title: Action brought on 18 December 1995 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-396/95)

text:
2 . 3 . 96             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 64/7
      matches in competitions which they organize, football                          OPINION 3/94 OF THE COURT
      clubs may field only a limited number of professional                               of 13 December 1995 f 1 )
      players who are nationals of other Member States;
                                                                        (GATT — WTO — Framework Agreement on Bananas)
3 . the direct effect ofArticle 48 of the EC Treaty cannot be                                      ( 96/C 64/14 )
      relied upon in support of claims relating to a fee in
      respect of transfer, training or development which has           Request made to the Court on 25 July 1994 under
      already been paid on, or is still payable under an               Article 228 ( 6 ) of the EC Treaty by the Federal Republic of
      obligation which arose before, the date ofthis judgment,         Germany for an opinion on the compatibility with the
      except by those who have brought court proceedings or            Treaty of the Framework Agreement on Bananas between
      raised an equivalent claim under the applicable national         the European Community and Colombia, Costa Rica,
      law before that date.                                            Nicaragua and Venezuela and asking:
(>) OJ No C 312, 18 . 11 . 1993 .                                      ( a ) was the Framework Agreement on Bananas which was
                                                                             signed by the Commission on 28 and 29 March 1994
                                                                             duly negotiated from the point of view of procedural
                                                                             law, that is to say,
                                                                             — on the basis of a sufficient negotiating mandate
                                                                                from the Council, and
                   ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                             — in compliance with the relevant negotiating
                        (First Chamber )
                                                                                directives laid down by the Council ?
                     of 14 December 1995
in Case C-173/95 P: Anne Hogan v. Court of Justice of the              ( b ) is the Framework Agreement on Bananas compatible
                   European Communities ( 1 )                                with the Treaty from the point of view of the
                                                                             substantive law ?
     (Appeal clearly inadmissible and clearly unfounded)
                            ( 96/C 64/ 13 )
                                                                       The Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias,
                                                                       President, C. N. Kakouris, D. A. O. Edward and G. Hirsch
                 (Language of the case: Italian)                       ( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, F. A, Schockweiler
                                                                       ( Rapporteur ), J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn,
                                                                       C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, P. Jann. H. Ragnemalm and L.
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be           Sevón, Judges, after hearing G. Tesauro , First
           published in the European Court Reports)                    Advocate-General , C. O. Lenz, F. G. Jacobs , A. M. La
                                                                       Pergola , G. Cosmas, P. Leger, M. B. Elmer, N. Fennelly and
In Case C-173/95 P , Anne Hogan, an official of the                    D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocates-General, finds :
European Parliament, resident in Luxembourg, represented
by Giancarlo Lattanzi, of the Massa-Carrara Bar, with                  there is no need to respond to the request for an
address for service in Luxembourg at 33 Rue Godchaux,                  opinion.
appellant, appeals against the judgment of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities ( Fourth Chamber )
                                                                        (') OJ No C 275 , 1 . 10 . 1994 .
of 29 March 1995 in Case T-497/93 Hogan v. Court of
Justice [ 19951 ECR-SC 11-251 , seeking to have that
judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings being:
Court of Justice of the European Communities ( Agents :
Luigia Maggioni and Niels Lierow ). The Court ( First
 Chamber ), composed of: D. A. O. Edward, President of the
 Chamber, P. Jann ( Rapporteur ) and M. Wathelet, Judges,
Advocate-General : A. La Pergola , Registrar: R. Grass, has             Action brought on 18 December 1995 by the Federal
given a judgment on 14 December 1995 , in which it:                     Republic of Germany against the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
                                                                                Case C-396/95 )
 1 . dismisses the appeal;
                                                                                ( 96/C 64/ 15 )
 2 . orders the appellant to pay the costs.
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
 (') OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .                                      European Communities on 18 December 1995 by the
                                                                        Federal Republic of Germany, represented by Ernst Rder,
                                                                        Ministerialrat in the Federal Ministry of Economics,
                                                                        D-53107 Bonn .
 ---pagebreak--- No C 64/8              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       2 . 3 . 96
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          — declare that the respondent is liable to compensate the
                                                                            appellant for all consequential material damage which
                                                                            he may suffer in the future,
— annul Articles 1 ( 2 ) and 2 to 5 of Commission
    Regulation ( EC ) No 2358/95 of 6 October 1995 ( OJ No            — award the appellant compensation on an equitable basis
    L 241 of 10 October 1995 , p. 5 ),                                      for the non-material damage suffered by him, in a
                                                                            reasonable sum exceeding ECU 2 000,
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                              — in the alternative, remit the case to the Court of First
                                                                            Instance for a re-hearing, a fresh taking of evidence and
                                                                            the delivery of a new decision,
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
in Case C-23/95 ( 1 ). The applicant additionally pleads              — order the respondent to pay all the costs of the
breach of the principle of non-discrimination, since,                       proceedings, including the costs incurred in the
contrary to the declared objective of achieving a single                    preliminary proceedings and the costs of the appeal
market, the contested rules will consolidate the traditional                proceedings,
division of the banana market if — as here — the traditional
relations between certain traders and certain producers are           — alternatively in that regard: reserve its decision on
furthered .                                                                 costs .
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
H OJ No C 74, 25 . 3 . 1995 , p. 6 .
                                                                      Infringement of Community law: to the extent to which the
                                                                      appellant maintains the content of his original
                                                                      applications (2 ), he adopts the grounds of action therein as
                                                                      his pleas in law in the appeal .
                                                                      (M OJ No C 351 , 30 . 12 . 1995 , p . 11 .
                                                                      ( 2 ) OJ No C 338 , 15 . 12 . 1993 , p . 16 .
Appeal brought on 27 December 1995 by Dieter Obst
against the judgment delivered on 19 October 1995 by the
Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                      Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
European Communities in Case T-5 62/93 between Dieter
                                                                      Justice in Northern Ireland, Queen's Bench Division, by
 Obst and the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                      order of that court of 13 October 1995 , in the case of
                       ( Case C-403/95 P                              Northern Ireland Fish Producers' Organisation Ltd and
                            96/C 64/ 16                               others against Department of Agriculture for Northern
                                                                                Ireland
                                                                                ( Case C-4/96 )
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 19 October                                             96/C 64/17)
1995 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities in Case T-5 62/93 between
                                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Dieter Obst and the Commission of the European
                                                                      European Communities by an order of the High Court of
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
                                                                      Justice in Northern Ireland, Queen's Bench Division, of
European Communities on 27 December 1995 by Dieter
                                                                       13 October 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry
Obst, represented by Lothar Mahlberg, Rechtsanwalt, with
                                                                      on 11 January 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
an address for service in Luxembourg care of Marianne
Moritz, 25a Rue de Schonfels, Bridel .
                                                                      Northern Ireland Fish Producers' Organisation Ltd and
                                                                      others against Department of Agriculture for Northern
                                                                      Ireland, on the following questions :
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                       1 . Is the validity of the allocation to the United Kingdom of
                                                                             its cod and whiting quotas in Area Vila pursuant to
— set aside the judgment of the Second Chamber of the                        Article 3 of Council Regulation ( EC ) No 3362/94 of
    Court of First Instance of 19 October 1995 in Case                       20 December 1994 fixing, for certain fish stocks and
    T-562/93 ( x ) in so far as it dismisses the application and             groups of fish stocks, the total allowable catches for
    orders the appellant to bear his own costs,                              1995 and certain conditions under which they may be
                                                                             fished ( J ) dependent on whether Annex VII to the
                                                                             Council resolution of 3 November 1976 was properly
— annul the respondent's order rejecting the appellant's                     adopted ?
    application for the post in issue, of which he was notified
    by a communication of 22 March 1993 ,                              2 . If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative, was
                                                                             Annex VII properly adopted ?
— declare that the rejection of the appellant's application
    for the abovementioned permanent position is                       3 . Are the answers to questions 1 or 2 affected by the fact
    unlawful,                                                                that Annex VII is a document which is classified as secret


