title: Case C-416/14: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale di Mestre-Venezia — Italy) — Fratelli De Pra SpA, SAIV SpA v Agenzia Entrate — Direzione Provinciale Ufficio Controlli Belluno, Agenzia Entrate — Direzione Provinciale Ufficio Controlli Vicenza (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Telecommunications networks and services — Directives 2002/19/EC, 2002/20/EC, 2002/21/EC, 2002/22/EC — Free circulation of terminal equipment for terrestrial mobile telecommunications — Directive 1999/5/EC — Tax on the use of equipment — General authorisation or licence for use — Subscription contract equivalent to a general authorisation or licence — Differential treatment of users depending on whether or not they have a subscription contract)

text:
               9.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/13

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale di Mestre-Venezia — Italy) — Fratelli De Pra SpA, SAIV SpA v Agenzia Entrate — Direzione Provinciale Ufficio Controlli Belluno, Agenzia Entrate — Direzione Provinciale Ufficio Controlli Vicenza
   (Case C-416/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Telecommunications networks and services - Directives 2002/19/EC, 2002/20/EC, 2002/21/EC, 2002/22/EC - Free circulation of terminal equipment for terrestrial mobile telecommunications - Directive 1999/5/EC - Tax on the use of equipment - General authorisation or licence for use - Subscription contract equivalent to a general authorisation or licence - Differential treatment of users depending on whether or not they have a subscription contract))
   (2015/C 371/16)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Commissione tributaria regionale di Mestre-Venezia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Fratelli De Pra SpA, SAIV SpA

      Defendants: Agenzia Entrate — Direzione Provinciale Ufficio Controlli Belluno, Agenzia Entrate — Direzione Provinciale Ufficio Controlli Vicenza

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Directives:

                           —

                           1999/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 1999 on radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment and the mutual recognition of their conformity, in particular Article 8 thereof;

                           —

                           2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (Access Directive);

                           —

                           2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/140/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009;

                           —

                           2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive); and

                           —

                           2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/136/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009

                     must be interpreted as not precluding national rules on the application of a charge such as the charge paid for a government licence under which the use of terminal equipment for terrestrial mobile radio communication under a subscription contract is subject to a general authorisation or a licence and to the payment of such a charge, provided that the subscription contract itself is equivalent to a licence or general authorisation and, accordingly, no intervention is required in that regard by the public administrative authorities.

               2.

               Article 20 of Directive 2002/22, as amended by Directive 2009/136, and Article 8 of Directive 1999/5 must be interpreted as not precluding, for the purposes of the application of a charge such as the charge paid for a government licence, a subscription contract for mobile telephony services from being equated with a general authorisation or a radio station licence, which must moreover include details of the type of equipment concerned and the corresponding certification.

               3.

               In a case such as that in the main proceedings, EU law, as laid down in Directives 1999/5, 2002/19, 2002/20, as amended by Directive 2009/140, 2002/21 and 2002/22, as amended by Directive 2009/136, and in Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding differential treatment of users of terminal equipment for terrestrial mobile radio communication, depending on whether they conclude a subscription contract for mobile telephony services or purchase those services in the form of pay-as-you-go or top-up cards, under which only the former are subject to rules such as those establishing the charge paid for a government licence.

      (1)  OJ C 431, 1.2.2014.


title: Case T-136/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of 22 June 2006 — Freiherr von Cramer-Klett and Rechtlerverband Pfronten v Commission (Council Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats and wild fauna and flora — Commission Decision 2004/69/EC — List of sites of Community importance for the Alpine biogeographical region — Action for annulment — Inadmissible)

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/43

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 22 June 2006 — Freiherr von Cramer-Klett and Rechtlerverband Pfronten v Commission
   (Case T-136/04) (1)

   (Council Directive 92/43/EEC - Conservation of natural habitats and wild fauna and flora - Commission Decision 2004/69/EC - List of sites of Community importance for the Alpine biogeographical region - Action for annulment - Inadmissible)
   (2006/C 224/93)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicants: Freiherr von Cramer-Klett (Aschau im Chiemgau, Germany) and Rechtlerverband Pfronten (Pfronten, Germany) (represented by: T. Schönfeld and L. Thum, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. van Beek and B. Schima, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Finland (represented by: T. Pynnä and A. Guimaraes-Purokowski, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2004/69/EC of 22 December 2003 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, the list of sites of Community importance for the Alpine biogeographical region (OJ 2004 L 14, p. 21).
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible

               2.

               The applicants are ordered to bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the Commission.

               3.

               The Republic of Finland is ordered to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 190 of 24.7.2004.


title: Case C-620/13 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 October 2014  — British Telecommunications plc v European Commission and BT Pension Scheme Trustees Ltd (Appeal — State aid — Exemption of a pension fund from the obligation to pay a contribution to a pension protection fund in respect of certain employees — Selective nature of the measure)

text:
               8.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 439/13

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 October 2014 — British Telecommunications plc v European Commission and BT Pension Scheme Trustees Ltd
   (Case C-620/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - State aid - Exemption of a pension fund from the obligation to pay a contribution to a pension protection fund in respect of certain employees - Selective nature of the measure))
   (2014/C 439/19)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: British Telecommunications plc (represented by: J. Holmes, Barrister, and H. Legge QC)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and N. Khan, Agents), BT Pension Scheme Trustees Ltd (represented by: J. Derenne and A. Müller-Rappard, avocats, instructed by M. Farley, Solicitor)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2)

               Orders British Telecommunications plc and BT Pension Scheme Trustees Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 61, 1.3.2014.


title: Case T-557/13: Action brought on 24 October 2013 — Germany v Commission

text:
               11.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/25

         Action brought on 24 October 2013 — Germany v Commission
   (Case T-557/13)
   2014/C 9/41
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and J. Möller)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Article 1 and the Annex to Commission Implementing Decision 2013/433/EU of 13 August 2013 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as financing by the European Union is therein excluded in respect of payments of a total of EUR 6 192 951,34 made by the competent paying agencies of the Federal Republic of Germany in the framework of the implementation of the aid rules for the potato starch sector for the years 2003 to 2005;

