, namely two judges, a professor of law and two advocates, the latter being nominated by the Consiglio nazionale forense (National Bar Council) on a joint proposal by the bar councils of the district concerned.

      (1)  OJ C 200 of 23.08.2003.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Second Chamber) by judgment of that court of 9 April 1997 in the case of Fazenda Pública against Antram - Associação Nacional de Transportes Públicos Rodoviários de Mercadorias (Case C-205/97)

text:
 No C 252/14           I EN [               Official Journal of the European Communities                                  16 . 8 . 97
 Lisboa ( Local Civil Court, Lisbon) for a preliminary ruling           1 . The application for interim measures is dismissed.
 in the proceedings pending before that court between
 Banco de Fomento e Exterior SA and Amândio Mauricio
                                                                       2.    The costs are reserved.
 Martins Pechim, Maria de Luz Lima Barros Raposo
 Pechim and Confecções Têxteis de Vouzela Ld? ( CTV) on
 the interpretation of Articles 59, 90 and 92 of the EC
 Treaty — the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez
 Iglesias, President, G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de
 Almeida ( Rapporteur ), J. L. Murray and L. Sevón
 ( Presidents of Chambers ), C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G.                  Action brought on 25 February 1997 by the Region
 Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet,               Wallone against the Commission of the European
 G. Hirsch, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet and R.                                              Communities
 Schintgen, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate                                           ( Case C-95/97)
 General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 30 June
 1997, in which it has held:                                                                      ( 97/C 252/27)
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European
 The request for a preliminary ruling submitted by the
 Tribunal Cível da Comarca de Lisboa is inadmissible.
                                                                       Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
                                                                       the European Communities on 25 February 1997 by the
                                                                       Region Wallone, represented by Jean-Marie de Backer,
 (') OJ No C 108 , 5 . 4. 1997 .                                       Olivier Ralet and Georges Vandersanden, of the Brussels
                                                                       Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                       Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange.
                                                                       The applicant seeks the annulment of the Commission's
                                                                       decision of 18 December 1996 entitled ' Steel ECSC —
                                                                       Forges de Clabecq'.
      ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT
                         of 21 March 1997                              By order of 21 March 1997 the Court referred the case to
                                                                       the Court of First Instance .
in Case C-l 10/97 R: Kingdom of the Netherlands v.
Council of the European Union, supported by
Commission of the European Communities and Italian
                              Republic
 (Application for interim measures — System of association
 of the overseas countries and territories — Safeguard                 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supremo
           measure — Serious and irreparable loss)                    Tribunal Administrativo ( Second Chamber) by judgment
                            97/C 252/26 )
                                                                      of that court of 9 April 1997 in the case of Fazenda
                                                                      Publica against Antram — Associaçao Nacional de
                                                                             Transportes Públicos Rodoviários de Mercadorias
                 (Language of the case: Dutch)                                                ( Case C-205/97 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 252/28 )
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
          published in the European Court Reports)                    European Communities by judgment of the Second
                                                                      Chamber of the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo
                                                                      ( Supreme Administrative Court) of 9 April 1997, which
In Case C-l 10/97 R: Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agent:               was received at the Court Registry on 29 May 1997, for a
Marc Fierstra ) v. Council of the European Union (Agents:             preliminary ruling in the case of Fazenda Publica against
Ramon Torrent, Jürgen Huber and Guus Houttuin ),                      Antram — Associaçao Nacional de Transportes Públicos
supported by Commission of the European Communities                   Rodoviários de Mercadorias on the following questions :
( Agent: Thomas van Rijn ) and Italian Republic ( Agent:
Professor Umberto Leanza, assisted by Francesca Quadri,
Avvocato dello Stato) — application for suspension of                  1 . Does Article 243 et seq. of the CCC (') preclude
                                                                            a national court from ordering suspension of
operation, as regards imports of rice originating in the
Dutch Antilles and Aruba, of Council Regulation ( EC )
                                                                            implementation of a decision taken by that customs
No 304/97 of 17 February 1997 introducing safeguard                         authority, against which an appeal has been lodged,
                                                                            directly, that is without the need to submit such an
measures in respect of rice originating in the overseas
                                                                            application to the customs authority ?
countries and territories ( OJ No L 51 , 21 . 2 . 1997, p. 1 ),
or other interim measures — the President of the Court
has made an order on 21 March 1997, the operative part                2 . Does Article 243 et seq. of the CCC preclude a
of which is as follows :                                                    national court from suspending a decision taken by the
 ---pagebreak--- 16 . 8 . 97             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 252/ 15
     customs authority in the context of an appeal against              2 . order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
     a decision by which that authority rejected the                           costs .
     application for suspension of operation brought by the
     person concerned .                                                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
3 . In the light of the first sentence of the third paragraph
     of Article 244 of the CCC, must it be considered that              The pleas in law and main arguments are apparent from
     suspension of operation is subject only to the existence           the heads of claim . As regards the complaint made
     or lodging of a security or must the conditions laid               in the third indent in paragraph 1 above, the
     down in the preceding paragraph also be fulfilled ?                Commission maintains that to equate, in conceptual
                                                                        terms, 'preliminary investigation proceedings' with
                                                                        ' administrative proceedings' would be tantamount to
(') Common Customs Code ( OJ No L 302 , 19 . 10 . 1992 , p . 1 ).
                                                                        excluding a wholly material range of environmental
                                                                        information, such as, for example, experts' reports on the
                                                                        state of water or soil or the position adopted by a public
                                                                        authority in the context of proceedings for the grant of
                                                                        planning approval .
Action brought on 9 June 1997 by the Commission of the
European Communities against the Federal Republic of                    ( ] ) OJ No L 158 , 23 . 6 . 1990, p . 56 .
                              Germany
                          ( Case C-217/97 )
                             97/C 252/29
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                   Action brought on 12 June 1997 by the Commission of
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                     the European Communities against the Federal Republic
Communities on 9 June 1997 by the Commission of the                                                     of Germany
European Communities, represented by Gotz zur Hausen,                                               ( Case C-220/97)
Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service
in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,                                               ( 97/C 252/30
of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre C 254 , Kirchberg.
                                                                        An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
The applicant claims that the Court should :                            brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                        Communities on 12 June 1997 by the Commission of the
1 . declare that,
                                                                        European Communities , represented by Gotz zur Hausen,
     — by excluding courts, criminal prosecution                        Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service
          authorities and disciplinary authorities from the             in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
          scope of the German legislation, contrary to                  of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.
          Article 2 ( b ) of Council Directive 90/313/EEC of
          7 June 1990 (') on the freedom of access to                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
          information on the environment, even where they
          are not acting in the context of their judicial               1 . declare that, by failing within the prescribed period to
          activities,                                                          adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative
                                                                               measures necessary in order to comply with Council
     — by failing, contrary to the second subparagraph of                      Directive 92/3/Euratom of 3 February 1992 (') on the
          Article 3 ( 2 ) of the Directive, to provide for
                                                                               supervision and control of shipments of radioactive
          information to be supplied in part where it is                       waste between Member States and into and out of the
          possible to separate out information concerning                      Community, the Federal Republic of Germany has
          the reserved matters listed in Article 3 (2 ),
                                                                               failed to fulfil its obligations under the Euratom
     — by failing, contrary to the third indent of                             Treaty;
          Article 3 ( 2 ), to provide for access to be given,
          during the course of administrative proceedings, to           2 . order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
          information received by the authorities by reason                    costs .
          of those proceedings,
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     — by providing, contrary to Article 5 , for charges to
          be made not merely for the supply of the
          information and by not limiting those charges to a            The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third
          reasonable sum,                                               paragraph of Article 161 and the first paragraph of
                                                                        Article 192 of the Euratom Treaty is such as to oblige
     — the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to                    Member States to whom directives             are addressed to
          fulfil its obligations under the abovementioned               achieve the objectives laid down therein within the time
          directive, in particular Article 2 ( b ), the third           limit prescribed, that is to say, to transpose the provisions
          indent of Article 3 ( 2 ), the second subparagraph of         of the directive in question into national law in such a
          Article 3 (2 ) and Article 5 thereof;                         way as to give full practical effect to its provisions before