title: Case C-153/04 P: Appeal brought on 26 March 2004 (fax 23 March 2004) by Euroagri srl against the judgment delivered on 28 January 2004 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance in Case T-180/01 between Euroagri srl and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/46

         Appeal brought on 26 March 2004 (fax 23 March 2004) by Euroagri srl against the judgment delivered on 28 January 2004 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance in Case T-180/01 between Euroagri srl and the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-153/04 P)
   (2004/C 106/80)
   An appeal against the judgment of the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 28 January 2004 in Case T-180/01 between Euroagri srl and the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 March 2004 by Euroagri srl, represented by W. Masucci, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the judgment at first instance delivered by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-180/01 and accordingly grant the forms of order sought by the applicant company at first instance, cited and transcribed in full here:

               —

               on the merits: annul the contested decision;

               —

               in the alternative: annul the contested decision in part and reduce the assistance granted to the applicant in proportion to the assistance actually provided;

               —

               on the merits, in the preparatory inquiries: order the Commission to produce all the reports it sent to the applicant on the Endovena project, order the examination of witnesses and the personal appearance of the applicant itself, and also the making of an expert's report and/or an on-the-spot check;

               —

               in addition, it reiterates in all the requests for preparatory inquiries already put forward at first instance the irregular form of the submissions of the Commission.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The applicant maintains that the contested decision is unlawful on the following grounds:

               —

               failure to state reasons and infringement of the principle of due process and the rights of the defence;

               —

               infringement of Article 24 of Regulation No 4253/88 (obligation to request the Member State to submit comments)

               —

               infringement of Article 25 of Regulation No 4253/88 (obligation to ensure monitoring)

               —

               mistaken assessment of the alleged irregularities committed by the applicant;

               —

               infringement of the principle of proportionality.


title: Case T-81/99: Action brought on 12 April 1999 by Lily Karoline Schuerer against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 160/30               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       5.6.1999
Action brought on 12 April 1999 by Lily Karoline                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
Schuerer against the Commission of the European Com-
                             munities
                                                                          — annul, pursuant to article 173 of the EC Treaty, after
                          (Case T-81/99)                                       holding, pursuant to article 184 of the EC Treaty, that the
                                                                               period of six months laid down in article 3 (1) of Annex
                                                                               III to the ‘Rules Governing the Payment of Expenses and
                         (1999/C 160/54)                                       Allowances to Members’ is inapplicable, the decision of
                                                                               the Council of quaestors of 4 February 1999, reference No
                                                                               300762, rejecting Mr Ripa di Meana’s request for the
                   (Language of the case: French)                              provisional pension scheme referred to in the said Annex
                                                                               to apply with retroactive effect as from the beginning of
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                      the current parliamentary term,
ties was brought before the Court of the First Instance of the
European Communities on 12 April 1999 by Lily Karoline
Schuerer, of Munich, represented by Hermann J. Winzen,                    — order the European Parliament to pay the costs of the
Rechtsanwalt, Munich, with an address for service in Luxem-                    proceedings.
bourg at the Chambers of Messrs Decker and Associates, 18,
avenue Marie-Thérèse.
The applicant claims that the Court should order the defendant
to pay DEM 17 677,57 together with interest; and order the                Pleas in law and main arguments
defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                          The applicant, an Italian Member of the European Parliament
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           since July 1994,contests the Decision by which the College of
                                                                          quaestors rejected his request for application of the provisional
The applicant, a former Commission official, states that,                 pension scheme laid down in Annex III to the Rules Governing
following the change of German capital which took place on                the Payment of Expenses and Allowances to Members.
3 October 1990, she applied for alteration of the weightings
used in calculation of her pension. She considers that she has
been adversely affected by the fact that the compensatory
                                                                          In that connection, it should be observed that, pending the
measures which, by reason of the circumstances, became
                                                                          introduction of a definitive Community pension scheme for
necessary for the first time at the end of 1990 were not
                                                                          all Members of the Parliament, on 4 November 1981 and
adopted. Provision was made for compensation to be paid up
                                                                          24-25 May 1982, the Bureau introduced and laid down rules
until the end of the year in respect of changes occurring during
                                                                          governing the abovementioned pension scheme for Members
the course of the year; however, that compensation has not
                                                                          from those countries whose national authorities do not provide
been paid to date. It is only since July 1994 that the applicant’s
                                                                          a pension scheme for Members of the European Parliament.
pension has been properly calculated and paid. Consequently,
                                                                          The scheme is administered by the European Parliament on
the applicant has suffered a net loss amounting to DEM
                                                                          behalf of the Governments of certain specified countries.
17 677,57 as a result of the incorrect calculation of her
pension from October 1990 to June 1994 (45 months).
                                                                          Given the alignment of the pension scheme in question with
                                                                          that provided for members of the Italian Parliament, the
                                                                          applicant was convinced that he had been automatically
                                                                          affiliated to the provisional scheme as from the date on which
                                                                          he took office and that the appropriate contributions had
                                                                          automatically been deducted from his allowances. However, in
Action brought on 13 April 1999 by Carlo Ripa di Meana                    1998 be became aware that in fact he enjoyed no pension
               against the European Parliament                            protection because he had not formally joined the scheme
                                                                          within the period of six months from the entry into force of
                          (Case T-83/99)                                  the new article 3 (1) of Annex III, as amended by decision of
                                                                          the Bureau of 13 September 1995. The reason stated for the
                         (1999/C 160/55)                                  contested decision of rejection was based specifically on failure
                                                                          to comply with the said time-limit.
                   (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                          In support of his claims, the applicant alleges:
An action against the Commission of the European Parliament
was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 13 April 1999 by Carlo Ripa di Meana,                      — misuse of powers in that, since it referred to the Italian
represented by Wilma Viscardini Donà, assisted by Gabriela                     Rules, Annex III should have provided for automatic
Donà, both of the Padua Bar, with an address for service in                    affiliation to the provisional scheme and, in any event,
Luxembourg at the offices of Ernest Arendt,8-10, rue Mathias                   could not have made the application of the scheme subject
Hardt.                                                                         to a time-limit,