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging failure to observe the conditions for the grant of the premium and the aid — payment of the minimum price
               The applicant alleges infringement of Article 7(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 (1) and Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, (2) read in conjunction with Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1868/94, (3) Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 97/95, (4) Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 2236/2003 (5) and Article 26 of Regulation (EC) No 2237/2003 (6) as a result of the exclusion of expenditure from financing, although the conditions for the grant of the premium and the aid were fulfilled, the minimum price for the amount applied for having been paid.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging deficient reasoning
               By this plea in law the applicant claims that Article 296(2) TFEU has been infringed because the Commission failed to provide adequate and non-contradictory reasoning explaining why on the basis of Article 11 of Regulation No 97/95, Article 10 of Regulation No 2236/2003 and Article 26 of Regulation No 2237/2003, taking all language versions into account, it should be a condition of payment of the premium or aid that the starch undertaking must already have paid the minimum price for the all the potato deliveries in the financial year.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging breach of the obligation to notify complaints within 24 months
               The applicant alleges infringement of subparagraph 1 of Article 7(4), read in conjunction with point (a) of subparagraph 5 of Article 7(4) of Regulation No 1258/199, and Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 (7) and subparagraph 1 of Article 31(3), read in conjunction with Article 31(4)(a), of Regulation No 1290/2005, and Article 11(1) of Regulation (EC) No 885/2006, (8) because the Commission failed effectively to communicate the complaint (absence of ‘key controls’), on which it based the exclusion of the expenditure, to the Federal Republic of Germany, in writing, within 24 months following the date when the expenditure was incurred.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging excessive length of proceedings
               In this context, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 7(4) of Regulation No 1258/1999, Article 8 of Regulation No 1663/95, Article 31 of Regulation No 1290/2005 and Article 11 of Regulation No 885/2006, in conjunction with the general legal principle that administrative proceedings should be conducted within a reasonable time, and infringement of the rights of the defence, since the proceedings before the Commission lasted too long.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law: infringement of subparagraph 4 of Article 7(4) of Regulation No 1258/1999, Article 31(2) of Regulation No 1290/2005 and of the principle of proportionality
               The applicant alleges in this context that, by imposing a flat-rate correction of 10 %, the Commission failed to take appropriate account of the nature and the clearly limited scope of the supposed infringement and ignored the fact that not only was no financial damage actually caused to the Union, but that there was never even a real danger that such damage would occur.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 1999 L 160, p. 103).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2005 L 209, p. 1).

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1868/94 of 27 July 1994 establishing a quota system in relation to the production of potato starch (OJ 1994 L 197, p. 4).

      (4)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 97/95 of 17 January 1995 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 as regards the minimum price and compensatory payment to be paid to potato producers and of Council Regulation (EC) No 1868/94 establishing a quota system in relation to the production of potato starch (OJ 1995 L 16, p. 3).

      (5)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2236/2003 of 23 December 2003 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1868/94 establishing a quota system in relation to the production of potato starch (OJ 2003 L 339, p. 45).

      (6)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2237/2003 of 23 December 2003 laying down detailed rules for the application of certain support schemes provided for in Title IV of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers (OJ 2003 L 339, p. 52).

      (7)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 of 7 July 1995 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 regarding the procedure for the clearance of the accounts of the EAGGF Guarantee Section (OJ 1995 L158, p. 6).

      (8)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 of 21 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 as regards the accreditation of paying agencies and other bodies and the clearance of the accounts of the EAGF and of the EAFRD (OJ 2006 L 171, p. 90).


title: Case C-212/13: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — František Ryneš v Úřad pro ochranu osobních údajů (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 95/46/EC — Protection of individuals — Processing of personal data — Concept of ‘in the course of a purely personal or household activity’ )

text:
               9.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/6

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — František Ryneš v Úřad pro ochranu osobních údajů
   (Case C-212/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 95/46/EC - Protection of individuals - Processing of personal data - Concept of ‘in the course of a purely personal or household activity’))
   (2015/C 046/07)
   Language of the case: Czech

      Referring court

   Nejvyšší správní soud

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: František Ryneš

      Defendant: Úřad pro ochranu osobních údajů

      Operative part of the judgment

   The second indent of Article 3(2) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data must be interpreted as meaning that the operation of a camera system, as a result of which a video recording of people is stored on a continuous recording device such as a hard disk drive, installed by an individual on his family home for the purposes of protecting the property, health and life of the home owners, but which also monitors a public space, does not amount to the processing of data in the course of a purely personal or household activity, for the purposes of that provision.

      (1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.


title: Action brought on 10 July 1996 by the United Kingdom against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-240/96)

text:
No C 269/ 14        1 EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                      14 . 9 . 96
European Communities on 10 July 1996 by the United                 Action brought on 10 July 1996 by the United Kingdom
Kingdom, represented by John E. Collins, Assistant                   against the Commission of the European Communities
Treasury Solicitor, acting as agent, assisted by Mr Derrick                               ( Case C-240/96 )
Wyatt, QC, of the English Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the British Embassy, 14 boulevard                                             ( 96/C 269/29 )
Roosevelt .
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                   Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
                                                                   European Communities on 10 July 1996 by the United
— annul the decision or act comprised in or referred to by         Kingdom, represented by John E. Collins, Assistant
    implication in the memorandum of 2 May 1996 ,                  Treasury Solicitor, acting as agent, assisted by Mr Derrick
                                                                   Wyatt, QC, of the English Bar, with an address for service in
— award costs against the Commission pursuant to                   Luxembourg at the British Embassy, 14 boulevard
    Article 69 of the Rules of Procedure .                         Roosevelt .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
All Community expenditure must be based on both a
budgetary appropriation and a basic measure . It is accepted
that the power of initiative of the Commission authorizes          — annul the decision comprised in or referred to by
pilot studies and preparatory action designed to assess the            implication in the memorandum of 15 May 1996 ,
policy pros and cons of making a proposal for a basic
measure , but the power of initiative cannot justify the
initiation of a substantive programme for a basic measure .        — award costs against the Commission pursuant to
Nor can the power of initiative justify expenditure in                 Article 69 of the Rules of Procedure .
connection with a proposal for a basic measure where it is
clear that the basic measure will not be adopted . In any
event, expenditure which purports to be derived from the
Commission 's power of initiative must be authorized by a          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
properly reasoned Commission decision which indicates the
legal basis , establishes the framework and criteria for the
expenditure in question, and is notified to the Member             All Community expenditure must be based on both a
States .                                                           budgetary appropriation and a basic measure . It is accepted
                                                                   that the power of initiative of the Commission authorizes
                                                                   pilot studies and preparatory action designed to assess the
In the present case the Commission, in a memorandum                policy pros and cons of making a proposal for a basic
circulated to national authorities and to the public ,             measure, but the power of initiative cannot justify the
published an invitation to organizations to apply for grants       initiation of a substantive programme for a basic measure .
to assist the elderly. The proposed expenditure in question        Nor can the power of initiative justify expenditure in
would if incurred comprise expenditure indistinguishable           connection with a proposal for a basic measure where it is
from that authorized under a previous Council decision on          clear that the basic measure will not be adopted. In any
Community actions for the elderly and from that which              event, expenditure which purports to be derived from the
would have been authorized if a Commission proposal                Commission 's power of initiative must be authorized by a
under Article 235 of the EC Treaty had been adopted ( but          properly reasoned Commission decision which indicates the
the proposal was not adopted), and it was unlawful for the         legal basis , establishes the framework and criteria for the
Commission to invite applications for such expenditure             expenditure in question , and is notified to the Member
without a basic measure and on the basis of a budget line          States .
alone . Furthermore, the invitation could not be justified on
the basis that the grants would support pilot studies or
preparatory action because it amounted to the initiation of
substantive action, and exceeded the powers of initiative of       In the present case the Commission, in a memorandum
the Commission . The invitation was also unsupported by            circulated to national authorities and to the public,
adequate reasoning.                                                published an invitation to organizations to apply for grants
                                                                   in respect of poverty and social exclusion . The proposed
                                                                   expenditure in question would if incurred comprise
It follows that the decision to seek applications for grants       expenditure indistinguishable from that covered by
comprised in or referred to by implication in the                  ( expired ) Poverty 3 and ( draft ) Poverty 4 . Such expenditure
Commission 's memorandum should be annulled for lack of            ( Poverty 3 and 4 ) required authorization by a Council
competence, infringement of an essential procedural                decision under Article 235 of the EC Treaty and it was
requirement, and infringement of the Treaty .                      unlawful for the Commission to invite applications for such
                                                                   expenditure without a basic measure and on the basis of
                                                                   budgetary remarks alone . Furthermore, the invitation could
                                                                   not be justified on the basis that the grants would support
 ---pagebreak--- 14 . 9 . 96           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 269/ 15
pilot studies or preparatory action because it amounted to             Action brought on 12 July 1996 by the Commission of the
the initiation of substantive action, and exceeded the powers           European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium
of initiative of the Commission . The invitation was also
                                                                                Case C-243/96 )
unsupported by adequate reasoning.
                                                                                ( 96/C 269/31 )
It follows that the decision to seek applications for grants
                                                                       An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
comprised in or referred to by implication in the                      before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
Commission 's memorandum should be annulled for lack of
                                                                       12 July 1996 by the Commission of the European
competence, infringement of an essential procedural
                                                                       Communities, represented by Xavier Lewis, acting as Agent,
requirement, and infringement of the Treaty .
                                                                       with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of C.
                                                                       Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre .
                                                                       The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                       the Court should :
                                                                       — declare that, by failing to bring into force within the
Action brought on 11 July 1996 by the Commission of the                      prescribed period the laws, regulations and
   European Communities against the Hellenic Republic                        administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                             Commission Directive 93/62/EEC (') of 5 July 1993
                         ( Case C-241 /96 )                                  setting out the implementing measures concerning
                           ( 96/C 269/30 )                                   the supervision and monitoring of suppliers and
                                                                             establishments pursuant to Council Directive
                                                                             92/33/EEC ( 2 )    on     the    marketing of  vegetable
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before                   propagating and planting material other than seed
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                          and/or failing to communicate them to the Commission ,
11 July 1996 by the Commission of the European                               the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
Communities, represented by Maria Kontou-Durande , of                        obligations under Article 6 of the abovementioned
its Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg                 Directive and also under the EC Treaty,
at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                              — order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                       The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put
— declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force               forward in Case C-236/96 ( 3 ); the time limit set by the
     within the prescribed period the laws, regulations or             Directive expired on 30 June 1994 .
     administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     Council Directive 92/66/EEC of 14 July 1992                       (') OJ No L 250, 7. 10 . 1993 , p . 29 .
     introducing Community measures for the control of                 ( 2 ) OJ No L 157, 10 . 6 . 1992 , p . 1 .
     Newcastle disease ( 1 ), or notify the Commission thereof,        ( 3 ) See page 11 of this Official Journal .
     the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
     under the Treaty and that Directive,
— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs .
                                                                       Action brought on 12 July 1996 by the Commission of the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium
                                                                                ( Case C-244/96 )
The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third                                                ( 96/C 269/32 )
paragraph of Article 189 and the first paragraph of Article 5
of the EC Treaty requires Member States to adopt the                   An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
measures necessary to transpose directives addressed to                before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
them into their domestic law before the expiry of the period
                                                                        12 July 1996 by the Commission of the European
prescribed for doing so and forthwith to inform the                    Communities, represented by Xavier Lewis , acting as Agent,
Commission thereof. The Hellenic Republic has not notified             with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of C.
the Commission of any laws, regulations or administrative              Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre .
provisions necessary to bring domestic law into line with the
Directive .
                                                                       The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                       the Court should :
(') OJ No L 260 , 5 . 9 . 1992 , p . 1 .
                                                                       — declare that, by failing to bring into force within the
                                                                             prescribed period the laws, regulations and
                                                                             administrative provisions necessary to comply with :