title: Case C-379/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties Tribunal, London, by decision of that court of 24 March 2000, in the case of Overland Footwear Ltd (formerly Overland Shoes Ltd) against the Commissioners of Customs and Excise

text:
C 355/14               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    9.12.2000
Action brought on 13 October 2000 by the Commission                     —    Infringement of the letter and the purpose of Decision
of the European Communities against the European                             1999/468/EC: The choice of the regulatory procedure for
    Parliament and the Council of the European Union                         the implementation of the LIFE programme goes against
                                                                             the objective of clarifying comitology procedures
                                                                             expressly referred to in Decision 1999/468/EC.
                         (Case C-378/00)
                                                                        (1) OJ 2000 L 192, p. 1.
                         (2000/C 355/27)                                (2) OJ 1999 L 184, p. 23.
An action against the European Parliament and the Council of
the European Union was brought before the Court of Justice
of the European Communities on 13 October 2000 by the
Commission of the European Communities, represented by
Dominique Maidani, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with
an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties
Gómez de la Cruz, of the same service, Wagner Centre,                  Tribunal, London, by decision of that court of 24 March
Kirchberg.                                                              2000, in the case of Overland Footwear Ltd (formerly
                                                                        Overland Shoes Ltd) against the Commissioners of Cus-
                                                                                toms and Excise
The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should:
                                                                                (Case C-379/00)
1.    annul Regulation (EC) No 1655/2000 of the European
                                                                                (2000/C 355/28)
      Parliament and of the Council of 17 July 2000 concerning
      the Financial Instrument for the Environment (LIFE) (1) in
      so far as it makes adoption of the measures implementing          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      the LIFE programme subject to the regulatory procedure            European Communities by a decision of the VAT and Duties
      contained in Article 5 of Council Decision 1999/468/EC            Tribunal, London, of 24 March 2000, which was received at
      of 28 June 1999 (2);                                              the Court Registry on 16 October 2000, for a preliminary
                                                                        ruling in the case of Overland Footwear Ltd (formerly Overland
                                                                        Shoes Ltd) against the Commissioners of Customs and Excise,
2.    maintain the effects of the above-mentioned regulation            on the following questions:
      until its amendment, to take place as soon as possible
      after the Court’s judgment;
                                                                        On the basis of the Council Regulation 2913/92 (1) (‘the
                                                                        Customs Code’), in particular Articles 29, 32 and 33 thereof,
3.    order the defendants to pay the costs.                            and the case law of the Court, where, at the time of customs
                                                                        clearance, an importer inadvertently declares as the price paid
                                                                        or payable for the goods an amount inclusive of buying
                                                                        commission and inadvertently fails to show the buying
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         commission separately on the import declaration from the
                                                                        price actually paid or payable but, after the goods have been
—     Infringement of Article 2 of Directive 1999/468/EC: By            released into free circulation, shows to the satisfaction of the
      providing that programmes with substantial budgetary              Customs authorities that the declared price paid or payable for
      implications should be subject to the management pro-             the goods included bona fide buying commission, which could
      cedure, Article 2(a) is obviously intended to make the            have been properly deducted at importation, and makes a
      implementation of all those programmes subject to that            claim for repayment of the duty paid on the buying com-
      procedure. In this case, the executive measures to be             mission within three years of the date on which amount of
      taken under Regulation 1655/2000 are management                   customs duty was communicated:
      measures. The task in question is to establish, on the basis
      of proposals for projects sent by the Member States, the          1.   Could the bona fide buying commission be dutiable as
      list of projects eligible for financing, after checking                part of the price actually paid or payable for the goods
      compliance with all the conditions and criteria set out in             under Article 29 of the Customs Code?
      the basic regulation. It is also a question of establishing
      guidelines strictly linked to the management of the LIFE          2.   If the answer to question 1 is negative, could the bona
      programme, in accordance with Article 4(4) of the                      fide buying commission be deductible from the declared
      regulation.                                                            transaction value bearing in mind the provisions of
                                                                             Articles 32.3 and 33 of the Customs Code?
      If Article 2(a) of Decision 1999/468/EC is not to be              3.   In such circumstances are the customs authorities obliged
      deprived of all purpose, only specific grounds may justify             under the Customs Code, and in particular Article 78.3
      the legislature derogating in a particular case from the               thereof, to accept the amendment to the price paid or
      procedure laid down, indicating the grounds which led it               payable for the imported goods and thereby reduced
      to use a different procedure from that prescribed.                     customs value?
 ---pagebreak--- 9.12.2000              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 355/15
4.    Is the importer therefor entitled under the Customs Code,         Does Community law, in particular Council Directive
      and in particular Article 236 thereof, to a refund of the         92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992 (1), preclude national legis-
      duty paid on the buying commission?                               lation which provides that a life-assurance proposal or, in the
                                                                        absence of a proposal, a life-assurance policy must inform a
                                                                        policy-holder that termination, reduction or redemption of an
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992
                                                                        existing life-assurance contract for the purpose of subscribing
    establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ L 302,
    19.10.1992, p. 1).                                                  to a separate life-assurance contract will generally be detrimen-
                                                                        tal to that policy-holder?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de lo
                                                                        (1) Council Directive 92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992 on the
Social no 1, Pontevedra, by order of that court of                          coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions
28 September 2000 in the case of Marı́a Gardenia Abal                       relating to direct life assurance and amending Directives
Pombo against Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social                     79/267/EEC and 90/619/EEC (third life assurance Directive) (OJ
        and Tesorerı́a General de la Seguridad Social                       1992 L 360, p. 1).
                         (Case C-382/00)
                        (2000/C 355/29)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Juzgado de lo Social               Action brought on 23 October 2000 by the European
(Social Court) no 1, Pontevedra, Spain, of 28 September 2000,              Parliament against the Council of the European Union
received at the Court Registry on 18 October 2000, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Marı́a Gardenia Abal Pombo
against Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (National                                      (Case C-387/00)
Social Security Institute) and Tesorerı́a General de la Seguridad
Social (General Social Security Fund) on the following question:
                                                                                (2000/C 355/31)
Where, in order for a worker (male or female) who is part of a
family in which other family members are working to be
insured under a special social security scheme for agricultural         An action against the Council of the European Union was
workers, a rule imposes a requirement that the income earned            brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
from the activity to which the scheme applies must be the               ties on 23 October 2000 by the European Parliament,
family’s main income, in the sense of being the highest income,         represented by Ricardo Passos, Head of Division, and Antonio
is the rule contrary to the provisions of Council Directive             Caiola, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address
79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978(1)?                                        for service in Luxembourg at the Post and Registration
                                                                        Department, Bâtiment Tour — Office 017.
(1) OJ L 6, 10.1.1979, p. 24.
                                                                        The European Parliament claims that the Court should:
                                                                        —     Annul, pursuant to Article 230 EC:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d’Appel                        —     Council Decision 2000/527/EC of 14 August 2000
de Bruxelles (Ninth Chamber) by judgment of 17 October                              amending Decision 93/731/EC on public access to
2000 in the case of Axa Royale Belge v Georges Ochoa                                Council documents and Council Decision
                   and Stratégie Finance Sprl                                       2000/23/EC on the improvement of information on
                                                                                the Council’s legislative activities and the public
                         (Case C-386/00)                                            register of Council documents(1);
                        (2000/C 355/30)                                       —     Decision 2000/C239/01 of the Secretary-General of
                                                                                the Council/High Representative for the Common
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                              Foreign and Security Policy of 27 July 2000 on
European Communities by judgment of 17 October 2000 by                              measures for the protection of classified information
the Cour d’Appel de Bruxelles (Brussels Court of Appeal)                            applicable to the General Secretariat of the
(Ninth Chamber), which was received at the Court Registry on                        Council(2), and
23 October 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Axa
Royale Belge v Georges Ochoa and Stratégie Finance Sprl on
the following question:                                                 —     Order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case T-41/09: Judgment of the General Court of 28 March 2012 — Hipp v OHIM — Nestlé (Bebio) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark Bebio — Earlier Community word mark and international word mark BEBA — Partial refusal of registration — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/14

