title: Action brought on 17 January 1997 by CPL Imperial 2 Spa against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-11/97)

text:
22 . 3 . 97            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 94/19
Action brought on 17 January 1997 by Unifrigo Gadus Sri               applicant to pay the outstanding duties. The defendant, in
   against the Commission of the European Communities                 turn, adopted the contested decision pursuant to the
                          (Case T-10/97)                              procedure referred to in Article 5 (2 ) of Council
                                                                      Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 of 24 July 1979 on the
                           ( 97/C 94/40 )
                                                                      post-clearance recovery of import duties or export duties
                 (Language of the case: Italian)                      which have not been required of the person liable for
                                                                      payment on goods entered for a customs procedure
An action against the Commission of the European                      involving the obligation to pay such duties (2 ).
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 17 January                    The applicant first of all submits that no reasons
1997 by Unifrigo Gadus Sri, having its registered office in           whatsoever are given for the alleged invalidity of the
Naples (Italy), represented by Giuseppe Celona, of the                EUR 1 certificates, in so far as the decision overlooks the
Milan Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at               fact that the Norwegian Court of Cassation has set aside
the Chambers of Georges Margue, 20 rue Philippe II.                   the decision imposing liability precisely on the issue of the
                                                                      origin of the goods, and has confirmed only that the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                           health-inspection certificates were invalid.
primarily:                                                            Second, the applicant considers that, by excluding the
                                                                      possibility that an error on the part of the customs
— declare the application admissible in as much as it                 authorities can ever affect the validity of the certificate of
     seeks the annulment of a decision that adversely                 origin, in as much as the risk relating to such validity
     affects the applicant directly and individually,                 always falls to be borne by the importer, constituting, as it
                                                                      does, part of the commercial risk, the Commission is
— annul Commission Decision No C(96 ) 2780 of                         acting contrary to Article 220 (2 ) ( b ) of the Community
     8 October 1996 0 ),                                              Customs Code ( 3 ), which lays down the principle of good
                                                                      faith on the part of the person concerned . There is no
— order the defendant to pay to the applicant all costs
                                                                      exception which excludes an error as to the validity of the
     associated with these proceedings;
                                                                      certificates of origin from the scope of that rule. The
in the alternative :                                                  interpretation which the Commission advocates would
                                                                      reduce the relevant errors to those of carelessness or
— find and declare that the said decision does not affect             calculation .
     the applicant's right not to have to pay the post
     clearance duties in question;                                    Third, the applicant also submits that Commission
                                                                      Regulation ( EEC ) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down
in the further alternative :                                          provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation
                                                                      ( EEC ) No 2913/92 (4 ) is invalid in so far as it confers
— in the event that, for whatever reason, the above                   unlimited power on the Commission to decide on post
     decision should not be annulled, order the                       clearance entry in the accounts of uncollected duties,
     Commission to reimburse the applicant for the entire             setting aside the right on which an importer is entitled to
     amount that the latter will be required to pay in                rely in the case where the conditions laid out in Article 220
     respect of post-clearance duties, penalties and ancillary        ( 2 ) ( b ) of the Customs Code obtain . In this connection,
     charges; in any event, annul the contested decision in           reliance is also placed on the principle of legitimate
     so far as it relates to interest payments .                      expectation and the general principle of fairness.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   (') Unpublished.
                                                                      ( 2 ) OJNoL 197, 3 . 8 . 1979 , p . 1 .
The applicant company, which trades in fish products,                 ( 3 ) Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992
contests the defendant's decision finding that it is                        establishing the Community Customs Code ( OJ No L 302,
necessary to effect post-clearance recovery of customs                      19 . 10 . 1992 , p. 1 ).
import duties in the amount of Lit 148 890 000 owing in               (4 ) OJ No L 253 , 11 . 10 . 1993 , p . 1 .
respect of a number of operations in which cod from
Norway was imported through the customs office in
Verona . On presentation of EUR 1 movement certificates
issued by the relevant Norwegian exporting company, the
applicant took advantage, for those import transactions,
of the preferential customs treatment provided for under              Action brought on 17 January 1997 by CPL Imperial 2
Community legislation .                                               Spa against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
The Norwegian customs authorities subsequently informed                                              ( Case T-ll/97)
the Italian authorities that, pursuant to independent                                                   97/C 94/41
investigations, they had ascertained that the Norwegian
exporter had not been in a position to establish that the                                 (Language of the case: Italian)
fish used to produce the cod fillets had originated in
Norway. They accordingly contested the validity of the                An action against the Commission of the European
EUR 1 certificates on which the preferential tariff                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
