title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Netherlands Raad van State by order of that court of 25 November 1997 in the case of ARCO Chemie Nederland Ltd v. Minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer (Case C-418/97)

text:
7.2.98                   EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 41/15
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Netherlands                 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van
Raad van State by order of that court of 25 November                    Cassatie van BelgieÈ by judgment of that court of
1997 in the case of ARCO Chemie Nederland Ltd v.                        4 December 1997 in the case of Leathertex Divisione
Minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en                               Sintetici SpA against BVBA Bodetex
                            Milieubeheer                                                        (Case C-420/97)
                          (Case C-418/97)                                                         (98/C 41/30)
                            (98/C 41/29)
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by judgment of the Hof van
                                                                        Cassatie van BelgieÈ (Belgian Court of Cassation) of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  4 December 1997, received at the Court Registry on
European Communities by order of the Netherlands Raad                   11 December 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
van State (Council of State) of 25 November 1997,                       Leathertex Divisione Sintetici SpA against BVBA Bodetex
received at the Court Registry on 11 December 1997, for                 on the following question:
a preliminary ruling in the case of ARCO Chemie
Nederland Ltd v. Minister van Volkshuisvesting,
Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer (Minister for                      Are Article 5(1) and Article 2 of the Brussels Convention,
Housing, Planning and the Environment) on the following                 in the version applicable to the present case, to be
questions:                                                              interpreted as meaning that a composite claim founded on
                                                                        different obligations arising from the same contract may
                                                                        be brought before the same court, even though, according
                                                                        to the jurisdictional rules of the State in which the
1. May it be inferred from the mere fact that LUWA                      proceedings are brought, one of the contractual
     bottoms (1) undergo an operation listed in Annex II(B)             obligations on which the claim is based is to be performed
     to Directive 75/442/EEC (2) that that substance has                in that State and the other is to be performed in another
     been discarded so as to enable it to be regarded as                EC Member State, having regard to the fact that the court
     waste for the purposes of Directive 75/442/EEC?                    before which the proceedings are brought decides, on the
                                                                        basis of the claim brought before it, that neither of the
                                                                        two obligations forming the subject matter of the claim is
                                                                        subordinate to the other and that they are of equal rank?
2. If question 1 is to be answered in the negative, does
     the reply to the question whether the use of LUWA-
     bottoms as a fuel is to be regarded as constituting
     discarding depend on whether:
     (a) LUWA-bottoms             constitute    waste      under        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de
         contemporary thinking whereby it is of particular              Grande Instance de Meaux (First Chamber), by judgment
         relevance whether they may be recovered in an                  of 13 November 1997, in the case of Yves Tarantik and
         environmentally responsible manner for use as fuel                    Direction des Services Fiscaux, Seine-et-Marne
         without further processing,
                                                                                (Case C-421/97)
                                                                                (98/C 41/31)
     (b) the use of LUWA-bottoms as a fuel is comparable
         with an accepted method of waste recovery,
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by judgment of 13 November
     (c) the substance used is a main product or a by-                  1997 of the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Meaux
         product (residue)?                                             (Regional Court, Meaux), (First Chamber), which was
                                                                        received at the Court Registry on 11 December 1997, for
                                                                        a preliminary ruling in the case of Yves Tarantik v.
(1) The material known as LUWA-bottoms is one of the by-                Direction des Services Fiscaux (Central Tax Office), Seine-
    products of the production process used by the appellant. In        et-Marne, on the following questions:
    addition to propylene oxide and tertiary butyl alcohol the
    production process generates a flow of hydrocarbons
    containing molybdenum. The molybdenum is from catalysts             Considering the date of road authorization of the
    used for the production of the propylene oxide. In a plant          plaintiff's Jaguar car, which has a fiscal horsepower value
    intended for that purpose molybdenum is recovered from the          of 24 hp, bears the registration number 197 AT 77, and
    flow of hydrocarbons whereby the material designated by the         was first put on the road on 11 April 1979, and having
    appellant as LUWA-bottoms is obtained. LUWA-bottoms have
                                                                        regard to the graphical representations and outline of the
    a calorific value of 25 to 28 MJ/kg.
(2) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 47.                                         developments in taxation submitted by the plaintiff, on
                                                                        the one hand, and by the French tax authorities, on the
                                                                        other, does the system of taxation applied correspond to
                                                                        objective criteria lacking in any discriminatory effect
                                                                        prohibited by Article 95 of the EEC Treaty? In particular:


title: Case T-274/11 P: Order of the General Court of 7 December 2011 — Mioni v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Contractual agents — Expatriation allowance — Conditions imposed by Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Notion of habitual residence — Distortion of the facts — Appeal clearly inadmissible in part and clearly unfounded in part)

text:
               11.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/14

         Order of the General Court of 7 December 2011 — Mioni v Commission
   (Case T-274/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Civil service - Contractual agents - Expatriation allowance - Conditions imposed by Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Notion of habitual residence - Distortion of the facts - Appeal clearly inadmissible in part and clearly unfounded in part)
   2012/C 39/28
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant(s): Gaëtan Barthélémy Maxence Mioni (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by L. Vogel, lawyer)

      Other party/parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by D. Martin and B. Eggers, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 15 March 2011 in Case F-28/10 Mioni v Commission [2011] ECR-SC I-A-I-0000 and II-A-1-0000, seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Gaëtan Barthélémy Maxence Mioni will bear his own costs and will pay those incurred by the European Commission on the appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 232, 6.8.2011.


title: Case C-372/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 13 July 2015 — Dow Chemical Ibérica, S.L. v Administración del Estado

text:
               21.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/41

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 13 July 2015 — Dow Chemical Ibérica, S.L. v Administración del Estado
   (Case C-372/15)
   (2015/C 311/44)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Dow Chemical Ibérica, S.L.

      Defendant: Administración del Estado

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Decision 2013/448/EU (1) contrary to the provisions of Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and to Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (2) in so far as the correction factor has been established by a mechanism which, in infringement of the obligation to state reasons, does not enable the operators of installations concerned to be informed of the data, calculations and criteria taken into account for its adoption?

               2.

               By defining and fixing as it does the cap for industrial emissions and the cross-sectoral correction factor provided for in Article 10a(5) of Directive 2003/87/EC (3) and Article 15 of Decision 2011/278/EU (4), does Decision 2013/448/EU infringe Articles 10a(1) and 23(3) of that Directive because it has not been drawn up in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny governed by Decision 1999/468/EC (5).

               3.

               Having regard to the fact that Decision 2013/448/EU and/or Article 15 of Decision 2011/278/EU create a discrepancy between:

                           —

                           the calculation basis governed by Article 10a(5)(a) and (b) of Directive 2003/87/EC, by not including in those bases emissions from electricity production related to the combustion of waste gases and from the cogeneration of heat which occur in installations included in Annex I to that Directive, and

                           —

                           the criteria laid down by Article 10a(1) and (4) of the Directive for the free allocation of emission allowances, which does include that type of emissions:

                                       a)

                                       Do Decision 2013/448/EU and/or Article 15 of Decision 2011/278/EU infringe Article 10a(5), in conjunction with Article 3(u) and the third subparagraph in fine of the aforementioned Article 10a(1) of Directive 2003/87/EC in that they consider that emissions produced by combustion of waste gases or by the generation of heat in installations which produce electricity and are included in Annex I to that Directive are in any event emissions from ‘electricity generators’ for the purpose of determining the industrial emissions cap, and must therefore be excluded from the calculation?

