title: Action brought on 1 December 1995 by Azienda Agricola 'Le Canne' SRL against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-218/95)

text:
16 . 3 . 96           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 77/ 11
Action brought on 9 September 1995 by Diego Echauz                  special leave and travelling time for elections, which it had
Brigaldi, José-Luís Buendía Sierra, César Montoliu García,          been granting to officials of Spanish nationality whose
María Jesús Ruiz Monroy, Carmen Ochoa de Michelena,                 official place of residence continues to be in Spain, in order
Victoria Pagadigorria Wicke, Miguel Abellán López,                  to go to exercise their constitutional right to vote at various
Inmaculada Gil Tardón, Antonio García Velázquez, María              elections .
Carmen      Labrador     Rubio,    Carmen    Casado     Salinas,
Diego González Marín, Eva María Rasines Martín,                     The applicant officials claim that, by not taking account of
Julio Vizcarra Soriano and Leopoldo Fabra Utray against             either the characteristics of Spanish electoral law or the
       the Commission of the European Communities                   relevant provisions of the Protocol on Privileges and
                       ( Case T-156/95 )                            Immunities of the European Communities, the Commission
                                                                    has committed a manifest error of assessment of the
                          ( 96/C 77/28 )                            facts .
               (Language of the case: Spanish)                      The applicants also allege that essential procedural
                                                                    requirements have been infringed inasmuch as the
                                                                    provisioins abolishing special leave and travelling time,
An action against the Commission of the European                    which constitutes the subject-matter of the dispute, were
Communities was brought before the Court of First                   approved only at the level of the Board of Heads of
Instance of the European Communities on 9 September                 Administration without following the concertation
1995 by Diego Echauz Brigaldi , Jose-Luis Buendía Sierra ,          procedure or consulting the Staff Regulations Committee, a
Cesar Montoliu Garcia, Maria Jesus Ruiz Monroy,                     body in which all the institutions are jointly represented by
Carmen Ochoa de Michelena , Victoria Pagadigorria Wicke,            their respective Staff Committees . That procedure was,
Miguel Abellan Lopez, Inmaculada Gil Tardón,                        nonetheless, mandatory since it concerned a decision
Antonio Garcia Velazquez, Maria Carmen Labrador Rubio,              affecting all officials .
Carmen Casado Salinas, Diego Gonzalez Marin, Eva Maria
Rasines Martin, Julio Vizcarra Soriano and Leopoldo Fabra           Moreover, the defendant institution has disregarded the
Utray, all of whom are officials of the Commission of the           principle of non-discrimination in that there was no single
European Communities and residing at Brussels,                      inter-institutional criterion when applying the new
represented by Ramon Garcia-Gallardo, of the Burgos                 restrictive provisions in the present case .
Bar .
                                                                    Finally, the applicants rely on other legal grounds, such as
                                                                    breach of the principles of legitimate expectations and of
The applicant claims that the Court should :                        acquired rights .
— annul the decision adopted by the Commission on 2 May
     1995 in response to a complaint submitted by Diego
     Echauz Brigaldi and the rest of the officials on List A, by
     which the Commission refused special leave for elections
     and travelling time in order to exercise the right to vote     Action brought on 1 December 1995 by Azienda Agricola
     of those officials working for the Commission of               'Le Canne' SRL against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
     Spanish nationality whose official residence continues to
     be in Spain and who travelled to Spain for the European                                  ( Case T-218/95 )
     Parliament elections of June 1994,                                                          ( 96/C 77/29 )
— annul the implied rejection in the same terms as above in                         (Language of the case: Italian)
     respect of the officials in List B,
                                                                    An action against the Commission of the European
— furthermore, in view of the economic consequences of              Communities was brought before the Court of First
     the present case, require the Commission either to             Instance of the European Communities on 1 December
     compensate each official on List A and List B with the         1995 by Azienda Agricola 'Le Canne' SRL, whose registered
     days used by each of them to travel to Spain to vote, in       office is at Porto Viro ( Rovigo ), Italy, represented by Giulio
     accordance with the table appearing in Opinion                 Schiller, Giuseppe Carraro and Francesca Mazzonnetto, of
     No 201/92 of 18 December 1991 on special leave for             the Padua Bar, and by Guy Arendt, of the Luxembourg Bar,
     elections adopted by the Board of the Heads of                 with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
     Administration, or to pay them for the days used,              of Guy Arendt.
— order the Commission of the European Communities to               The applicant claims that the Court should :
     pay the costs of these proceedings .
                                                                    — declare void the contested act of the Commission, Note
                                                                        No 12497 of 27 October 1995 ,
Pleas in law and main arguments:
                                                                    — order the Commission to make good the damage,
Several officials of Spanish nationality at the Commission of
the European Communities contest the decision to abolish            — order the Commission to pay the costs .
 ---pagebreak--- No C 77/ 12             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   16 . 3 . 96
Pleas in law and main arguments:                                            — the audi alteram partem principle,
                                                                            — the obligation to give reasons.
The applicant company owns a fish farm at Rosolina, in the
Province of Rovigo, on the coast of the Upper Adriatic . In           ( b ) Contravention of the rules governing application of the
1990 it obtained aid of Lit 1 103 646 181 from the                          EC Treaty, namely infringement of Article 44 of
Commission under reorganization of its fish-rearing                         Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 4028/86 and Article 7 of
installations . Corresponding aid of Lit 827 734 635 was to                 Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 1116/88 : the
have been paid by Italy .                                                   contested act constitutes a decision surreptitiously
                                                                            reducing the agreed aid, without due compliance with
                                                                            the procedure for suspending, reducing or
                                                                            discontinuing aid, laid down by Article 44 of
When the work was finished, on 23 December 1993 , the                       Regulation ( EEC ) No 4028/86 , and without prior
applicant applied to the competent Italian Ministry and to                  fulfilment of the corresponding requirements which are
the Commission for a certificate that the project had been                  binding on the Commission pursuant to Article 7 of the
finally carried out. The Italian Ministry arranged, by note of              implementing Regulation ( EEC ) No 1116/88 .
8 February 1994, for the prior on-site technical inspection
by the Ufficio del Genio Civile ( Civil Engineer's
Department ), which is required under Italian law. Following          (c ) Misuse of powers: the Commission has made use of its
the inspection, that Department reported both to the                        'consultative' power in order to bring about a wholly
applicant and to the Ministry, stating that the work in                     different result, namely the effective reduction of the
                                                                            aid .
question differed in some respects from the project. On
1 February 1995 the Ministry's inspectors inspected the
work finally carried out, within their sphere of competence,
and issued the relevant certificate on 25 May 1995 . In that          If the contested act is annulled, as requested, it will be a
certificate, inter alia they repeat the findings of the Civil         simple matter to find that the institution which adopted that
                                                                      act has caused the applicant, as the beneficiary of the aid,
Engineer's Department and give details of further disparities
with respect to the project. Consequently, according to the           damage for which compensation is payable under
Ministry, the total reckonable expenditure for the purposes           Articles 178 and 215 of the EC Treaty, corresponding to the
of calculation of the aid was no longer Lit 2 627 729 000, as         considerable reduction of the aid granted, both the amount
fixed by the Commission's initial decision on the project,            payable by the European Union and that payable by Italy.
but Lit 1 907 350 101 , a reduction of Lit 720 378 899 . The          Application is made for compensation in an amount not less
applicant submitted written observations challenging the              than the compensatory or default interest on the contested
Ministerial Inspectors ' report, claiming that it was                 sum to reflect the heavy financial burden imposed on the
                                                                      applicant.
unfounded and requesting a review. On 14 November 1995
the Ministry informed the applicant that its request for a
review had been refused, the most significant factor in this
context being that the Ministerial communication expressly
states that it is in full conformity with an opinion expressed
by the Commission by note of 27 October 1995 . The present
application is against that act of the Commission since,
although adopted in the form of a different measure, it is in
fact a decision which directly adversely affects the                  Action brought on 2 December 1995 by Marie-Therese
applicant's interests, in that its twofold effect is to reduce the    Danielsson, Pierre Largenteau and Edwin Haoa against the
aid from the Community and that from the Member                                Commission of the European Communities
State .                                                                                ( Case T-2 19/95 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 77/30 )
The following pleas in law are put forward in support of the                          (Language of the case: English)
application:
                                                                      An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities was brought before the Court of First
( a ) Infringement of essential procedural requirements : the         Instance of the European Communities on 2 December
      contested act neither satisfies nor complies with the            1995 by Marie-Therese Danielsson, Pierre Largenteau and
      procedural requirements laid down by Community law              Edwin Haoa, all residents of Tahiti ( French Polynesia ),
      in order to protect the substantive interests of                represented by Phon van den Biesen, of Van den Biesen
      individuals subject to it, namely:                              Prakken Bohler, Amsterdam, and Denis Waelbroek, of
                                                                      Liedekerke Wolters Waelbroek & Kilpatrick, Brussels,
      — the principle of collegiality applying to the                 assisted by Dr Gerrit Betlem, Nederlands Instituut voor
          Commission 's actions ,                                     Sociaal en Economisch Recht, Utrecht, and by Sven
                                                                      Deimann, Johann W. Goethe Universitat Frankfurt am
                                                                      Main; with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
      — the Community principle of legal certainty,                   office of Dei Greng, 31 , Grand-rue .