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 March 2012 — Hipp v OHIM — Nestlé (Bebio)
   (Case T-41/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark Bebio - Earlier Community word mark and international word mark BEBA - Partial refusal of registration - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2012/C 138/25
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Hipp & Co. KG (Sachseln, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey and A. Bognár, 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, intervening before the General Court: Société des produits Nestlé SA (Vevey, Switzerland) (represented: initially by I. Valdelomar Serrano and subsequently by R. Mottola and D. Gabarre Armengol, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 November 2008 (Case R 1790/2007-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Société des Produits Nestlé, S.A. and Hipp & Co KG

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Hipp & Co. KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 4.4.2009.


title: Cases T-56/09 and T-73/09: Judgment of the General Court of 27 March 2014 — Saint-Gobain Glass France and Others v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market in car glass — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Market-sharing agreements and exchanges of commercially sensitive information — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Plea of illegality — Fines — Retroactive application of the 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Value of sales — Repeated infringement — Additional amount — Imputability of the unlawful conduct — Upper limit of the fine — Consolidated turnover of the group)

text:
               19.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 27 March 2014 — Saint-Gobain Glass France and Others v Commission
   (Cases T-56/09 and T-73/09) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market in car glass - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Market-sharing agreements and exchanges of commercially sensitive information - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Plea of illegality - Fines - Retroactive application of the 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Value of sales - Repeated infringement - Additional amount - Imputability of the unlawful conduct - Upper limit of the fine - Consolidated turnover of the group))
   2014/C 151/20
   Language of the cases: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Saint-Gobain Glass France SA (Courbevoie, France); Saint-Gobain Sekurit Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG (Aachen, Germany); Saint-Gobain Sekurit France SAS (Thourotte, France) (represented: initially by B. van de Walle de Ghelcke, B. Meyring, E. Venot and M. Guillaumond, and subsequently by B. van de Walle de Ghelcke, B. Meyring and E. Venot, lawyers) (Case T-56/09); and Compagnie de Saint-Gobain SA (Courbevoie) (represented by: P. Hubert and E. Durand, lawyers) (Case T-73/09)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by A. Bouquet, F. Castillo de la Torre, M. Kellerbauer and N. von Lingen, and subsequently by A. Bouquet, F. Castillo de la Torre, M. Kellerbauer and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: E. Karlsson and F. Florindo Gijón, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Applications for the annulment of Commission Decision C (2008) 6815 final of 12 November 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (COMP/39.125 — Car glass), as amended by Commission Decision C (2009) 863 final of 11 February 2009, and by Decision C (2013) 1118 final of 28 February 2013, in so far as it concerns the applicants and, in the alternative, application for the annulment of Article 2 of that decision in so far is it imposes a fine on the applicants or, in the further alternative, applications for a reduction in the amount of that fine.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Joins Cases T-56/09 and T-73/09 for the purposes of the judgment;

               2.

               Sets the amount of the fine imposed jointly and severally on Saint-Gobain Glass France SA, Saint-Gobain Sekurit Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, Saint-Gobain Sekurit France SAS and Compagnie de Saint-Gobain SA in Article 2(b) of Commission Decision C (2008) 6815 final of 12 November 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (COMP/39.125 — Car glass), as amended by Commission Decision C (2009) 863 final of 11 February 2009, and by Decision C (2013) 1118 final of 28 February 2013, at EUR 715 million;

               3.

               Dismisses the actions as to the remainder;

               4.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs, with the exception of the Council of the European Union, the costs of which are to be borne by Saint-Gobain Glass France, Saint-Gobain Sekurit Deutschland and Saint-Gobain Sekurit France.

      (1)  OJ C 90, 18.4.2009.