treatment had been based. Proceeding on the basis of that             Instance of the European Communities on 17 January
notification, the customs office in Verona requested the               1997 by CPL Imperial 2 Spa, having its registered office
 ---pagebreak--- No C 94/20            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        22 . 3 . 97
in Pescara (Italy), represented by Giuseppe Celona, of the           — order the defendant to pay the costs .
Milan Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the Chambers of Georges Margue, 20 rue Philippe II.                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant claims that the Court should:                          In support of her application, the applicant pleads
                                                                     infringement of Articles 31 ( 2 ) and 32 of the Staff
primarily:                                                           Regulations of officials, as well as a manifest error of
                                                                     assessment .
— declare the application admissible in as much as it
     seeks the annulment of a decision that adversely                She maintains in that regard that she has, since 1981 ,
     affects the applicant directly and individually,                acquired exceptional professional experience in the fields
— annul Commission Decision No C(96 ) 2780 of                        of diplomacy, agricultural policy and environmental
     8 October 1996 (*),                                             policy, and that that experience has been recognized both
                                                                     by her previous employers and by her present assessor. It
— order the defendant to pay to the applicant all the                is, moreover, an established fact, in her view, that she was
     costs associated with these proceedings;                        immediately able to perform her duties and that she has
                                                                     enabled her unit to make real progress in the field of
in the alternative :                                                 agricultural policy.
— find and declare that the said decision does not affect
                                                                     The applicant concludes from this that the Commission
     the applicant's right not to have to pay the post              has committed a manifest error of assessment, first, by
     clearance duties in question;                                   taking the view that neither her experience nor her
in the further alternative :                                         qualifications are sufficiently exceptional to justify her
                                                                     recruitment in a higher grade and, second, by considering
— in the event that, for whatever reason, the above                  that the post which she filled did not require the
     decision should not be annulled, order the                      recruitment of a particularly well-qualified official.
     Commission to reimburse the applicant for the entire
     amount that the latter will be required to pay in
     respect of post-clearance duties, penalties and ancillary
     charges; in any event, annul the contested decision in
     so far as it relates to Invoice No 7338F, which has
     already been settled, and in so far as it concerns              Action brought on 21 January 1997 by Sofivo and Others
     interest payments .                                                       against the Council of the European Union
                                                                                ( Case T-14/97)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                ( 97/C 94/43 )
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as
those already relied on in Case T- 10/97 Unifrigo Gadus Sri                          (Language of the case: French)
v. Commission of the European Communities.                           An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                     brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
(') Unpublished.
                                                                     Communities on 21 January 1997 by Sofivo, established
                                                                     at Conde sur Vire (France ), Sofivo Production, established
                                                                     at Brece ( France ), Sovinor, established at Conde sur Vire
                                                                     ( France ), Denkavit France, established at Montreuil-Bellay
                                                                     ( France ), Sobeval Viande, established at Périgueux
Action brought on 20 January 1997 by Anna Barnett                    ( France ), Serval, established at Sainte Eanne ( France ),
   against the Commission of the European Communities                Besnier Industrie, established at Bourgbarre ( France ),
                         (Case T-12/97)                              Sovida, established at Chateaubriand ( France ), Sica Ouest
                                                                     Elevage, established at Ploudaniel ( France ), Guinde,
                          ( 97/C 94/42 )                             established at Montauban de Bretagne ( France ),
                                                                     Tarbouriech, established at Villeneuve sur Lot ( France ),
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     Mamellor, established at Charnay les Macon (France ),
An action against the Commission of the European                     Coopagri Bretagne, established at Landerneau ( France )
Communities was brought before the Court of First                    and Collet et Compagnie, established at Chateaubourg
Instance of the European Communities on 20 January                   ( France ), represented by Deborah Kryvian, of the Rouen
1997 by Anna Barnett, residing in Brussels, represented by           Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of             Chambers of Marc Loesch, 11 rue Goethe .
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30               The applicants claim that the Court should:
rue de Cessange .
                                                                     — annul Regulation (EC) No 2222/96 adopted on
The applicant claims that the Court should :                              18 November 1996 by the Council, a Community
                                                                          institution, or at least Article 1 (4 ) thereof, that part of
— annul the decision of the appointing authority fixing                   the act being separable from its other provisions,
     at grade A 7 the applicant's classification in grade
     upon her recruitment,                                           — order the Council to pay the costs.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 10 June 2002 in Case T-200/00, Glenryck UK Ltd and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Common customs tariff — Remission of import duties — Case not proceeding to judgment)