title: Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 January 2002 in Case C-151/01 P: La Conqueste SCEA v Commission of the European Communities (Community protection of geographical indications — Regulation (EC) No 1338/2000 — Registration of the name "Canard à foie gras du Sud-Ouest" — Inadmissibility of the action for annulment — Appeal manifestly unfounded)

text:
C 156/2                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       29.6.2002
1.    Dismisses the appeal;                                                3.    The Federal Republic of Germany is to bear its own costs.
2.    Orders Ms Campogrande to pay the costs;
                                                                           (1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.
(1) OJ C 134 of 5.5.2001.
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
                    ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Second Chamber)
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                                         of 30 January 2002
                         of 25 April 2002                                  in Case C-151/01 P: La Conqueste SCEA v Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
in Case C-323/00 P: DSG Dradenauer Stahlgesellschaft
   mbH v Commission of the European Communities (1)                        (Community protection of geographical indications — Regu-
                                                                           lation (EC) No 1338/2000 — Registration of the name
                                                                           ‘Canard à foie gras du Sud-Ouest’ — Inadmissibility of the
    (Appeal — ECSC — State aid to steel undertakings)                          action for annulment — Appeal manifestly unfounded)
                          (2002/C 156/03)                                                           (2002/C 156/04)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                   (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                          In Case C-151/01 P, La Conqueste SCEA, established in
                                                                           Morlaas (France), represented by A. Lyon-Caen, F. Fabiani and
                                                                           F. Thiriez, avocats, appeal against the order of the Court of
                                                                           First Instance of the European Communities (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                           in Case T-215/00 La Conqueste v Commission [2001] ECR II-
In Case C-323/00 P, DSG Dradenauer Stahlgesellschaft mbH,                  181, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other party
represented by U. Theune and M. Luther: Appeal against the                 to the proceedings being: Commission of the European
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European                    Communities (Agents: A.-M. Rouchaud and X. Lewis) — the
Communities (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) in Case                  Court (Second Chamber), composed of: N. Colneric, President
T-234/95 DSG v Commission [2000] ECR II-2603, seeking to                   of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and V. Skouris,
have that judgment set aside, the other parties to the proceed-            Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass,
ings being: Commission of the European Communities (Agent:                 Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 January 2002, in which
K.-D. Borchardt, assisted by professor M. Hilf), Federal Republic          it:
of Germany (Agent: W.-D. Plessing, assisted by W. Kirchhoff
and M. Schütte) and United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland, the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:                  1.    Dismisses the action.
P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber,
D.A.O. Edward, M. Wathelet, C.W.A. Timmermans and A. Ros-                  2.    Orders La Conqueste SCEA to pay the costs.
as, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General;
R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on , the operative part
of which is as follows:
                                                                           (1) OJ C 173 of 16.6.2001.
1.    The appeal is dismissed.
2.    DSG Dradenauer Stahlwerke mbH is to pay the costs.


title: Case C-135/03: Action brought on 26 March 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

