title: Case T-611/11: Judgment of the General Court of 17 March 2015 — Spa Monopole v OHIM — South Pacific Management (Manea Spa) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark Manea Spa — Earlier Benelux word and figurative marks SPA and earlier Benelux word mark LES THERMES DE SPA — Relative grounds for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               4.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 146/34

         Judgment of the General Court of 17 March 2015 — Spa Monopole v OHIM — South Pacific Management (Manea Spa)
   (Case T-611/11) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark Manea Spa - Earlier Benelux word and figurative marks SPA and earlier Benelux word mark LES THERMES DE SPA - Relative grounds for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 146/46)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV (Spa, Belgium) (represented by: L. De Brouwer, E. Cornu and E. De Gryse, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: South Pacific Management (Papeete, Tahiti, France) (represented by: S. de La Marnierre and E. Landon, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 September 2011 (joined Cases R 1176/2010-1 and R 1886/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV and South Pacific Management.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 8 September 2011 (joined Cases R 1176/2010-1 and R 1886/2010-1);

               2.

               Orders OHIM and South Pacific Management to each bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV.

      (1)  OJ C 32, 4.2.2012.


title: Removal from the register of Case C-214/90

text:
25 . 11 . 95          EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                              No C 315/ 13
Communities in Case T-5 85/93 between Stichting                     would be in stark contrast to the position under the national
Greenpeace Council ( Greenpeace International ) and 18              laws of the Member States and general developments in
others and the Commission of the European Communities,              international law . It would also be inconsistent with the
supported by the Kingdom of Spain, was brought before the           stated policy of the Community institutions and the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on                     governments of the Member States .
16 October 1995 by Stichting Greenpeace Council
( Greenpeace International ) and 18 others, represented by
Philippe Sands and Mark Hoskins, Barristers, of the Bar of
England and Wales , instructed by Leigh, Day & Co .,
Solicitors, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the               Removal from the register of Case C-2 14/90 ( )
Chambers of Jean-Paul Noesen, 18 , rue des Glacis .                                             ( 95/C 315/26 )
The Appellant claims that the Court should :
                                                                    By order of 27 September 1995 the President of the Third
1.   Set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of          Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European
     9 August 1995 in Case T-585/93 .                               Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                    C-214/90 ( reference for a preliminary ruling): Agricola
2 . Declare that the application brought by the Appellants          d'Arsego SAS v. Azienda di Stato per gli Interventi nel
     in Case T-585/93 is admissible .
                                                                    Mercato Agricolo ( AIMA ).
3 . Order the Commission to pay the Appellants' costs of
     this appeal .                                                  (•) OJ No C 208 , 21 . 8 . 1990 .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
It is submitted that the Court of First Instance failed to
properly interpret and apply Article 173 of the EC Treaty
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case C-438/93 ( )
and applied the wrong criteria in assessing whether the
appellants were individually concerned by the                                                   ( 95/C 315/27 )
Commission's acts under Article 173 of the EC Treaty.
                                                                    By order of 26 September 1995 the President of the Court of
The Court of First Instance applied case-law of the Court of        Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Justice which had been developed solely in the context of           from the register of Case C-438/93 ( reference for a
economic issues and rights to the effect that an individual         preliminary ruling): Adriatica Costruzioni Ancona Sri v.
must belong to a 'closed class' before he can be said to be         Ministero dei Lavori Pubblici and Comune di Ancona .
individually concerned by a Community act. The Court of
First Instance erred in applying that case-law without taking       ( 1 ) OJ No C 18 , 21 . 1 . 1994 .
into account properly or at all the specific nature and
character of the environmental, rather than economic ,
interests which form the basis of the appellants' case .
The practical effect of applying the traditional approach to               Removal from the register of Case C-256/94 ( l )
individual concern in environmental cases is that private
parties will never be able to challenge Community measures                                       ( 95/C 315/28 )
which affect their environmental interests . There would in
effect be a total vacuum of enforcement .                           By order of the President of 24 August 1995 the Court of
                                                                    Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
 Moreover, to hold that private parties had no rights to seek       from the register of Case C-256/94 : Commission of the
 judicial review under Article 173 of the EC Treaty of              European Communities v. Kingdom of Spain .
 Community acts which violated Community environmental
 obligations or which caused other harm to the environment           (') OJ No C 304, 29 . 10 . 1994 .


title: Case T-173/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 December 2006 — Heus v Commission (Officials — Access to an internal competition — Competition notice — Condition relating to length of service — Action for annulment — Principle of non-discrimination)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/40

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 December 2006 — Heus v Commission
   (Case T-173/05) (1)

   (Officials - Access to an internal competition - Competition notice - Condition relating to length of service - Action for annulment - Principle of non-discrimination)
   (2006/C 331/88)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Martine Heus (Anderlecht, Belgium) (represented by: L. Vogel, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Lozano Palacios and K. Herrmann, Agents)
   Re:
   Principally, application for annulment of the decision not to admit the applicant to competition COM/PC/04.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders each of the parties to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 182, 23.7.2005.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 14 September 1995 in Case C-396/93 P: Helmut Henrichs v. Commission of the European Communities (Appeal - Article 4 (4) and (6) of Regulation (Euratom, ECSC, EEC) No 2274/87 - Determination of the allowance provided for in Article 4 (1) - Exclusion from the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme for Officials of the European Communities)

text:
28 . 10 . 95           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 286/ 1
                                                                   I
                                                            (Information)
                                              COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                         COURT OF JUSTICE
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        ( Fifth Chamber)                                                     ( Fifth Chamber )
                     of 14 September 1995                                                 of 14 September 1995
in Case C-3 96/93 P: Helmut Henrichs v. Commission of the             in Joined Cases C-485/93 and C-486/93 (references for
                   European Communities (')                           a preliminary ruling from the Monomeles Diikitiko
                                                                      Protodikio of Rhodes and the Trimeles Diikitiko Protodikio
(Appeal — Article 4 (4) and (6) of Regulation (Euratom,
ECSC, EEC) No 2274/87 — Determination of the                                  of Rhodes ): Maria Simitzi v. Dimos Kos C )
allowance provided for in Article 4 (1) — Exclusion from              (Free movement ofgoods — Tax regime of the Dodecanese
the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme for Officials of the              — Charge having an effect equivalent to a customs duty —
                    European Communities)                                       Temporal effects of a preliminary ruling)
                          ( 95/C 286/01 )                                                      ( 95/C 286/02 )
                (Language of the case: German)                                        (Language of the case: Greek)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-396/93 P: Helmut Henrichs, a former member of
the temporary staff of the Commission of the European                 In Joined Cases C-485/93 and C-486/93 : references to
Communities, residing in Sankt Augustin ( Germany ),                  the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty
represented by Frank Montag, of the Brussels Bar — appeal             by the Monomeles Diikitiko Protodikio ( Single-Judge
against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the            Administrative Court of First Instance ) of Rhodes and the
European Communities (Third Chamber ) of 24 June 1993                 Trimeles Diikitiko Protodikio (Three-Judge Administrative
in Case T-92/91 , Henrichs v.             Commission [ 1993 ]         Court of First Instance ) of Rhodes for a preliminary ruling in
ECR 11-611 , seeking to have that judgment set aside, the             the proceedings pending before those courts between Maria
other party to the proceedings being Commission of the                Simitzi and Dimos Kos on the interpretation of the EEC
European Communities ( Agent: Gianluigi Valsesia, Legal               Treaty, in particular Articles 9 , 12, 13,16 and 95 , and on the
Adviser, assisted by Bertrand Wägenbaur, of the Brussels              interpretation of Article 33 of the Sixth Council Directive
Bar ) — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of C.                   ( 77/388/EEC ) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the
Gulmann, President of the Chamber, P. Jann, J. C. Moitinho            laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —
de Almeida ( Rapporteur ), D. A. O. Edward and L. Sevón,              Common system of value added tax : uniform basis of
Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett,                  assessment ( OJ 1977 L 145 , p. 1 ) — the Court ( Fifth
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on             Chamber ), composed of C. Gulmann ( President of
 14 September 1995 , in which it:                                     Chamber ), J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, D. A. O. Edward
                                                                      ( Rapporteur ), J. -P. Puissochet and L. Sevón, Judges; G.
 1 . dismisses the appeal;                                            Tesauro, Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl, Registrar, has
                                                                      given a judgment on 14 September 1995 , in which it
                                                                      rules :
2 . orders the appellant to pay the costs.
( i ) OJ No C 274, 12 . 10 . 1993 .                                    1 . an ad valorem charge levied by a Member State on goods
                                                                           imported from another Member State by reason of their
                                                                           entry into a region of the first Member State 's territory