                                       b)

                                       Even if the reply to the previous question is in the negative, do Decision 2013/448/EU and/or Article 15 of Decision 2011/278/EU infringe Article 10a (5) of Directive 2003/87/EC and/or the objectives of that Directive insofar as they exclude from the basis of calculation of the industrial emissions cap governed by that provision emissions from electricity production from waste gases and from the cogeneration of heat, produced in installations included in Annex I to the aforementioned Directive, to which, however, emission allowances may be allocated free of charge under Article 10a(1) to (4) of the Directive?

               4.

               Are Commission Decision 2013/448/EU and, where appropriate, Decision 2011/278/EU, which it implements, contrary to Article 10a(12) of the Directive, because they extend the cross-sectoral correction factor to sectors defined in Commission Decision 2010/2/EU (6) (now Decision 2014/746/EU) (7) as they are deemed to be exposed to a significant risk of carbon leakage, with the consequent reduction in free emission allowances allocated?

               5.

               Does Decision 2013/448/EU infringe Article 10a(5) of Directive 2003/87/EEC in so far as the European Commission, in order to determine the verified emissions carried out in the period 2005-2007 to which Article 10a(5)(a) and (b) refers:

                           a)

                           did not take into consideration emissions which were not included in the Community independent transaction log, even though, in the period under consideration, it was not obligatory to register such emissions.

                           b)

                           extrapolated, to the extent possible, the relevant emission figures from verified emissions in later years by applying the factor of 1,74 % in reverse direction.

                           c)

                           excluded all emissions from installations closed before 30 June 2011.

      (1)  2013/448/EU: Commission Decision of 5 September 2013 concerning national implementation measures for the transitional free allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances in accordance with Article 11(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2013 L 240, p. 27).

      (2)  OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1.

      (3)  Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).

      (4)  2011/278/EU: Commission Decision of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2011 L 130, p. 1).

      (5)  1999/468/EC: Council Decision of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (OJ 1999 L 184, p. 23).

      (6)  2010/2/EU: Commission Decision of 24 December 2009 determining, pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, a list of sectors and subsectors which are deemed to be exposed to a significant risk of carbon leakage (OJ 2010 L 1, p. 10).

      (7)  OJ 2014 L 308, p. 114.


title: Case T-382/14: Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2015 — Rintisch v OHIM — Compagnie laitière européenne (PROTICURD) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Community — Word mark PROTICURD — Earlier national word marks PROTI and PROTIPLUS — Earlier national figurative mark Proti Power — Relative ground for refusal — Admissibility — Article 59 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 and Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 216/96 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Genuine use of the earlier marks — Article 42(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               23.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 389/51

         Judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2015 — Rintisch v OHIM — Compagnie laitière européenne (PROTICURD)
   (Case T-382/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Community - Word mark PROTICURD - Earlier national word marks PROTI and PROTIPLUS - Earlier national figurative mark Proti Power - Relative ground for refusal - Admissibility - Article 59 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 and Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 216/96 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Genuine use of the earlier marks - Article 42(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 389/56)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Bernhard Rintisch (Bottrop, Germany) (represented by: A. Dreyer, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Compagnie laitière européenne SA (Condé-sur-Vire, France) (represented by C. Hertz-Eichenrode, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 March 2014 (Case R 609/2011-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Bernhard Rintisch and Compagnie laitière européenne SA

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 14 March 2014 (Case R 609/2011-4);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Bernhard Rintisch;

               3.

               Orders Compagnie laitière européenne SA to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 25.8.2014.


title: Case T-257/16: Order of the General Court of 28 February 2017 — NM v European Council (Action for annulment — EU-Turkey statement of 18 March 2016 — Press release — Concept of ‘international agreement’ — Identification of the author of the act — Scope of the act — Meeting of the European Council — Meeting of the Heads of State or Government of the Member States of the European Union held on the premises of the Council of the European Union — Capacity of the representatives of the Member States of the European Union during a meeting with the representative of a third country — First paragraph of Article 263 TFEU — Lack of jurisdiction)

text:
               18.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/32

         Order of the General Court of 28 February 2017 — NM v European Council
   (Case T-257/16) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - EU-Turkey statement of 18 March 2016 - Press release - Concept of ‘international agreement’ - Identification of the author of the act - Scope of the act - Meeting of the European Council - Meeting of the Heads of State or Government of the Member States of the European Union held on the premises of the Council of the European Union - Capacity of the representatives of the Member States of the European Union during a meeting with the representative of a third country - First paragraph of Article 263 TFEU - Lack of jurisdiction))
   (2017/C 121/46)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: NM (represented by: B. Burns, Solicitor, P. O’Shea and I. Whelan, Barristers)

      Defendant: European Council (represented by: K. Pleśniak, Á. de Elera-San Miguel Hurtado and S. Boelaert, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment of an alleged agreement concluded between the European Council and the Republic of Turkey dated 18 March 2016 and entitled ‘EU-Turkey statement, 18 March 2016’.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed on the ground of the Court’s lack of jurisdiction to hear and determine it.

               2.

               There is no need to rule on the applications for leave to intervene submitted by the Kingdom of Belgium, the Hellenic Republic and the European Commission.

               3.

               NM and the European Council shall bear their own costs.

               4.

               The Kingdom of Belgium, the Hellenic Republic and the Commission shall bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 251, 11.7.2016.


title: Case C-277/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Latvijas Republikas Augstākās tiesas Senāts (Latvia) lodged on 1 June 2012 — Vitālijs Drozdovs v AAS ‘Baltikums’

text:
               4.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Latvijas Republikas Augstākās tiesas Senāts (Latvia) lodged on 1 June 2012 — Vitālijs Drozdovs v AAS ‘Baltikums’
   (Case C-277/12)
   2012/C 235/18
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Latvijas Republikas Augstākās tiesas Senāts

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Vitālijs Drozdovs

      Defendant: AAS ‘Baltikums’

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is compensation for non-material damage included in the amount of compulsory protection for personal injuries laid down in Article 3 of Council Directive 72/166/EEC (1) of 24 April 1972, the First Directive on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, and in [Article 1(2)] of Council Directive 84/5/EEC (2) of 30 December 1983, the Second Directive on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles?

               2.

               If the first question is answered in the affirmative, must Article 3 of Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972, the First Directive on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, and [Article 1(2)] of Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983, the Second Directive on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, be interpreted as meaning that those provisions preclude legislation of a Member State whereby civil liability applicable in that State — the maximum amount of compensation for non-material damage — is limited by the establishment of a limit that is substantially lower than the limit laid down for the insurer’s liability in the directives and in national law?