text:
24.5.2003              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 124/11
The Court of First Instance also failed to recognise that by the                      referring thereto on agricultural products and food-
contested decisions the Commission took a definitive position                         stuffs, as amended by Regulations (EC) No 1935/
as to its competence as a matter of EC law, which constitutes                         95 (2) and (EC) No 1804/1999 ( 3); by failing to adopt
legal effects within the meaning of the established case-law.                         the necessary measures to prevent misleading use of
                                                                                that word, thereby infringing Article 2 in conjunc-
                                                                                tion with Article 10a of the abovementioned
The Appellants also submit that the Court of First Instance                           amended regulation; and by failing to adopt
was incorrect to proceed on the basis that the District Court                         measures to prevent purchasers from being misled
could remedy the lack of a preliminary reference mechanism                            as to the method of manufacture or production
in the United States by applying Community law itself, that by                        of foodstuffs, thereby infringing Article 2 of the
declaring the application inadmissible, the Court of First                            abovementioned amended regulation in conjunction
Instance violated their right to effective judicial protection and                    with Article 2(1)(a)(i) of Directive 2000/13/EC of
that it misapplied and misinterpreted Community case-law on                           the European Parliament and of the Council of
the contestability of manifestly illegal measures.                                    20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws
                                                                                of the Member States relating to the labelling,
                                                                                presentation and advertising of foodstuffs ( 4); and
Finally, it is submitted that, in concluding that any disputes as
to the Commission’s competence to commence proceedings
in the United States could be determined by the US District
                                                                                —     by maintaining in the Comunidad Foral de Navarra,
Court, the Court of First Instance adopted a solution that was
contrary to Article 292 and the system of the Treaties.                               contrary to the same provisions, use of the term
                                                                                ‘bio’, on its own or in combination with other terms,
                                                                                for dairy products in respect of which that term has
( 1) OJ C 79, 10.3.2001, p. 23.
                                                                                been customarily and continuously used when they
( 2) OJ C 79, 10.03.2001, p. 24.                                                      have not been obtained in accordance with organic
( 3) OJ C 3, 05.01.2002, p. 39.                                                       production methods,
( 4) OJ C 3, 05.01.2002, p. 45.
                                                                                the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                                under the abovementioned regulation and directive, in
                                                                                particular the provisions thereof as indicated above;
Action brought on 26 March 2003 by the Commission of                      —     order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
                         (Case C-135/03)
                         (2003/C 124/18)
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 March
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,                       Article 2 of Regulation No (EEC) 2092/91 prohibits the use of
represented by Gérard Berscheid, Legal Adviser, and Sara Pardo            derivatives of the term designating organic agricultural
Quintillán, of its Legal Service, with an address for service in          methods in any of the official languages of the European
Luxembourg.                                                               Community for products which have not been obtained by
                                                                          means of organic production methods. Accordingly, use of the
                                                                          term ‘bio’, cited expressly in Article 2 as an example of a
The applicant claims that the Court should :                              derived term indicating organic agriculture, is prohibited.
—     Declare that:
      —      by maintaining in its domestic legal system and in
             current usage the term ‘bio’, on its own or in               National legislation which allows the use of the term ‘bio’ in
             combination with other terms, for products which             the labelling, advertising material or commercial documents
             have not been obtained in accordance with organic            for a product which has not been manufactured in accordance
             production methods, thereby infringing Article 2 in          with Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91, such as Real Decreto
             conjunction with Article 5 of Council Regulation             (Royal Decree) 1852/1993 following the amendments inserted
             (EEC) No 2092/91 ( 1) of 24 June 1991 on organic             by Real Decreto 506/2001, infringes Regulation (EEC)
             production of agricultural products and indications          No 2092/91.
 ---pagebreak--- C 124/12                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                       24.5.2003
Such national legislation also infringes Article 2(1)(a)(i) of             Pleas in law and main arguments
Directive 2000/13/EC, according to which the labelling and
methods used must not be such as could mislead the purchaser,
particularly as to the characteristics of the foodstuff and, in            The time-limit for implementing the directive expired on
particular, as to its nature, identity, properties, composition,           5 December 2001.
quantity, durability, origin or provenance, method of manufac-
ture or production.
                                                                           (1 ) OJ L 139 of 10.6.2000, p. 28.
( 1) OJ 1991 L 198, p. 1.
( 2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1935/95 of 22 June 1995 amending
     Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 on organic production of agricul-
     tural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural
     products and foodstuffs OJ 1995 L 186, p. 1.
( 3) Council Regulation (EC) No 1804/1999 of 19 July 1999 sup-
     plementing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 on organic production
     of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on
     agricultural products and foodstuffs to include livestock pro-        Action brought on 28 March 2003 by the Commission
     duction OJ 1999 L 222, p. 1.                                          of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
( 4) OJ 2000 L 109, p. 29.                                                                               Sweden
                                                                                (Case C-141/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 124/20)
Action brought on 27 March 2003 by the Commission of
                                                                           An action against the Kingdom of Sweden was brought before
the European Communities against the Federal Republic
                                                                           the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 28 March
                            of Germany
                                                                           2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                           represented by P. Hellström and J.M. Flett, acting as Agents,
                                                                           with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                          (Case C-139/03)
                          (2003/C 124/19)                                  The Commission claims that the Court should:
                                                                           —     Declare that by failing to adopt the laws and other
                                                                                provisions necessary to implement Commission Directive
                                                                                2000/52/EC ( 1) of 26 July 2000 amending Directive 80/
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                            723/EEC (2) on the transparency of financial relations
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-                     between Member States and public undertakings or, in
ties on 27 March 2003 by the Commission of the European                          any event, by failing to inform the Commission thereof,
Communities, represented by Josef Christian Schieferer and                       the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations
Hans Støvlbæk, of its Legal Service, with an address for service                 under the directive, and
in Luxembourg.
                                                                           —     Order the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
1.     declare that, by failing to adopt the necessary laws,               Pleas in law and principal arguments
       regulations and administrative provisions to implement
       Commission Directive 2000/38/EC (1) of 5 June 2000
       amending Chapter Va (Pharmacovigilance) of Council
                                                                           The period prescribed for implementing the directive ended
       Directive 75/319/EEC on the approximation of pro-
       visions laid down by law, regulation or administrative              on 31 July 2001.
       action relating to medicinal products and/or to notify the
       Commission of those provisions, the Federal Republic of
       Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the              (1 ) OJ L 193, 29.7.2000, p. 75.
       directive;                                                          (2 ) OJ L 195, 29.7.1980, p. 35.
2.     order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.


title: Action brought on 23 December 1996 by Bernard Connolly against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-214/96)

text:
No C 54/34           EN |               Official Journal of the European Communities                                   22 . 2 . 97
Action brought on 18 December 1996 by Giorgio Lebedef              Action brought on 23 December 1996 by Bernard
   against the Commission of the European Communities               Connolly against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
                      ( Case T-213/96 )
                                                                                Case T-2 14/96 )
                         ( 97/C 54/55 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 54/56 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                   An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
An action against the Commission of the European                   Instance of the European Communities on 23 December
Communities was brought before the Court of First                   1996 by Bernard Connolly, residing at Everberg ( Belgium ),
Instance of the European Communities on 18 December                represented by Jacques Sambon and Pierre-Paul Van
1996 by Giorgio Lebedef, residing in Senningerberg                 Gehuchten, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
( Luxembourg ), represented by Gilles Bouneou, of the              in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 rue du
Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in                     Fort Rheinsheim .
Luxembourg at his Chambers, 15 avenue du Bois .
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should :
The applicant claims that the Court should :                       — order the Commission to pay the applicant the sum of
                                                                          Bfrs 750 000 as compensation for the damage caused
                                                                          by the facts giving rise to the action,
— order the Commission to pay Giorgio Lebedef                      — order the Commission to pay the costs .
    compensation of Bfrs 100 000 or such other sum as
    the Court may think fit,
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                   The applicant, who is the same as in Cases T-203/95 ('),
— reserve to the applicant the right to increase his claim         T-34/96 ( 2 ) and T-163/96 (•*), alleges that the Commission
    during the proceeding and as may appear appropriate,           has waged a particularly harsh campaign against him
                                                                   concurrently with disciplinary proceedings, following the
                                                                   publication of his book The rotten heart of Europe: The
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                           dirty war for Europe 's money. He considers that this
                                                                   campaign was based on insults, abuse and defamation;
                                                                   that is to say, on conduct incompatible with any
                                                                   behaviour appropriate to rational , active administration .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                   In support of his claims, the applicant merely states that
                                                                   the facts that do not have the nature of decisions but
The applicant, who is Secretary-General of the union               which caused this action to be introduced constitute a
'Action & Defense — Luxembourg', seeks to appeal                   breach of the second paragraph of Article 24 of the Staff
against the decisions refusing the representatives of that         Regulations for which the defendant institution must incur
union time off work and the necessary means ( invitations,         liability.
essential information, travel and subsistence expenses ) to
enable them to attend meetings of the trade unions or staff        O OJ No C 351 , 30 . 12 . 1995 , p . 16 .
associations and the Commission relating to general staff          ( 2 ) OJ No C 133 , 1 . 5 . 1996 , p. 32 .
matters, in particular in respect of the meetings of               (') OJ No C 370 , 7. 12 . 1996 , p . 18 .
8 January 1996, the contact committee of 17 January
1996 and the concerted political planning of 2 February
1996 , brought forward to 1 February 1996 .
                                                                   Action brought on 24 December 1996 by Lut Fabert
In support of his claims, the applicant alleges breach of          Goossens against the Commission of the European
Article 24 of the Staff Regulations, of the decision of the                                       Communities
Council of 23 June 1981 establishing a consultation
procedure, failure to comply with general principles of law                                    ( Case T-217/96 )
and general principles of trade union law recognized by                                           ( 97/C 54/57 )
decisions of the Community judicature and Convention
No 151 of the General International Labour Conference .                              (Language of the case: French)
                                                                   An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                   Communities was brought before the Court of First