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 4 May 1999 in Case T-242/97: Z v European Parliament (Disciplinary procedure - Penalty of downgrading - Action for annulment)

text:
18.9.1999             EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 265/11
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               and Prussen, 2 Place Winston Churchill v Commission of the
                                                                          European Communities (Agents: Ana Maria Alves Vieira and
                        of 9 March 1999                                   Xavier Lewis), supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain
                                                                          and Northern Ireland, (Agents: Michelle Ewing, Kenneth Parker
                                                                          and Andrew Macnab) — application for annulment of the
in Case T-212/97: Agnès Hubert v Commission of the                        Commission decision of 16 May 1997 refusing to take action
                  European Communities (1)                                to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of 6 June
                                                                          1996 in Case C-127/94 R v MAFF ex parte Ecroyd [1996]
(Officials — Staff report — Principles of sound adminis-                  ECR I-2731 — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of:
tration and legal certainty — Inadequate statement of                     R.M. Moura Ramos, President, V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges;
reasons — General Provisions for implementing Article 43                  J. Vanhamme, Legal Secretary, for the Registrar, has given a
of the Staff Regulations — Guidelines for drawing up staff                judgment on 20 May 1999, in which it:
reports — Manifest errors of assessment — Misuse of
               powers — Action for annulment)                             1. Annuls the Commission decision of 16 May 1997 refusing to
                                                                               take action to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice
                        (1999/C 265/19)                                        of 6 June 1996 in Case C-127/94 R v Maff ex parte Ecroyd
                                                                               [1996] ECR I-2731.
                   (Language of the case: French)                         2. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those
                                                                               incurred by the applicant.
In Case T-212/97: Agnès Hubert, an official of the Commission
                                                                          3. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
of the European Communities, residing in Brussels, represented
                                                                               Ireland to bear its own costs.
by Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Liège Bar with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Evelyne Korn, 21
Rue de Nassau v Commission of the European Communities                    (1) OJ C 331 of 1.11.1997.
(Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia, Christine Berardis-Kayser and Denis
Waelbroeck) — application for annulment of a Commission
decision definitively adopting the applicant’s staff report for
the period between 1 July 1993 and 30 June 1995 — the Court
of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) composed of J.D. Cooke,
President, R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges; B. Pastor,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
9 March 1999, the operative part of which is as follows:
1. The action is dismissed.                                                                           of 4 May 1999
2. Each of the parties shall bear its own costs.                                   in Case T-242/97: Z v European Parliament (1)
                                                                          (Disciplinary procedure — Penalty of downgrading —
(1) OJ C 318 of 18.10.1997.
                                                                                Action for annulment)
                                                                                (1999/C 265/21)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               In Case T-242/97: Z, an official of the European Parliament,
                                                                          residing in Brussels represented by Jean-Noël Louis, of the
                         of 20 May 1999                                   Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                          offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange, v
in Case T-220/97: H & R Ecroyd Holdings Ltd v Com-                        European Parliament (Agent: Hans Kruck) — application for
          mission of the European Communities (1)                         annulment of the decision of the General Secretariat of the
                                                                          European Parliament of 28 October 1996 imposing on the
                                                                          applicant the disciplinary measure of downgrading — the
(Milk — Reference quantity — Compliance with a judgment                   Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of: B. Vester-
                     of the Court of Justice)                             dorf, President, and J. Pirrung and M. Vilaras, Judges; B. Pastor,
                                                                          Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
                        (1999/C 265/20)                                   on 4 May 1999, in which it:
                                                                          1. Dismisses the application.
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                          2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
In Case T-220/97: H & R Ecroyd Holdings Ltd, whose registered
office is at Brinsop House, Credenhill (United Kingdom),                  (1) OJ C 331 of 1.11.1997.
represented by William Neville, Solicitor, Peter Duffy QC,
Philippa Watson and Paul Stanley, Barristers, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger, Hoss


title: Case T-72/14: Action brought on 30 January 2014 — Bateaux mouches v OHIM (BATEAUX MOUCHES)

text:
               7.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/37

         Action brought on 30 January 2014 — Bateaux mouches v OHIM (BATEAUX MOUCHES)
   (Case T-72/14)
   2014/C 102/58
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Compagnie des bateaux mouches SA (Paris, France) (represented by G. Barbaut, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the action admissible;

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 November 2013 in Case R 284/2013-2;

               —

               Vary the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 November 2013 in Case R 284/2013-2;

               —

               Order the Court of First Instance of the European Communities to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: International registration designating the European Union of word mark ‘BATEAUX MOUCHES’ for services in Class 37 (No 1 092 478)

      Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

               —

               Incorrect finding that the disputed mark had not acquired by usage a distinctive character for the services covered