               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/31

         Removal from the register of Case C-516/04 (1)

   (2005/C 143/59)

      (Language of the case: French)

   By order of 8 April 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-516/04 Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.

      (1)  OJ C 31 of 05.02.2005.


title: Removal from the register of T-143/95

text:
No C 228/26              EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                     26 . 7 . 97
      of rice originating in the overseas countries and                       Removal from the register of T-143/95 (')
      territories ( J ),                                                                        ( 97/C 228/61 )
— order the Council to pay the costs of the case .                                 (Language of the case: German)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  By order of 27 May 1997 the President of the First
                                                                     Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
The pleas in law and main arguments are identical to                 Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
those in Case T-163/97 (2 ).                                         Case   T-143/95 :     Werner     Haberer   v. Council   of the
                                                                     European Union and Commission of the European
(') OJ No L 151 , 10 . 6 . 1997, p . 8 .                             Communities .
( 2 ) OJ No C 212, 12 . 7 . 1997, p. 31 .
                                                                     (') OJ No C 229 , 2 . 9 . 1995 .


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 19 June 1995 in Cases T-43/91 DEP, T-44/91 DEP, T-51/91 DEP and T-52/91 DEP: Paul Edwin Hoyer and Carine Smets v. Commission of the European Communities (Taxation of costs)

text:
No C 208/24           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                          12 . 8 . 95
    ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            non-material damage and , in the alternative, for
                        of 8 June 1995                              reimbursement of various expenses — the Court of First
                                                                    Instance ( Fourth Chamber ), composed of R. Schintgen,
in Case T-554/93 , Mary Aharn and 588 Others v. Council             acting as President, and R. García-Valdecasas and P. Lindh,
of the European Union and Commission of the European                Judges, made an order on 14 June 1995 , the operative part
                        Communities (')                             of which is as follows :
                  (Removal from the register)
                         (9SIC 208/52 )                             1 . Cases T-462/93 , T-464/93 and T-470/93 are joined;
                                                                    2 . there is no need to give a decision on the application
               (Language of the case: English)                           objecting to a judge;
In Case T-554/93 , Mary Aharn and 588 Others ( United               3 . the actions are dismissed as inadmissible;
Kingdom and Ireland ), represented by E. H. Pijnacker
Hordijk, of the Amsterdam Bar, and H. J. Bronkhorst,                4 . the applicants are ordered to pay all the costs.
Advocaat of the Supreme Court of the Netherlands,
instructed by Burges Salmon, Solicitors , with an address for       (>) OJ No C 33 , 5 . 2 . 1993 , OJ No C 54, 25 . 2 . 1993 and OJ No
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Luc Frieden, 62                 C 139 , 18 . 5 . 1993 .
Avenue Guillaume, v. Council of the European Union
( Agents, A. Brautigam and M. Bishop ), and Commission of
the European Communities ( Agents, G. Rozet and G.
Docksey ), application for the annulment of Articles 8 ( 2 ) (a )
and 14 (4 ) of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2187/93 of
22 July 1993 providing for an offer of compensation to                   ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
certain producers of milk and milk producers temporarily                                       of 19 June 1995
prevented from carrying out their trade, the President of the
                                                                    in Cases T-43/91 DEP, T-44/91 DEP, T-51/91 DEP and
First Chamber ( extended composition ) of the Court of First
Instance made an order on 8 June 1995 whose operative               T-52/91 DEP: Paul Edwin Hoyer and Carine Smets v.
                                                                            Commission of the European Communities ( ! )
part is as follows :
                                                                                (Taxation of costs)
1 . the names of all the applicants, except A. T. E. Saint, C.                                   ( 95/C 208/54 )
    Murray and M. Craig, shall be removed from the list of
    applicants in Case T-554/93 ;
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
2 . the applicants are to pay the costs.
                                                                    In Cases T-43/91 DEP, T-44/91 DEP, T-51 /91 DEP and
(') OJ No C 338 , 15 . 12 . 1993 .                                  T-52/91 DEP: Paul Edwin Hoyer, a temporary agent of the
                                                                    Commission of the European Communities , residing at
                                                                    Hoeilaart ( Belgium ), and Carine Smets , a temporary agent
                                                                    of the Commission of the European Communities, residing
                                                                    at Overijse ( Belgium ), represented by Gerard van der Wal ,
                                                                    Advokaat with a right of audience before the Hoge Raad der
    ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                    Nederlanden ( Supreme Court of the Netherlands ), with an
                                                                    address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                        of 14 June 1995                             Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue, v. Commission of the
in Cases T-462/93 , T-464/93 and T-470/93 : Erika Lenz              European Communities ( Agents : Julian Currall and
and Volker Lenz v. Commission of the European                       Hendrik van Lier ) — application for taxation of the costs
                        Communities (')                             payable pursuant to the judgments of the Court of First
 (Officials — Action for damages — Admissibility — Time             Instance of 17 March 1994 in Cases T-43/91 , T-44/91 ,
                limit for bringing proceedings)                     T-51 /91 and T-52/91 — the Court of First Instance (Third
                                                                    Chamber ), composed of J. Biancarelli , President, and C. P.
                         ( 95/C 208/53                              Briët and C. W. Bellamy, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made
                                                                    an order on 19 June 1995 , the operative part of which is as
               (Language of the case: German)                       follows :
In Cases T-462/93 , T-464/93 and T-470/93 : Erika Lenz, a            1 . Cases T-43191 DEP, T-44/91 DEP, T-51 /91 DEP and
former official of the Commission of the European                         T-52/91 DEP are joined;
 Communities, and Volker Lenz, her son, both residing at
Osnabruck ( Germany), represented by Jürgen Schacht,                2 . the total costs recoverable by the applicants are fixed in
Rechtsanwalt, Hamburg, with an address for service in                     the sum of Fl 37 500, together with any VAT payable
                                                                          thereon .
Luxembourg care of Jean-Paul Meyer, 14 Rue Prince Jean,
Ettelbruck, v. Commission of the European Communities
 (Agents : Gianluigi Valsesia and Barbara Rapp-Jung ) —              (') OJ No C 201 , 31 . 7. 1991 and OJ No C 205 , 6 . 8 . 1991 .
application for an order requiring the Commission to pay
compensation for various instances of material and