text:
24.8.2002               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 202/27
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  D.P. Domenicucci, lawyers, with an address for service in
                                                                            Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communi-
                         of 10 June 2002                                    ties (Agents: R. Tricot and M. Moretto) — application for
                                                                            annulment of Commission Decision C(2000)1612 of 19 June
in Case T-200/00, Glenryck UK Ltd and Others v Com-                         2000 rejecting the request not to proceed with the post-
          mission of the European Communities (1)                           clearance recovery of import duties in respect of canned tuna
                                                                            from Turkey — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),
(Common customs tariff — Remission of import duties —                       composed of M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi,
                Case not proceeding to judgment)                            Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 14 June 2002,
                                                                            the operative part of which is as follows:
                         (2002/C 202/42)
                                                                            1.    There is no need to adjudicate on the present action.
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                            2.    The Commission shall bear all the costs.
In Case T-200/00, Glenryck UK Ltd, established in Henley-
on-Thames (United Kingdom), Maple Leaf Foods UK Ltd,                        (1) OJ 2000 C 372.
established in London, Martin Mathews & Co Ltd, established
in Cheshunt (United Kingdom), and North Country Quality
Foods Ltd, established in Salford (United Kingdom), represent-
ed by M. Cornwell-Kelly, Solicitor, and E. Mc Nicholas and
S. Saltissi, Barristers, with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg, v Commission of the European Communities, (Agents:
R. Tricot and M. Shotter) — application for annulment of
Commission Decision No C(2000) 1078 of 2 May 2000 (REM
14/99), of Commission Decision No C(2000) 1083 of 2 May
2000 (REM 16/99), of Commission Decision No C(2000)                                   ORDER OF COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
1081 of 8 May 2000 (REM 15/99) and of Commission
Decision No C(2000) 1178 of 15 May 2000 (REM 43/99)                                                    of 6 June 2002
rejecting the requests for the remission of customs duties in
respect of the importation by the applicants of canned tuna
from Turkey, the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber)                   in Case T-105/01, Società Lavori Impianti Metano Sicilia
composed of M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi,                (SLIM Sicilia) v Commission of the European Communi-
Judges, Registrar; H. Jung, has made an order on 10 June 2002                                               ties (1)
the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                            (European Regional Development Fund — Projects co-
1.    There is no need to adjudicate in the present action.
                                                                            financed by the ERDF — Refusal to extend the time limit for
2.    The Commission shall pay the costs in their entirety.                 the submission of an application for final payment — Action
                                                                                for annulment — Admissibility)
(1) OJ C 302 of 21.10.00.
                                                                                (2002/C 202/44)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: Italian)
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                            In Case T-105/01, Società Lavori Impianti Metano Sicilia (SLIM
                         of 14 June 2002                                    Sicilia), established in Syracuse (Italy), represented by N. Saitta,
                                                                            F. Saitta, M. Siragusa, F.M. Moretti and C. Lanciani, lawyers,
in Case T-327/00: ICAT Food SpA v Commission of the                         v Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Van
                   European Communities (1)                                 Vliet, assisted by M. Moretto) — application for annulment of
                                                                            the decision of the Commission contained in a letter sent to
(Common customs tariff — Failure to proceed to post-                        the Italian Government on 12 December 2000 refusing to
clearance recovery of import duties — No need to adjudicate)                extend the time limit for the submission of the application for
                                                                            final payment and closure of the file concerning assistance
                         (2002/C 202/43)                                    granted under the European Regional Development Fund
                                                                            No 840503013/001 in respect of the project for the methana-
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                         tion of the municipality of Syracuse — the Court of First
                                                                            Instance (Second Chamber) composed of R. M. Moura Ramos,
                                                                            President, J. Pirrung and A. W. H. Meij, Judges, Registrar;
In Case T-327/00: ICAT Food SpA, established in Milan (Italy),              H. Jung, has made an order on 6 June 2002 the operative part
represented by R. Delfino, M. Merola, F. Santaniello and                    of which is as follows:


title: Case C-388/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per le Marche (Italy), lodged on 16 August 2012 — Comune di Ancona v Regione Marche

text:
               20.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/4

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per le Marche (Italy), lodged on 16 August 2012 — Comune di Ancona v Regione Marche
   (Case C-388/12)
   2012/C 319/06
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per le Marche

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Comune di Ancona

      Defendant: Regione Marche

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 30(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (1) be interpreted as meaning that it is not possible to undertake an assessment of whether the assignment results in substantial income for the contracting authority and undue advantages for the concession-holder without first establishing whether the project has undergone substantial modification?
               If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:

                           (a)

                           Does that provision refer only to physical modifications — in the sense that the structure set in place is not as specified in relation to the project approved for funding — or does it also include modifications in regard to function and, in the latter case, has there been substantial modification if the structure is used ‘also’ — but not predominantly — for activities other than those envisaged in the notice or in the application to participate in the notice?

                     If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative:

                           (b)

                           Does that provision, with reference to those cases in which the public funding is used to carry out works the management of which is likely to be financially significant, apply only at the stage when the project is being carried out, or does the requirement to comply with the rules on a competitive tendering procedure also continue to apply when the project management is assigned?

               2.

               Must Article 30(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 be interpreted as meaning that the process of establishing whether contracting out the management to third parties actually gives rise to substantial net income or positions of undue advantage for a firm or public body constitutes a stage which, logically and legally, follows on after the preliminary question (that is to say, the question whether a competitive tendering procedure must be held), or must account also be taken, in determining the existence of the obligation to hold a competitive tendering procedure, of the actual rules governing the contractual relationship?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (OJ 1999 L 161, p. 1).


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Divisional Court, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that Court of 14 July 1998, in the Case of the Queen against (1) Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, (2) Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte: Monsanto plc, and I Pi Ci SpA, Intervener (Case C-306/98)