8.3.2003               EN                   Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 55/23
        Removal from the register of Case C-108/02 ( 1)             from the register of Case C-129/02: Commission of the
                                                                    European Communities v French Republic.
                         (2003/C 55/64)
                                                                    (1 ) OJ C 131 of 01.06.2002.
By order of 12 December 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-108/02: Commission of the
European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-274/02 ( 1)
( 1) OJ C 131 of 01.06.2002.
                                                                                (2003/C 55/67)
                                                                    By order of 5 December 2002 the President of the Court of
        Removal from the register of Case C-120/02 ( 1)             Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                    from the register of Case C-274/02: Commission of the
                         (2003/C 55/65)                             European Communities v French Republic.
                                                                    (1 ) OJ C 233 of 28.09.2002.
By order of 12 December 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-120/02: Commission of the
European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
( 1) OJ C 131 of 01.06.2002.                                                Removal from the register of Case C-356/02 ( 1)
                                                                                (2003/C 55/68)
        Removal from the register of Case C-129/02 ( 1)             By order of 12 December 2002 the President of the Court of
                                                                    Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                         (2003/C 55/66)                             from the register of Case C-356/02 (Reference for a preliminary
                                                                    ruling by the Tribunal du Travail de Nivelles): Anne Hennecart
                                                                    v Office National de l’Emploi.
By order of 17 December 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal             (1 ) OJ C 289 of 23.11.2002.


C 264/40              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                     1.11.2003
       Removal from the register of Case T-288/99 (1)                           Removal from the register of Case T-111/03 (1)
                         (2003/C 264/70)
                                                                                (2003/C 264/72)
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
By order of 2 September 2003 the President of the Second
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case                By order of 16 July 2003 the President of the Second Chamber
T-288/99: Evers V.O.F. v Commission of the European Com-                 of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
munities.                                                                ordered the removal from the register of Case T-111/03:
                                                                         Michel Nolin v Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 124 of 24.5.2003.
       Removal from the register of Case T-318/99 (1)
                         (2003/C 264/71)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-249/03 R
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                                (2003/C 264/73)
By order of 2 September 2003 the President of the Second
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                                     (Language of the case: French)
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
T-318/99: Avia Nederland Coöperatie U.A. v Commission of
the European Communities.
                                                                         By order of 5 August 2003 the President of the Court of First
(1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.
                                                                         Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                         from the register of Case T-249/03 R: Y v Commission of the
                                                                         European Communities.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Nürnberg by order of that court of 16 January 1995 in the case of Francisco Bastos Moriana and Others v. Bundesanstalt für Arbeit, Kindergeldstelle (Case C-59/95)

text:
No C 137/8              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                        3 . 6 . 95
court; the Commission cannot disregard that criminal                  Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht
court's findings of fact.                                             Niirnberg by order of that court of 16 January 1995 in the
                                                                      case    of   Francisco       Bastos     Moriana    and     Others
There is no legal basis for imposing a penalty. The German                    v. Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit, Kindergeldstelle
 Government gave the Commission the notifications                                             ( Case C-59/95 )
prescribed by Articles 3 and 5 ( 2 ) of Regulation ( EEC )                                      ( 95/C 137/14 )
No 595/91 ; that Regulation contains no further obligation
to make the notifications by a specified date at the latest.
                                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                      European Communities by an order of the Sozialgericht
On point 4
                                                                      Niirnberg ( Social Court, Nuremberg ) of 16 January 1995 ,
                                                                      which was received at the Court Registry on 7 March 1995 ,
The Commission's complaint that the German authorities                for a preliminary ruling in the case of Francisco Bastos
did not apply Article 47 ( 4 ) of Regulation ( EEC )                  Moriana and Others v. Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit,
No 3665/87 correctly is unfounded . The Hauptzollamt                  Kindergeldstelle, on the following questions :
 ( Principal Customs Office ) had to presume in the
circumstances that the Siidfleisch firm had done everything
within its power to produce the Lebanon arrival certificate           1 . Must Article 77 ( 2 ) ( b ) in conjunction with Article 79 ( 1 )
in time; if they had suggested that Siidfleisch intended to               of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 (*) be interpreted as
cause delay, that might have entailed the illegality of the               meaning that family allowances for dependent children
decision, which had to be taken in accordance with respect                of pensioners who have acquired entitlement to a
for the rule of law ( in particular the principle of equal                pension in a Member State not only on the basis of the
treatment in Article 3 of the German Basic Law).                          legislation of that Member State but also on the basis of
                                                                          the coordinating provisions of European social law are
                                                                          to be paid by the Member State in which the pensioners
In the exercise of its discretion with respect to the extension           do not reside as a benefit supplement equal to the
of a time limit, the Principal Customs Office was not able to             difference between the amount of the benefits provided
allege that Siidfleisch had produced the — objectively                    for in that Member State and the benefits paid or
falsified — information on the arrival at the destination with
                                                                          provided for by the State of residence ?
fraudulent intent or gross negligence; that view was
confirmed by the Staatsanwaltschaft ( Public Attorney's
Office ) and the customs investigators . Where — as in the            2 . Must Article 78 (2 ) ( b ) in conjunction with Article 79 ( 1 )
present case — EC law leaves a discretion to the Member                   of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 be interpreted as
States , it is not open to the Commission to make the exercise            meaning that family allowances for orphans of a
of that discretion subject to its own views .                             deceased worker or self-employed person who was
                                                                          subject to the legislation of several Member States, if
                                                                          entitlement to an orphan's pension in a Member State
On point 5                                                                whose law applied does not exist solely on the basis of
                                                                          the legislation of that Member State or on the basis of
The German authorities did not infringe any legal obligation              the coordinating provisions of European social law, are
which could give rise to a financial charge, and in particular            to be paid by the Member State in which the orphans do
not their obligation under Article 5 of the EC Treaty in                  not reside as a benefit supplement equal to the difference
conjunction with Article 8 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 729/70                between the amount of the benefits provided for in that
to recover sums wrongly paid . On the basis of the findings               Member State and the benefits paid or provided for by
                                                                          the State of residence ?
made by the German authorities, it is to be presumed that
the goods in question reached the South African market first
and were traded there; that corresponding certificates of             3 . If the replies to questions 1 and 2 are in the affirmative
fitness for consumption were subsequently issued in                       and there is entitlement to family allowances, must the
Zimbabwe is irrelevant, in so far as those certificates give no           amount of the benefit supplement be reduced according
indication as to the route actually taken by the goods and                to the ratio between the periods of insurance in the
may later have abusively been allocated to consignments of                Member State and the periods of insurance of the same
meat other than those for which they were issued .                        kind in the State of residence (or another Member
                                                                          State )?
On point 6
                                                                     4 . Is entitlement to benefit supplement precluded by the
                                                                          fact that a pension benefit granted under a social
The applicant refers to the pending Case C-41 /94 ( 3 ) for               insurance agreement has not been converted in
reasons .
                                                                          accordance with Article 94 ( 5 ) of Regulation ( EEC )
                                                                          No 1408/71 ?
(M OJ No L 352 , 31 . 12 . 1994 , p . 82 .
( 2 ) OJ No C 189 , 13 . 7 . 1993 , p. 7 .
( ? ) OJ No C 90, 26 . 3 . 1994 , p . 6 .                             (M OJ No L 149 , 5 . 7. 1971 , p . 2 .