title: Case C-501/00: Action brought on 29 December 2000 by the Kingdom of Spain against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
10.3.2001               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 79/13
(a)   as regards admissibility: the European Parliament dis-               The applicant claims that the Court should:
      putes, first of all, the Court of First Instance’s characteris-
      ation of the letter of 19 November 1998 of the two
      Italian Vice-presidents of the European Parliament as the            —     annul the Commission’s decision of 31 October 2000
      ‘applicants’ application for membership’. According to                     declaring that the Spanish legislation on the exemption
      the Court of First Instance, that application for member-                  from corporation tax of expenditure and investments
      ship was made on behalf of the applicants. In the                          made abroad constitutes aid which is incompatible with
      opinion of the Parliament, that is an apoditic assertion,                  the common market and prohibited by Article 4(c) of the
      unsupported by reasons and having no basis in relevant                     ECSC Treaty;
      provisions of law, or in practice;
                                                                           —     order the defendant institution to pay the costs.
(b) again, as regards admissibility: the Parliament also dis-
     putes the Court of First Instance’s characterisation of the
     College of Quaestors’ letter of 4 February 1999 as a
     decision. Rather, it was merely a communication from
     the quaestors of the European Parliament for the purposes             Pleas in law and main arguments
     of providing information and as a courtesy, and, in any
     event, did no more than confirm the existing situation, of
                                                                           —     Infringement of the procedure laid down by law and
     which the Members of Parliament in question were
                                                                                breach of the principles of legal certainty, of the right
     already perfectly well aware. Moreover, the informal and
                                                                                to a fair hearing and of the protection of legitimate
     atypical requests the applicants made of the quaestors
                                                                                expectations: by not adopting the decision within the
     place them outside the scope of every applicable rule and
                                                                                time-limit prescribed by Article 6(5) of Decision
     every procedure (such as that provided for in Article
                                                                                2496/96/ECSC, the Commission failed to observe the
     27(2) of the Rules Governing the Payment of Expenses
                                                                                procedure laid down by the latter decision, on which the
     and Allowances to Members);
                                                                                contested decision is based. Moreover, the contested
                                                                                decision was adopted contrary to the legitimate expec-
(c)  lastly, as to the substance: the European Parliament                        tations of both the Member State to which it was
     maintains that the Court of First Instance erred in law                     addressed and the undertakings affected by it. Following
     when, reversing the burden of proof and thus committing                     the finalisation of the preparatory documents, the Com-
     a breach of procedure, it found that the Parliament had                     mission failed to give its definitive decision within the
     ‘not proved that the Members had acquired precise                           legal time-limit of three months; it allowed several years
     knowledge of the amending decision more than six                            to elapse following the expiry of the deadline for the
     months before they submitted their applications’, and                       adoption of a decision, and may thus reasonably be
     concluded that ‘the applicants submitted their appli-                       considered to have engendered a legitimate expectation
     cations for membership of the provisional pension                           that the measures in issue were not regarded as contrary
     scheme within the time-limit laid down in the amendment                     to the Treaty in the light of the investigation initiated in
     to Annex III’.                                                              1997.
                                                                           —     Infringement of Article 15 ECSC, on account of the
                                                                                absence of a statement of reasons concerning the change
                                                                                of criterion and the effect of the legislation on the
                                                                                competitiveness of the national products exported.
                                                                           —     Misapplication of Article 4(c) of the ECSC Treaty: non-
                                                                                existence of any aid or subsidy within the meaning of
Action brought on 29 December 2000 by the Kingdom of
                                                                                that provision: automatically to assimilate the concept of
Spain against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                aid under that provision to aid under Article 87 EC
                                 ties
                                                                                could give rise to inconsistency, inasmuch as the effects
                                                                                produced by Article 87 EC are absolute and uncon-
                           (Case C-501/00)                                       ditional. The ECSC Treaty automatically prohibits aid by
                                                                                virtue of the very fact of accession to the ECSC; it does
                                                                                not require any assessment of the effects of such aid on
                            (2001/C 79/24)                                       competition, and does not regulate or deal with existing
                                                                                grants of aid, since all aid, past and future, is covered by
                                                                                the same prohibition. For that reason, it may be stated,
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                        on the basis of the case-law of the Court and of the aids
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                     code referred to, that the aid prohibited by Article 4(c) is