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 12 May 1998 in Case C-366/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret): Landbrugsministeriet - EF-Direktoratet v Steff-Houlberg Export I/S, Nowaco A/S et Nowaco Holding A/S, SMC af 31/12-1989 A/S (Community aid unduly paid - Recovery - Application of national law - Conditions and limits)

text:
25.7.98                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 234/3
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        (Fourth Chamber)                                                      (Fifth Chamber)
                          of 7 May 1998                                                       of 12 May 1998
in Joined Cases C-52/97, C-53/97 and C-54/97                           in Case C-366/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
(references for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura                  the Hùjesteret): Landbrugsministeriet Ð EF-Direktoratet v
Circondariale, Trento): Epifanio Viscido, Mauro Scandella              Steff-Houlberg Export I/S, Nowaco A/S et Nowaco
and Others and Massimiliano Terragnolo and Others v                              Holding A/S, SMC af 31/12-1989 A/S (1)
                      Ente Poste Italiane (1)
                                                                       (Community aid unduly paid Ð Recovery Ð Application
(Aid granted by Member States Ð Meaning Ð National                               of national law Ð Conditions and limits)
law providing that only one public utility is relieved of the
obligation of observing a rule of general application                                          (98/C 234/05)
         relating to fixed-term employment contracts)
                          (98/C 234/04)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Danish)
                 (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                     In Case C-366/95: reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                       of the EC Treaty from the Hùjesteret (Supreme Court)
                                                                       (Denmark), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
                                                                       pending before that court between Landbrugsministeriet
                                                                       Ð EF-Direktoratet and Steff-Houlberg Export I/S,
In Joined Cases C-52/97, C-53/97 and C-54/97: references               Nowaco A/S et Nowaco Holding A/S, SMC af 31/12-1989
to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the               A/S Ð on the interpretation of Community law principles
Pretura Circondariale (District Magistrate's Court), Trento            applicable to measures taken by the national authorities
(Italy), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending           for the recovery of export refunds unduly paid Ð the
before that court between Epifanio Viscido (C-52/97),                  Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann,
Mauro Scandella and Others (C-53/97), Massimiliano                     President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet, J. C. Moitinho de
Terragnolo and Others (C-54/97) and Ente Poste Italiane                Almeida, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and L. Sevón, Judges; A. La
Ð on the interpretation of Articles 92(1) and 93 of the EC             Pergola, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for
Treaty Ð the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of:                      the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 May 1998, in
H. Ragnemalm, President of the Chamber, J. L. Murray                   which it has ruled:
(Rapporteur), K. M. Ioannou, Judges; F. G. Jacobs,
Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 May 1998, in which
it has ruled:
                                                                       Community law does not in principle preclude a national
                                                                       rule from allowing non-recovery of Community aid
                                                                       unduly paid, regard being had to criteria such as
                                                                       negligence on the part of the national authorities and the
A national provision which relieves only one undertaking               fact that a considerable period of time has elapsed since
of the obligation of complying with the generally                      the payment of the aid in question, on condition that the
applicable legislation concerning fixed-term employment                good faith of the recipient is established and provided that
contracts does not constitute State aid within the meaning             the same conditions apply as for the recovery of purely
of Article 92(1) of the EC Treaty.                                     national payments and that the interests of the
                                                                       Community are fully taken into account.
(1) OJ C 108 of 5.4.1997.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 16 of 20.1.1996.


title: Appeal brought on 23 October 1998 by Elsa De Persio, an employee of the Commission of the European Communities, against the judgment delivered on 15 September 1998 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-23/96 Elsa De Persio v. Commission of the European Communities, intervener: Council of the European Union (Case C-418/98 P)

text:
C 48/8               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  20.2.1999
coordinating procedures for the award of public supply                 which she had acquired and also for the inappropriate
contracts (OJ L 13, 15.1.1977, p. 1), as amended by                    development of her career and the delay in her career
Directive 88/295/EEC, (OJ L 127, 20.5.1988, p. 1), and of              advancement;
Article 1 of Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993
coordinating procedures for the award of public supply             Ð declare unlawful Article 45(2), (3) and (4) of the Staff
contracts (OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 1) Ð the Court (Fifth                Regulations having regard to the principles of equal
Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the              treatment and entitlement to freedom;
Chamber, P. Jann (Rapporteur), J. C. Moitinho de
Almeida, C. Gulmann and M. Wathelet, Judges; S. Alber,
                                                                   Ð order the Commission to pay all the costs of both
Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has
                                                                       actions at first instance and of the present proceedings.
given a judgment on 17 December 1998, in which it held:
                                                                   In the alternative, in the event that the Court of Justice
A body such as Coillte Teoranta is a contracting authority         considers that the case is not ready for judgment, the
within the meaning of Article 1(b) of Council Directive            appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:
77/62/EEC of 21 December 1976 coordinating procedures
for the award of public supply contracts, as amended by
                                                                   Ð set aside in part the judgment of the Court of First
Council Directive 88/295/EEC.
                                                                       Instance of 15 September 1998 in Case T-23/96;
(1) OJ C 318, 18.10.1997.
                                                                   Ð refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for it
                                                                       to give judgment, on the basis of the principles to be
                                                                       specified by the Court of Justice;
                                                                   Ð order the Commission to pay the costs of these
                                                                       proceedings.
Appeal brought on 23 October 1998 by Elsa De Persio,
an employee of the Commission of the European
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Communities, against the judgment delivered on
15 September 1998 by the Second Chamber of the Court
of First Instance of the European Communities in Case              1. Infringement of the obligation to respond to all
T-23/96 Elsa De Persio v. Commission of the European                   requests made by the appellant;
 Communities, intervener: Council of the European Union
                     (Case C-418/98 P)                             2. Incorrect appraisal of the plea alleging lack of equal
                                                                       treatment and encroachment upon the freedom of
                       (1999/C 48/15)                                  officials covered by the derogation relating to officials
                                                                       in Grades B, C and D;
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 15 September
1998 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First                   3. Errors in law, infringement of the rules of procedure
Instance of the European Communities in Case T-23/96                   concerning the burden of proof borne by the
Elsa De Persio v. Commission of the European                           defendant and manifest error of assessment regarding
Communities, intervener: Council of the European Union,                the provisions relating to the appointing authority;
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 23 October 1998 by Elsa De Persio, an               4. Error in law regarding the applicable procedure and
employee of the Commission of the European                             powers concerning changes to the staff organisation of
Communities, represented by Franco Giampietro, of the                  the Publications Office and the Commission;
Rome Bar, with an address for service at 114 Via
Sacchetti, Rome.                                                   5. Errores in iudicando and infringement of the
                                                                       requirements       relating   to    burden    of   proof
The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:                 (paragraphs 123 to 149 of the contested judgment).
Ð declare void or non-existent, or annul, the decison
    transferring the appellant, adopted by the Director
    General for Personnel of the Commission and the
    preparatory measures on which it is based;
                                                                   Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Netherlands
                                                                   Raad van State by order of that court of 19 November
Ð declare unlawful the conduct of the administration               1998 in the case of W. N. against Staatssecretaris van
    from 13 January 1995 to 10 June 1996;                                                      FinancieÈn
                                                                                (Case C-420/98)
Ð consequently, order the Commission to pay                                                 (1999/C 48/16)
    compensation, on an equitable basis, for the
    non-material damage suffered by the appellant and the
    adverse effect on her peace of mind and physical               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    health, and for loss of the specific professional status       European Communities by order of the Netherlands Raad