      (1)  OJ 1972 L 103, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 1984 L 8, p. 17.


title: Case T-285/15: Action brought on 29 May 2015 — Syria Steel and Al Buroj Trading/Conseil

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/56

         Action brought on 29 May 2015 — Syria Steel and Al Buroj Trading/Conseil
   (Case T-285/15)
   (2015/C 302/72)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Syria Steel SA (Homs, Syria); and Al Buroj Trading (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: V. Davies, Solicitor, and T. Eicke, QC)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2013 L 147, p. 14), as amended, and/or Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/383 of 6 March 2015 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2015 L 64, p. 41), in so far as they relate to the applicants;

               —

               annul Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and repealing Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 (OJ 2012 L 16, p. 1), as amended, and/or Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/375 of 6 March 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2015 L 64, p. 10), in so far as they relate to the applicants;

               —

               order the European Union to compensate the applicants,

               —

               order the council to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that there is an absence of legal basis for restrictive measures against the applicants and/or a manifest error of assessment, on the basis that there is no rational connection between the applicants and the persons or entities sought to be targeted by the restrictive measures adopted by the Union, namely those who are benefiting from or supporting the Syrian regime.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the contested Council decisions and regulations amount to a breach of the applicants’ fundamental rights as protected by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and/or the European Convention of Human Rights, including the applicants’ right to a good administration, their right of defence, the duty to give reason and the presumption of innocence, the right to an effective remedy and fair trial, the freedom to conduct a business, and the right to property.


title: Case C-497/11 P: Appeal brought on 27 September 2011 by the Hellenic Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2011 in Case T-81/09 Hellenic Republic v Commission

text:
               19.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 340/12

         Appeal brought on 27 September 2011 by the Hellenic Republic against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2011 in Case T-81/09 Hellenic Republic v Commission

   (Case C-497/11 P)
   2011/C 340/21
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Appellant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: P. Mylonopoulos, K. Boskovits, and G. Michailopoulos)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment of 13 July 2011 of the General Court of the European Union in Case Τ-81/09 in so far as it dismissed the action brought by the Hellenic Republic;

               —

               uphold the action brought by the Hellenic Republic in Case Τ-81/09;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

                     First plea:
                   misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 23(2) of Regulation 4253/88 and Article 12 of Regulation 2064/97, and also Articles 54 and 57 of Regulation 1605/02, in relation to the scope of the audit powers which were conferred by the Commission on private companies.

               2.

                     Second plea:
                   misinterpretation of the general principle of proportionality and failure to state adequate reasons in relation to the ‘Northern Crete Trunk Road’ project, in so far as the Commission applied a correction of 25 % to that project merely by reference to the prior audit by the Greek authorities in relation to part of that project.

               3.

                     Third plea:
                   misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 2 of Regulation 2064/97 in relation to the ‘Κakia Scala’ project, in so far as the General Court ruled on the sufficiency of the audit trail for the project with reference to qualitative factors.

               4.

                     Fourth plea:
                   misinterpretation and misapplication of the principle of equal treatment of candidates and Article 22(1) of Directive 93/37 in relation to the projects ‘K. Varibobis-Bogiati & Afidnes-K. Markopoulou — Section 1’, ‘Aerino — Μ. Μοnastiri’, ‘M. Monastiri — Beginning of the Larissa bypass’and ‘Larisa bypass’ in so far as the established terms and conditions for the holding of the restricted tendering procedure were known to all interested parties and served the project economy.

               5.

                     Fifth plea:
                   failure to examine a substantive plea of the Hellenic Republic in relation to the terms of the tendering procedure for the projects ‘Aerino — Μ. Μοnastiri’, ‘M. Monastiri — Beginning of the Larissa bypass’ and‘Larisa bypass’, in breach of the rights of the defence and the right to be heard.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 15 May 1997 in Case T-175/96: Georges Berthu v. Commission of the European Communities (Economic and monetary policy - Commission proposal - Action for annulment - Replacement of the term 'ecu' provided for in Article 109g of the EC Treaty by the term 'euro' - Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
 12 . 7. 97            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 212/27
      rejecting the complaint of 6 April 1995 and, second,                 ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      of the opinion of the Invalidity Committee of                                           of 15 May 1997
      13 September 1994;
                                                                      in Case T-l 75/96: Georges Berthu v. Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities ( ] )
2 . dismisses the       remainder of the application as               (Economic and monetary policy — Commission proposal
      unfounded;                                                      — Action for annulment — Replacement of the term 'ecu '
                                                                      provided for in Article 109g of the EC Treaty by the term
                                                                                'euro ' — Manifest inadmissibility)
3 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                                ( 97/C 212/53
(M OJ No C 333, 9 . 12 . 1995 .
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                      In Case T-175/96 : Georges Berthu,        a Member of the
                                                                      European Parliament, represented by       Alexandre Varault,
                                                                      of the Paris Bar, v. Commission            of the European
                                                                      Communities (Agent: Ulrich Wölker )        — application for
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            annulment of the ' decision ' of the Commission contained
                                                                      in a proposal for a regulation submitted to the Council on
                         of 12 May 1997
                                                                      16 October 1996 'on some provisions relating to the
in Case T-561/93 ( 92 ): Tiercé Ladbroke SA v. Commission             introduction of the euro' ( COM(96 ) 499 final ) — the
               of the European Communities ( 1 )                      Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of
                                                                      C. W. Bellamy, President, and A. Kalogeropoulos and J.
                       (Taxation of costs)                            Azizi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
                           97/C 212/52                                15 May 1997, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                      1 . The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
                 (Language of the case: English)
                                                                      2 . The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.
In Case T-561/93 ( 92 ): Tiercé Ladbroke SA, established in
Brussels, represented by Jeremy Lever QC and Christopher              O OJ No C 9 , 11 . 1 . 1997.
Vajda, of the Bar of England and Wales, and by Stephen
Kon, Solicitor, London, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Winandy & Err, 60
Avenue Gaston Diderich, against Commission of the
European Communities ( Agents: Francisco Enrique
Gonzalez Diaz and Richard Lyal ), supported by Pari
Mutuel Unifié Beige, established in Brussels, and Societe             Action brought on 28 March 1997 by Starway SA against
Cooperative Auxiliaire PMU Beige, established in Brussels,                        the Council of the European Union
together represented by Thomas Delahaye, Member of the                                         Case T-80/97 )
Bar of the Belgian Cour de Cassation, with an address for
                                                                                ( 97/C 212/54
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Charles Turk,
13B Avenue Guillaume — application for taxation of the
costs to be reimbursed by the applicant to the interveners                            (Language of the case: French)
following the order of the President of the Second
Chamber, Extended Composition, of 6 October 1995 ,
removing Case T-561 /93 from the register — the Court of              An action against the Council of the European Union was
First Instance ( Second Chamber), composed of C. W.                   brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Bellamy, President, A. Kalogeropoulos and J. Azizi,                   Communities on 28 March 1997 by Starway SA, whose
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 12 May                   registered office is at Luynes ( France ), represented by
1997, the operative part of which is as follows:                      Jean-François Bellis and Philippe de Baere, both of the
                                                                      Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                      the Chambers of Freddy Brausch, 11 Rue Goethe .
The total amount of the costs to be reimbursed by the
applicant to the interveners is fixed in the sum of Bfrs              The applicant claims that the Court should:
 170 000.
                                                                      — annul Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC ) No 71/97
(') OJ No C 334, 9 . 12 . 1993 .                                          in so far as it applies to the applicant,
                                                                      — order the Council to pay the costs.


title: Case C-153/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 3 April 2014  — Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken; other parties: K and A

text:
               24.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/14

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 3 April 2014 — Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken; other parties: K and A
   (Case C-153/14)
   2014/C 194/17
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken

      Other parties: K, A

      Questions referred

               1.