Communities on 29 December 2000 by the Kingdom of                                direct aid, whether or not specifically intended for ECSC
Spain, represented by Santiago Ortiz Vaamonde, Abogado del                       undertakings. Measures adopted by Member States which
Estado, acting as Agent, with an address for service in                          produce indirect effects or repercussions on competition
Luxembourg care of the Spanish Embassy, 4-6 Boulevard                            are subject to different rules, in particular Article 67 of
Emmanuel Servais.                                                                the ECSC Treaty.
 ---pagebreak--- C 79/14                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      10.3.2001
—     (In the event that the Court considers that the concept of          —     order the plaintiff to pay the costs of the proceedings,
      aid as contained in Article 4(c) of the ECSC Treaty is the                including those incurred by the Bundesverband der
      same as that in Article 87 EC:)                                           Arzneimittel-Importeure e.V. through its intervention,
                                                                                but excluding the costs of the intervention of the
      Non-existence of aid within the meaning of Article 87                     European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries’ Associ-
      EC: it is characteristic of fiscal rules that they should be              ations, which the latter should bear itself.
      aimed at the achievement of general economic policy
      objectives. The Spanish fiscal rules in issue are designed
      to promote the internationalisation of undertakings. The
      deductibility for tax purposes does not, however, depend
      on the volume of exports; nor does it have any manifest
      effect on pricing. Its effect, like that of the other tax
      exemptions proposed, is limited to the actual amount of
      the sum assessed to tax. Nor can it simply be said that the         Pleas in law and main arguments
      taxable steelworks in Spain will be given an advantage
      over those in other countries, since it is necessary to take
      into account all factors which affect the actual taxation
      of those liable to tax. Even assuming that the measures             —     Failure to take full account of the facts as found by the
      applying in certain Member States are not analogous to                    Commission: The Court held that there was no agreement
      those under consideration in the present case, the actual                 because, as it found, Bayer did not carry out any
      tax burden on taxable steelworks in Spain may be said to                  monitoring of the final destination of the goods supplied
      be lower than that in other Member States.                                to the French and Spanish wholesalers. In fact, however,
                                                                                as is apparent from the documents submitted by the
                                                                                Commission, such controls did take place, even if in some
                                                                                cases only by way of spot checks.
                                                                          —     Erroneous assessment of the evidence owing to a disre-
Appeal brought on 5 January 2001 by the Bundesverband                           gard of the rules on the burden of proof: The Court of
der Arzneimittel-Importeure e.V. against the judgment                           First Instance wrongly perceived the burden of proof that
delivered on 26 October 2000 by the Fifth Chamber,                              an unlawful agreement came into being between Bayer
Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of                         and the wholesalers concerned in Spain and France as
the European Communities in Case T-41/96 between                                lying with the Commission. The wholesalers were aware
Bayer AG, supported by the European Federation of                               that Bayer’s intention was to impose quotas on quantities
Pharmaceutical Industries’ Associations and the Com-                            supplied with the aim of stopping exports. They were
mission of the European Communities, supported by the                           directly confronted with that demand for the imposition
     Bundesverband der Arzneimittel-Importeure e.V.                             of quotas. They then became involved in the imposition
                                                                                of quotas on supply quantities. There was no need for
                          (Case C-2/01 P)                                       any further proof by the Commission that that was done
                                                                                for the purpose of hindering exports. On a proper legal
                                                                                assessment, it follows from the undisputed facts that the
                          (2001/C 79/25)                                        evidence collected by the Commission is already prima
                                                                                facie sufficient to prove the existence of a corresponding
                                                                                agreement.
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 26 October 2000
by the Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-41/96 (1)
between Bayer AG, supported by the European Federation of
Pharmaceutical Industries’ Associations and the Commission                —     Misapplication of the concept of an agreement: For an
of the European Communities, supported by the Bundesver-                        appraisal of Article 81 EC, it is sufficient that the
band der Arzneimittel-Importeure e.V. was brought before the                    wholesalers became involved in the demands of Bayer
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 January                       that exports be restricted.
2001 by the Bundesverband der Arzneimittel-Importeure
e.V., represented by U. Zinsmeister and W.A. Rehmann,
Rechtsanwälte, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                                The mere fact that wholesalers initially refused to bend to
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                     Bayer’s policy and made attempts to circumvent it, does
                                                                                not, under the case-law of the Court of Justice, mean that
—     set aside the decision of the Court of First Instance of                  there was no concordance of wills. Rather, the latter can
      26 October 2000 in Case T-41/96 and dismiss the claim                     be inferred from the way in which the wholesalers
      by the plaintiff at first instance, or in the alternative refer           eventually behaved, which the Court established. The
      the matter back to the Court of First Instance;                           wholesalers accepted the quota measures.