title: Case C-67/03: Action brought on 14 February 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
C 83/14                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                           5.4.2003
Action brought on 14 February 2003 by the Commission                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic                   Nederlanden by judgment of that Court of 14 February
                                                                           2003 in the case of Staatssecretaris van Financiën against
                                                                                D. Lipjes
                           (Case C-67/03)
                                                                                (Case C-68/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 83/25)
                          (2003/C 83/24)
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad der
                                                                           Nederlanden (Netherlands Supreme Court) of 14 February
                                                                           2003, received at the Court Registry on 17 February 2003, for
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
                                                                           a preliminary ruling in the case of Staatssecretaris van Finan-
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 February
                                                                           ciën against D. Lipjes on the following questions:
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Antonio Aresu, acting as Agent.
                                                                           1.     Must Article 28b(E)(3) of the Sixth Directive (1) be
                                                                                construed as meaning that that provision refers only to
                                                                                services by intermediaries where the recipient of the
                                                                                service is a taxable person within the meaning of the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                       directive or a non-taxable legal person within the meaning
                                                                                of Article 28a of the Directive?
—     declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations                  2.     If not, must the first sentence of Article 28b(E)(3) of the
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with                      Sixth Directive then be construed as meaning that where
      Commission Directive 2000/39/EC (1) of 8 June 2000                          an intermediary acts on the purchase and sale of a
      establishing a first list of indicative occupational exposure               tangible object between two individuals, for the purposes
      limit values in implementation of Council Directive 98/                     of determining the place where the intermediary acts,
      24/EC ( 2) on the protection of the health and safety of                    regard must be had to the place where the transaction is
      workers from the risks related to chemical agents at work,                  carried out, as if the transaction were a supply or service
      or by not notifying the Commission of those provisions,                     by a taxable person as referred to in Article 8 of the Sixth
      the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations                   Directive?
      under Article 3(1) of that directive.
                                                                           (1 ) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
—     order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                              harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
                                                                                turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
                                                                                basis of assessment (OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1).
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte d’Appello
                                                                           di Venezia — Sezione IV Civile by order of that Court of
Article 249 EC, which provides that directives are binding on              6 November 2002 in the case of Caseificio Cooperativo di
the Member States as to the result to be achieved, requires the             Cornedo Soc. Coop. a.r.l. against Ministero delle Finanze
Member States to respect the time-limits for transposition
stipulated in the directives. This time-limit expired on                                              (Case C-69/03)
31 December 2001 without the Italian Republic having
adopted the provisions necessary to comply with the directive
                                                                                (2003/C 83/26)
referred to in the Commission’s claims.
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
( 1) OJ L 142 of 16.06.2000, p. 47.                                        European Communities by order of the Corte d’Appello di
( 2) OJ L 131 of 5.05.1998, p. 11.                                         Venezia — Sezione IV Civile (Court of Appeal of Venice,
                                                                           Fourth Civil Chamber) of 6 November 2002, received at the
                                                                           Court Registry on 17 February 2003, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                           in the case of Caseificio Cooperativo di Cornedo Soc. Coop.
                                                                           a.r.l. against Ministero delle Finanze on the following question:


               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/67

         Removal from the register of Case T-321/03 (1)

   (2004/C 94/173)

      (Language of the Case: French)

   By order of 19 January 2004 the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal from the register the names of the appellants Arrivé SA, Lambey Moulin des Près SA, Prisma, Jim Peet (Agriculture), Scotts Feeds Ltd, Società Italiana Werisan SpA, Newline Farm Partnerships Ltd, Muratori Srl, Mole Valley Farmers Ltd, Dugdale Nutrition, Hibramer SA, Deshayes Guy, Favre Michel et fils SA, Talian SA, Nutec Ireland, Magic SpA, Progeo SCRL, Acorn Feed Products Ltd, Biomar Ltd, Ferrari Mangimi Srl and Piensos A-90 SA from the list of appellants in Case T-321/03: Juchem GmbH and Others v European Parliament and Council of the European Union.

      (1)  OJ C 275 of 15.11.2003.


title: Case C-96/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundessozialgericht by order of 15 October 1998 in the case of Issa Chaaban v. Bundesanstalt für Arbeit

text:
5.6.1999               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 160/7
     kind, either from the authority itself or from other              2. If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative:
     contracting authorities, which enable those bodies to
     tender in an award procedure at prices which are substan-              Does Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 also apply to stateless
     tially below those of their commercially active competitors,           workers and to members of their families who have
     infringe the principle of equal treatment of all tenderers             travelled directly to a Member State from a non-member
     and candidates in an award procedure?                                  country and have not moved within the Community?
II. Does the decision of a contracting authority to admit
     such bodies to an award procedure constitute covert               (1) OJ L 149, 5.7.1971, p. 2; OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II),
     discrimination, if the bodies which receive such subsidies            p. 416.
     without exception have the nationality of or are established
     in the Member State in which the contracting authority is
     also established?
III. Does the decision of a contracting authority to admit such
     bodies to an award procedure, even on the assumption
     that it does not discriminate against the other tenderers
     and candidates, constitute a restriction of the freedom to        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundessozial-
     provide services which is not compatible with the pro-            gericht by order of 15 October 1998 in the case of Issa
     visions of the EC Treaty, in particular Article 59 et seq.                      Chaaban v. Bundesanstalt für Arbeit
     thereof?
                                                                                (Case C-96/99)
IV. May the contracting authority conclude service contracts
     with bodies which are exclusively or at least predominantly                                (1999/C 160/16)
     in public ownership and provide their services exclusively
     or at least predominantly to the contracting authority or
     other State institutions, without making the service the          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     subject of an award procedure in competition with com-            European Communities by order of 15 October 1998 from
     mercially active tenderers in accordance with Directive           the Bundessozialgericht (Federal Social Court), which was
     92/50/EEC (1)?                                                    received at the Court Registry on 17 March 1999, for a
                                                                       preliminary ruling in the case of Issa Chaaban v. Bundesanstalt
                                                                       für Arbeit on the following questions:
(1) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 1.
                                                                       1. Does Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) of 14 June
                                                                            1971 on the application of social security schemes to
                                                                            employed persons, to self-employed persons and to mem-
                                                                            bers of their families moving within the Community apply
                                                                            to stateless persons and to members of their families if
                                                                            such persons have no right of free movement under the
                                                                            Treaty of 25 March 1957 establishing the European
                                                                            Community, as amended by the Treaty of 7 February 1992
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundessozial-                     on the European Union?
gericht by order of 15 October 1998 in the case of
           Mervett Khalil v. Bundesanstalt für Arbeit                  2. If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative:
                                                                            Does Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 also apply if the
                          (Case C-95/99)
                                                                            stateless person, his spouse, who is a national of a
                                                                            non-member country, and the other members of their
                         (1999/C 160/15)                                    family have travelled directly to a Member State from a
                                                                            non-member country and have not moved within the
                                                                            Community?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 15 October 1998 from                  3. If the answer to question 2 is in the affirmative:
the Bundessozialgericht (Federal Social Court), which was
received at the Court Registry on 17 March 1999, for a                      Is a family benefit such as child benefit under the German
preliminary ruling in the case of Mervett Khalil v. Bundesanstalt           Bundeskindergeldgesetz to be granted even if only the
für Arbeit on the following questions:                                      spouse who is a national of a non-member country is an
                                                                            employed person, while the stateless other spouse, from
1. Does Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1)of 14 June                   whom the first spouse derives his right, is not herself an
     1971 on the application of social security schemes to                  employed person?
     employed persons, to self-employed persons and to mem-
     bers of their families moving within the Community apply
     to stateless persons and to members of their families if          (1) JO L 149, 5.7.1971, p. 2; OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II),
     such persons have no right of free movement under the                 p. 416.
     Treaty of 25 March 1957 establishing the European
     Community, as amended by the Treaty of 7 February 1992
     on the European Union?