                           (a)

                           Can the term ‘integration measures’ — contained in Article 7(2) of … Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification (OJ 2003 L 251, [p. 12] ) … — be interpreted as meaning that the competent authorities of the Member States may require a member of a sponsor’s family to demonstrate that he or she has knowledge of the official language of the Member State concerned at a level corresponding to level A1 of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages, as well as a basic knowledge of the society of that Member State, before those authorities authorise that family member’s entry and residence?

                           (b)

                           Is it relevant to the answer to that question that, also in the context of the proportionality test as described in the European Commission’s Green Paper of 15 November 2011 (1) on the right to family reunification [of third-country nationals living in the European Union], the national legislation containing the requirement referred to in Question 1(a) provides that, leaving aside the case in which the family member has shown that, due to a mental or physical disability, he/she is permanently unable to take the civic integration examination, it is only in the case where there is a combination of very special individual circumstances which justifies the assumption that the family member will be permanently unable to comply with the integration measures that the request for authorisation of entry and residence cannot be rejected?

               2.

               Does the purpose of Directive 2003/86/EC, and in particular Article 7(2) thereof, given the proportionality test as described in the abovementioned Green Paper, preclude costs of EUR 350 per attempt for the examination which assesses whether the family member complies with the aforementioned integration measures, and costs of EUR 110 as a single payment for the pack to prepare for the examination?

      (1)  COM(2011)735 final.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT of 29 September 1995 in Case C-2/94 SA: Empresa Nacional de Urânio SA (ENU) v. Commission of the European Communities (Request for authorization to seize assets of the Community in Portugal)

text:
No C 299/ 14           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    11 . 11 . 95
   without referring to requests for final payment                    ( Administrative Court for Customs and Excise ) of
   submitted after 31 March 1995 , is contrary to general             21 September 1995 , which was received at the Court
   principles of Community law, in particular :                       Registry on 29 September 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                      the case of Road Air BV v. Inspector of Customs and Excise ,
   — the principle of the duty to act in good faith/principle         Hoofddorp , on the following question :
       of ( regional ) partnership ( Article 5 of the EC Treaty ):
       the Commission has failed to arrive at a definitive
                                                                      Is Part Four of the EEC Treaty , in particular Articles 1 32 (1 ),
       settlement of accounts in respect of the projects by            133 ( 1 ) and 134 , to be interpreted — regardless of any
       cooperating in good faith and engaging in effective            distinction between goods originating in the OCT and
       consultations with the Netherlands Government ,                goods originating in third countries , and thus by way of
       and has thus unlawfully omitted to take into                   derogation from Council Decisions 86/283/EEC (') and
       consideration requests for final payment submitted             91 / 1 10/EEC ( 2 ) — as meaning that no customs duties were
       as a precautionary measure . In so acting, the                 payable on 25 June 1991 on goods which , immediately
       Commission is contravening the objectives of the               before being imported into the Community, were in free
       ERDF ,                                                         circulation in an OCT country ?
   — the principle of the protection of legitimate
                                                                      (') OJ No L 175 , 1986 , p . 1 .
       expectations : in view of the fact that Article 1 2 of the     (-) OJ No L 58 , 1991 , p . 27 .
        1993 ERDF Regulation in any event infringes
       acquired rights to subsidies by providing that they
       are to cease definitively on 30 September 1995 , and
       in view also of the action taken by the Commission
       in the past, the Netherlands Government was
       justifiably entitled to expect that applications for
       payment submitted after 3 1 March 1 995 but in good                               ORDER OF THE COURT
       time before 30 September 1995 would be taken into                                   of 29 September 1995
       consideration in the final settlement of accounts ,
                                                                      in Case C-2/94 SA : Empresa Nacional de Urânio SA ( ENU )
                                                                             v . Commission of the European Communities ( l )
   — the principle of proportionality : taking all the
       circumstances into account, the Commission could               (Request for authorization to seize assets of the Community
       not reasonably have reached the contested decision                                         in Portugal)
       providing that assistance for projects already                                           ( 95 /C 299/24 )
       completed , amounting to Fl 15 606 552 , was no
       longer to be payable .
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
— In so far as the Commission 's interpretation of the
   aforementioned provision is correct, and the timelimit of          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
   31 March 1995 which it lays down is justified , the                           published in the European Court Reports)
   Commission has unlawfully failed ( contrary , at least , to
   Article 12 of the 1993 ERDF Regulation and the                     In Case C-2/94 SA : Empresa Nacional de Uranio SA ( ENU ),
   abovementioned principles of Community law ) to treat              a company incorporated under Portuguese law, whose
   the letter of 21 March 1995 from the Ministry of                   registered office is in Urgeiri<;a , Nelas , represented by
   Economic Affairs as a request for final payment .                  Professor Joao Mota de Campos , of the Lisbon Bar, Rua
   Moreover, the Commission adopted the contested                     Antonio Enes, 16-5 " E, 1000 Lisbon v. Commission of the
   decision without first consulting the Committee of the             European Communities ( Agents : Antonio Caeiro and
   Fund . In addition, having regard to the foregoing, the            Jurgen Grunwald ) — application for authorization to seize
   Commission has failed, contrary to Article 1 90 of the FX          assets of the Community in Portugal — the Court,
   Treaty, to provide any or any adequate statement of                composed of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias , President, F. A.
   reasons for the contested decision .                               Schockweiler, P. J. G. Kapteyn , C. Gulmann and P. Jann
                                                                       ( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini , C. N. Kakouris ,
                                                                      J. C. Moitinho de Almeida , J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward
                                                                       ( Rapporteur ), J. -P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and
                                                                       H. Ragnemalm, Judges ; A. La Pergola ; Advocate-General ;
                                                                       R. Grass, Registrar , made an order on 29 September 1 995 of
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tariefcommissie           which the operative part is as follows :
by order of that court of 21 September 1995 in the case
of Road Air BV v. Inspector of Customs and Excise,                      1 . there is no need to give a decision ;
                            Hoofddorp
                        ( Case C-3 10/95 )                             2 . the parties are to bear their own costs .
                          ( 95 /C 299/23 )
                                                                       (M O J No C 392 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Tariefcommissie


title: Case C-408/00: Action brought on 8 November 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

text:
27.1.2001              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 28/13
Action brought on 8 November 2000 by the Commission                     Action brought on 8 November 2000 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Republic of                     of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-
                             Austria                                                                lic of Germany
                                                                                (Case C-408/00)
                         (Case C-407/00)
                                                                                (2001/C 28/23)
                                                                        An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
                          (2001/C 28/22)                                brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties on 8 November 2000 by the Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities, represented by Götz zur Hausen, Commission
                                                                        Legal Adviser, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought                   the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on              Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.
8 November 2000 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Götz zur Hausen, Legal Adviser,
of its Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg         The applicant claims that the Court should:
at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,
Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.                                         1.    declare that, by not adopting in full, or in any event not
                                                                              communicating in full to the Commission, the laws,
                                                                              regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
                                                                              comply with Council Directive 97/11/EC (1) of 3 March
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment
                                                                              of the effects of certain public and private projects on the
                                                                              environment, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed
(1) declare that, by failing within the time-limit prescribed to              to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
      take all necessary measures in order to comply with
      Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 (1)                 2.    order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
      on the control of major-accident hazards involving
      dangerous substances, and in particular Articles 11
      and 12 thereof, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil      Pleas in law and main arguments
      its obligations under the EC Treaty;
                                                                        The pleas in law and main arguments correspond to those in
                                                                        Case C-407/00 (2); the time-limit for implementation expired
(2) order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.                     on 14 March 1999.
                                                                        (1) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.
                                                                        (2) See p. 13 of this Official Journal.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third paragraph
of Article 249 EC and of the first paragraph of Article 10 EC
obliges the Member States to adopt the measures necessary in
order to comply with directives addressed to them within the            Action brought on 10 November 2000 by Kingdom of
time-limit prescribed for so doing. That time-limit expired on          Spain against Commission of the European Communities
3 February 1999 but Austria has not to date taken all the
measures required in order to transpose Articles 11 and 12 of
                                                                                (Case C-409/00)
the directive.
                                                                                (2001/C 28/24)
(1) OJ 1997 L 10, p. 13.                                                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                        Communities on 10 November 2000 by the Kingdom of
                                                                        Spain, represented by Mónica López-Monı́s Gallego, abogado
                                                                        del Estado, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
                                                                        Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
                                                                        Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.