title: Appeal brought on 19 December 1996 by Somaco Sàrl against the judgment delivered on 18 September 1996 by the Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-387/94 between Asia Motor France SA and Others and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-401/96 P)

text:
22 . 2 . 97               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 54/ 15
      which provides that 'the said regions must coincide                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
      with administrative units larger than communes and
       comprise administrative units on which statistics are               Concerning annulment
       available for the reference wine years ', by identifying
       production regions with Member States ?                             — Inadequacy and contradictory nature of the grounds of
                                                                                the judgment — Error of law: the system in
(') OJ No L 84, 27. 3 . 1987, p. 1 .                                             Martinique, voluntarily limiting imports but with an
( 2 ) OJ No L4S , 18 . 2 . 1988 , p . 15 .                                       aggregate quota ( 15% ) greater than that in
                                                                                metropolitan France (3 % ), was necessarily of the same
                                                                                kind as that applying in the latter territory. It is
                                                                                profoundly contradictory to say that the arrangement
                                                                                at national level is not of an exclusively State nature
                                                                                whereas the local arrangement in Martinique is of a
                                                                                State nature .
Appeal brought on 19 December 1996 by Somaco Sari
against the judgment delivered on 18 September 1996 by                     Concerning compensation
the Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court
of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T                   — In the light of three successive applications to the
387/94 between Asia Motor France SA and Others and                               Court of First Instance ( for declarations of failure to
          the Commission of the European Communities                             act and annulment ), it is beyond dispute that the
                          ( Case C-401 /96 P )                                   Commission has applied Community law in an
                                                                                unlawful way, in addition by blocking the matter for
                              ( 97/C 54/21 )                                     eleven years . It would be extraordinary if such
                                                                                conduct were incapable of constituting a wrongful act
                                                                                or omission involving contractual liability on the part
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 18 September                         of the Commission, requiring it to make good the
1996 by the Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition, of                             damage expressly specified and clearly originating
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                          from the very conduct objected to .
in Case T-387/94 between Asia Motor France SA, Jean
Michel Cesbron, Monin Automobiles SA, Europe Auto                          (■) OJ No L 336 , 9 . 11 . 1996 , p . 24 .
Service (EAS ) and Somaco Sari and the Commission of the
European Communities was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 19 December
 1996 by Somaco Sari, represented by Jean Claude
Fourgoux, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4 Rue                       Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
Beatrix de Bourbon .
                                                                           d'Instance, Saint-Denis , by judgments of that court of
                                                                           9 December 1996 in the cases of Société Béton Express v.
The appellant claims that the Court should :                               Direction Régionale des Douanes, Société Nouvelle de
                                                                           Concassage v. Direction Régionale des Douanes , Société
                                                                           Bourbon Lumière v. Direction Régionale des Douanes and
— set aside the part of the judgment of the Court of First                 Société Ouest Concassage v. Direction Régionale des
       Instance of 18 September 1996 (') dismissing its                             Douanes — Intervener: Region of La Réunion
       application for annulment and damages,
                                                                               ( Cases C-405/96, C-406/96, C-407/96 and C-408/96 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 54/22 )
— pursuant to Article 54 of the Statute of the Court of
       Justice:
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
       — annul      the     decision       of the  Commission      of      European Communities by judgments of the Tribunal
            13 October 1994 in so far as it rejects Somaco's               d'Instance ( District Court ), Saint-Denis , of 9 December
            complaint,                                                      1996 , which were received at the Court Registry on
                                                                           23 December 1996, for a preliminary ruling, in the cases
       — order the Commission, under Articles 178 and 215                  of Société Béton Express v. Direction Régionale des
                                                                           Douanes, Société Nouvelle de Concassage v. Direction
            of the Treaty, to make good the damage caused to
                                                                            Régionale de Douanes , Société Bourbon Lumière v.
            the complainant by the institutions, and,
                                                                            Direction Régionale des Douanes and Société Ouest
            consequently, to fix the quantum of damages at
            the amount of interest at the rate of 9,75 % on the             Concassage v. Direction Régionale des Douanes, on the
                                                                            following question :
            sums at which the main damage is evaluated since
            the decision of 5 December 1991 deciding not to
                                                                            Following the judgment delivered in Legros [ Case C-163/
            pursue the case up to the date of judgment,                     90 Administration des Douanes et Droits Indirects v.
                                                                            Legros and Others [ 1992] ECR I-4625J on 16 July 1992,
 — order the Commission to pay the full costs, both of                      has Law No 92-676 of 17 July 1992, adopted in
       these proceedings and of the proceedings which led to                implementation of the Decision 89/688 of the Council of
        the judgment of the Court of First Instance of                      Ministers of the European Communities of 22 December
        18 September 1996 .                                                 1989 ('), had the effect of replacing a charge having


title: Judgment of the court of first instance of 10 March2004 in Case T-177/02: Malagutti-Vezinhet SA v Commission of the EuropeanCommunities (General safety of products — Community rapid-alertsystem for foodstuffs — Action for compensation)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/58

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 10 March 2004
   in Case T-177/02: Malagutti-Vezinhet SA v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (General safety of products - Community rapid-alert system for foodstuffs - Action for compensation)
   (2004/C 106/114)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-177/02: Malagutti-Vezinhet SA, a company in the process of being wound up by court order, having its registered office in Cavaillon (France), represented by B. Favarel Veidig and N. Boron, avocats, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: M.-J. Jonczy and M. França) - application for compensation in respect of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant following the release by the Commission of a rapid alert message informing consumers of the presence of pesticide residues in apples originating in France and naming the applicant as exporter of the goods in question – the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: N.J. Forwood, President, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; B. Pastor, Deputy Registrar, delivered a judgment on 10 March 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               (1)

               The application is dismissed.