title: Case T-37/06: Action brought on  7 February 2006  — MEGGLE Aktiengesellschaft v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               22.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/16

         Action brought on 7 February 2006 — MEGGLE Aktiengesellschaft v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case T-37/06)
   (2006/C 96/31)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: MEGGLE Aktiengesellschaft (Wasserburg a. Inn, Germany) (represented by: T. Rabb, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Clover Corporation Limited (North Sydney, Australia)
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 November 2005 and the opposition decision of the Opposition Division of the Office with competence for trade marks of 30 September 2004;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Applicant for Community trade mark: Clover Corporation Limited

      Community trade mark sought: Figurative mark ‘HiQ with cloverleaf’ for goods in Classes 5, 29 and 30 (No 2 171 114)
   Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the German figurative mark ‘Cloverleaf’ for goods in Classes 1, 3, 5, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33 (No 980 458) and the German figurative mark ‘Cloverleaf’ for goods in Classes 1, 3, 5, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 (No 39 652 600)
   Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition
   Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) has been incorrectly applied, on the ground that there exists a likelihood of confusion between the opposing marks. The marks show a high degree of similarity and the earlier mark has particular distinctive character. Article 74(1) of Regulation No 40/94 has been breached, on the ground that the defendant Office is in breach of its duty to examine the facts before it.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark.


title: Case C-228/00: Action brought on 7 June 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

text:
C 259/4                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         9.9.2000
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     Action brought on 7 June 2000 by the Commission of the
                                                                           European Communities against the Federal Republic of
                                                                                Germany
                          (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                (Case C-228/00)
                          of 15 June 2000
                                                                                (2000/C 259/07)
in Case C-13/99 P: TEAM Srl v Commission of the
                   European Communities (1)                                An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
                                                                           brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties on 7 June 2000 by the Commission of the European
(Appeal — PHARE programme — Decision to annul an                           Communities, represented by Götz zur Hausen, Legal Adviser,
invitation to tender and to issue a new invitation to tender               with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
— Action for damages — Categorisation of reparable                         Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, a Member of the Commission’s
damage — Causal link — Measures of organisation of                         Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
               procedure — Measures of inquiry)
                                                                           The Commission claims that the Court should:
                          (2000/C 259/06)
                                                                           1.    Declare the Federal Republic of Germany in breach of
                                                                                its obligations under Article 7(2) and (4) of Council
                                                                                Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                              supervision and control of shipments of waste within,
                                                                                into and out of the European Community (1) for raising
                                                                                unwarranted objections to certain waste shipments to
                                                                                other Member States for use principally as fuel;
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           2.    order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
In Case C-13/99 P: TEAM Srl, established in Rome, represented
initially by A. Tizzano and G.M. Roberti, of the Naples Bar,
and, subsequently, by F. Caruso, also of the Naples Bar, 39 Via            Pleas in law and main arguments
Santa Teresa a Chiaia, Naples — appeal against the judgment
of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 29 October
1998 in Case T-13/96 TEAM v Commission [1998] ECR                          The Commission objects to the administrative practice of
II-4073, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other                the competent authorities in Nordrhein-Westfalen, Baden-
party to the proceedings being Commission of the European                  Württemberg, Niedersachsen and Rheinland-Pfalz as incom-
Communities (Agents: M.-J. Jonczy and L. Gussetti) — the                   patible with the Treaty. The practice manifests itself in decrees
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: L. Sevón, President of the            of the relevant ministries and individual decisions of the
First Chamber, acting as President of the Fifth Chamber,                   competent authorities, whereby, partly on the basis of the
P.J.G. Kapteyn, P. Jann (Rapporteur), H. Ragnemalm and                     decrees, objections under Article 4 of Regulation (EEC)
M. Wathelet, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,            No 259/93 were made against certain planned waste ship-
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                  ments. In the cases in question, it was planned to ship a
15 June 2000, in which it:                                                 mixture of waste for use as fuel in the Belgian cement industry.
                                                                           The Commission argues that such use is to be classified as a
                                                                           recovery operation falling within the procedure referred to in
1.    Dismisses the appeal;                                                Point R 9 of Annex II B to Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July
                                                                           1975 on waste, namely ‘use principally as a fuel or other
                                                                           means to generate energy’. The description of the recovery
2.    Orders TEAM Srl to pay the costs.                                    operation in Point R 9 of Annex II B to the directive contains
                                                                           no quantitative criteria for determining whether or not a waste
                                                                           serves as fuel, but merely refers to the principal use. There is, the
                                                                           Commission argues, nothing in Article 3(1)(b)(i) of Directi-
                                                                           ve 75/442/EEC (2) to support the conclusion that burning of
(1) OJ No C 71 of 13.3.1999.                                               wastes constitutes a recovery operation only if its main
                                                                           purpose is the generation of energy or the waste has a certain
                                                                           minimum heating value. Nor can a requirement be inferred
                                                                           from the directive that energy recovery may be regarded as
                                                                           present only if a benefit equivalent in value to the recycling of
                                                                           materials is derived from the burning.
 ---pagebreak--- 9.9.2000               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 259/5
Contrary to the view taken by the Federal Republic of Germany,         The applicant claims that the Court should:
the content in pollutants of the individual components of
the waste burned can have no impact on the classification of
the burning as recovery or disposal. Article 4 of Directi-
ve 75/442/EEC does impose an obligation on Member States
to ensure that waste is disposed of or recovered in such a way         (1) declare that, by adopting Articles 107(1), 108(1)(h), 109
as not to damage the environment or endanger human health,                   and 111(1)(a) of the Wegenverkeerswet (Road Traffic
but the provision contains nothing on the distinction between                Law) 1994 and Article 100 of the Reglement Rijbewijzen
disposal and recovery. Moreover, reference should be made in                 (Rules on Driving Licences), the Kingdom of the Nether-
this context to the system that underlies Regulation (EEC)                   lands has failed to comply with its obligations under
No 259/93; both the competent authorities in the dispatching                 Articles 1(2) and 6(1)(c) and point 4 in Annex III to
State and the authorities in the receiving State may raise                   Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving
objections to waste shipments on grounds that are set out in                 licences (OJ L 237 of 24 August 1991, p. 1) and thus
detail. According to the regulation, the pollutant content of                with its obligations under the EC Treaty;
the waste or compliance with emission rules by the plant
which burns it are not parameters for the raising of objections.
The obligations under Article 4 of the regulation apply to
every Member State within its territory irrespective of the            (2) order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
shipment procedure.
The Commission is further of the opinion that Member States
may not set up criteria which lead to the directive’s provisions
on the demarcation of types of recovery not being complied
with. It is true that, on the current wording of Directi-
ve 75/442/EEC, it is difficult to distinguish between recovery         Pleas in law and main arguments
and disposal in individual cases. The Commission’s staff had
therefore provided for a criterion of heating value in a working
document. At the present time, however, the Commission’s
staff are preparing other solutions, which are subsequently to
be incorporated into Directive 75/442/EEC through technical            —     Infringement of Article 1(2) of Directive 91/439,
                                                                             resulting from the introduction of a compulsory, system-
adaptation of the annexes on the basis of Article 17.
                                                                             atic scheme of registration after one year of establishment
                                                                             in the Netherlands: it follows from the objective and
                                                                             scope of Article 1(1) of the directive, and also from the
(1) OJ L 30, 6.2.1993, p. 1.                                                 usual meaning of the wording of Article 1(2) thereof, that
(2) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 47.                                              driving licences which have been issued by another
                                                                             Member State without any formal requirements must be
                                                                             recognised by the authorities of the host Member State.
                                                                             The holder of a driving licence issued in accordance with
                                                                             the European model is no longer obliged to exchange
                                                                             that licence upon becoming established in another Mem-
                                                                             ber State. This means that the holder is spared from
                                                                             having to incur administrative expenses upon becoming
                                                                             established and also, of course, upon subsequently
                                                                             returning to the Member State in which the licence was
                                                                             issued or on subsequently moving to a third Member
Action brought on 20 June 2000 by the Commission of                          State. In order effectively to avoid such impediments, the
the European Communities against the Kingdom of the                          mutual recognition provided for in Article 1(2) must take
                           Netherlands                                       place ‘without any formality’. Under the Netherlands
                                                                             Wegenverkeerswet (Road Traffic Law) 1994, mutual
                                                                             recognition without any formality occurs only if the
                         (Case C-246/00)                                     holder establishes himself in the Netherlands for less than
                                                                             one year. Driving licences which are not registered within
                                                                             one year after establishment cease to be valid for use in
                         (2000/C 259/08)                                     the Netherlands. Driving a vehicle in the Netherlands
                                                                             with such a driving licence is equivalent to driving
                                                                             without a licence. The Kingdom of the Netherlands has
An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was                         in fact replaced the obligation to exchange a licence, as
brought before the Court of Justice on 20 June 2000 by the                   laid down by Directive 80/1263 but criticised in the
Commission of the European Communities, represented by                       ninth recital in the preamble to Directive 91/439 and
M. Wolfcarius, Legal Adviser, and H.M.H. Speyart, of its Legal               in paragraph 26 of the Skanavi judgment (1), with a
Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in                    registration obligation. This conflicts with the system of
Luxembourg at the office of C. Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal               mutual recognition of driving licences issued by Member
Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                           States, as laid down in Article 1(2) of Directive 91/439.