title: Case C-322/08: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 May 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2004/83/EC — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/16

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 May 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden
   (Case C-322/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2004/83/EC - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   2009/C 153/30
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Condou-Durande and J. Enegren, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: S. Johannesson, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted (OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted, the Kingdom of Sweden failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 223 of 30.8.2008.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 25 February 1997 in Joined Cases T-149/94 and T-181/94: Kernkraftwerke Lippe-Ems GmbH v. Commission of the European Communities (Euratom Treaty - Action for annulment and action for damages - Conclusion of a contract for the supply of uranium - Simplified procedure - Powers of the Agency - Time-limit for conclusion of the contract - Legal obstacle to conclusion - Diversification policy - Origin of the uranium - Market-related prices)

text:
No C 108/20          EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     5 . 4 . 97
    under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC                 on 3 March 1997 by the Commission of the European
    Treaty and Article 23 ( 1 ) of Directive 92/43/EEC,                Communities, represented by Hendrik van Lier and Laura
                                                                       Pignataro, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
— declare, in the alternative, that, by failing forthwith to           Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
    inform    the  Commission         of such    measures,   the       Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
    Portuguese Republic failed to fulfil its obligations
     under those provisions,
— order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs .                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                       — declare that, by failing to adopt and, in any event, by
The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third                           failing to communicate within the prescribed period
paragraph of Article 189 and the first paragraph of                           the laws, regulations or administrative provisions
Article 5 of the EC Treaty requires Member States to                          necessary to comply with Council Directive 92/106/
adopt the measures necessary to transpose directives                          EEC of 7 December 1992 on the establishment of
addressed to them into their domestic law before the
                                                                              common rules for certain types of combined transport
expiry of the period prescribed for doing so . That period                    of goods between Member States ( 1 ), the Kingdom of
expired on 5 June 1994 without Portugal having brought                        Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
into force the necessary provisions .                                         EC Treaty and that Directive,
O OJ No L 206 , 22 . 7. 1992 , p . 7.
                                                                       — order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Action brought on 3 March 1997 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                               Belgium                                 The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous with
                        ( Case C-92/97)                                those in Case C-88/97 (2 ); the time-limit for transposition
                          ( 97/C 108/40 )                              expired on 1 July 1993 .
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                   (') OJ No L 368 , 17. 12 . 1992, p. 38 .
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                 ( 2 ) See page 19 of this Official Journal .
                                                      COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              fred Ungemach and Helmut Nicolaus, Rechtsanwalte,
                     of 25 February 1997                                Diisseldorf, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                        the Chambers of Alex Bonn, 62 Avenue Guillaume,
 in Joined Cases T-149/94 and T-181/94: Kernkraftwerke                   against Commission of the European Communities ( Agent:
 Lippe-Ems GmbH v. Commission of the European                           Jiirgen Grunwald ) — application for the annulment of
                        Communities f )                                  Commission Decision 94/95/Euratom of 4 February 1994
                                                                         relating to a procedure in application of the second
  (Euratom Treaty — Action for annulment and action for                  paragraph of Article 53 of the Euratom Treaty ( OJ No
 damages — Conclusion of a contract for the supply of                    L 48 , 19 . 2 . 1994, p. 45 ), and of Commission Decision
  uranium — Simplified procedure — Powers of the Agency                   94/285/Euratom of 21 February 1994 relating to a
 — Time-limit for conclusion of the contract — Legal                     proceeding in application of the second paragraph of
  obstacle to conclusion — Diversification policy — Origin               Article 53 of the Euratom Treaty ( OJ No L 122, 17. 5 .
           of the uranium — Market-related prices)                        1994, p. 30 ), and for damages — the Court of First
                            ( 97/C 108/41 )                               Instance ( First Chamber, Extended Composition),
                                                                          composed of: A. Saggio, President, C. W. Bellamy, A.
                                                                          Kalogeropoulos, V. Tiili and M. R. M. Moura Ramos,
                (Language of the case: German)                            Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the
                                                                          Registrar, has given a judgment on 25 February 1997, in
                                                                          which it:
  In Joined Cases T-149/94 and T-181/94: Kernkraftwerke
  Lippe-Ems GmbH, established in Lingen, Ems ( Germany ),
  represented by Bernd Kunth, Gerhard Wiedemann, Man                      1 . dismisses the applications;
 ---pagebreak---  5 . 4 . 97          I EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 108/21
2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs.                             Action brought on 27 January 1997 by Viglienzone
                                                                       Adriatica SpA against Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
 (') OJ No C 146, 28 . 5 . 1994, p. 13 ,
     OJ No C 174 , 25 . 6 . 1994, p . 22 .                                                    ( Case T-17/97 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 108/43
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European
Action brought on 16 January 1997 by Miguel Vicente                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
Nunez against the Commission of the European                           Instance on 27 January 1997 by Viglienzone Adriatica
                             Communities
                                                                       SpA, represented by Bruno Elia and Ivano Vigliotti, of the
                            ( Case T-7/97)                             Genoa Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                       the chambers of Alex Schmitt, 62 Avenue Guillaume .
                            ( 97/C 108/42 )
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance
                (Language of the case: French)                         should :
                                                                       — annul, pursuant to the fourth paragraph of Article 173
An action against the Commission of the European                           of the EC Treaty, the finding by which the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                          Commission, on 11 November 1996 , rejected
Instance of the European Communities on 16 January
                                                                           Viglienzone Adriatica SpA's application for
1997 by Miguel Vicente-Nunez, residing at Krainem                          prequalification for call for tenders No 96/C 177/08
( Belgium ), represented by Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Liege                concerning the control of food aid,
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Evelyne Korn, 21 Rue de Nassau.
                                                                       — if necessary, annul or in any event declare
                                                                           inapplicable, under Article 184 of the EC Treaty,
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                point 10, paragraph ( c ) (4 ) (in so far as it relates to
                                                                           the list of subsidiaries in the Member States of the
                                                                           European Union ) and the first sentence of the third
— annul the decision of the Commission of 22 March                         paragraph of point 12 ( in so far as it excludes the
      1996 , addressed to the applicant on 27 March and                    possibility of challenging decisions of the scrutiny
      received on 28 March, inasmuch as it rejected his                    committee ) of notice of tender No 96/C 177/08
      request of November 1995 to be reclassified in                       concerning 'European Union food aid/food security'
      another grade on the basis of Article 31 ( 2 ) of the                and 'prequalification of firms for participation in the
      Staff Regulations,                                                   forthcoming restricted invitation to tender for the
                                                                           provision of services relating to the coordination of
                                                                           consignments and quality and quantity control of
— annul in so far as necessary the decision of the                         foodstuffs, supplies as food aid',
      Commission of 16 October rejecting the complaint
      lodged by the applicant on 27 June 1996 against that
      decision,                                                        — adopt any other measure considered necessary,
                                                                       — order the Commission to pay the costs .
— order the Commission to pay the costs .
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                       The applicant is an company whose application for
                                                                       prequalification for the purposes of notice of tender No 96/
The applicant, an official in Grade A 6, Step 2, relies on             C 177/08 concerning 'European Union food aid/food
the same plea in law as in the action which he brought                 security' and 'prequalification of firms for participation in
against the Commission of the European Communities on                  the forthcoming restricted invitation to tender for the
27 June 1996 (T-100/96 ), alleging that Article 32 of the              provision of services relating to the coordination of
Staff Regulations and the sixth and eighth paragraphs of               consignments and quality and quantity control of
Article 2 of the Commission's decision of 1 September                  foodstuffs, supplies as food aid' ( J ) was rejected.
1983 have been infringed and that the principle of equal
treatment has been breached. According to the applicant,
the Commission has, moreover, disregarded the level and                In support of its claims, the applicant alleges, first,
extent of his experience prior to his joining the                      infringement of Article 190 of the Treaty. It states that the
Commission .                                                           duty to state reasons is particularly important in the case
                                                                       of measures which affect the legal position of the
                                                                       addressees, and that the contested measure has a
                                                                       considerable legal impact on Viglienzone, in so far as it