title: Case F-16/14: Action brought on 24 February 2014  — ZZ v Commission

text:
               10.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/54

         Action brought on 24 February 2014 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-16/14)
   2014/C 175/77
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the decision on the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights to the European Union pension scheme which applies the new GIP relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               declare unlawful Article 9 of the general provisions implementing Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations;

               —

               annul the decision of 24 May 2013 to calculate the accredited pension rights acquired by the applicant before his entry into service, in the context of the transfer of those rights to the pension scheme of the institutions of the European Union, pursuant to the general provisions implementing Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 24 October 1996 in Case C-325/95: Commission of the European Communities v. Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directives 91/67/EEC, 91/492/EEC, 91/493/EEC and 92/48/EEC - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
No C 388/2           LEN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         21 . 12 . 96
a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before                 1 . declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
that Court between Konservenfabrik Lubella Friedrich                         period the measures necessary in order to comply with
Bilker GmbH & Co. KG and Hauptzollamt Cottbus on                             Council Directive 90/219/EEC of 23 April 1990 on
the validity of Commission Regulation (EEC ) No 1932/93                      the contained use of genetically modified micro
of 16 July 1993 establishing protective measures as                          organisms, and Council Directive 90/220/EEC of
regards the import of sour cherries ( OJ No L 174, 17. 7.                    23 April 1990 on the deliberate release into the
1993 , p. 35 ) — the Court (Third Chamber ), composed of:                    environment of genetically modified organisms, the
J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, President of the Chamber, C.                      Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet ( Rapporteur)                    obligations under Articles 22 and 23 of those
and P. Jann, Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General; R.                       Directives respectively;
Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 17 October 1996,
the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                       2 . orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the
                                                                             costs .
 Consideration of the questions referred to the Court has
disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity           ( i ) OJ No C 315 , 2.5 . 11 . 1995 .
of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1932/93 establishing
protective measures as regards the import of sour cherries.
 (!) OJ No C 101 , 22 . 4 . 1995 .
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 24 October 1996
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  in     Case    C-325/95 :        Commission       of the   European
                                                                                Communities v. Ireland C1 )
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                        (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations —
                        of 17 October 1996                             Directives 91/67/EEC, 91/492/EEC, 91/493/EEC and 92/
 in     Case C-3 12/95 : Commission of the European                     48/EEC — Failure to transpose within the prescribed
        Communities v. Grand Duchy of Luxembourg 0 )                                                     period)
                                                                                ( 96/C 388/04 )
 (Failure to fulfil obligations — Council Directives 90/219/
  EEC and 90/220/EEC — Genetically modified organisms)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                            ( 96/C 388/03 )
                                                                        In Case C-325/95 : Commission of the European
                  (Language of the case: French)                        Communities ( Agent: Carmel O'Reilly) v. Ireland ( Agent:
                                                                        Michael A. Buckley ) — application for a declaration that,
                                                                        by failing to bring into force the laws, regulations or
    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be        administrative provisions necessary to comply with:
            published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                        — Council Directive 91/67/EEC of 28 January 1991
                                                                              concerning the animal health conditions governing the
 In Case C-312/95 : Commission of the European                                placing on the market of aquaculture animals and
  Communities ( Agent: Frank Benyon) v. Grand Duchy of                        products ( OJ No L 46 , 19 . 2 . 1991 , p. 1 ),
  Luxembourg (Agent: Nicolas Schmidt) — application for a
  declaration that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
  period the measures necessary in order to comply with                 — Council Directive 91 /492/EEC of 15 July 1991 laying
  Council Directive 90/219/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the                        down the health conditions for the production and the
  contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms ( OJ                  placing on the market of live bivalve molluscs ( OJ No
  No L 117, 8 . 5 . 1990, p. 1 ), and Council Directive 90/                   L 268 , 24 . 9 . 1991 , p. 1 ),
  220/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the deliberate release into
  the environment of genetically modified organisms ( OJ No             — Council Directive 91/493/EEC of 22 July 1991 laying
  L 117, 8 . 5 . 1990, p. 15 ), the Grand Duchy of                            down the health conditions for the production and the
  Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under                       placing on the market of fishery products ( OJ No
  Articles 22 and 23 of those Directives respectively and                     L 268 , 24 . 9 . 1991 , p. 15 ), and
  under Articles 5 and 189 of the EC Treaty, the Court
  ( Fifth Chamber), composed of: J. C. Moitinho de
  Almeida, President of the Chamber, L. Sevon                           — Council Directive 92/48/EEC of 16 June 1992 laying
  ( Rapporteur), C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward and M.                           down the minimum hygiene rules applicable to fishery
  Wathelet, Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate-General; R.                       products caught on board certain vessels in accordance
  Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 October                        with Article 3 ( 1 ) ( a ) ( i ) of Directive 91/493/EEC ( OJ