title: Judgment of the Court (sitting as a full Court) of 12 October 2004 in Case C-222/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof): Peter Paul, Cornelia Sonnen-Lütte, Christel Mörkens v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Credit institutions — Deposit-guarantee schemes — Directive 94/19/EC — Directives 77/780/EEC, 89/299/EEC and 89/646/EEC — Supervisory measures by the competent authority for the purposes of protecting depositors — Liability of the supervisory authorities for losses resulting from defective supervision)

text:
               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/7

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (sitting as a full Court)
   of 12 October 2004
   in Case C-222/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof): Peter Paul, Cornelia Sonnen-Lütte, Christel Mörkens v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (1)

   (Credit institutions - Deposit-guarantee schemes - Directive 94/19/EC - Directives 77/780/EEC, 89/299/EEC and 89/646/EEC - Supervisory measures by the competent authority for the purposes of protecting depositors - Liability of the supervisory authorities for losses resulting from defective supervision)
   (2004/C 300/14)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-222/02: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany), made by decision of 16 May 2002, received at the Court on 17 June 2002, in the proceedings between Peter Paul, Cornelia Sonnen-Lütte, Christel Mörkens and Bundesrepublik Deutschland — the Court (sitting as a full Court), composed of: V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas, Presidents of Chambers, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 October 2004, in which it has ruled:

               1.

               If the compensation of depositors prescribed by Directive 94/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on deposit-guarantee schemes is ensured, Article 3(2) to (5) of that directive cannot be interpreted as precluding a national rule to the effect that the functions of the national authority responsible for supervising credit institutions are to be fulfilled only in the public interest, which under national law precludes individuals from claiming compensation for damage resulting from defective supervision on the part of that authority.

               2.

               First Council Directive 77/780/EEC of 12 December 1977 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the taking up and pursuit of the business of credit institutions, Council Directive 89/299/EEC of 17 April 1989 on the own funds of credit institutions and Second Council Directive 89/646/EEC of 15 December 1989 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the taking up and pursuit of the business of credit institutions and amending Directive 77/780 do not preclude a national rule to the effect that the functions of the national authority responsible for supervising credit institutions are to be fulfilled only in the public interest, which under national law precludes individuals from claiming compensation for damage resulting from defective supervision on the part of that authority.

      (1)  OJ C 202 of 24.8.2002.


title: Action brought on 15 October 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom (Case C-340/96)