title: Case F-20/09: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 10 November 2011 — Juvyns v Council (Civil service — Officials — Promotion — 2008 promotion procedure — Comparative examination of merit — Procedure based on 2005/2006 annual staff reports — Criterion of the level of responsibilities exercised)

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/22

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 10 November 2011 — Juvyns v Council
   (Case F-20/09) (1)

   (Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2008 promotion procedure - Comparative examination of merit - Procedure based on 2005/2006 annual staff reports - Criterion of the level of responsibilities exercised)
   2012/C 138/42
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Marc Juvyns (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: initially by: K. Zieleśkiewicz and G. Kimberley, and subsequently by: K. Zieleśkiewicz and M. Bauer, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of the decision not to promote the applicant to grade AST 7 in the 2008 promotion procedure and, so far as necessary, of the decisions to promote less deserving officials to that grade

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Juvyns to bear his own costs and pay those of the Council of the European Union.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 16.5.2009, p. 46.


title: Case C-27/03: Action brought on 23 January 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

text:
22.3.2003              EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                             C 70/11
Action brought on 23 January 2003 by the Commission                      —      The implementation programme of the Region of the
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                              Capital City of Brussels does not contain the information
                             Belgium                                            required pursuant to Table 2.3 of Decision 93/481/EEC
                                                                                as regards the number and capacity of collection systems
                                                                                discharging into receiving waters which are considered
                         (Case C-27/03)                                         ‘sensitive areas’.
                         (2003/C 70/17)                                  —      It is apparent from the part of the Walloon implemen-
                                                                                tation programme relating to the implementation of
                                                                                Article 3 of the directive in normal areas that the
                                                                                collection systems to which agglomerations with a popu-
                                                                                lation equivalent of more than 15 000 will be connected
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                      will not reach their definitive capacity until 31 December
                                                                                2005, whereas the directive lays down a time-limit of
23 January 2003 by the Commission of the European
                                                                                31 December 2000. It is also apparent from the part of
Communities, represented by G. Valero Jordana and M. Van
Beek, acting as Agents.                                                         the Walloon programme relating to the implementation
                                                                                of Article 4 of the directive in normal areas that the
                                                                                water treatment plants to which agglomerations with a
                                                                                population equivalent of more than 15 000 and less than
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                150 000 will be connected will not reach their definitive
                                                                                capacity until 31 December 2005, whereas the directive
—     declare that,                                                             lays down a time-limit of 31 December 2000.
      in so far as the Region of the Capital City of Brussels, the
      Flemish Region and the Walloon Region are concerned,               (1 ) Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban
      the Kingdom of Belgium failed to ensure that systems for                waste-water treatment (OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40).
      the collection and treatment of urban waste water were             (2 ) Commission Decision 93/481/EEC of 28 July 1993 concerning
      brought into operation on 31 December 1998, as                          formats for the presentation of national programmes as foreseen
                                                                              by Article 17 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC (OJ 1993 L 226,
      provided for in Άrticles 3 and 5 of Directive 91/271/
                                                                              p. 23).
      EEC (1),
      in so far as the Walloon Region is concerned, the
      Kingdom of Belgium has not forwarded to the Com-
      mission an implementation programme, as provided for
      in Article 17 of Directive 91/271/EEC, which complies
      with the directive from the point of view of the time-
      limits laid down; and
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Simvoulio tis
                                                                         Epikratias by order of that Court of 23 October 2002 in
      in so far as the Region of the Capital City of Brussels is         the case of Epikouriko Kefalaio Asfaliseos Efthinis ex
      concerned, the Kingdom of Belgium has not forwarded                Atikhimaton Aftokiniton against the Minister for Devel-
      to the Commission an implementation programme which                                               opment
      complies fully with the format prescribed by Commission
      Decision 93/481/EEC ( 2);
                                                                                (Case C-28/03)
—     order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
                                                                                (2003/C 70/18)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
—     As far as the Region of the Capital City of Brussels and a         European Communities by order of the Simvoulio tis Epikratias
      large number of agglomerations of the Flemish Region               (Council of State) of 23 October 2002, received at the Court
      are concerned, the time-limit of 31 December 1998 for              Registry on 24 January 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the
      the entry into service of systems for the collection and           case of Epikouriko Kefalaio Asfaliseos Efthinis ex Atikhimaton
      treatment of urban waste water was not complied with.              Aftokiniton (Additional Insurance Fund for Motor Vehicle
      Discharges of urban waste water from 44 agglomerations             Accident Liability) against the Minister for Development on
      with a population equivalent of more than 10 000 in                the following question:
      the territory of the Walloon Region contribute to the
      pollution of Flanders and Netherlands territory and the
      North Sea coasts of Belgium and the Netherlands. The               Given the provisions of, in particular, Articles 15 and 16 of
      Walloon Region ought therefore to have applied                     First Council Directive 73/239/EEC on the coordination of
      Article 5(5) of the directive and made provision for               laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the
      tertiary treatment for the agglomerations in question.             taking up and pursuit of the business of direct insurance other