               (2)

               The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 233 of 28.09.02.


title: Case C-151/15: Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Coimbra — Portugal) — Sociedade Portuguesa de Autores CRL v Ministério Público, Carlos Manuel Prata Pereira Sá Meneses, Sandra Carla Ferreira Cardoso, Douros Bar Lda (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Copyright and related rights in the information society — Directive 2001/29/EC — Article 3(1) — Concept of ‘communication to the public’ — Broadcasting of works in a café-restaurant by means of a radio apparatus connected to loudspeakers)

text:
               28.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 320/14

         Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Coimbra — Portugal) — Sociedade Portuguesa de Autores CRL v Ministério Público, Carlos Manuel Prata Pereira Sá Meneses, Sandra Carla Ferreira Cardoso, Douros Bar Lda
   (Case C-151/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Copyright and related rights in the information society - Directive 2001/29/EC - Article 3(1) - Concept of ‘communication to the public’ - Broadcasting of works in a café-restaurant by means of a radio apparatus connected to loudspeakers))
   (2015/C 320/20)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal da Relação de Coimbra

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sociedade Portuguesa de Autores CRL

      Defendants: Ministério Público, Carlos Manuel Prata Pereira Sá Meneses, Sandra Carla Ferreira Cardoso, Douros Bar Lda

      Operative part of the order

   The concept of ‘communication to the public’ within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as meaning that it covers the transmission, by operators of a café-restaurant, of musico-literary works broadcast by a radio broadcasting station, by means of a radio apparatus connected to loudspeakers and/or amplifiers, to the customers present in that establishment.

      (1)  OJ C 205, 22.6.2015.


title: Case C-76/08: Action brought on 25 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Malta

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/23

         Action brought on 25 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Malta
   (Case C-76/08)
   (2008/C 92/43)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Recchia and D. Lawunmi, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Malta
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to meet the conditions set out in Article 9 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds (1) the Republic of Malta has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the said Directive for the hunting of Quails (coturnix coturnix) and Turtle Doves (streptopelia turtur) on spring migration;

               —

               order the Republic of Malta to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds concerns the conservation of all species of naturally occurring birds in the wild state in the European Territory of the Member States to which the Treaty applies. It establishes measures for the protection, management and control of these species and lays down the rules for their exploitation. Since accession to European Union on 1 May 2004, the Maltese authorities have exercised the right to apply the derogation in Article 9(1) of the directive for the hunting of Quails and Turtle Doves during the spring migration period when they return to their rearing ground in a number of countries north of the Mediterranean Sea. The question raised in the present proceedings is whether the Maltese authorities fall within the scope of the derogation in Article 9(1) which would permit the hunting of the species in question in Malta during the spring migration on the basis that there is no other satisfactory solution.

      (1)  OJ L 103, p. 1.


title: Case T-2/01: Action brought on 4 January 2001 by Vereniging Nederlandse Cementindustrie (VNC) against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
24.3.2001                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 95/15
Action brought on 27 December 2000 by Campina                            Action brought on 4 January 2001 by Vereniging Neder-
Melkunie B.V. against the Commission of the European                     landse Cementindustrie (VNC) against the Commission of
                            Communities                                                   the European Communities
                          (Case T-389/00)                                                         (Case T-2/01)
                           (2001/C 95/29)                                                        (2001/C 95/30)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: Dutch)
                    (Language of the Case: Dutch)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               European Communities on 4 January 2001 by Vereniging
European Communities on 27 December 2000 by Campina                      Nederlandse Cementindustrie (VNC), established at ’s-Herto-
Melkunie B.V., established at Rosmalen (Netherlands), rep-               genbosch (Netherlands), represented by M.B.W. Biesheuvel,
resented by Y. Van Gerven, F.P. Louis and R. Van der Vlies, of           T.M. Snoep and R. Wesseling, of The Hague Bar, with an
Messrs Stibbe Simont Monahan Duhot, lawyers, Brussels, with              address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                  M. Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe.
C. Medernach, of Messrs Arendt & Medernach, lawyers,
8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              —     annul the Commission’s decision of 23 November 2000
                                                                               refusing to pay VNC interest on the fine improperly
                                                                               imposed on it;
—     annul the Commission’s decision of 18 October 2000
      refusing access to the correspondence between the Com-
      mission and the Belgian authorities, originating from the          —     order the Commission to pay to VNC interest at the rate
      Commission, and to the documents exchanged and the                       of 8,75 %, or at least at an appropriate rate, on
      minutes of meetings with the Belgian authorities or any                  100 000 euro for the period from 3 May 1995 to
      other party concerned, regarding the dioxin crisis during                23 November 2000, together with interest at the rate of
      the period from 3 June to 9 July 1999;                                   6,23 % on that sum for the period from 23 November
                                                                               2000 until payment of the interest by the Commission to
                                                                               VNC;
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                         —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
—     Infringement of Decision 94/90 and of Article 253 EC
                                                                         By judgment of 15 March 2000, the Court of First Instance
                                                                         annulled Commission Decision 94/815/EC in so far as that
      The reasons given for the contested decision do not show           decision imposed a fine on the applicant. On 23 November
      that the Commission carried out a separate examination             2000 the Commission transferred the amount of the fine paid
      of each of the documents requested so as to ascertain              by the applicant to a bank account maintained by the applicant,
      whether they related to its inspection and investigation           but not the interest demanded by the applicant.
      activities or its infringement procedure, or to the coming
      into existence of its Decisions 1999/368 of 4 June
      1999 and 1999/449 of 9 July 1999.                                  The applicant advances the following pleas in support of its
                                                                         application for annulment:
      The Commission has failed, contrary to Article 253 EC,
      to give separate reasons in respect of each individual             Infringement of Article 233 EC: by not paying interest on the
      document as to why the refusal to allow inspection is              amount of the fine, the Commission failed to take the necessary
      necessary in order to protect the public interest.                 measures to comply with the judgment.
—     Infringement of Decision 94/90 and breach of the                   Infringement of the general principles of proper adminis-
      principle of proportionality, inasmuch as the Commission           tration: in so far as the Commission differentiates between
      has not given partial access to the documents.                     undertakings which pay the fine and undertakings which
                                                                         instead provide a bank guarantee, it contravenes general
                                                                         principles of proper administration, namely the principle of
                                                                         equal treatment, the duty of care and the principle of
                                                                         proportionality.
 ---pagebreak--- C 95/16               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    24.3.2001
Infringement of the right to put forward a proper defence: if           Pleas in law and main arguments
an undertaking on which the Commission has wrongly
imposed a fine is not entitled to claim lost interest, it is in
effect not in a position to mount a full defence against                The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case
decisions wrongly addressed to it by the Commission.                    T-2/01.
Unjustified enrichment.
Since there exists no generally applicable rate of interest, the
applicant bases its calculation of the interest on the percentage
charged by the Commission when fixing the amount to be
paid by undertakings which have delayed paying a justified
                                                                        Action brought on 4 January 2001 by Istituto Nazionale
fine.
                                                                        Istruzione Professionale Agricola — I.N.I.P.A. and Others
                                                                            against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-5/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 95/32)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
Action brought on 4 January 2001 by Eerste Nederlandse
Cement Industrie (ENCI) NV against the Commission of
                 the European Communities                               An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 4 January 2001 by the Istituto
                          (Case T-3/01)                                 Nazionale Istruzione Professionale Agricola — I.N.I.P.A. and
                                                                        Others, represented by Giovanni Pesce and Filippo Brunetti,
                                                                        with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                         (2001/C 95/31)
                                                                        The applicants claim that the Court should:
                  (Language of the Case: Dutch)
                                                                        —     uphold the application and order the defendant to pay
                                                                              the costs.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 4 January 2001 by Eerste Neder-                 Pleas in law and main arguments
landse Cement Industrie (ENCI) NV, established at ’s-Hertogen-
bosch (Netherlands), represented by M.B.W. Biesheuvel and
R. Wesseling, of The Hague Bar, with an address for service in          The present application is directed against the decision con-
Luxembourg at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe.                 tained in the letter dated 27 October 2000 (D13118), signed
                                                                        by the Director General of the European Commission, Direc-
                                                                        torate-General for Health and Consumer Protection, by which
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             the applicant consortium of undertakings was informed that
                                                                        they had been excluded from the tendering procedure relating
—     annul the Commission’s decision of 23 November 2000               to the information campaign on food safety in Member States
      refusing to pay ENCI interest on the fine improperly              for 2000 and 2001.
      imposed on it;
                                                                        The rejection at issue is based on the lack of evidence of:
—     order the Commission to pay to ENCI interest at the rate
      of 8,75 %, or at least at an appropriate rate, on                 —     at least three years’ of experience in cooperation with a
      7 316 000 euro for the period from 3 May 1995 to                        consumer organisation; and
      23 November 2000, together with interest at the rate of
      6,23 % on that sum for the period from 23 November
      2000 until payment of the interest by the Commission to           —     ability to involve the consumer organisations in the
      ENCI;                                                                   campaign.
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                            In support of its arguments, the applicant consortium alleges:


title: Joined Cases C-295/04 to C-298/04: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 July 2006 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Bitonto — Italy) — Vincenzo Manfredi v Lloyd Adriatico Assicurazioni SpA (C-295/04), Antonio Cannito v Fondiaria Sai SpA (C-296/04), Nicolò Tricarico v Assitalia SpA (C-297/04) and Pasqualina Murgolo v Assitalia SpA (C-298/04) (Article 81 EC — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Accidents caused by motor vehicles, vessels and mopeds — Compulsory civil liability insurance — Increase in premiums — Effect on trade between Member States — Right of third parties to claim compensation for harm suffered — National courts and tribunals having jurisdiction — Limitation period — Punitive damages)

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/3

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 July 2006 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Bitonto — Italy) — Vincenzo Manfredi v Lloyd Adriatico Assicurazioni SpA (C-295/04), Antonio Cannito v Fondiaria Sai SpA (C-296/04), Nicolò Tricarico v Assitalia SpA (C-297/04) and Pasqualina Murgolo v Assitalia SpA (C-298/04)
   (Joined Cases C-295/04 to C-298/04) (1)

   (Article 81 EC - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Accidents caused by motor vehicles, vessels and mopeds - Compulsory civil liability insurance - Increase in premiums - Effect on trade between Member States - Right of third parties to claim compensation for harm suffered - National courts and tribunals having jurisdiction - Limitation period - Punitive damages)
   (2006/C 224/05)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Giudice di Pace di Bitonto
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Vincenzo Manfredi (C-295/04), Antonio Cannito (C-296/04), Nicolò Tricarico (C-297/04), Pasqualina Murgolo (C-298/04)

      Defendants: Lloyd Adriatico Assicurazioni SpA, Fondiaria Sai SpA, Assitalia SpA
   Re:
   Interpretation of Article 81 EC — Concerted practice between Italian and foreign insurance companies established in Italy covering car and motorcycle insurance contracts — Exchange of information which makes it possible to increase civil liability insurance premiums not justified by market conditions
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               An agreement or concerted practice, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, between insurance companies, consisting of a mutual exchange of information that makes possible an increase in premiums for compulsory civil liability insurance relating to accidents caused by motor vehicles, vessels and mopeds, not justified by market conditions, which infringes national rules on the protection of competition, may also constitute an infringement of Article 81 EC if, in the light of the characteristics of the national market at issue, there is a sufficient degree of probability that the agreement or concerted practice at issue may have an influence, direct or indirect, actual or potential, on the sale of those insurance policies in the relevant Member State by operators established in other Member States and that that influence is not insignificant.

               2.

               Article 81 EC must be interpreted as meaning that any individual can rely on the invalidity of an agreement or practice prohibited under that article and, where there is a causal relationship between the latter and the harm suffered, claim compensation for that harm.
               In the absence of Community rules governing the matter, it is for the domestic legal system of each Member State to prescribe the detailed rules governing the exercise of that right, including those on the application of the concept of ‘causal relationship’, provided that the principles of equivalence and effectiveness are observed.

               3.

               In the absence of Community rules governing the matter, it is for the domestic legal system of each Member State to designate the courts and tribunals having jurisdiction to hear actions for damages based on an infringement of the Community competition rules and to prescribe the detailed procedural rules governing those actions, provided that the provisions concerned are not less favourable than those governing actions for damages based on an infringement of national competition rules and that those national provisions do not render practically impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of the right to seek compensation for the harm caused by an agreement or practice prohibited under Article 81 EC.

               4.

               In the absence of Community rules governing the matter, it is for the domestic legal system of each Member State to prescribe the limitation period for seeking compensation for harm caused by an agreement or practice prohibited under Article 81 EC, provided that the principles of equivalence and effectiveness are observed.
               In that regard, it is for the national court to determine whether a national rule which provides that the limitation period for seeking compensation for harm caused by an agreement or practice prohibited under Article 81 EC begins to run from the day on which that prohibited agreement or practice was adopted, particularly where it also imposes a short limitation period that cannot be suspended, renders it practically impossible or excessively difficult to exercise the right to seek compensation for the harm suffered.

               5.