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 30 April 2001 in Case T-41/00, British American Tobacco International (Holdings) BV v Commission of the European Communities (Decision 94/90 — Public access to Commission documents — Action for annulment — Inadmissibility — Legal interest in bringing proceedings)

text:
C 303/16                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                     27.10.2001
                                                           COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  Madrid, represented by José Marı́a Valoria de Arana, lawyer,
                                                                            with an address for service in Madrid, against the Commission
                         of 30 April 2001                                   of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and J. Rivas
                                                                            Andres) — application for annulment of the decisions of the
                                                                            Commission of 28 March 1989 and 14 November 1989
in Case T-41/00, British American Tobacco International                     appointing the applicant as a probationer official and sub-
(Holdings) BV v Commission of the European Communi-                         sequently as an official definitively classed in Grade B 3
                                ties (1)                                    respectively inasmuch as those decisions classify him in
                                                                            Grade B 3 rather than B 1, and the decisions of the Commission
(Decision 94/90 — Public access to Commission documents                     of 12 July 1999 and 18 April 2000 rejecting the request
— Action for annulment — Inadmissibility — Legal interest                   to review the applicant’s classification and rejecting the
                     in bringing proceedings)                               administrative complaint directed against the former rejection
                                                                            and, secondly, a claim for compensation for the damage
                                                                            allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of those decisions
                          (2001/C 303/26)
                                                                            — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of
                                                                            B. Vesterdorf, President, M. Vilaras and N.J. Forwood, Judges;
                   (Language of the case: English)                          H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 28 March 2001, the
                                                                            operative part of which is as follows:
In Case T-41/00 British American Tobacco International
(Holdings) BV, established in Amsterdam (Netherlands), rep-                 1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
resented by S. Crosby, Solicitor, against Commission of the
European Communities (Agents: U. Wölker and X. Lewis) —
application for the annulment of the Commission’s decision                  2.    The parties shall each bear their own costs.
of 20 January 2000, refusing to grant Rothmans of Pall Mall
Ltd access to certain minutes of the Committee on Excise
                                                                            (1) OJ C 259 of 9.9.2000.
Duties — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed
of B. Vesterdorf, President, M. Vilaras and N.J. Forwood, Judges;
H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 30 April 2001, the
operative part of which is as follows:
1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
2.    The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
(1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.00.
                                                                                of 25 April 2001
                                                                            in Case T-244/00 Coillte Teoranta v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
                                                                            (Agriculture — Refusal to recognise as chargeable to the
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  EAGGF expenditure resulting from irregularities in the
                                                                            application of Community rules — Action by the recipient
                         of 28 March 2001                                               of the aid — Manifest inadmissibility)
in Case T-130/00: Javier Reyna González del Valle against                                            (2001/C 303/28)
       Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
(Officials — Appointments — Classification in Grade —
    Late submission of the application — Inadmissibility)
                                                                            In Case T-244/00: Coillte Teoranta, established in Dublin,
                          (2001/C 303/27)                                   represented by G. French, Solicitor, P. Gallagher SC and
                                                                            N. Hyland, Barrister, with an address for service in Luxem-
                                                                            bourg, against Commission of the European Communities
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                          (Agents: M. Niejahr and K. Fitch) — application for annulment
                                                                            of Commission Decision 2000/449/EC of 5 July 2000 exclud-
In Case T-130/00: Javier Reyna González del Valle, an official             ing from Community financing certain expenditure incurred
of the Commission of the European Communities, residing in                  by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 March 2003 in Case C-333/01: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 98/81/EC — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
10.5.2003                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                               C 112/5
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                                            (Second Chamber)
                          of 13 March 2003
                                                                                of 13 March 2003
in Case C-229/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat im Land Niederöster-                        in Case C-333/01: Commission of the European Communi-
                     reich): Susanne Müller ( 1)                                                 ties v Kingdom of Spain (1)
(Directive 2000/13/EC — Labelling and presentation of                         (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
   foodstuffs — Date of minimum durability — Article 18)                      Directive 98/81/EC — Failure to transpose within the
                                                                                prescribed period)
                           (2003/C 112/08)
                                                                                (2003/C 112/09)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-229/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat im Land Niederös-
terreich (Austria) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
before that court against Susanne Müller, on the interpretation               In Case C-333/01, Commission of the European Communities
of Council Directive 79/112/EEC of 18 December 1978 on                        (Agent: G. Valero Jordana) v Kingdom of Spain (Agent: N. Diáz
the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating                   Abdad): Application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt,
to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs for              or to notify to the Commission, the laws, regulations and
sale to the ultimate consumer (OJ 1979 L 33, p. 1) and                        administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council
Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the                    Directive 98/81/EC of 26 October 1998 amending Directive
Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws                     90/219/EEC on the contained use of genetically modified
of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and              micro-organisms (OJ 1998 L 330, p. 13), the Kingdom of
advertising of foodstuffs (OJ 2000 L 109, p. 29), the Court                   Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive, the
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the                   Court (Second Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen, President
Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur)                     of the Chamber, V. Skouris and N. Colneric (Rapporteur),
and A. Rosas, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass,                 Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 March 2003, in which                    given a judgment on 13 March 2003, in which it:
it has ruled:
                                                                              1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the                          administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council
Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the                    Directive 98/81/EC of 26 October 1998 amending Directive
Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising               90/219/EEC on the contained use of genetically modified
of foodstuffs does not preclude a national rule which provides that,                micro-organisms, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its
where the period of minimum durability of a foodstuff expired, that                 obligations under that directive;
fact must be indicated separately, clearly and in a generally intelligible
manner. Such a rule is a non-harmonised national provision justified
on the ground of prevention of fraud as provided for in Article 18(2)         2.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
of the directive.
                                                                              (1 ) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.
( 1) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.