text:
26.9.98                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 299/27
5. Questions on shift work and shift workers:                           Ð infringement of Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff
                                                                            Regulations of Officials,
     In view of the fact that the working time at issue is
     shift work only in relation to on-call duty, and in the
     absence of harmonising legislation, can the work                   Ð infringement of Articles 26 and 43 of the Staff
     performed by the medical practitioners concerned be                    Regulations of Officials: contrary to the assertions of
     regarded as shift work and must they be regarded as                    the Court of First Instance, the absence of periodic
     shift workers in accordance with the definition                        staff reports for 1991 to 1993 and 1993 to 1995 not
     contained in Article 2(5) and (6) of the Directive?                    only affected the administrative situation and career of
                                                                            the appellant but also deprived that official of all
(1) Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993
                                                                            defence rights,
    concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time
    (OJ L 307, 13.12.1993, p. 18).                                      Ð breach of the concept of interests of the service' and
(2) OJ L 183, 29.6.1989, p. 1.
                                                                            breach of the audi alteram parte rule and of the
                                                                            principles of equal treatment and of non-
                                                                            discrimination: in finding that the Commission did not
                                                                            have to prove the facts alleged or the extent to which
                                                                            blame should be apportioned between the two officials
Appeal brought on 3 August 1998 by W. against the                           concerned, the Court of First Instance has contravened
judgment delivered on 28 May 1998 by the Fifth Chamber                      the case-law and also implicitly acknowledged that the
of the Court of First Instance of the European                              Commission committed an error of assessment and
Communities in Joined Cases T-78/96 and T-170/96                            misused its powers,
between W. and the Commission of the European
                           Communities                                  Ð infringement of Article 25(1) of the Staff Regulations
                       (Case C-304/98 P)                                    of Officials.
                          (98/C 299/41)
                                                                        (Case T-170/96)
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 28 May
1998 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance                Ð infringement of Articles 215(2) and 178 of the EC
of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-78/96                         Treaty: for the Court of First Instance to regard an
and T-170/96 between W. and the Commission of the                           action for damages as a claim for compensation
European Communities was brought before the Court of                        ancillary to an action for annulment amounts to a
Justice of the European Communities on 3 August 1998                        distortion of the applicant's pleadings. The material
by W., represented by Gilles Bouneou, of the Luxembourg                     and non-material damage in respect of which
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at 4 rue                     reparation is sought in the present case arises out of a
de l'Avenir.                                                                failure by the administration to adopt a decision and
                                                                            was caused to the appellant by conduct which cannot
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                 be characterised as an act adversely affecting an
                                                                            official because they produce no legal effects. This is
Ð declare the appeal admissible and well-founded,
                                                                            precisely the case with regard to the plea alleging:
and accordingly                                                             infringement of Articles 4 and 29; breach of the duty
                                                                            to have regard for the welfare of officials; misuse of
Ð set aside the contested judgment in Cases T-78/96 and                     powers; inadequate statement of reasons.
     T-170/96,
Ð grant the form of order sought at first instance,
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs in their
     entirety.
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Divisional
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     Court, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that Court of
                                                                        14 July 1998, in the Case of the Queen against (1)
(Case T-78/96)                                                          Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, (2) Secretary
                                                                        of State for the Environment, ex parte: Monsanto plc, and
Ð irregularity of the proceedings: the Court of First                                      I Pi Ci SpA, Intervener
     Instance misinterpreted the facts submitted before it                                    (Case C-306/98)
     and failed to take into account evidence adduced and
     offered to be adduced by the appellant,                                                    (98/C 299/42)
Ð the Court of First Instance restricted the rights of the
     defence,                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by an order of the Divisional
Ð contradictory and inadequate grounds of the judgment                  Court, Queen's Bench Division, of 14 July 1998, which
     appealed against as a result of incorrect findings of              was received at the Court Registry on 4 August 1998, for
     facts,                                                             a preliminary ruling in the Case of The Queen against (1)
 ---pagebreak--- C 299/28              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     26.9.98
Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, (2) Secretary                conforms to the limit values set in accordance with