text:
No C 370/6            1 EN 1                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                       7 . 12 . 96
     account the exact amount of the tax paid in another                          Kingdom conforms to the requirements of Directive
     State but only a tax credit which may be lower meets                         80/778/EEC           in    that   maximum   admissible
     the objective assigned to the Member States of                               concentrations for several parameters in the
     abolishing double taxation,                                                  Directive are exceeded,
— Whether Article 48 must be interpreted as meaning that                     the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations
     nationals of a Member State who are frontier workers                    under the Treaty;
     in another Member State may not, by reason of a tax
     credit mechanism of the type provided for by the                   — order the United Kingdom to pay the costs .
     Franco-German Convention , be taxed more heavily
     than persons whose occupational activity is pursued in             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     their State of residence .
                                                                        The grounds on which the Commission considers that the
                                                                        United Kingdom 's application of the Directive is defective
                                                                        may be summarised as follows :
                                                                        — by the acceptance of ' undertakings' from the water
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Civile                 companies, failure to enforce their compliance with the
di Genova by order of that court of 7 October 1996 in the                    requirements of the Directive, and
case of Ignazio Messina & Co. SPA v. Amministrazione
                     delle Finanze dello Stato                          — failure to ensure that the quality of water supplied in
                         ( Case C-338/96 )                                   several parts of the United Kingdom conforms to the
                                                                             requirements of the Directive.
                            ( 96/C 370/ 13 )
                                                                        (') Council Directive 80/778/EEC of 15 July 1980 relating to the
                                                                            quality of water intended for human consumption ( OJ No
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      L 229 , 30 . 8 . 1980, p. 11 ).
European Communities by an order of the Tribunale Civile
di Genova ( Genoa District Court) of 7 October 1996 ,
which was received at the Court Registry on 14 October
1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ignazio
Messina & Co., SPA v. Amministrazione delle Finanze dello
Stato on the questions which are identical to those in Cases            Action brought on 15 October 1996 by the Commission of
C-279/96 , C-280/96 and C-281 /96 (')•                                  the European Communities against the Federal Republic of
                                                                                Germany
(•) OJ No C 318 , 26 . 10 . 1996 , p . 3 .                                                          ( Case C-341/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 370/ 15 )
                                                                        An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
                                                                        brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Action brought on 15 October 1996 by the Commission of                  Communities on 15 October 1996 by the Commission of
   the European Communities against the United Kingdom                  the European Communities, represented by Claudia
                         ( Case C-340/96 )                              Schmidt, of the Commission's Legal Service, with an
                                                                        address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                            ( 96/C 370/ 14                              Gomez de la Cruz, of the Legal Service of the European
                                                                        Commission, Wagner Centre C254, Kirchberg.
An action against the United Kingdom was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 15                  The applicant claims that the Court should :
October 1996 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Mr Richard Wainwright,                      — declare that, by failing to adopt within the period
Principal Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for                prescribed the laws, regulations and administrative
service in Luxembourg at the office of Mr Carlos Gomez de                    measures necessary in order to comply with Council
la Cruz, member of the Legal Service, Centre Wagner.                         Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating
                                                                             procedures for the awards of public supply
                                                                             contracts ('), the Federal Republic of Germany has
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  failed to fulfil its obligations under the third paragraph
                                                                             of Article 189 of the EC Treaty in conjunction with
— declare that:                                                              Article 34 ( 1 ) of the said Directive,
     — by failing, by the acceptance of undertakings, to                — declare, in the alternative, that the Federal Republic of
         enforce compliance by water companies with the                      Germany has failed to fulfil its obligation forthwith to
         requirements of Directive 80/778/EEC ( : ), and                     inform the Commission of the relevant measures
                                                                             adopted to transpose the Directive,
     — by failing, thereby, to ensure that the quality of
         water supplied in several parts of the United                  — order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.


title: Action brought on 10 March 1997 by Société Générale against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-62/97)

text:
No C 166/ 14          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      31 . 5 . 97
Action brought on 28 February 1997 by Giorgio Lebedef                established at Périgueux ( France ), Serval, established at
   against the Commission of the European Communities                Sainte Eanne ( France ), Besnier Industrie, established at
                        ( Case T-42/97)                              Bourgbarre ( France ), Sovida, established at Chateaubriand
                                                                     ( France ), Sica Ouest Elevage, established at Ploudaniel
                          ( 97/C 166/31 )
                                                                     ( France ), Guinde, established at Montauban de Bretagne
                 (Language of the case: French)                      ( France ), Tarbouriech, established at Villeneuve sur Lot
                                                                     ( France ), Mamellor, established at Charnay les Macon
An action against the Commission of the European                     ( France ), Coopagri Bretagne, established at Landerneau
Communities was brought before the Court of First                    (France ), Collet et Compagnie, established at
Instance of the European Communities on 28 February                  Chateaubourg (France ), Kermene SA, established at Saint
1997 by Giorgio Lebedef, residing in Senningerberg                   Jacut du Mene (France ), and Vals, established at
(Luxembourg ), represented by Gilles Bounéou, of the                 Champagne (France ), represented by Deborah Kryvian, of
Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in                       the Rouen Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
Luxembourg at his Chambers, 15 Avenue du Bois.                       at the Chambers of Marc Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe .
The applicant claims that the Court should:                          The applicants claim that the Court should:
— principally, annul the implied decision rejecting Mr               — annul Commission Regulation No 18/97 adopted on
     Lebedef's request for secondment on union duties,                      8 January 1997,
— alternatively, and so far as is necessary:
                                                                     — order the Commission to pay the costs.
     — declare the procedure known as 'secondment on
         union duties' unlawful,
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     — annul the Commission's decision not to put an end
         to all secondments on union duties already granted          The applicants, French companies producing veal for
         in the past,                                                human consumption, who are already contesting, before
     — order the Commission to pay all the costs .                   the Court of First Instance, Council Regulation No 2222/
                                                                     96 H and Commission Regulation No 2311 /96 ( 2 ), are
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  applying in the present case for annulment of Commission
                                                                     Regulation ( EEC) No 18/97 of 8 January 1997 amending
The applicant, a member of the union 'Action & Defense               Regulation (EEC ) No 3886/92 laying down detailed rules
— Luxembourg', considers that the Commission's refusal,              for the application of premium schemes in the beef and
first, to allow him secondment on union duties in his                veal sector ( 3 ), inasmuch as it increases the veal carcase
capacity as representative of the abovementioned union               reference weight for Germany from 103 kilograms to 112
and, second, to take a decision concerning the lawfulness            kilograms.
and validity of secondment on union duties allowed in the
past constitutes infringement of Articles 24a, 25 , 37, 38           The applicants also plead unequal treatment and anti
and 39 of the Staff Regulations and the framework                    competitive discrimination. They maintain that the
agreement governing the relations between the institution            increase in the German carcase reference weight to a
and the trade unions and staff associations and                      weight higher than that in respect of France, which has
Convention No 151 of the International Labour                        been fixed without leaving the competent French
Organization concerning employment relationships in                  authorities any discretion whatever, increases the
public service, which entered into force on 25 February              distortion of competition already criticized in the previous
1981 .                                                               cases, thereby directly benefiting German operators.
                                                                     H Cases T-14/97 and T-15/97 ( OJ No C 94 , 22 . 3 . 1997 ).
                                                                     ( 2 ) Case T-20/97 ( OJ No C 94, 22 . 3 . 1997 ).
                                                                     H OJ No L 5 , 9 . 1 . 1997, p . 17.
Action brought on 7 March 1997 by Sofivo and Others
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                        ( Case T-61/97)
                          ( 97/C 166/32 )
                                                                     Action brought on 10 March 1997 by Société Générale
                 (Language of the case: French)                           against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-62/97)
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                                                ( 97/C 166/33 )
Instance of the European Communities on 7 March 1997
by Sofivo, established at Conde sur Vire ( France ), Sofivo                            (Language of the case: French)
Production, established at Brece ( France ), Sovinor,
established at Conde sur Vire (France ), Denkavit France,            An action against the Commission of the European
established at Montreuil-Bellay ( France ), Sobeval Viande,          Communities was brought before the Court of First
 ---pagebreak---  31 . 5 . 97             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                        No C 166/ 15
Instance of the European Communities on 10 March 1997                        cannot in any event qualify for a new aid scheme,
by Societe Generale, established in Paris, represented by                    having regard to the aid already received by it in the
Dominique Voillemot, of the Paris Bar, with an address for                   past,
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Carlos Zeyen,
67 Rue Ermesinde .                                                     — the Commission has infringed the provisions of
                                                                             Article 92 ( 3 ) (c ) of the EC Treaty and the Guidelines
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  by authorizing emergency aid on terms which are
                                                                             contrary to those invariably imposed in respect of
                                                                             rescue aid, inasmuch as it:
— annul the decision of the Commission, published in
      the Official Journal of 24 December 1996, authorizing                  — does not consist of liquidity help in the form of
      the grant by the French authorities of emergency aid                       loan guarantees or repayable loans bearing normal
      to Credit Lyonnais,                                                        commercial interest rates,
— order the Commission to pay all of the costs and                           — is not restricted to the amount needed to keep
      expenses incurred in the course of the present                             Credit Lyonnais in business,
      proceedings.                                                           — is paid for a particularly lengthy and unjustified
                                                                                period,
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                             — is not warranted on the grounds of serious social
                                                                                difficulties .
The applicant, which is already challenging the decision of
the Commission of 26 July 1995 giving conditional
approval to the aid granted by France to Credit                        (') Case T-32/96 ( OJ No C 133 , 4 . 5 . 1996 , p. 31 ).
                                                                       (2 ) OJ No C 390 , 24 . 12 . 1996 , p. 7.
Lyonnais ( J ), is seeking, in the present case, annulment of
the Commission's decision to raise no objection to the
emergency aid granted in September 1996 (2). It maintains
that :
— the Commission has infringed the provisions of                       Action brought on 13 March 1997 by Martin Neumann
      Article 93 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty and of its decision of         and Irmgard Neumann-Scholles against the Commission
      26 July 1995 by failing to declare illegal , on the                                of the European Communities
      ground of notification out of time, the emergency aid
                                                                                ( Case T-68/97)
      granted and, more particularly, the non-introduction
      of the operation by which EPFR was to invest FF                                                ( 97/C 166/34
      10 000 million in zero coupon bonds,
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
— the Commission has infringed the provisions of
      Article 92 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty, of the ' Community           An action against the Commission of the European
     guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring            Communities was brought before the Court of First
      firms in difficulty' ('the Guidelines') issued for the          Instance of the European Communities on 13 March 1997
      implementation thereof and of its decision of 26 July            by Martin Neumann and Irmgard Neumann-Scholles,
      1995 , by authorizing the grant of additional aid to            resident in Karlsruhe, Germany, represented by Bernd
      Credit Lyonnais which aggravates the incompatibility            Potthast and Hans-Josef Ruber, Rechtsanwalte, Cologne,
     with the common market of the aid authorized on                  with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
      26 July 1995 . The emergency aid authorized:                     Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8—10 Rue Mathias Hardt.
     — does not contribute to the development of any                  The applicants claim that the Court should :
           sector of activity,
                                                                      — order the Commission to pay the first applicant,
     — does       not     take   the  common      interest  into            Martin Neumann, an orphan's pension pursuant to
          consideration,                                                    Article 80 of the Staff Regulations;
     — reinforces the significance of the aid authorized on           — order the Commission to pay the costs .
          26 July 1995 , the amount of which and the need
           for which are questionable, and which was                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
          granted, moreover, in the absence of any real
          restructuring plan or adequate countermeasures to           The second applicant, an official at the European Institute
          remedy the serious distortion of competition                for Transuranium Elements in Karlsruhe whose second
          resulting therefrom,                                        marriage was to a Commission official who died in 1992,
                                                                      applied for a survivor's pension for both herself and her
— the Commission has infringed the provisions of                      son from her first marriage, the first applicant. The first
     Article 92 ( 3 ) (c ) of the EC Treaty and the Guidelines        applicant lived in the household of Mr and Mrs Scholles
      by authorizing emergency aid allowing Credit                    between 1982 and 1990 and was maintained by them
      Lyonnais to continue its activities whilst awaiting the         jointly, as he was during his studies which were completed
     grant of fresh aid, notwithstandig that Credit Lyonnais          in 1995 . The natural father of the first applicant and