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 April 2004 in Case C-240/01: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Excise duties on mineral oils — Directive 92/81/EEC — Mineral oils used as heating fuel)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/11

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Sixth Chamber)
   of 29 April 2004
   in Case C-240/01: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Excise duties on mineral oils - Directive 92/81/EEC - Mineral oils used as heating fuel)
   (2004/C 118/19)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-240/01: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: E. Traversa and K. Gross), with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Federal Republic of Germany (Agents: W.-D. Plessing and M. Lumma) — application for a declaration that, by applying Paragraph 4(1)(2)(b) of the Mineralölsteuergesetz (Law on the taxation of mineral oils) of 21 December 1992 (BGBl. I, p. 2185, corrigendum in 1993 I, p. 169), the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(2) of Council Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils (OJ 1992 L 316, p. 12), as amended by Council Directive 94/74/EC of 22 December 1994 (OJ 1994 L 365, p. 46), in so far as that Member State has not made all mineral oils intended for use as heating fuel subject to excise duties — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris (Rapporteur), acting as President of the Sixth Chamber, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and F. Macken, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 April 2004, in which it:

               1)

               Declares that, by applying Paragraph 4(1)(2)(b) of the Mineralölsteuergesetz (Law on the taxation of mineral oils) of 21 December 1992, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first sentence of Article 2(2) of Council Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils, as amended by Council Directive 94/74/EC of 22 December 1994, inasmuch as it has not made all mineral oils intended for use as heating fuel subject to excise duties;

               2)

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 245, 1.9.2001.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 13 November 1995 in Case T-126/95: Dumez v. Commission of the European Communities (Refusal by the Commission to initiate Treaty infringement proceedings - Action for annulment - Action for declaration of failure to act - Inadmissible)