title: Case T-511/09: Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2015 — Niki Luftfahrt v Commission (State aid — Restructuring aid granted by Austria to the Austrian Airlines group — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the common market, subject to compliance with certain conditions — Privatisation of the Austrian Airlines group — Determination of the recipient of the aid — Guidelines for State aid for the rescue and restructuring of undertakings in difficulty)

text:
               29.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/24

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2015 — Niki Luftfahrt v Commission
   (Case T-511/09) (1)

   ((State aid - Restructuring aid granted by Austria to the Austrian Airlines group - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the common market, subject to compliance with certain conditions - Privatisation of the Austrian Airlines group - Determination of the recipient of the aid - Guidelines for State aid for the rescue and restructuring of undertakings in difficulty))
   (2015/C 213/43)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Niki Luftfahrt GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: H. Asenbauer and A. Habeler, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: B. Martenczuk and K. Gross, acting as Agents, and G. Quardt, lawyer, and subsequently by: B. Martenczuk and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and G. Quardt and J. Lipinsky, lawyers)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: C. Pesendorfer and M. Klamert, acting as Agents); Deutsche Lufthansa AG (Cologne, Germany) (represented initially by: H.-J. Niemeyer, H. Ehlers and M. Rosenberg and subsequently by: H.-J. Niemeyer, H. Ehlers, C. Kovács and S. Völcker, lawyers); Austrian Airlines AG (Vienna) (represented initially by: H.-J. Niemeyer, H. Ehlers and M. Rosenberg and subsequently by: H.-J. Niemeyer, H. Ehlers, C. Kovács and S. Völcker, lawyers), and Österreichische Industrieholding AG (Vienna) (represented by: T. Zivny, P. Lewisch and H. Kristoferitsch, lawyers)

      Re:

   Annulment of Commission Decision 2010/137/EC of 28 August 2009, State aid C 6/2009 (ex N 663/2008) — Austria Austrian Airlines — restructuring plan (OJ 2010 L 59, p. 1), declaring the restructuring aid granted by the Republic of Austria to the Austrian Airlines Group in the course of its purchase by the Lufthansa group to be compatible with the common market, subject to compliance with certain conditions.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Niki Luftfahrt GmbH to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission, Österreichische Industrieholding AG, Deutsche Lufthansa AG and Austrian Airlines AG.

               3.

               Orders the Republic of Austria to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 27.3.2010.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 6 June 1995 in Case C-434/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State, Netherlands): Ahmet Bozkurt v. Staatssecretaris van Justitie (Association Agreement between the EEC and Turkey - Decision of the Association Council - Freedom of movement for workers - International lorry-driver - Permanent incapacity for work - Right to remain)