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 17 July 1997 in Case C-97/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Tributário de Segunda Instância): Pascoal & Filhos Lda v. Fazenda Pública (Customs duties - Methods of administrative cooperation - Procedures for verifying EUR.1 certificates - Post-clearance recovery of customs duties - Person responsible for the customs debt)

text:
27. 9 . 97              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 295/3
also represented: Trafikministeriet, on the interpretation of         Community ( OJ L 175 , 1 . 7. 1986, p. 1 ) and Council
Articles 9 to 13 , 84 and 95 of the EEC Treaty, the Court             Regulation ( EEC ) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992
( Sixth Chamber ), composed of G. F. Mancini, President of            establishing the Community Customs Code ( OJ L 302,
the Chamber, J. L. Murray and P. J. G. Kapteyn                        19 . 10. 1992, p. 1 ) — the Court ( Fifth Chamber),
( Rapporteur ), Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General ; H.           composed of: J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, President of the
von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, gave a             Chamber, L. Sevon, D. A. O. Edward ( Rapporteur ), P.
judgment on 17 July 1997, in which it has ruled :                     Jann and M. Wathelet, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate
                                                                      General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                      17 July 1997, in which it has ruled :
1 . It is contrary to Article 95 of the EEC Treaty for a
     Member State to impose a 40% import surcharge on a
     general duty levied on goods loaded, unloaded, or                1 . A communication addressed to the authorities of the
     otherwise taken on board or landed within its ports or               State of importation by the authorities of the State of
     in the deep-water approach channels to its ports where               exportation following subsequent verification of an
     goods are imported by ship from another Member                       EUR.l movement certificate, in which the latter
     State.
                                                                          merely confirm that the certificate in question was
                                                                           improperly issued and must therefore be cancelled,
                                                                           without setting out in detail the reasons justifying
2 . Application to a claim for repayment based on breach                   cancellation, must be regarded as 'results of . . .
     of Article 95 of a rule of national law under which                   verification ' within the meaning of Article 25 (3) of
     proceedings for recovery of charges unduly paid are                  Annex II to Council Decision 86/283/EEC of 30 June
     time-barred after a period of five years is not contrary              1986 on the association of the overseas countries and
     to Community law, even if the effect of that rule is to               territories with the European Economic Community.
     prevent, in whole or in part, the repayment of those                  The authorities of the State of importation are entitled
     charges.                                                              to bring an action for recovery of the uncollected
                                                                           customs duties on the basis of such a communication
(') OJ C 120, 30 . 4 . 1994 .                                             alone, without seeking to establish the true origin of
                                                                           the goods imported.
                                                                      2 . The responsibility of the exporter, as referred to in
                                                                          Article 10 (1 ) of Annex II to Decision 86/283/EEC,
                                                                          does not extend to customs duties which prove to be
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      due in respect of the importation into the European
                                                                           Community of goods which are the subject of an
                          ( Fifth Chamber)
                                                                          EUR.l movement certificate, even where the latter
                          of 17 July 1997                                 was issued on the basis of false information supplied
                                                                           by the exporter as to the origin of the goods and was
in Case C-97/95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from                 cancelled following subsequent verification.
the Tribunal Tributário de Segunda Instância ): Pascoal &
               Filhos Lda v. Fazenda Pública (')
(Customs duties — Methods of administrative cooperation               3 . The fact of requiring an importer who has acted in
— Procedures for verifying EUR.l certificates — Post                     good faith to pay customs duties payable on the
clearance recovery of customs duties — Person responsible                 importation of goods in respect of which the exporter
                       for the customs debt)                              has committed a customs offence, where the importer
                                                                          has played no part in that offence, is not contrary to
                            ( 97/C 295/04                                  the general principles of law which the Court is
                                                                          required to uphold.
              (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                                                                      4 . The fact that the authorities of the State of
                                                                          exportation issued an EUR.l movement certificate
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be            pursuant to Decision 86/283/EEC without having
          published in the European Court Reports)                         carried out any prior check to determine the true
                                                                           origin of the goods in question does not constitute a
                                                                           case of force majeure preventing post-clearance
In Case C-97/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177                recovery of customs duties owed by an importer who
of the EC Treaty from the Tribunal Tributario de Segunda                  has acted in good faith.
Instancia ( Fiscal Court of Second Instance ) ( Portugal ) for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Pascoal & Filhos Lda and Fazenda Publica                (') Of C 174, 8 . 7. 1995 .
— on the interpretation of Council Decision 86/283/EEC
of 30 June 1986 on the association of the overseas
countries and territories with the European Economic