of State for the Environment, ex parte: Monsante plc, and                  Article 3 of Council Directive 76/160/EEC of
I Pi Ci SpA, Intervener, on the following questions:                       8 December 1975 concerning the quality of bathing
                                                                           water (1) within 10 years following the notification of
1. Whenever a Member State authorises the placing on                      this Directive, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to
     the market in its territory of a plant protection                     fulfil its obligations under Article 4 of Directive 76/
     product pursuant to Article 8(2) of Council Directive                 160/EEC and the third paragraph of Article 189 of the
     91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of                  EC Treaty, and
     plant protection products on the market (1), does
     Article 8(3) of that Directive apply so as to require the
                                                                       2. order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
     Member State to evaluate the application for
     authorisation in accordance with the requirements laid
     down in Article 4(1)(b)(i) to (v) and (c) to (f)?'                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
2. If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative, is the
     Member State under an obligation to apply the                     Under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty,
     requirements of Article 4(1)(b)(i) to (v) to such                 in conjunction with Article 4(1) of Directive 76/160/EEC,
     applications in the light of current scientific and              Belgium is required to make the quality of its bathing
     technical knowledge'?                                             waters conform to the limit values set in accordance with
                                                                       Article 3 of the Directive within 10 years, a period which
                                                                       expired on 11 December 1985.
3. If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative, is the
     Member State also under an obligation to apply the
     requirements of Article 4(1)(c) to (f) to such                    In the Commission's view, the Walloon Region authorities
     applications in the light of current scientific and              were wrong to revise in 1996 the list of bathing areas and
     technical knowledge'?                                             withdraw some 30 bathing sites so that there appear to
                                                                       remain only 10 officially designated bathing areas. The
4. If the answers to questions 1, 2 and/or 3 are in the                grounds relied on in order to justify such revision are not
     affirmative is the Member State under an obligation to            sufficient in order to exclude the sites in question from the
     ensure that its national provisions concerning the data           bathing waters covered by the Directive. The Belgian
     to be provided (as referred to in Articles 8(3) and               authorities advertise no fewer than 16 of those sites in the
     13(6) of the Directive) permit an evaluation to be                1998 guide to camping sites as bathing areas available
     carried out in accordance with the criteria laid down             within a short distance from those camping sites.
     in Article 4(1)(b)(i) to (v) and (c) to (f) of the Directive
     in the light of current scientific and technical
     knowledge'?                                                       The measures adopted by Belgium in order to make the
                                                                       quality of the waters conform to the limit values set
(1) OJ L 230, 19.8.1991, p. 1.                                         pursuant to Article 4 of the Directive, in particular the
                                                                       programmes of investment in water purification both in
                                                                       Flanders and in the Walloon Region, are inadequate; the
                                                                       Belgian authorities mention the setting up of water
                                                                       treatment infrastructures in general without being specific
                                                                       about their impact on the improvement of bathing-water
                                                                       quality. So far as concerns Flanders, the water purification
Action brought on 5 August 1998 by the Commission of                   programme does not even cover all the bathing areas. As
the European Communities against the Kingdom of                        to the Walloon Region, the programmes contain no details
                             Belgium                                   as to the dates for the start and completion of the work
                        (Case C-307/98)                                on the infrastructures provided for or information on the
                                                                       exact location of those works.
                         (98/C 299/43)
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                   According to the report on the quality of bathing waters
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                during the 1995 bathing season for the whole of Belgium
on 5 August 1998 by the Commission of the European                     (EUR 16755), the rate of conformity of freshwater bathing
Communities, represented by Francisco de Sousa Fialho,                 areas was 41,4 %. The report on the quality of bathing
of its Legal Service, and O. Couvert-CasteÂra, a national              waters during the 1996 bathing season for the whole of
civil servant on secondment to the Legal Service, acting as            Belgium (EUR 17629) indicates that, even if the 30 sites
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the               indicated by the Walloon Region are removed from the list
office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,               of Walloon sites taken into account for the purpose of
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                              drawing up the annual reports on the implementation of
                                                                       the Directive, the level of conformity is only 85,5 %.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                       (1) OJ L 31, 5.2.1976, p. 1.
1. declare that, by failing to adopt the necessary
     measures to ensure that the quality of bathing water