text:
No C 229/2               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      2 . 9 . 95
       did not inform the applicant in writing, before                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
       1 September 1 990, of the result of his application.                                       of 6 June 1995
                                                                         in Case C-434/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
(') OJ No C 306 , 12 . 11 . 1993 .                                       the Raad van State, Netherlands ): Ahmet Bozkurt v.
( 2 ) OJ No L 116 , 28 . 4 . 1989 , p . 25 .
( 3 ) OJ No L 116 , 28 . 4 . 1989 , p . 30 .
                                                                                Staatssecretaris van Justitie ( 1 )
                                                                         (Association Agreement between the EEC and Turkey —
                                                                         Decision of the Association Council — Freedom of
                                                                         movement for workers — International lorry-driver —
                                                                             Permanent incapacity for work — Right to remain)
                                                                                95/C 229/03
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           ( Fifth Chamber)                                              (Language of the case: Dutch)
                            of 1 June 1995
                                                                         (Provisional translation; the definitive text will be published
         in Case C-123/94 : Commission of the European                                  in the European Court Reports)
               Communities v. Hellenic Republic (^
 (Freedom of movement for workers — Equal treatment —                    In Case C-434/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
    Recruitment of foreigners by private language schools)
                                                                         of the EC Treaty from the Raad van State ( Council of State,
                             ( 95/C 229/02 )                             Netherlands ) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
                                                                         pending before that court between Ahmet Bozkurt and the
                    (Language of the case: Greek)                        Staatssecretaris van Justitie on the interpretation of Article 2
                                                                         of Decision No 2/76 of 20 December 1976 and Article 6 of
                                                                         Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 of the Association
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                         Council established by the agreement establishing an
             published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                         Association between the European Economic Community
                                                                         and Turkey, signed on 12 September 1963 in Ankara and
 In Case C-123/94 : Commission of the European                           approved on behalf of the Community by Council Decision
 Communities ( Agent: Maria Patakia ) v. Hellenic Republic                64/732/EEC ( 2 ).
 (Agents: Aikaterini Samoni-Rantou and Evi Skandalou ) —
 application for a declaration that, by maintaining in force
 the provisions of Article 70 of Decree Law No 2545/1940                 The Court, composed of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President,
 and Decision No 46508 of 10/ 17 May 1976 of the Minister                 F. A. Schockweiler ( Rapporteur ), P. J. G. Kapteyn and
                                                                          C. Gulmann, Presidents of Chambers, G. F. Mancini, C. N.
 for National Education and Religious Affairs ( as
                                                                          Kakouris, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida , J. L. Murray, D. A. O.
 subsequently amended ), the Hellenic Republic has failed to
 fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and Article 3 ( 1 ) of        Edward, J. -P. Puissochet and G. Hirsch, Judges; M. B.
 Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968                 Elmer, Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy
 on       freedom    of movement         for workers    within  the       Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 June 1995 in which it
                                                                          ruled :
 Community ( 2 ) — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of:
 C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de
 Almeida ( Rapporteur ), D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet               1.  in order to ascertain whether a Turkish worker
 and L. Sevon, Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General;                         employed as an international lorry-driver belongs to the
 R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 1 June 1 995 , in               legitimate labour force of a Member State, for the
 which it :                                                                   purposes of Article 6 (1 ) of Decision No 1 /80 of
                                                                              19 September 1980 of the Association Council
  1 . declares that, by maintaining in force the provisions of                established by the agreement establishing and
        Article 70 of Decree Law No 2545/1940 and Decision                    Association between the European Economic
        No 46508 of 10/17 May 1976 of the Minister for                        Community and Turkey, signed on 12 September 1963
        National Education and Religious Affairs (as                          in Ankara and approved on behalfof the Community by
        subsequently amended), the Hellenic Republic has failed               Council Decision 64/732/EEC of 23 December 1963, it
        to fulfil its obligations under Community law, more                   is for the national court to determine whether the
        specifically Article 48 (2) of the EC Treaty and Article 3            applicant's employment relationship retained a
        (1 ) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of                        sufficiently close link with the territory of the Member
        15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers                    State, and, in so doing, to take account, in particular, of
        within the Community;                                                 the place where he was hired, the territory on which the
                                                                              paid employment is based and the applicable national
                                                                              legislation in the field ofemployment and social security
  2 . orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                          law;
  (•) OJ No C 174 , 25 . 6 . 1994 .                                       2 . the existence of legal employment in a Member State
  (2 ) OJ No L 257, 19 . 10 . 1968 , p . 2 .                                   within the meaning ofArticle 6 (1 ) of Decision No 1 /80,
                                                                               cited above, can be established in the case of a Turkish
                                                                               worker who was not required by the national legislation
 ---pagebreak---  2 . 9 . 95             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 229/3
      concerned to hold a work permit or a residence permit                 ( Rapporteur) and J. L. Murray, Judges; M. B. Elmer,
      issued by the authorities in the host State in order to              Advocate-General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal
      carry out his work . The fact that such employment exists            Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on
      necessarily implies the recognition ofa right ofresidence             15 June 1995 , the operative part of which is as follows :
      for the person concerned;
                                                                           Community law does not preclude a court which has made a
 3 . Article 6 (2) of Decision No 1 /80 does not confer on a               preliminary reference from finding that in national law the
      Turkish national who has belonged to the legitimate                  claims of the appellants have been acceded to and, where
      labour force ofa Member State the right to remain in the             appropriate, that the main proceedings are thereby
      territory of that State following an accident at work                terminated. As long as the court which made the reference
      rendering him permanently incapacitated for work .                   has not found that in national law the fact that the claims
                                                                           have been acceded to has not so terminated the proceedings,
                                                                           the Court has no jurisdiction to give a ruling on the
(!) OJ No C 338 , 15 . 12 . 1993 .                                         questions referred to it.
( 2 ) OJ No 217, 29 . 12 . 1964 , p . 3685/64 .
                                                                           ( 1 ) OJ No C 316 , 23 . 11 . 1993 .
                                                                           ( 2 ) OJ No L 230, 22 . 8 . 1983 , p . 6 .
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        ( Fourth Chamber )
                          of 15 June 1995                                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
in Joined Cases C-422/93 , C-423/93 and C-424/93                                                    ( Fifth Chamber)
(references for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País                                              of 15 June 1995
Vasco ( Spain ): Teresa Zabala Erasun v. Instituto Nacional                       in Case C-220/94: Commission of the European
de Empleo; Elvira Encabo Terrazos v. Instituto Nacional de                        Communities v. Grand Duchy of Luxembourg ( 1 )
Empleo; and Francisco Casquero Carrillo v. Instituto                       (Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 92/44/EEC —
                     Nacional de Empleo i 1 )                              Telecommunications — Open network provision for leased
(Preliminary reference — Conditions under which court of                                                   lines)
reference should maintain its reference — Scope of the                                                 95/C 229/05 )
                       Court's jurisdiction)
                           ( 95/C 229/04 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                 (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
           published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                          In Case C-220/94 : Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities (Agents: Anders C. Jessen and J.-F . Pasquier )
In Joined Cases C-422/93 , C-423/93 and C-424/93 :                        v. Grand Duchy of Luxembourg ( Agent: N. Schmit ) —
references to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty                application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt within
by the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad                      the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
Autonoma del Pais Vasco ( Spain ) for a preliminary ruling in             administrative provisions needed to comply with Council
the proceedings pending before that court between Teresa                  Directive 92/44/EEC of 5 June 1992 on the application of
Zabala Erasun and Instituto Nacional de Empleo, Elvira                    open network provision to leased lines ( 2 ) or, alternatively,
Encabo Terrazos and Instituto Nacional de Empleo, and                     by failing to inform the Commission forthwith of such
Francisco Casquero Carrillo and Instituto Nacional de                     measures, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to
Empleo on the interpretation of Articles 4(1 ) ( g ), 4 ( 2 ), 5          fulfil its obligations under the third paragraph of Article 1 89
and 97 of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 of 14 June                of the EC Treaty and under Article 15 of that Directive —
1971 on the application of social security schemes to                     the Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of: C. Gulmann,
employed persons, to self-employed persons and to                         President of the Chamber, P. Jann, J. C. Moitinho de
members of their families moving within the Community, as                 Almeida , D. A. O. Edward ( Rapporteur ) and L. Sevon,
codified by Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2001 /83 of 2 June              Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett,
1983 ( 2 ) — the Court ( Fourth Chamber ), composed of:                   Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
P. J. G. Kapteyn, President of the Chamber, C. N. Kakouris                 15 June 1995 ; in which it:


title: Case C-66/15: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 January 2016 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Freedom to provide services — Motor vehicles — Hiring or leasing of a motor vehicle by a resident of a Member State from a supplier established in another Member State — Taxation of that vehicle at the time it is registered in the first Member State — Levy of the full amount of vehicle registration tax)

text:
               14.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/15

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 January 2016 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-66/15) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Freedom to provide services - Motor vehicles - Hiring or leasing of a motor vehicle by a resident of a Member State from a supplier established in another Member State - Taxation of that vehicle at the time it is registered in the first Member State - Levy of the full amount of vehicle registration tax))
   (2016/C 098/19)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: Wasmeier and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: K. Boskovits and V. Karrá, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Declares that, by levying the full amount of registration tax provided for under its national legislation at the time of registration of a vehicle hired or leased by a customer resident in its territory from a supplier established in another Member State, without taking into consideration the duration of the hire or lease contract and the duration of use of that vehicle in the national territory of Greece, the Hellenic Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 56 to 62 TFEU;

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.