title: Case T-312/01: Action brought on 13 December 2001 by Jungbunzlauer AG against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 68/12                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      16.3.2002
Action brought on 13 December 2001 by Jungbunzlauer                     With regard to the fine imposed, the applicant asserts, inter
AG against the Commission of the European Com-                          alia, that the Commission, when fixing the amount of the fine,
                             munities                                   failed to take account of the size of the undertakings concerned,
                                                                        and likewise failed to pay sufficient regard to the economic
                                                                        significance of the infringement. The Commission thereby
                         (Case T-312/01)                                violated the principle of proportionality, its own guidelines
                                                                        and its own practice. Furthermore, it committed an error of
                                                                        assessment by refusing to take into account the fact that fines
                          (2002/C 68/22)                                had already been imposed in the USA and Canada in respect
                                                                        of the same facts.
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                        Finally, the applicant claims that its right to be heard in
                                                                        accordance with the law has been violated, since the Com-
                                                                        mission did not give it access to the entire investigation file. In
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               addition, the protracted length of the procedure had a twofold
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              effect on the content of the decision, inasmuch as the latest
European Communities on 13 December 2001 by Jung-                       turnover figures were taken as the applicable basis and because
bunzlauer AG, of Basle, represented by Rainer Bechtold,                 the decision was not issued until after there had been a
Matthias Karl and Ulrich Soltész, lawyers.                              substantial tightening of the Commission’s practice in the
                                                                        imposition of fines, which significantly prejudiced the appli-
                                                                        cant’s position.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the Commission’s decision of 2 October 2001
      (Case COM/E-1/36.756 — Sodium gluconate);
—     alternatively, reduce the fine imposed in Article 3 of the
      decision;                                                         Action brought on 17 December 2001 by Coöperatieve
                                                                        Verkoop- en Productievereniging van Aardappelmeel en
—     order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.                Derivaten ‘AVEBE’ B.A. against the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-314/01)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (2002/C 68/23)
By the contested decision, the Commission found that the                                   (Language of the case: Dutch)
applicant and five other undertakings had participated in a
continuous and/or concerted practice in the sodium gluconate
sector and had thereby infringed Article 81(1) EC. Fines were
imposed on those undertakings.
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 17 December 2001 by Coöperatie-
The applicant is contesting that decision and asserts that it was       ve Verkoop- en Productievereniging van Aardappelmeel en
directed to the wrong addressee, inasmuch as it was only                Derivaten ‘AVEBE’ B.A., established at Veendam (Netherlands),
Jungbunzlauer Ladenburg GmbH, an associate company of the               represented by Cornelis Titus Dekker, with an address for
applicant, which had participated in the acts contrary to cartel        service in Luxembourg.
law described in the decision.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Commission wrongly assumed
that the infringement did not cease until 1995. Moreover, the
                                                                        —      annul the Commission’s decision C(2001) 2931 of
Commission has not conclusively shown that the applicant, or
                                                                               2 October 2001;
its associated company, had played the role of ‘ringleader’ —
on which ground the basic amount of the fine was wrongly
increased by 50 %.                                                      —      order the Commission to pay the costs.


10.6.2000               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 163/35
Action brought on 26 April 2000 by Ramondı́n S.A and                             Removal from the register of Case T-179/96 (1)
Ramondı́n Cápsulas S.A. against the Commission of the
                      European Communities                                                         (2000/C 163/70)
                          (Case T-103/00)                                                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                          By order of 17 December 1999, the President of the First
                                                                          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                          (2000/C 163/69)                                 Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                          Case T-179/96: J. Antonissen v Council of the European Union
                                                                          and Commission of the European Communities.
                    (Language of the case: Spanish)                       (1) OJ C 9 of 11.1.1997.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 26 April 2000 by Ramondı́n S.A,
established in Logroño, Spain, and by Ramondı́n Cápsulas S.A.
established in Alava, Spain, represented by Javier Lazcano-                      Removal from the register of Case T-316/97 (1)
Iturburu Ayestaran, lawyer.
                                                                                (2000/C 163/71)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
— annul the Commission’s decision of 22 December 1999                     By order of 14 December 1999, the President of the Third
     inasmuch as it declares the fiscal measures provided for in          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
     Normas Forales de Alava Nos 22/1994 and 24/1996 to be                Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
     incompatible with the common market and requires the                 Case T-316/97: Hermı́nia F. dos Santos Morais Antas v Council
     Spanish State to effect recovery in respect thereof;                 of the European Union and Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities.
— order the Commission to pay all the costs.                              (1) OJ C 166 of 30.5.1998.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case T-509/97 to T-517/97 (1)
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put
forward in Case T-127/99 Diputación Foral de Alava v
Commission (1).                                                                                (2000/C 163/72)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
It is alleged, in particular, that the Commission has misused its
powers in alleging the existence of State aid with a view to              By order of 14 December 1999, the President of the Third
achieving the objective of fiscal harmonisation.                          Chamber, of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                          Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                          Case T-509/97 to T-517/97: Maria de Lurdes Esteves Afonso
                                                                          and Others v Council of the European Union and Commission
(1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999, p. 41.                                          of the European Communities.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 166 of 30.5.1998.