  1 996 in which it:                                                          No L 187, 7 . 7. 1992, p. 41 ),
 ---pagebreak--- 21 . 12 . 96           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 388/3
Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under those              21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws,
Directives — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of:                regulations and administrative provisions relating to the
J. L. Murray, President of the Fourth Chamber, acting for             application of review procedures to the award of public
the President of the Sixth Chamber, C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G.          supply and public works contracts (*), the Hellenic
Kapteyn, G. Hirsch and H. Ragnemalm ( Rapporteur),                    Republic is in breach of its obligations under the Treaty
Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar,             and, more specifically, Directive 89/665/EEC.
gave a judgment on 24 October 1996 , in which it:
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
1 . declares that, ,by failing to adopt within the prescribed
     period the laws, regulations or administrative                   In the Commission's view, the Greek legislation does not
     provisions necessary to comply with :                            meet fully the requirements of Articles 1 and 2 of
                                                                      Directive 89/665/EEC, in particular with regard to the
     — Council Directive 91 /67/EEC of 28 January 1991                possibility of setting aside administrative decisions, the
          concerning the animal health conditions governing           taking of interim measures, the implementation of
          the placing on the market of aquaculture animals            decisions of the national courts against the administration
          and products,                                               and the award of damages in cases of unlawful failure to
     — Council Directive 91 /492/EEC of 15 July 1991                  award contracts . The Commission also considers that the
          laying down the health conditions for the                   practice of the Hellenic Republic whereby the more
          production and the placing on the market of live            important public works contracts are ratified by law, with
          bivalve molluscs,                                           the result that individuals cannot challenge the award and
                                                                      the relevant contract, is contrary to the general principle
     — Council Directive 91 /493/EEC of 22 July 1991                  of Community law concerning effective legal protection of
          laying down the health conditions for the                   rights under Community law.
          production and the placing on the market of
          fishery products, and                                       (!) OJ No L 395 , 30 . 12 . 1989 , p. 33 .
     — Council Directive 92/48/EEC of 16 June 1992
          laying down the minimum hygiene rules applicable
          to fishery products caught on board certain vessels
          in accordance with Article 3 (1 ) (a) (i) of Directive
          91 /493/EEC,                                                Action brought on 14 October 1996 by the Commission
                                                                      of the European Communities against Industrial Refuse
     Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under                                  and Coal Energy Limited
     Article 29 (1 ) of Directive 91 /67, the first paragraph                                 ( Case C-337/96 )
     of Article 15 of Directive 91 /492, the first paragraph
     of Article 18 of Directive 91 /493 and the first                                            ( 96/C 388/06 )
     paragraph of Article 4 of Directive 92/48;
                                                                      An action against Industrial Refuse and Coal Energy
2 . orders Ireland to pay the costs.                                  Limited was brought before the Court of Justice of the
                                                                      European Communities on 14 October 1996 by the
(M OJ No C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .                                      Commission of the European Communities, represented
                                                                      by Mr Thomas F. Cusack, Legal Adviser, acting as Agent,
                                                                      assisted by Mr Fergus Randolph, Barrister, of the English
                                                                      Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                      office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, a member of its Legal
Action brought on 10 October 1996 by the Commission                   Service, Centre Wagner, Kirchberg.
of the European Communities against the Hellenic
                             Republic                                 The applicant claims that the Court should :
                          Case C-335 /96 )                            1 . order the defendant to pay the Commission the sum of
                           96/C 388/05 )                                  ECU 242 234 together with continuing interest for late
                                                                          payment at the rate of 8,15 % from 20 October 1993 ;
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought                   2 . order the defendant to pay the costs.
before the Court of Justice on 10 October 1996 by the
Commission of the European Communities, represented                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
by Hendrik Van Lier, Legal Adviser to the Commission,
and Dimitris Triantafillou, of its Legal Service, with an             The action, brought under an arbitration clause, seeks the
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos             recovery of financial support granted by the applicant to
Gomez de la Cruz, also of the Commission's Legal                      the defendant for undertaking the conversion of an
Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                    existing transfer station to electrical power generation
                                                                      from the preparation of raw urban waste . The
The applicant claims that the Court should declare that,              Commission has withdrawn from the contract between the
by failing to take the necessary measures, within the                 parties, concluded under the law of England, because the
period prescribed, on public works procurement, to ensure             defendant has failed to comply with his obligations.
the correct application and effectiveness in practice of
Articles 1 and 2 of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of


title: Case C-454/07: Action brought on 10 August 2007 — Hervé Raulin v French Republic

text:
               19.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/7

         Action brought on 10 August 2007 — Hervé Raulin v French Republic
   (Case C-454/07)
   (2008/C 183/12)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Hervé Raulin (represented by: C. Vaucois, avocat)