title: Case T-42/01: Action brought on 22 February 2001 by Syndicat des employés, techniciens et cadres de la F.G.T.B. against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 118/42              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      21.4.2001
Grounds submitted:            — Infringement of Article 7(1)b            The applicant states that, nearly four years after its complaint,
                                  of Regulation n. 40/94.                the Commission has not taken any provisional measure or
                              — Infringement of Article 7(3) of          adopted a definitive decision, and that the contested system is
                                  Regulation n. 40/94.                   therefore still being applied, even though it was accepted by
                                                                         the Commission from the start of the procedure that it was
                              — Infringement of the appli-               not consistent with Community law.
                                  cant’s right of defence.
Action brought on 22 February 2001 by Syndicat des
employés, techniciens et cadres de la F.G.T.B. against
         Commission of the European Communities                          Action brought on 23 February 2001 by Jean-Jacques
                                                                         Rateau against the Commission of the European Com-
                         (Case T-42/01)                                                              munities
                       (2001/C 118/113)                                                           (Case T-43/01)
                   (Language of the case: French)                                               (2001/C 118/114)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 22 February 2001 by Syndicat des                                    (Language of the case: French)
employés, techniciens et cadres de la F.G.T.B., established in
Brussels, represented by Luc Misson, Laurent Denis and
Patrick Mbaya Kapita, Avocats, with an address for service in            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Luxembourg.                                                              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 23 February 2001 by Jean-Jacques
                                                                         Rateau, residing in Beersel (Belgium), represented by Eric
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Boigelot, avocat, address for service in Luxembourg.
—     Declare that the Commission failed to adopt the necessary
      measures within a reasonable time following the appli-             The applicant claims that the Court should:
      cant’s complaint on the basis of Article 3 of Regulation
      No 17;
                                                                         —    annul the decision of the appointing authority to assign
—     Declare that the Commission is obliged to take the                      the applicant, with effect from 1 July 2000, to the post
      necessary measures within one month against the parties                 of adviser on consumer information working to the Head
      complained against in the applicant’s complaint pursuant                of Unit Health and Consumer Protection SANCO.D.4
      to Regulation No 17;                                                    ‘Food law and biotechnology’, as it emerges from the
                                                                              organisational chart for DG SANCO of 15 June 2000 and
                                                                              the explicit decision adopted on 1 August 2000 by
—     Order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                              Mr Robert Coleman, Director General of the Directorate-
                                                                              General ‘Consumer policy and consumer health protec-
                                                                              tion’, brought to the applicant’s notice on 28 August
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               2000;
The applicant states that on 1 July 1997 it lodged a complaint           —    order the defendant to pay to the applicant, as compen-
on the basis of Articles 48 and 85 of the EC Treaty (now                      sation for non-material damage, BEF 1 as provisional
Articles 39 EC and 81 EC) concerning the transfer system for                  damages in respect of injury assessed at BEF 10 000,
professional football players applied by organisations such as                subject to increase or decrease in the course of proceed-
FIFA, URBSFA and the Ligue professionelle de Football de                      ings;
Belgique. Following that complaint, registered under
No IV/36.583-SETCA-FGTB/FIFA, URBSFA, the Commission
initiated a procedure against FIFA.                                      —    in any event, order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Action brought on 13 July 1998 by Bjarne Hoff-Nielsen against the Council of the European Union (Case T-104/98)

text:
26.9.98              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 299/37
    down a double ceiling on the number of years to be              Ð order the Council to pay the costs.
    credited which is not envisaged by the legislature,
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Ð that unjust enrichment has occurred in this case since,
    by entering as income in the Community budget that              The pleas in law and main arguments are those already
    part of the amount not taken into account under the             raised in Case T-103/98 Kristensen v. Council (1).
    Community pension scheme, the defendant has
    enriched itself without any legal basis.                        (1) See page 36 of this Offical Journal.
Finally, the applicant contends that the principle of equal
treatment has been infringed. The Commission as well as
the Court of Auditors, the Economic and Social
Committee and the Committee of the Regions refund to
officials assigned to their service that part of the amount         Action brought on 13 July 1998 by Rainer Dumont du
of the rights transferred not taken into account in the                        Voitel v. Council of the European Union
Community pension scheme. The Parliament does not                                            (Case T-105/98)
restrict the number of years to be credited and therefore
may take into account a number of years of pensionable                                        (98/C 299/67)
service far exceeding the period of affiliation to national
schemes. Only the Council restricts the years to be                                 (Language of the case: French)
credited and refuses to refund that part of the amount not
taken into account in the Community pension scheme.
The difference in treatment accorded by the various                 An action against the Council of the European Union was
Community institutions to officials who are in the same             brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
position thus infringes the prohibition of discrimination.          Communities on 13 July 1998 by Rainer Dumont du
                                                                    Voitel, of Vossem-Tervuren (Belgium), represented by
                                                                    Pierre-Paul Van Gehuchten and Jacques Sambon, of the
                                                                    Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                    the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2, rue du Fort Rheinsheim.
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
Action brought on 13 July 1998 by Bjarne Hoff-Nielsen
         against the Council of the European Union
                                                                    1. declare the action admissible and well-founded;
                       (Case T-104/98)
                        (98/C 299/66)                               2. allow the action, annul the disputed decision and
                                                                         order the Council to pay the costs.
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
An action against the Council of the European Union was             The applicant, an official employed by the Council,
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European          challenges that institution's decision of 27 April 1998
Communities on 13 July 1988 by Bjarne Hoff-Nielsen,                 relating to the procedures whereby officials and employees
residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis,              of the General Secretariat of the Council may be allowed
VeÂronique Leclercq, Ariane Tornel and FrancËoise                   access to classified information held by the Council (1).
Parmentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service        The first citation in the preamble to that decision refers to
in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL,              Article 151(3) of the Treaty establishing the European
30, rue de Cessange.                                                Community and the third citation refers to the declaration
                                                                    in the Annex to the Final Act of the Treaty of Amsterdam
                                                                    on enhanced cooperation between the European Union
The applicant claims that the Court should:                         and the Western European Union.
                                                                    The applicant points out that the decision requires that
Ð annul the Council decision of 6 October 1997 refusing             officials authorised to have access to classified information
    the request for refund of that part of the pension              obtain specific permission which is granted after security
    rights transferred to the Community pensions regime             screening has been carried out by the competent national
    which was not taken into consideration in the                   authorities of the Member States. The decision challenged
    calculation of the pensionable service to be taken into         by the applicant also seeks to impose new obligations and
    account pursuant to Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the          confer new prerogatives on the appointing authority and
    Staff Regulations,                                              to limit its jurisdiction.