title: Case C-251/01 P: Appeal brought on 2 July 2001 by Mario Costacurta against the order delivered on 7 June 2001 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-328/00 between Mr Costacurta and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 245/10               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        1.9.2001
Appeal brought on 2 July 2001 by Mario Costacurta                      Action brought on 29 June 2001 by the Commission
against the order delivered on 7 June 2001 by the Second               of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                                                Belgium
Communities in Case T-328/00 between Mr Costacurta
    and the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case C-252/01)
                        (Case C-251/01 P)
                                                                                (2001/C 245/19)
                         (2001/C 245/18)
                                                                       An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before
                                                                       the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 June
An appeal against the order delivered on 7 June 2001 by the            2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European          represented by H. van Lier, acting as Agent, assisted by
Communities in Case T-328/00 between Mr Costacurta and                 J. Stuyck, advocaat.
the Commission of the European Communities was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
2 July 2001 by Mario Costacurta, represented by Mr Petit,              The applicant claims that the Court should:
of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.
                                                                       1.    Pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 226 EC, declare
                                                                             that:
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                             —     by failing, in respect of a contract to perform
—     find the present appeal admissible;                                          services involving coastal surveillance by means of
                                                                                aerial photography, to place a notice in the Official
—     find the appeal well founded as to the substance;                            Journal of the European Communities, as required under
                                                                                Directive 92/50/EEC (1) relating to the coordination
—     order, if the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice                     of procedures for the award of public service
      allow it, the present appeal to be joined to the appeal                      contracts; and
      against the order of the Court of First Instance (Second
      Chamber) of 7 June 2001 in Case T-328/00 concerning                    —     by unjustifiably awarding the contract in question
      the same dispute and lodged this day;                                        through application of a negotiated procedure with-
                                                                                out prior publication of a notice,
—     set aside the order delivered by the Court of First Instance
      (Second Chamber) of 7 June 2001 in Case T-328/00
      Costacurta v Commission;                                               the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                             under that directive, in particular Articles 11(3) and 15(2)
—     make a decision as to how Case T-328/00 Costacurta v                   thereof;
      Commission is to proceed in accordance with Article 54
      of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice;               2.    order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
—     order the Commission of the European Communities
      already to pay the costs of the interlocutory proceedings
      and of the present appeal;
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
—     reserve the costs as to the substance; find, none the less,
      that Article 88, rather than Article 87(2), of the Rules of
      Procedure of the Court of First Instance are applicable;         According to the Commission, the Belgian Government has
                                                                       failed to demonstrate that performance of the services in
                                                                       question involves special security measures, since undertakings
—     reserve to the appellant all other rights, dues, pleas and       holding the required military security certificate may perform
      actions.                                                         the contract without thereby taking any such special security
                                                                       measures into account.
Pleas in law an main arguments
                                                                       Although the contract in question involves services relating to
                                                                       aerial photography which, considered in se, ought to come
                                                                       under the [United Nations Central Product Classification] CPC
The pleas and main arguments are the same as those in Case
                                                                       Category No 87504.1 as ‘specialty photography services’, it
C-250/01 P.
                                                                       covers a much wider remit, closely connected to the monitor-
                                                                       ing programme established by the administration for the
                                                                       coastal zone and which, with a view to guaranteeing the


No C 131 /24             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                 26 . 4 . 97
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       Partial removal from the register in Joined Cases T-366/94
                                                                                and Others (M
The applicants are all engaged in business as opticians                                              ( 97/C 131/56 )
and are, as required by law, members of the
Hoofdbedrijfsschap Ambachten (Trades and Crafts                           By order of 4 February 1997, the President of the First
Council ). That body, a public corporation, has imposed a                 Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
levy on the applicants pursuant to rules laid down in that                Communities has ordered the removal of Case T-20/95
regard, the proceeds from which are used for collective                   from the list of cases in Joined Cases T-366/94 and
advertising on behalf of the opticians' trade. In their                   Others : Hilde Diekmeier and Others v. Council of the
complaint to the Commission, the applicants maintain                      European Union and Commission of the European
that those ( non-notified ) rules are contrary to Article 92 of           Communities .
the EC Treaty.
                                                                          H OJ No C 74, 25 . 3 . 1995 .
They assert, in opposition to the contested decision, not
only that it infringes procedural requirements but also that
it is not open to the Commission to exempt aid measures
from the obligation to give prior notification, let alone to
do so with retroactive force ('). In addition, the
Commission has failed to take action in respect of an                            Removal from the register of Case T-199/95 (')
infringement of Article 54 ( 3 ) (h ) of the EC Treaty.                                              ( 97/C 131/57)
(') The provision in issue is the de minimis rule contained in the        By order of 22 January 1997 the President of the Third
    Community guidelines on State aid for small and medium               Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First
    sized enterprises ( SMEs ) ( OJ No C 213 , 19 . 8 . 1992 , p. 2 ).
                                                                          Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                          removal from the register of Case T-199/95 : Nouveau
                                                                          Garage SA and Others v. Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities .
                                                                          (') OJ No C 351 , 30 . 12 . 1995 .
Partial removal from the register in Joined Cases T-77/93
                           and Others (')
                           ( 97/C 131/55 )
By order of 4 February 1997, the President of the First
Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First                            Removal from the register of Case T-137/96 (')
Instance of the European Communities has ordered the                                                 ( 97/C 131/58 )
removal of Case T-77/93 from the list of Joined Cases
T-77/93 and Others : Werner Hiilseberg and Others v.                      By order of 23 January 1997 the President of the Fifth
Council of the European Union and Commission of the                       Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
European Communities.                                                     Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                          Case T-137/96 : Valio Oy v. Commission of the European
(') OJ No C 178 , 18 . 7. 1990.                                           Communities .
                                                                          (') OJ No C 318 , 26 . 10 . 1996 .


title: Case C-48/00: Action brought on 15 February 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