               In the absence of Community rules governing that field, it is for the domestic legal system of each Member State to set the criteria for determining the extent of the damages for harm caused by an agreement or practice prohibited under Article 81 EC, provided that the principles of equivalence and effectiveness are observed.
               Therefore, first, in accordance with the principle of equivalence, if it is possible to award particular damages, such as exemplary or punitive damages, in domestic actions similar to actions founded on the Community competition rules, it must also be possible to award such damages in actions founded on Community rules. However, Community law does not prevent national courts from taking steps to ensure that the protection of the rights guaranteed by Community law does not entail the unjust enrichment of those who enjoy them.
               Secondly, it follows from the principle of effectiveness and the right of individuals to seek compensation for loss caused by a contract or by conduct liable to restrict or distort competition that injured persons must be able to seek compensation not only for actual loss (damnum emergens) but also for loss of profit (lucrum cessans) plus interest.

      (1)  OJ C 251, 9.10.2004.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 14 July 1997 in Case T-81/95: Interhotel v. Commission of the European Communities (Social policy - European Social Fund - Assistance for the financing of vocational training measures - Action for annulment - Notification of decision of approval - Decision on the final payment claim - Legal certainty - Legitimate expectations - Statement of reasons)

text:
6 . 9 . 97            I EN |                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 271 / 15
          — cases referred to in Article 179 of the EC                 Wilms ) — Application for the annulment of Commission
               Treaty and Article 152 of the ECSC Treaty,              Decision C(94 ) 1410/11 of 12 July 1994, notified to the
                                                                       applicant on 27 December 1994, concerning financing
          — cases concerning the implementation of the                 from the European Social Fund for vocational training
               rules    on     competition      applicable    to       measures, — the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber),
               undertakings,                                           composed of: A. Saggio, President, V. Tiili and R. M.
                                                                       Moura Ramos, Judges, Registrar, J. Palacio Gonzalez,
          — the other cases covered by paragraph 1 ( b ).              Administrator has given a judgment on 14 July 1997, in
                                                                       which it :
The First Chamber and the First Chamber, Extended
Composition, presided by the President of the Court of                  1 . Annuls Commission Decision C(94) 1410/11 of 12 July
First Instance, shall not be included in those lists every                  1994, notified to the applicant on 27 December 1994,
third time the end of a rota is reached .                                   in Case No 870840/P1 , concerning financial assistance
                                                                            from the European Social Fund in respect of training
                                                                            measures, to the extent to which it reduces the
The President of the Court of First Instance may derogate                   amounts claimed by the applicant in its final payment
from that order on the ground that cases are related or                     claim solely because the costs in question had not been
with a view to ensuring an even spread of the workload.                     allowed in the decision of approval;
Plenary session                                                        2 . For the rest, dismisses the application;
At its meeting on 2 July 1997, the Court of First Instance
                                                                       3 . Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and pay
                                                                            all the costs incurred by the applicant.
decided pursuant to the second sub-paragraph of
Article 32 ( 1 ) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of
First Instance that where, following the designation of an             (') OJ C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995 .
Advocate General pursuant to Article 17 of the Rules of
Procedure, there is an even number of Judges in the Court
of First Instance sitting in plenary session, the rota
established in advance in accordance with which the
President of the Court is to designate the Judge who will
not take part in the judgment of the case shall be in                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
reserve order to that in which the Judges rank according                                         of 15 July 1997
to their seniority in office under Article 6 of the Rules of
Procedure unless the Judge who would thus be designated                in Case T-187/95 : R v. Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities ( l )
is the Judge-Rapporteur. In that event, it shall be the judge
ranking immediately above him who shall be designated .                (Officials — Sickness insurance scheme — Occupational
                                                                       disease — Definition of the risk — Irregularity of the
                                                                                opinion of the Medical Committee)
                                                                                ( 97/C 271 /25 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                       In Case T-187/95 : R, the widow of an official of the
                         of 14 July 1997
                                                                       Commission of the European Communities, represented
in   Case     T-81/95 :  Interhotel   v.   Commission    of the        by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of the Brussels
                    European Communities (')                           Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                       offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange, v.
(Social policy — European Social Fund — Assistance for                 Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Julian
the financing of vocational training measures — Action
                                                                       Currall, Jean-Luc Fagnart and Francois Tulkens ) —
for annulment — Notification of decision of approval —
                                                                       application, first, for the annulment of the decision of the
Decision on the final payment claim — Legal certainty —
                                                                       Commission of 14 December 1994 rejecting the
        Legitimate expectations — Statement of reasons)                applicant's request that the illness of which her husband
                          ( 97/C 271 /24 )                             died be recognized as an occupational disease; secondly,
                                                                       for default interest; and, thirdly, for compensation — the
                                                                       Court of First Instance ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of: R.
                (Language of the case: Portuguese)                     Garcia-Valdecasas, President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger,
                                                                      Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the
In Case T-81 /95 : Interhotel, Sociedade Internacional de              Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 July 1997, in which
Hoteis, SARL, established in Lisbon, represented by Jose               it :
Miguel Alarcao Judice, Nuno Morais Sarmento and
Gabriela Rodrigues Martins, of the Lisbon Bar, with an                 1 . annuls the decision of the Commission of 14 December
address for service at the chambers of Victor Gillen, 16                    1994 rejecting the request that the illness of the
Boulevard de la Foire v. Commission of the European                         applicant 's deceased husband be recognized as an
Communities, ( Agents : Antonio Caeiro and Giinter                          occupational disease;


C 161/26              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                     2.6.2001
      Removal from the Register of Case T-350/99 (1)                            Removal from the Register of Case T-150/00 (1)
                        (2001/C 161/51)                                                           (2001/C 161/54)
                  (Language of the case: English)                                            (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          By order of 13 March 2001, the President of the First Chamber
By order of 6 March 2001, the President of the First Chamber
                                                                          Extended Composition of the Court of First Instance of the
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                          European Communities has ordered the removal from the
has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-350/99,
                                                                          Register of Case T-150/00, Groupement Européen des Produc-
Bogoljub Karic and Others v Council of the European Union.
                                                                          teurs de Verre Plat (GEPV) v Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities.
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.
       Removal from the Register of Case T-29/00 (1)
                                                                                Removal from the Register of Case T-168/00 (1)
                        (2001/C 161/52)                                                           (2001/C 161/55)
                  (Language of the case: German)                                            (Language of the case: German)
By order of 15 February 2001, the President of the First                  By order of 7 March 2001, the President of the Fourth
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                    Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of                  Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of
Case T-29/00, Deutsche Post AG v Commission of the                        Case T-168/00, Düsseldorfer Senfspezialitäten v Office for
European Communities.                                                     Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                                                                          Designs).
(1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 259 of 9.9.2000.
       Removal from the Register of Case T-91/00 (1)                            Removal from the Register of Case T-189/00 (1)
                        (2001/C 161/53)                                                           (2001/C 161/56)
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                                          (Language of the case: German)
                                                                          By order of 22 February 2001, the President of the Second
By order of 15 February 2001, the President of the Second
                                                                          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                          Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of
Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of
                                                                          Case T-189/00, ‘Invest’ Import und Export Gmbh et Invest
Case T-91/00, Adolfo Kind v Commission of the European
                                                                          Commerce SARL v Commission of the European Communi-
Communities.
                                                                          ties.
(1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.                                                (1) OJ C 285 of 7.10.2000.