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Civile e Penale, Brescia, by order of that court of 12 April 1996, in the criminal proceedings pending before it against Riccardo Piccaluga (Case C-250/96)

text:
No C 294/4              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        5 . 10 . 96
    essentially the same employees continue to perform the              Are Presidential Decree No 915 of 10 September 1982 ( )
    same surveillance duties on essentially the same terms ,            and current Italian legislation in general relating to waste
    which are determined to a large extent by the body                  and secondary raw materials compatible with Directive
    awarding the contract ?                                             91 / 156/EEC of 18 March 1991 ( 2 )?
(') OJ No L 61 , 5 . 3 . 1977, p . 26 .                                 (') Erroneously given as 1992 in the order for reference .
                                                                        ( 2 ) OJ No L 78 , 1991 , p. 32 .
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Civile
e Penale, Brescia, by order of that court of 12 April 1996, in          References for a preliminary ruling from the
                                                                        Landesarbeitsgericht Hamm by orders of that court of 9 July
the criminal proceedings pending before it against Riccardo
                                Piccaluga                               1996 in the cases of Helmut Kampelmann v.
                                                                        Landschaftsverband Westfalen-Lippe ( C-253/96 ), Wilfried
                         ( Case C-250/96                                Tilsch v. Landschaftsverband Westfalen-Lippe ( C-254/96 ),
                            ( 96/C 294/05 )                             Dieter Klingelhöfer v. Landschaftsverband Westfalen-Lippe
                                                                        ( C-255/96 ), Heinrich Schmidt v. Landschaftsverband
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  Westfalen-Lippe ( C-256/96 ), Stadtwerke Witten GmbH v.
European Communities by an order of the Tribunale Civile                Andreas Schade ( C-257/96 ) and Klaus Haseley v.
e Penale ( Civil and Criminal District Court), Brescia , of                            Stadtwerke Altena GmbH ( C-258/96 )
12 April 1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on                               ( Cases C-253/96 to C-258/96 )
22 July 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the criminal
                                                                                ( 96/C 294/07
proceedings pending before it against Riccardo Piccaluga on
the following questions :
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by orders of the Fourth Chamber of
1 . May the provisions of Italian law concerning                        the Landesarbeitsgericht ( Higher Labour Court ) Hamm of
    employment procurement and temporary work be                        9 July 1996 , which were received at the Court Registry on
    regarded as covered by the exercise of official authority           23 July 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the cases of Helmut
    within the meaning of Article 66 in conjunction with                Kampelmann , Wilfried Tilsch , Dieter Klingelhöfer and
    Article 55 of the Treaty, in the light of their public-law
                                                                        Heinrich Schmidt v. Landesverband Westfalen-Lippe,
    character, inasmuch as they are intended to protect                 Stadtwerke Witten GmbH v. Andreas Schade and Klaus
    workers and the national economy ?
                                                                        Haseley v. Stadtwerke Altena GmbH for a preliminary
                                                                        ruling on the following questions :
2 . In the absence of specific implementing provisions , may
    the aforesaid provisions be regarded as directly                     1 . In view of the objective , stated in the preamble to
     applicable ( thereby undermining the public-law                           Council Directive 91 /533/EEC on an employer's
     objectives pursued by the Italian laws in force relating to              obligation to inform employees of the conditions
     employment procurement and temporary work ) and do                        applicable to the contract or employment
     they permit any person , whether public or private, to act               relationship ( J ), of 'providing employees with improved
     as an intermediary between persons seeking and persons                   protection against possible infringements of their rights
     offering employment and/or temporary work, without                        and to create greater transparency on the labour
     any specific control or authorization , where the                         market', is it the purpose of Article 2 of the said
     Member State is unable to satisfy fully the demand for                    Directive to modify ( in the employee 's favour ) the
     services on the labour market using its own                               burden of proof in that the list of minimum
     administrative machinery ?                                                requirements in Article 2 ( 2 ) of Directive 91 /533/EEC is
                                                                               intended to ensure that the employee does not encounter
                                                                               difficulties of proof regarding the listed points when
                                                                               enforcing his contractual rights in employment-law
                                                                               disputes ?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura
Circondariale, Rovigo ( Sezione Distaccata de Adria ), by                2 . If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative : has
 order of that court of 13 July 1993 in criminal proceedings                   Article 2 ( 2 ) (c ) ( ii ) of Directive 91 /533/EEC been
                   against Giuseppe Cordelia                                   directly applicable since 1 July 1993 against the State
                          ( Case C-251 /96 )                                   acting as an employer in private law because :
                             ( 96/C 294/06 )                                   — the Federal Republic of Germany did not
                                                                                ( completely ) implement Directive 91 /533/EEC by
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                            30 June 1993 , the expiry date of the period for
 European Communities by order of the Pretura                                      implementation ,
 Circondariale ( District Magistrate 's Court ), Rovigo ( Adria
 Division ), of 13 July 1 993 , which was received at the Court                — the abovementioned provision of the Directive is
 Registry on 22 July 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in                            unconditional and can therefore be incorporated in
 criminal proceedings pending before it against Giuseppe                           national law without any further implementing
 Cordelia on the following question :                                               act ,


title: Case C-26/04: Action brought on 27 January 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