text:
20 . 1 . 96           EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 16/13
Pijnacker Hordijk, of the Amsterdam Bar, and H. J.                 Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt & Medernach,
Bronkhorst, advocate with a right of audience before the           8-10 rue Mathias Hardt, and European Community
Supreme Court of the Netherlands, instructed by Burges             Shipowners' Associations, having its head office in Brussels,
Salmon, Solicitors, with an address for service in                 represented by Denis Waelbroeck, of the Brussels Bar, with
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Luc Frieden, 62 Avenue               an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Guillaume, v. Council of the European Union ( Agents: A.           Ernest Arendt, 8-10 rue Mathias Hardt v. Commission of
Brautigam and M. Bishop ) and Commission of the                    the European Communities ( Agents : B. Langeheine and R.
European Communities ( Agents: G. Rozet and C. Docksey )           Lyal ), supported by Freight Transport Association Ltd,
— application for annulment of Articles 8 ( 2 ) ( a ) and 14 ( 4 ) having its head office in Tunbridge Wells, United Kingdom,
of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2187/93 of 22 July 1993           Association des utilisateurs de transport de fret, having its
providing for an offer of compensation to certain producers        head office in Paris, and European Council of Transport
of milk and milk products temporarily prevented from               Users ASBL, having its head office in Brussels, represented
carrying on their trade — the President of the First Chamber       by Mark Clough, Barrister, of the Bar of England and Wales,
( extended composition ) of the Court of First Instance made       with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
an order on 10 November 1 995 , the operative part of which        of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue — application for an order
is as follows :                                                    preventing an anticipated decision of the Commission —
                                                                   withdrawing from the applicants their immunity from fines
1 , the name of M. Craig is removed from the list of               in respect of practices prohibited, pursuant to Article 85 of
     applicants in Case T-554/93;                                  the EC Treaty, by a Commission decision operation of
                                                                   which has been suspended under Article 185 of the EC
                                                                   Treaty, and continuing within the framework of a new
2 , the parties are ordered to bear their own costs.               agreement notified to the Commission — from entering into
                                                                   effect as long as the Court of First Instance has not given
(M OJ No C 338 , 15 . 12 . 1993 .                                  final judgment on an application for its annulment the
                                                                   President of the Court of First Instance made an order on
                                                                   22 November 1995 , the operative part of which is as
                                                                   follows :
                                                                   1 . the application for interim measures is dismissed;
                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
          OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                           2 , costs are reserved.
                    of 22 November 1995
in Case T-3 95/94 R II: Atlantic Container Line AB and
   Others v. Commission of the European Communities
                         ( 96/C 16/29 )
                                                                       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                (Language of the case: English)                                        of 13 November 1995
                                                                   in Case T-126/95 : Dumez v. Commission of the European
In Case T-3 95/94 R II, Atlantic Container Line AB,                                       Communities ( 1 )
established in Gothenburg, Sweden, Cho Yang Shipping               (Refusal by the Commission to initiate Treaty infringement
Company Ltd, established in Seoul, DSR-Senator Lines               proceedings — Action for annulment — Action for
GmbH, established in Bremen, Germany, Hapag Lloyd AG,                      declaration of failure to act — Inadmissible)
established in Hamburg, Germany, MSC Mediterranean                                          ( 96/C 16/30 )
Shipping Company SA, established in Geneva, Switzerland,
A. P. Møller-Mærsk Line, established in Copenhagen,
Nedlloyd Lijnen BV, established in Rotterdam, the                                 (Language of the case: French)
Netherlands, Neptune Orient Lines Ltd ( NOL ), established
in Singapore, Nippon Yusen Kaisha (NYK Line ),                     In Case T-126/95 : Dumez, established at Nanterre ( France ),
established in Tokyo, Orient Overseas Container Line (UK )         represented by Alexandre Carnelutti and Jean-Pierre
Ltd, established in Levington, United Kingdom, P & O               Spitzer, of the Paris Bar, v. Commission of the European
Containers Ltd, established in London, Polish Ocean Lines,         Communities ( Agent: Henrik van Lier ) — application,
established in Gdynia, Poland, Sea-Land Service Inc.,              primarily, for the annulment of the decision of the
established in Jersey City, New Jersey, United States of           Commission of 29 March 1995 not to initiate proceedings
America , Tecomar SA de CV, established in Mexico DF, and          against the Hellenic Republic for infringement of
Transportación Maritima Mexicana SA, established in                Community law with respect to the award of the public
Mexico DF, represented by John Pheasant, Nicholas                  contract for the new Athens airport on the Spata site,
Bromfield and Suyong Kim, Solicitors, with an address for          alternatively, for a declaration that the Commission has
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch &                  failed to act — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber ),
Wolter, 11 rue Goethe, supported by Japanese Shipowners'           composed of C. P. Briët, President, and B. Vesterdorf and A.
Association, having its head office in Tokyo, represented by       Potocki, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
Nicholas J. Forwood QC, of the Bar of England and Wales,            13 November 1995 , the operative part of which is as
and Philip Ruttley, Solicitor, with an address for service in      follows :
 ---pagebreak--- No C 16/ 14            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    20 . 1 . 96
1 , the application is dismissed as inadmissible;                            ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 13 November 1995
2, there is no need to rule on the application to                     in Case T-128/95 : Aéroports de Paris v. Commission of the
     intervene;                                                                            European Communities (*)
                                                                      (Refusal by the Commission to initiate Treaty infringement
3 , the applicant is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay         proceedings — Action for annulment — Action for
     the costs of the Commission. The Hellenic Republic is                       declaration of failure to act — Inadmissible)
     ordered to bear the costs incurred by it in connection                                         ( 96/C 16/32 )
     with the submission of its application to intervene.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(!) OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
                                                                      In Case T-128/95 : Aéroports de Paris, established in Paris,
                                                                      represented by Hugues Calvet, of the Paris Bar, with an
                                                                      address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                      Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue, v. Commission of the
                                                                      European Communities ( Agent: Henrik van Lier ) —
                                                                      application, primarily, for annulment of the decision of the
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             Commission of 29 March 1995 not to initiate proceedings
                     of 13 November 1995                              against the Hellenic Republic for infringement of
                                                                      Community law with respect to the award of the public
    in Case T-127/95 : Société auxiliaire d'entreprises v.            contract for the new Athens airport on the Spata site,
        Commission of the European Communities ( J )                  alternatively, for a declaration that the Commission has
(Refusal by the Commission to initiate Treaty infringement            failed to act — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber),
proceedings — Action for annulment — Action for                       composed of C.P. Briët, President, and B. Vesterdorf and A.
         declaration of failure to act — Inadmissible)                Potocki, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
                            { 96/C 16/31 )                             13 November 1 995 , the operative part of which is as
                                                                      follows :
                 (Language of the case: French)                        1 , the application is dismissed as inadmissible;
In Case T-127/95 : Société auxiliaire d'entreprises,                  2 , there is no need to rule on the application to
established at Issy-les-Molineaux ( France ), represented by                 intervene;
Alexandre Carnelutti, of the Paris Bar, v. Commission of the
European Communities ( Agent: Henrik van Lier ) —
application, primarily, for the annulment of the decision of          3 , the applicant is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay
the Commission of 29 March 1995 not to initiate                              the costs of the Commission. The Hellenic Republic is
proceedings against the Hellenic Republic for infringement                   ordered to bear the costs incurred by it in connection
of Community law with respect to the award of the public                     with the submission of its application to intervene.
contract for the new Athens airport on the Spata site,
alternatively, for a declaration that the Commission has               f 1 ) OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
failed to act — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber ),
composed of C.P. Briët, President, and B. Vesterdorf and A.
Potocki, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
 13 November 1995 , the operative part of which is as
follows :
                                                                                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
 1 , the application is dismissed as inadmissible;                                OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 7 November 1995
2 , there is no need to rule on the application to                     in Case T-168/95 R: Eridania Zuccherifici Nazionali SpA
      intervene;                                                                and Others v. Council of the European Union
                                                                                96/C 16/33 )
 3 , the applicant is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay
      the costs of the Commission. The Hellenic Republic is                              (Language of the case: Italian)
      ordered to bear the costs incurred by it in connection
      with the submission of its application to intervene.             In Case T- 1 68/95 R: Eridania Zuccherifici Nazionali SpA,
                                                                       established in Genoa ( Italy ), Industria Saccarifera Italiana
 (') OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .                                     Agroindustriale SpA (ISI ), established in Padua (Italy ),
                                                                        Sadam Zuccherifici, established in Bologna ( Italy ), Sadam
                                                                        Castiglionese SpA, established in Bologna, Sadam Abruzzo
                                                                        SpA, established in Bologna, Zuccherificio del Molise SpA,


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 9 October 1997 in Case C-163/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the House of Lords): Elsbeth Freifrau von Horn v. Kevin Cinnamond (Brussels Convention - Article 21 - Lis pendens - San Sebastian Accession Convention - Article 29 - Transitional provisions)