text:
C 149/18              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     27.5.2000
Action brought on 11 February 2000 by the Commission                   the European Communities in Joined Cases T-190/95 and
   of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden                     T-45/96 between Société de Distribution de Mécaniques et
                                                                       d’Automobiles (Sodima) and the Commission of the European
                         (Case C-42/00)                                Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities on 14 February 2000 by Société de
                                                                       Distribution de Mécaniques et d’Automobiles represented by
                        (2000/C 149/28)                                SCP Fourgoux & Associés, of the Paris Bar, with an address for
                                                                       service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4
An action against the Kingdom of Sweden was brought                    Rue Béatrix de Bourbon.
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
11 February 2000 by the Commission of the European                     The appellant claims that the Court should:
Communities, represented by Karen Banks and Christina
Tufvesson, of the Commission’s Legal Service, both acting as
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office        — annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner                  13 December 1999 in Joined Cases T-190/95 and
Centre, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.                                             T-45/96;
                                                                       — order the Commission to pay the costs.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
1. declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
    and administrative provisions necessary to comply with             Pleas in law and main arguments
    Council Directive 96/67/EC (1) of 15 October 1996 on
    access to the groundhandling market at Community                   Infringement of essential procedural requirements and funda-
    airports the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its            mental rights, infringement of the Treaty and error of appraisal
    obligations under that directive;                                  of the facts and law as regards admissibility of the actions.
2. order the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.
Pleas and main arguments
The binding nature of the provisions in the third paragraph of
Article 249 and Article 10 of the EC Treaty requires the               Action brought on 15 February 2000 by the Commission
Member States to take the necessary measures to implement              of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
the directive in national law within the period laid down. The                                        Spain
period laid down in Article 23(1) of Directive 96/67/EC expired
on 25 October 1997 without Sweden having promulgated the
provisions necessary to comply with the directive.                                                (Case C-48/00)
(1) OJ L 272 of 25.10.96, p. 36.                                                                 (2000/C 149/30)
                                                                       An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before the
                                                                       Court of Justice of the European Communities on 15 February
                                                                       2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                       represented by Juan Guerra Fernández, acting as Agent, with
                                                                       an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                                                                       Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Appeal brought on 14 February 2000 by Société de
Distribution de Mécaniques et d’Automobiles (Sodima)
against the judgment delivered on 13 December 1999 by                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Joined Cases T-190/95 and                      1. declare that by failing to adopt, implement and notify
T-45/96 between Société de Distribution de Mécaniques                      all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
et d’Automobiles (Sodima) and the Commission of the                        necessary to comply with Council Directive 97/41/EC (1)
                    European Communities                                   of 25 June 1997 amending Directives 76/895/EEC,
                                                                           86/362/EEC, 86/363/EEC and 90/642/EEC relating to the
                       (Case C-44/00 P)                                    fixing of maximum levels for pesticide residues in and on,
                                                                           respectively, fruit and vegetables, cereals, foodstuffs of
                                                                           animal origin, and certain products of plant origin, includ-
                        (2000/C 149/29)                                    ing fruit and vegetables, the Kingdom of Spain has failed
                                                                           to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty, and,
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 13 December
1999 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of            2. order the defendant to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 27.5.2000               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 149/19
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         — Therefore, is an undertaking whose registered office is in a
                                                                            Member State at whose request a protected designation of
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case                 origin has been registered in accordance with Article 17 of
C-42/00 (2); the period prescribed for adoption laid down in                Regulation No 2081/92 (24 July 1993), which has used a
Article 5 of the Directive expired on 31 December 1998.                     designation that is open to confusion with the one
                                                                            registered uninterruptedly over the five years prior to the
                                                                            entry into force of Regulation No 2081/92 entitled to use
(1) OJ 1997 L 184, 12.7.1997, p. 33.                                        the same designation to distinguish products which are
(2) See page 18 of this OJ.                                                 intended to be sold only outside the Member State of
                                                                            registration and only in the territory of a Member State
                                                                            which has not opposed the use of that designation in the
                                                                            said territory?
                                                                        — If Question 5 is answered in the affirmative, may the
                                                                            undertaking whose registered office is in the Member State
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di                      of registration of the protected designation of origin (PDO)
Parma — Ufficio del Giudice per le Indagini Preliminari                     legitimately describe his products by using the designation
— by order of that court of 21 February 2000 in the case                    which is open to confusion with the one registered until
          of criminal proceedings against Dante Bigi                        the expiry of the fifth year following the date of registration
                                                                            of the protected designation (12 June 1996), in other
                                                                            words until 12 June 2001?
                          (Case C-66/00)
                                                                        — As from the day following the date indicated in Question
                         (2000/C 149/31)                                    6 above (12 June 2001), must the use of any designation
                                                                            open to confusion with the one registered in all the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      Member States by any operator who is not expressly
European Communities by an order of the Tribunale di Parma                  authorised to use the registered designation within the
— Ufficio del Giudice per le Indagini Preliminari (District                 meaning of Regulation No 2081/92 be regarded as pro-
Court, Parma, Office of the Judge responsible for preliminary               hibited?
investigations) of 21 February 2000, which was received at the
Court Registry on 28 February 2000, for a preliminary ruling            (1) OJ L 208 of 24.7.92, p. 1.
in criminal proceedings against Dante Bigi, on the following            (2) OJ L 83 of 25.3.97, p. 3.
questions:                                                              (3) OJ L 148 of 21.6.96, p. 1.
— Must Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2081/92 (1) (as
     amended by Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 535/97) (2) be
     interpreted as meaning that no official measure of a
     legislative or administrative nature need be adopted by the
     Member State concerned in order to allow the use on its
     territory of designations which may be confused with               Action brought on 29 February 2000 by the Commission
     those registered under Article 17 of Regulation (EC)                      of the European Communities against Ireland
     No 2081/92?
                                                                                (Case C-67/00)
— Therefore, in order to allow use of the designations referred
     to above in the territory of the Member State concerned, is                                 (2000/C 149/32)
     it sufficient that there is no opposition by that Member
     State to such use?                                                 An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities on 29 February 2000 by
— Does the lack of any opposition by the Member State in                the Commission of the European Communities, represented
     whose territory the designation which is open to confusion         by Mr Michael Shotter, a member of its Legal Service, acting as
     with one registered under Article 17 of Regulation (EC)            agent, with an address for service at the office of Mr Carlos
     No 2081/92 is used render lawful the use of that desig-            Gómez de la Cruz, a member of its Legal Service, at the
     nation by an undertaking whose registered office is in the         Wagner Centre, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.
     territory of the Member State in which the designation was
     registered, if that undertaking uses the designation which         The Applicant claims that the Court should:
     is open to confusion only for products intended to be sold
     outside the country of registration and only within the            — declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
     territory of the Member State which is not opposed to use              or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     of the said designation?                                               Commission Directive 98/28/EC (1) of 29 April 1998
                                                                            granting a derogation from certain provisions of Directive
— Does the period of five years referred to in Article 13(2) of             93/43/EEC (2)) on the hygiene of foodstuffs as regards the
     Regulation No 2081/92 for use of a name in relation to a               transport by sea of bulk raw sugar or, in any event, by
     product whose designation was registered on 12 June                    failing to inform the Commission of those measures,
     1996 (see Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 (3), cited above)                 Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
     expire on 12 June 2001?                                                Directive; and,


title: Case T-316/99: Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 October 2006 — Pierik-Bomers v Commission

text:
               16.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 310/30

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 October 2006 — Pierik-Bomers v Commission
   (Case T-316/99) (1)

   (2006/C 310/64)

      Language of the case: Dutch

   The President of the Second Chamber Extended Composition has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 4.3.2000.