title: Case T-93/99: Action brought on 19 April 1999 by Beatrice Bonaiti Brighina against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 188/28               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       3.7.1999
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant, who is the owner of a plantation in French                The applicant had asked for part of her salary to be transferred
Polynesia, states that he participated in a project for the              to the Menton (France) branch of the Banca SanPaolo, and
planting of tropical fruit trees on the Island of Raiatea which,         with her request attached a declaration that she had opened a
in accordance with promises given during a meeting of the                savings account designated ‘Home savings plan’ for the
farmers of Ile-sous-le-Vent in October 1991, was to be                   purpose of acquiring immovable property in France.
subsidised by the European Development Fund (EDF). The
funds assigned to that project were paid over, but were
                                                                         The applicant contests the condition stipulated by the Com-
apparently misapplied by the Government of French Polynesia,
                                                                         mission on the basis of Article 4 of its internal directive of
which was subsequently obliged to repay the money it had
                                                                         30 July 1993 (I.A. No 815 of 11 August 1993) to the effect
used improperly.
                                                                         that the transfer of the above sum is contingent upon the issue
                                                                         of an undertaking by the Banca SanPaolo, Menton, that it will
The applicant maintains that the fact that the EDF delegation            inform the Commission of all movements of funds made by
proposed the said project to the farmers of Raiatea and Tahaa            the applicant so that their whereabouts can be monitored.
gave them a legitimate expectation that the subsidy would be
paid to them. In accordance with Article 155 of the EC Treaty,
the Commission was under a duty to ensure that the funds                 In support of her claims, the applicant argues that the
assigned to the project were in fact paid to the farmers who             Commission has infringed and misapplied Article 17(2)(b) of
had, for their part, complied with the agreement.                        Annex VII to the Staff Regulations.
The applicant concludes from the foregoing that there is a               On that point, the applicant maintains that the purpose of
direct link between the undertaking given by the EDF and the             that provision is to enable an official who has financial
harm he suffered, which is in the amount of the promised                 responsibilities in a country other than his place of employ-
subsidy.                                                                 ment to have part of his disposable income transferred in the
                                                                         currency of that country in order to meet regular and certified
                                                                         expenses. It would therefore be unjustified to make the transfer
                                                                         of funds contingent upon the issue of a declaration such as
                                                                         that sought by the Commission. Also, the Commission’s
                                                                         request is in contravention of the general rules governing bank
                                                                         secrecy and the protection of privacy, both at the European
Action brought on 19 April 1999 by Beatrice Bonaiti                      level and in France. According to the applicant, it is difficult to
Brighina against the Commission of the European Com-                     imagine what information the banks are under a duty to
                            munities                                     protect, if not the details of clients’ transactions.
                         (Case T-93/99)
                        (1999/C 188/65)
                  (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                         Action brought on 16 April 1999 by S.A. Satellimages TV5
                                                                         against the Commission of the European Communities
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 19 April 1999 by Beatrice Bonaiti                                          (Case T-95/99)
Brighina, represented by Mirco Rizzoglio and Franco Colussi,
of the Milan and Luxembourg Bars, with an address for service                                    (1999/C 188/66)
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Franco Colussi, 36 Rue De
Wiltz.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
— annul the internal Commission directive of 30 July 1993                ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
    (published in I.A No 815 of 11 August 1993), and the                 European Communities on 16 April 1999 by S.A. Satellimages
    refusal of 24 June 1998 (Prot. No 563 IX.B.4 VT/D(98)) of            TV5, represented by Eduard Marissens, with an address for
    Directorate General IX (Personnel and Adrninistration) and           service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Lucy Dupong, 14
    the measure rejecting the complaint (Prot. No 3964 of                rue des Bains.
    22 Decernber 1998) concerning the transfer of FF 7 600
    per month, being part of the applicant’s salary, to her
    account designated ‘Home savings plan’ at the Menton                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
    branch of the Banca San Paolo;
                                                                         — declare annulled and void the decision, adopted by the
— in any event, award damages to be specified in the course                  defendant and contained in its letter of 15 February 1999
    of the proceedings;                                                      to the applicant, to reject the latter’s formal complaint of
                                                                             18 March 1998;
— order the Commission to pay all expenses and fees
    occasioned by the proceedings.                                       — order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-324/15: Order of the General Court of 10 May 2016 — Volkswagen v EUIPO — Andrã (BAG PAX) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark BAG PAX — Genuine use of the mark — Article 15(1)(a) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               18.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/40

         Order of the General Court of 10 May 2016 — Volkswagen v EUIPO — Andrã (BAG PAX)
   (Case T-324/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark BAG PAX - Genuine use of the mark - Article 15(1)(a) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
   (2016/C 260/50)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany) (represented by: U. Sander, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: H. Kunz, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court, formerly BAGPAX Cargo Systems e.K.: Marvin Dominic Andrã (Saarlouis, Germany) (represented by: T. Dohmen, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 April 2015 (Case R 1971/2014-4) concerning revocation proceedings between Volkswagen and BAGPAX Cargo Systems.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Volkswagen AG shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 270, 17.8.2015.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 September 2003 in Case C-67/02: Commission of the European Communities v Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 5 of Directive 79/923/EEC — Quality of shellfish waters — Pollution-reduction programme)

text:
15.11.2003               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                               C 275/17
1.    Rules such as those of the Vorarlberger Grundverkehrsgesetz            Article 39(4) EC must be construed as allowing a Member State to
      (Vorarlberg Land Transfer Law) of 23 September 1993, as                reserve for its nationals the post of master of vessels flying its flag
      amended, making transactions relating to agricultural and              and engaged in ‘small-scale maritime shipping’ (‘Kleine See-
      forestry plots subject to administrative controls must, where a        schifffahrt’) only if the rights under powers conferred by public law
      transaction is in issue between nationals of States party to the       granted to masters of such vessels are in fact exercised on a regular
      Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992,                 basis and do not represent a very minor part of their activities.
      be assessed in the light of Article 40 of and Annex XII to the
      aforementioned Agreement, which are provisions possessing the
      same legal scope as that of Article 73b of the EC Treaty (now          (1) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.
      Article 56 EC), which is identical in substance.
2.    Article 73b of the Treaty in conjunction with Articles 73c,
      73d, 73f and 73g of the EC Treaty (now Articles 57 EC to 60
      EC) do not preclude the acquisition of agricultural land being
      made subject to the grant of prior authorisation such as that
      established by the VGVG. However, they do preclude such
      authorisation being refused in every case in which the acquirer                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      does not himself farm the land concerned as part of a holding
      and on which he is not resident.
                                                                                (Fourth Chamber)
(1) OJ C 84 of 6.4.2002.
                                                                                of 11 September 2003
                                                                             in Case C-67/02: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Ireland (1)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                             (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 5
                       of 30 September 2003                                  of Directive 79/923/EEC — Quality of shellfish waters —
                                                                                Pollution-reduction programme)
in Case C-47/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Oberverwaltungsgericht):                                                    (2003/C 275/29)
Albert Anker, Klaas Ras, Albertus Snoek v Bundesrepu-
                       blik Deutschland ( (1))
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
(Freedom of movement for workers — Article 39(4) EC —
Employment in the public service — Masters of fishing
vessels — Conferment of powers of public authority on
    board — Posts reserved for nationals of the flag State)                  In Case C-67/02, Commission of the European Communities
                                                                             (Agent: M. Shotter) v Ireland (Agent: D. O’Hagan): Application
                                                                             for a declaration that, by not adopting programmes for all its
                          (2003/C 275/28)
                                                                             designated shellfish waters in accordance with Article 5 of
                                                                             Council Directive 79/923/EEC of 30 October 1979 on the
                    (Language of the case: German)                           quality required of shellfish waters (OJ 1979 L 281, p. 47),
                                                                             Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive,
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmer-
                    in the European Court Reports)                           mans, President of the Chamber, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur)
                                                                             and S. von Bahr, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General;
                                                                             R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 September
In Case C-47/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234                    2003, in which it:
EC by the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Oberverwaltungsgericht
(Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
                                                                             1.     Declares that, by not adopting programmes for all its designated
before that court between Albert Anker, Klaas Ras, Albertus                         shellfish waters in accordance with Article 5 of Council Directive
Snoek and Bundesrepublik Deutschland, represented by the
                                                                                79/923/EEC of 30 October 1979 on the quality required of
Wasser- und Schiffahrtsdirektion Nord, on the interpretation
                                                                                shellfish waters, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations
of Article 39(4) EC, the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez
                                                                                thereunder;
Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur),
R. Schintgen and C.W.A. Timmermans (Presidents of Cham-
bers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann,                    2.     Orders Ireland to pay the costs.
V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha
Rodrigues and A. Rosas, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate
                                                                             (1) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.
General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Regis-
trar, has given a judgment on 30 September 2003, in which it
has ruled:


title: Case T-417/05: Action brought on  29 November 2005  — ENDESA v Commission

text:
               28.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/20

         Action brought on 29 November 2005 — ENDESA v Commission
   (Case T-417/05)
   (2006/C 22/38)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: ENDESA S. A. (represented by: M. Merola, M. Odriozola, S. Baxter and M. Muñoz de Juan, lawyers, J. Flynn, Q. C.)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Applicant's claims
   The applicant claims that the Court should annul the Commission Decision of 15 November 2005, Case COMP/M.3986 Gas Natural/Endesa.
   Pleas in law and main arguments
   The application seeks the annulment of the Commission Decision of 15 November 2005 declaring that the public bid announced on 5 September 2005 by Gas Natural SDG to acquire 100 % of the shares of Endesa S.A. does not result in a concentration with a Community dimension.
   The action for annulment against the Commission raises, as a preliminary matter, the existence of several procedural defects. In that regard, the applicant states, first of all, that the contested decision should have been adopted prior to the decision on referral, provided for in Article 22 of the Regulation on concentrations, since it is clear from the wording of that provision itself that decisions relating to requests for a referral must relate to concentrations which comply with the threshold laid down by the laws of one or more countries and which lack a Community dimension.
   Second, the applicant criticises the Commission for lack of transparency in the procedure and the resulting infringement of its rights of defence.
   Thirdly, the applicant asserts that the Commission should have requested the suspension of the national proceedings that were taking place in parallel before the national authorities. The applicant considers that the fact that such a suspension was not requested in itself presupposes a serious procedural omission in the light of the basic principles of the system of control of concentrations.
   As regards the merits, the action raises the infringement of specific articles of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) and the existence of manifest errors of assessment. Thus, on one hand the Decision infringes, in the applicant's view, the rules of jurisdiction established in the Regulation on concentrations, in trying to shift the burden of proof concerning the definition of the Community dimension onto Endesa, which is manifestly incompatible with the public policy nature of the rules which establish the exclusive competence of the Commission.
   Likewise, the applicant maintains that by failing to take into consideration Endesa's consolidated accounts for the last accounting year, which were properly drawn up in accordance with Community accounting criteria (NIC/NIIF) in force at the time when the concentration took place, the Decision infringes Article 5 of the Regulation on concentrations by departing from the Commission's practice and conflicting with the principles set out in the Notice on calculation of turnover.
   The applicant adds that in relation to the adjustments, which the Decision examines in the light of the Notice on calculation of turnover, a number of those adjustments comply with the strict application of the Community accounting criteria in force and they should not be confused with adjustments in accordance with Article 5 of the Regulation on concentrations. In any event, all the adjustments which are examined in the Decision should be recognised as fulfilling the objective of determining the real economic value of the undertakings which are the subject of the concentration.
   Lastly, the applicant submits that the Decision, by incorrectly defining the exclusive competence of the Commission, infringes the principle of legal certainty and is contrary to the uniform application of the Regulation on concentrations.

      (1)  OJ L 24, of 29.1.2004, p. 1.


title: Joined Cases C-358/13 and C 181/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 July 2014 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Markus D. (C 358/13) and G. (C-181/14) ((Medicinal products for human use — Directive 2001/83/EC — Scope — Interpretation of the concept of ‘medicinal product’  — Scope of the criterion based on the capacity to modify physiological functions — Herb and cannabinoid-based products — Not included)

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/19

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 July 2014 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Markus D. (C 358/13) and G. (C-181/14)
   (Joined Cases C-358/13 and C 181/14) (1)

   (((Medicinal products for human use - Directive 2001/83/EC - Scope - Interpretation of the concept of ‘medicinal product’ - Scope of the criterion based on the capacity to modify physiological functions - Herb and cannabinoid-based products - Not included))
   2014/C 315/27
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Criminal proceedings against

   Markus D. (C-358/13) and G. (C-181/14)

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 1(2)(b) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Directive 2004/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004, must be interpreted as not covering substances, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which produce effects that merely modify physiological functions but which are not such as to have any beneficial effects, either immediately or in the long term, on human health, are consumed solely to induce a state of intoxication and are, as such, harmful to human health.

      (1)  OJ C 325, 9.11.2013.

      OJ C 212, 7.7.2014.


title: Case C-265/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale della Lombardia lodged on 19 June 2008 — Federutility and Others v Autorità per l'energia elettrica e il gas

text:
               13.9.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 236/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale della Lombardia lodged on 19 June 2008 — Federutility and Others v Autorità per l'energia elettrica e il gas
   (Case C-265/08)
   (2008/C 236/09)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Tribunale amministrativo regionale della Lombardia
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Federutility, Asogas, Libarna Gas SpA, Collino Commercio SpA, Sadori Gas SpA, Egea Commerciale, E.On Vendita srl, Sorgenia SpA

      Defendant: Autorità per l'energia elettrica e il gas
   Questions referred

               1.

               On a proper interpretation, in accordance with the principles enshrined in the EU Treaty, of Article 23 of Directive 2003/55/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003, which regulates the opening up of the gas market, is it contrary to that provision and to the principles of Community law for a national provision (and measures adopted in pursuance thereof) to maintain in effect after 1 July 2007 the power of the national regulatory authority to set reference prices for the supply of natural gas to domestic customers (an open-ended category not defined in the legislation and which does not of itself entail particular circumstances of socio-economic disadvantage such as might justify the setting of such reference prices), which distributors or suppliers, within the scope of their public service obligations, are bound to include in their commercial offers?

               2.

               Or is the provision in question (Article 23) to be read in conjunction with Article 3 of Directive 2003/55/EC (which provides that Member States may impose on undertakings operating in the gas sector, in the general economic interest, public service obligations which may relate inter alia to the price of supplies) as meaning that it is not contrary to those provisions of Community law for a national provision which, having regard to the particular circumstances of the market, still characterised by an absence of conditions of ‘effective competition’, at least in the wholesale sector, to allow a public authority to set a reference price for natural gas which has to be quoted by every supplier in its commercial offers to its domestic customers within the scope of the universal service concept, despite the fact that all customers must be treated as ‘free’?