      Defendant: French Republic
   By order of 16 May 2008, the Court (Fifth Chamber) declared that it clearly had no jurisdiction to decide the action and ordered the applicant to bear his own costs.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di Biella by order of that court of 30 March 1995 in the case of USSL 47 di Biella v. Istituto Nazionale per l'Assicurazione contro gli Infortuni sul Lavoro (Inail) (Case C-134/95)

text:
No C 159/20           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   24 . 6 . 95
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura                        Removal from the register of Case C-328/93 ( )
Circondariale di Biella by order of that court of 30 March                                      ( 95/C 159/41 )
1995 in the case of USSL 47 di Biella v. Istituto Nazionale
per l'Assicurazione contro gli Infortuni sul Lavoro ( Inail )
                                                                     By order of 7 April 1995 the President of the Court of Justice
                       ( Case C-134/95 )                             of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
                         ( 95/C 159/39 )                             register of Case C-328/93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                     from the Arbeitsgericht Munchen ): Carla Baeskow v.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the               Lebenshilfe für geistig Behinderte eV, Stadt- und Landkreis
European Communities by order of the Pretura                         Munchen .
Circondariale ( District Magistrate's Court), Biella, of
30 March 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry
on 24 April 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of           (M OJ No C 205 , 29 . 7. 1993 .
USSL 47 di Biella v. Istituto Nazionale per l'Assicurazione
contro gli Infortuni sul Lavoro (Inail ) on the following
questions :
Is Article 1(1 ) of Law No 1369 of 23 October 1960, read in
conjunction with Article 11 ( 1 ) of Law No 264 of
29 October 1949 , compatible with the Community
principles laid down in Articles 48 , 49 , 54 and 90 of the EC              Removal from the register of Case C-402/93 ( )
Treaty and do those principles have direct effect, with the                                        95/C 159/42 )
result that the Italian legislation has to be set aside ?
                                                                     By order of 3 April 1995 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                     of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
                                                                     register of Case C-402/93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura                  from the Arbeitsgericht Hamburg): Jutta Neumann v. Freie
Circondariale di Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli, by              und Hansestadt Hamburg.
orders of that court of 26 October 1994 (C-135/95 ) and
27 February 1995 ( C-140/95 and C-141/95 ) in criminal               (^ OJ No C 286 , 22 . 10 . 1993 .
proceedings pending before it against Francesco Segna and
        Others, Cesare Cervetti and Mario Gasbarri
         (Cases C-135/95 , C-140/95 and C-141 /95 )
                          ( 95/C 159/40 )
References have been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by orders of the Pretura
Circondariale di Roma , Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome                 Removal from the register of Case C-229/94 H
District Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division ) of 26 October
                                                                                ( 95/C 159/43 )
1994 ( C-135/95 ) and 27 February 1995 ( C-140/95 and
C-141 /95 ), which were received at the Court Registry on
24 April 1995 and 4 May 1995 respectively, for a                      By order of 5 May 1995 the President of the Court of Justice
preliminary ruling in criminal proceedings pending before it         of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
against Francesco Segna and Others, Cesare Cervetti and              register of Case C-229/34 ( reference for a preliminary ruling
Mario Gasbarri on questions identical with those referred in          from the High Court ( Queen's Bench Division)): The Queen
Cases C-112/95 , C-119/95 and C-123/95 ( M.                           v . Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte:
                                                                      Gerard Adams ).
(M OJ No C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995 .
                                                                      (') OJ No C 275 , 1 . 10 . 1994 .


title: Case F-4/12: Action brought on 4 January 2012 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               3.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/28

         Action brought on 4 January 2012 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-4/12)
   2012/C 65/55
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the Commission’s implied decision refusing the applicant’s request to forward to him all the access codes to the Commission’s Internet site, which are accessible to all Commission officials, following the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 4 November 2008 in Case F-41/06 annulling the Commission’s decision to retire him on grounds of invalidity.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision sent by the appointing authority rejecting the claim set out in the request of 20 October 2010;

               —

               in so far as is necessary, annul the decision rejecting the complaint of 24 May 2011 sent by the applicant to the Commission against the decision rejecting the request of 20 October 2010;

               —

               in so far as is necessary, declare that there is no legal basis for Note Ares(2011) 217354 as registered on 28 February 2011;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case T-375/14: Order of the General Court of 21 March 2016 — Al Naggar v Council

text:
               10.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/20

         Order of the General Court of 21 March 2016 — Al Naggar v Council
   (Case T-375/14) (1)

   (2016/C 165/23)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 245, 28.7.2014.


title: Case C-133/13: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken, Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Q (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Free movement of capital — Tax legislation — Gift tax — Exemption in respect of an ‘estate’  — No exemption in respect of property situated in the territory of another Member State)

text:
               23.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/5

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken, Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Q
   (Case C-133/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of capital - Tax legislation - Gift tax - Exemption in respect of an ‘estate’ - No exemption in respect of property situated in the territory of another Member State))
   (2015/C 065/06)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken, Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Defendant: Q

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 63 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which an exemption from gift tax relating to certain properties that are protected on account of their forming part of the national cultural and historical heritage is limited to those properties situated in the territory of that Member State, provided that that exemption is not excluded in the case of properties that may form part of the cultural and historical heritage of that Member State despite being located in the territory of another State.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.