text:
22 . 11 . 97            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 357/7
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        ( Second Chamber)                                                     ( Sixth Chamber)
                        of 9 October 1997
                                                                                of 9 October 1997
in Case C-152/95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal Administratif, Amiens ): Michel Macon and                in Case C-163/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                 Others v. Prefet de l'Aisne (')                      the House of Lords ): Elsbeth Freifrau von Horn v. Kevin
                                                                                Cinnamond i 1 )
(Additional levy on milk — Reference quantity —
Application for a grant of compensation for definitive                (Brussels Convention — Article 21 — Lis pendens — San
       discontinuation of milk production — Refusal)                  Sebastian   Accession        Convention    —   Article 29   —
                                                                                Transitional provisions)
                           ( 97/C 357/12 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 357/ 13 )
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                      In Case C-163/95 : reference to the Court pursuant to the
                                                                      Protocol of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the
In Case C-152/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177           Court of Justice of the Convention of 27 September 1968
of the EC Treaty from the Tribunal Administratif                      on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil
(Administrative Court ), Amiens ( France ), for a preliminary         and Commercial Matters from the House of Lords for a
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court                   preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
between Michel Macon and Others and Prefet de l'Aisne                 court between Elsbeth Freifrau von Horn and Kevin
— on the interpretation of Article 2 of Council Regulation            Cinnamond — on the interpretation of Article 21 of the
( EEC ) No 1637/91 of 13 June 1991 fixing compensation                said Convention ( OJ L 304, 30 . 10 . 1978 , p. 36 ), as
with regard to the reduction of the reference quantities              amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the
referred to in Article 5 (c ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 804/68         Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the
and compensation for the definitive discontinuation of                United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
milk production ( OJ L 150, 15 . 6 . 1991 , p. 30 ) — the             ( OJ L 304, 30 . 10 . 1978 , p. 1 ) and the Convention of
Court ( Second Chamber ), composed of: R. Schintgen,                  25   October    1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic
President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini and G. Hirsch                 Republic ( OJ L 388 , 31 . 12 . 1982, p. 1 ) and the
( Rapporteur), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate              Convention of 26 May 1989 on the Accession of the
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on                 Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic ( OJ L 285 ,
9 October 1997, in which it has ruled:                                3 . 10. 1989, p. 1 ), and of Article 29 of the Convention of
                                                                      26 May 1989 — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed
                                                                      of: H. Ragnemalm, President of the Chamber, G. F.
                                                                      Mancini ( Rapporteur ), P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray and
Article 2 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1637/91 of                   G. Hirsch, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; D.
13 June 1991 fixing compensation with regard to the                   Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the
reduction of the reference quantities referred to in Article 5        Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 October 1997, in
(c) of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 and compensation for                which it has ruled :
the definitive discontinuation of milk production must be
interpreted as meaning that a farmer may be granted
compensation for definitive discontinuation of all milk
production only if, on the date of his application, he is
producing milk in his capacity as a producer within the               Article 29 (1 ) of the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the
meaning of Article 12 (c) of Council Regulation (EEC)                 Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese
No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for                 Republic to the Convention on Jurisdiction and the
the application of the levy referred to in Article 5 (c) of           Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commerical
Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk                       Matters must be interpreted as meaning that where
products sector and if he possesses an individual reference           proceedings involving the same cause of action and
quantity in respect of direct sales.                                  between the same parties are pending in two different
                                                                      Contracting States, the first proceedings having been
(') OJ C 189 , 22 . 7. 1995 .
                                                                      brought before the date of entry into force of the Brussels
                                                                      Convention     between       those  States   and   the  second
                                                                      proceedings after that date, the court second seised must
                                                                      apply Article 21 of the latter Convention if the court first
                                                                      seised has assumed jurisdiction on the basis of a rule
 ---pagebreak--- C 357/8                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    22 . 11 . 97
which accords with the provisions of Title II of that                 J. L. Murray and G. Hirsch, Judges; A. La Pergola,
Convention or with the provisions of a convention which               Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
was in force between the two States concerned when the                Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 October 1997, in
proceedings were instituted, and must do so provisionally             which it:
if the court first seised has not yet ruled on whether it has
jurisdiction. On the other hand, the court second seised
must not apply Article 21 of the Convention on
Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil                1 . declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
and Commercial Matters if the court first seised has                       period the provisions necessary to implement
assumed jurisdiction on the basis of a rule which does not                 Articles 3, 4 and 5 of Council Directive 84/466/
accord with the provisions of Title II of that Convention                  Euratom of 3 September 1984 laying down basic
or with the provisions of a convention which was in force                  measures for the radiation protection of persons
between those two States when the proceedings were                         undergoing medical examination or treatment, the
instituted.                                                                Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                           under the Euratom Treaty;
(') OJ C 189, 22 . 7. 1995 .
                                                                      2 . orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
                                                                      (') OJ C 133 , 4 . 5 . 1996 .
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        ( Sixth Chamber)
                       of 9 October 1997
in    Case   C-21/96: Commission of the European                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
            Communities v. Kingdom of Spain (')
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
             Council Directive 84/466/Euratom)                                                 of 9 October 1997
                          ( 97/C 357/ 14                              in Joined Cases C-31/96, C-32/96 and C-33/96 (reference
                                                                      for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Jus
                                                                      ticia de la Comunidad de Extremadura, Cáceres ): Antonio
                                                                      Naranjo Arjona v. Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad
                (Language of the case: Spanish)                       Social (INSS ), Francisco Vicente Mateos v. Instituto Nacio
                                                                      nal de la Seguridad Social (INSS ), Tesorería General de la
                                                                      Seguridad Social (TGSS), and Instituto Nacional de la
                                                                           Seguridad Social (INSS ) v. Laura García Lázaro (')
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be        (Social security — Invalidity — Old-age pensions —
          published in the European Court Reports)                    Article 47 (1 ) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 —
                                                                                Calculation of benefits)
                                                                                ( 97/C 357/15 )
In Case C-21/96 : Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: Thomas F. Cusack and Isabel
Martinez del Peral ) v. Kingdom of Spain (Agents: Alberto
Jose Navarro Gonzalez and Rosario Silva de Lapuerta ) —                               (Language of the case: Spanish)
application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the
laws, regulations or administrative provisions necessary to
comply with Articles 3, 4 and 5 of Council Directive 84/
466/Euratom of 3 September 1984 laying down basic
measures for the radiation protection of persons                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
undergoing medical examination or treatment ( OJ L 265,                         published in the European Court Reports)
5 . 10 . 1984, p. 1 ) or by failing to inform the Commission
of the measures it has adopted for the transposition of the
Directive, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its
obligations under the Euratom Treaty — the Court ( Sixth              In Joined Cases C-31 /96, C-32/96 and C-33/96 : reference
Chamber), composed of: H. Ragnemalm, President of the                 to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the
Chamber, G. F. Mancini, P. J. G. Kapteyn ( Rapporteur),               Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad de Extre


title: Case T-399/07: Action brought on 31 October 2007 — Basell Polyolefine v Commission

text:
               22.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/43

         Action brought on 31 October 2007 — Basell Polyolefine v Commission
   (Case T-399/07)
   (2007/C 315/81)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Basell Polyolefine GmbH (Wesselig, Germany) (represented by: D. Seeliger, E. Wagner and I. Liebach, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Commission Decision of 23 August 2007;

               —

               in the alternative, annul the Commission Decision of 23 August 2007 in so far as it also refuses partial access to documents;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant challenges the Commission Decision of 23 August 2007, by which the Commission refuses its application for access to Commission documents concerning the decision in Case COMP/E-2/37.857 — Organic peroxides.
   The applicant alleges, first of all, breach of Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1). The applicant takes the view that, as a legal person with its seat in a Member State, it has a right to access to Commission documents and that this right under Article 2(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 is also applicable to the documents requested in the context of a cartel investigation.
   The applicant also alleges breach of the first and third indents of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001, on the ground that no commercial interests that objectively warrant protection would be adversely affected by access to the documents and currently no investigation into the cartel proceedings in question is taking place. Furthermore, it is submitted in this connection that there is an overriding public interest in the disclosure of the documents applied for.
   Furthermore the refusal of access to the documents applied for also infringes Article 255 EC. The decision is also in breach of Article 6(2) EU in conjunction with Article 42 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
   The applicant also alleges breach of Article 4(6) in conjunction with Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001, on the ground that it at least has a right to partial access to the documents applied for. Finally, these provisions have also been breached on account of the Commission's failure to fulfil its duty to examine every document specifically and individually.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).


title: Case T-186/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of 29 August 2007 — SELEX Sistemi Integrati v Commission (Action for damages — Non-contractual liability — Competition — Decision of the Commission rejecting a complaint under Article 82 EC — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly without foundation in law — Actual loss)

text:
               20.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/34

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 29 August 2007 — SELEX Sistemi Integrati v Commission
   (Case T-186/05) (1)

   (Action for damages - Non-contractual liability - Competition - Decision of the Commission rejecting a complaint under Article 82 EC - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly without foundation in law - Actual loss)
   (2007/C 247/56)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: SELEX Sistemi Integrati SpA, formerly Alenia Marconi Systems SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: F. Sciaudone, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Bouquet, L. Visaggio and F. Amato, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Action for damages for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the decision of the Commission of 12 February 2004 rejecting the complaint brought by the applicant against Eurocontrol in respect of alleged infringements of the provisions of the EC Treaty on competition.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly without foundation in law.

               2.

               SELEX Sistemi Integrati Spa shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 217, 3.9.2005.