      (1)  OJ L 176, p. 57.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 April 2003 in Case C-277/01 P: European Parliament v Ignacio Samper (Appeals — Officials — Reconstruction of career — Consideration of comparative merits)

text:
C 124/2                  EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                               24.5.2003
en Milieubeheer, on the interpretation of Council Directive 75/               Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth
442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39), as                   Chamber) of 3 May 2001 in Case T-99/00 Samper v Parliament
amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991                      [2001] ECR-SC I-A-111 and II-507, seeking to have that
(OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32) and Commission Decision 96/350/EC                       judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings being:
of 24 May 1996 (OJ 1996 L 135, p. 32), the Court                              Ignacio Samper employee of the European Parliament, resident
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the                   in Madrid (Spain), (represented by E. Boigelot), the Court
Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur),                       (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the
P. Jann and A. Rosas, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General;                  Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. La Pergola, P. Jann and
M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has                 S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate
given a judgment on 3 April 2003, in which it has ruled:                      General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 3 April
                                                                              2003, in which it has ruled:
1.    Where a waste treatment process comprises several distinct
      stages, it must be classified as a disposal operation or a recovery
      operation within the meaning of Council Directive 75/442/               1.    Annuls the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 3 May
      EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council                           2001 in Case T-99/00 Samper v Parliament;
      Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 and by Commission
      Decision 96/350/EC of 24 May 1996, for the purpose                      2.    Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance for it to give
      of implementing Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of                         judgment on the claims by Mr Samper for annulment of
      1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of shipments                   the decision of the European Parliament of 9 June 1999
      of waste within, into and out of the European Community, as                   reconstructing his career, in so far as it sets at 1 January 1998
      amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 120/97 of 20 January                    the date for his promotion to Grade A 4 to take effect;
      1997, taking into account only the first operation that the
      waste is to undergo subsequent to shipment;
                                                                              3.    Reserves the costs.
2.    The calorific value of waste which is to be combusted is not a
      relevant criterion for the purpose of determining whether that
      operation constitutes a disposal operation as referred to in            (1 ) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.
      point D10 of Annex IIA to Directive 75/442, as amended by
      Directive 91/156 and by Decision 96/350, or a recovery
      operation as referred to in point R1 of Annex IIB thereof.
      Member States may establish distinguishing criteria for that
      purpose, provided that those criteria comply with those laid
      down in the Directive.
( 1) OJ C 161 of 2.6.2001.
                                                                              Action brought on 17 February 2003 by the Commission
                                                                              of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                                                                Spain
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Case C-70/03)
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                (2003/C 124/04)
                           of 3 April 2003
in Case C-277/01 P: European Parliament v Ignacio
                              Samper ( 1)
                                                                              An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
(Appeals — Officials — Reconstruction of career — Con-                        the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 Febru-
                 sideration of comparative merits)                            ary 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                              represented by Isabel Martínez del Peral and Miguel França, of
                           (2003/C 124/03)                                    its Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                            1.    Declare that, by failing to transpose fully into its national
                                                                                law Articles 5 and 6(2) of Directive 93/12/EEC ( 1) of
                                                                                5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, the
In Case C-277/01 P, European Parliament (Agents: H. von                             Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Hertzen and D. Moore): Appeal against the judgment of the                           the Treaty and under that directive;


title: Case T-4/17: Action brought on 4 January 2017 — Coedo Suárez v Council

text:
               13.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/35

         Action brought on 4 January 2017 — Coedo Suárez v Council
   (Case T-4/17)
   (2017/C 078/48)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Ángel Coedo Suárez (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the present application admissible;

               —

               annul the decision adopted on 4 March 2016 by the Secretary-General of the Council and, as necessary, the decision adopted on 27 September 2016 by the Secretary-General of the Council, rejecting the complaint;

               —

               order the defendant to pay a sum set ex aequo et bono at EUR 5 000, or any other amount which the General Court deems fair, as damages for non-pecuniary harm, to be increased by late payment interest at the statutory rate from the date of the judgment to be delivered;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant invokes two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the fifth paragraph of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, in that the Council erroneously classified the letter of 20 November 2015 as a complaint and found, as a consequence, that it was inadmissible. Moreover, the request of 20 November 2015 for recognition of the fact that the invalidity was work-related in origin also cannot be regarded as inadmissible on the ground of unreasonable delay.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of sound administration and breach of the duty of care, in that, by rejecting the applicant’s request for recognition of the fact that the invalidity was work-related in origin for reasons that are erroneous and contrary to the principles identified from the case-law, the Council extends the duration of the proceedings and thereby fails to respect the principle of reasonable time and, more generally, the principle of sound administration.


title: Case C-119/10: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Frisdranken Industrie Winters BV v Red Bull GmbH (Trade marks — Directive 89/104/EEC — Article 5(1)(b) — Filling of cans already bearing a sign similar to a trade mark — Service provided under an order from and on the instructions of another person — Action taken by trade-mark proprietor against the service provider)

text:
               11.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/3

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Frisdranken Industrie Winters BV v Red Bull GmbH
   (Case C-119/10) (1)

   (Trade marks - Directive 89/104/EEC - Article 5(1)(b) - Filling of cans already bearing a sign similar to a trade mark - Service provided under an order from and on the instructions of another person - Action taken by trade-mark proprietor against the service provider)
   2012/C 39/03
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Frisdranken Industrie Winters BV

      Defendant: Red Bull GmbH

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Article 5 of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1) — Right of the proprietor of a registered trade mark to oppose the unlawful use of its mark — Use of a sign — Filling of cans already bearing a sign as a service for and under an order from another person — Goods destined exclusively for export to countries outside the Benelux area or the European Union — Relevant public

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 5(1)(b) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that a service provider who, under an order from and on the instructions of another person, fills packaging which was supplied to it by the other person who, in advance, affixed to it a sign which is identical with, or similar to, a sign protected as a trade mark does not itself make use of the sign that is liable to be prohibited under that provision.

      (1)  OJ C 134, 22.5.2010.


title: Joined Cases T-40/07 P-REV and T-62/07 P-REV: Order of the General Court of 16 April 2012 — de Brito Sequeira Carvalho v Commission (Procedure — Application for revision — New fact — Absence thereof — Inadmissibility)

text:
               16.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 174/21

         Order of the General Court of 16 April 2012 — de Brito Sequeira Carvalho v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-40/07 P-REV and T-62/07 P-REV) (1)

   (Procedure - Application for revision - New fact - Absence thereof - Inadmissibility)
   2012/C 174/34
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Jose António de Brito Sequeira Carvalho (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Boury, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, agents)

      Re:

   Application for revision of the judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2009 in Joined Cases T-40/07 P and T-62/07 P de Brito Sequeira Carvalho v Commission of the European Communities and Commission of the European Communities v de Brito Sequeira Carvalho, not yet reported in the ECR.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for revision is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Each party shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 14.4.2007.


C 184/56               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                     2.8.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                    Removal from the register of Case T-377/02 (1)
The applicants in this case seek the annulment of the Commis-                                       (2003/C 184/117)
sion's decision changing the method of calculating annual
travel expenses to Greece.                                                                     (Language of the case: French)
The pleas in law and main arguments put forward by the
applicants in support of their application are similar to those             By order of 15 May 2003 the President of the Second
of the applicants in Cases T-221/02 (1) and T-44/03 (2).                    Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                            Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                            T-377/02: ‘P’ v Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 247, 12.10.02, p. 17.
(2) OJ C 101, 26.04.03, p. 40.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 44 of 22.02.2003.
        Removal from the register of Case T-22/00 (1)
                         (2003/C 184/116)                                           Removal from the register of Case T-92/03 (1)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                                                 (2003/C 184/118)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
By order of 23 May 2003 the President of the Fourth
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case                   By order of 12 May 2003 the President of the Second
T-22/00: Enrico Sabbioni v Commission of the European                       Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities.                                                                Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                            T-92/03: Luis Escobar Guerrero v Commission of the European
                                                                            Communities.
(1) OJ C 122 of 29.04.2000.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 112 of 10.05.2003.