text:
20.3.2004              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 71/11
2.   Is Article 32 of Protocol 4 mentioned above to be                    Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Dioikitiko
     construed as meaning that the customs authorities of the             Protodikeio Athinon by order of 30 September 2003 in
     importing Member State are required to take into account                  the case of SPHAKIANAKIS AEBE v Greek State
     the decisions of the courts of the exporting State over-
     turning the outcome of investigations ordered and carried
     out by the Hungarian authorities after the export oper-                                       (Case C-24/04)
     ation, regard being had to the fact that
                                                                                (2004/C 71/16)
     (a)   the authorities of the importing State were duly
           informed both of the fact that proceedings were
           pending before the Hungarian courts and of the
           outcome of the relevant procedures and                         By order of 30 September 2003, which was received at the
                                                                          registry of the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                          on 26 January 2004, the Dioikitiko Protodikeio Athinon seeks
     (b) those authorities never asked for any investigation              from the Court, in the context of the dispute pending before
           to be carried out;                                             it between SPHAKIANAKIS AEBE and the Greek State, a
                                                                          preliminary ruling on the following questions:
3.   If the answer to the above questions is affirmative are the
     abovementioned provisions of Community law to be                     The questions in the present case are identical to the questions
     construed as not permitting the adoption of administrat-             in Case C-23/04.
     ive acts imposing additional duties charges and taxes
     issued by the national authorities of the importing State
     after notification by the Hungarian authorities of the
     outcome of the investigation conducted by them but
     before publication of the court decisions overturning the
     results of the investigation for the purpose of elucidating
     the due result of the prohibition of the imposition of
     duties by the association agreement between the EU and               Action brought on 27 January 2004 by the Commission
     Hungary, in light also of the fact finally that the EUR.1            of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
     certificates issued were correct;                                                                   Spain
4.   In that connection are the above questions affected by                                        (Case C-26/04)
     the fact that neither the Greek nor the Hungarian
     authorities sought convocation of the association com-
     mittee mentioned in Article 33 of Protocol 4 for the                                          (2004/C 71/17)
     purpose of reaching a determination in that connection,
     a situation which demonstrates that neither of the two
     authorities considered that adoption of the decisions of
     the Hungarian courts constituted a dispute between them              An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
     which ought to have been brought before that committee               the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 Janu-
     for a determination?                                                 ary 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                          represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana, of the Commission’s
                                                                          Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
5.   In the alternative, if the answer to the foregoing questions
     is in the negative, if therefore the Greek customs auth-
     orities did not infringe the abovementioned provisions of            The applicant claims that the Court should:
     Community law by the imposition of additional duty,
     VAT and a penalty is it then possible to take the view that          —     declare that, by failing to officially designate the beaches
     the ex post determination of duties as against the importer                ‘A Videira’, ‘Niño de Corvo’ and ‘Canabal’ in Moaña, Ría
     is not permitted under Article 220(2) of the Common                        de Vigo, Comunidad Autónoma de Galicia, the Kingdom
     customs code on the ground of error by the customs                         of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under
     authorities of either the importing or exporting State,                    Article 4(1) of Council Directive 76/160/EEC (1) of
     regard being had in particular to the fact that the customs                8 December 1975 concerning the quality of bathing
     authorities of the exporting State had available to then all               water;
     the factual elements in connection with the manufacture
     of the vehicles intended for export as the basis for issue
                                                                          —     declare that, by failing to adopt a pollution-reduction
     of the EUR.1 certificate, with the result that the authorities
                                                                                programme for the Ría de Vigo, the Kingdom of Spain
     of the importing State might be in a position to ascertain
                                                                                has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5 of
     ex officio the duty lawfully payable?
                                                                                Council Directive 79/923/EEC (2) of 30 October 1979 on
                                                                                the quality required of shellfish waters;
                                                                          —     order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 71/12                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         20.3.2004
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            Action brought on 28 January 2004 by the Commission
                                                                           of the European Communities against the Republic of
                                                                                Austria
The Spanish authorities have not officially designated as
bathing areas, the beaches Viela/A Videira, Niño do Corvo and
Canabal in the municipality of Moaña (Pontevedra), in spite of
                                                                                (Case C-29/04)
the frequent presence of bathers on those beaches. In the
absence of a ban on bathing, the presence of bathers requires
the designation of those beaches as bathing waters, for the
purpose of Directive 76/160. In the absence of such a                                               (2004/C 71/19)
designation, those three beaches have not been subject to the
surveillance required by the Directive.
The waters of the Ría de Vigo do not conform to the guideline              An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
values, laid down by Directive 79/923, for faecal coliforms, in            before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
spite of the fact that nearly all of those waters have been                on 28 January 2004 by the Commission of the European
designated by the Spanish authorities as shellfish waters.                 Communities, represented by Klaus Wiedner, acting as Agent,
Accordingly, Article 5 of that directive requires the establish-           with an address for service in Luxembourg.
ment of a programme to reduce pollution in order to ensure
that the designated waters conform to the values fixed in the
Annex to Directive 79/923. However, the pollution-reduction
programme for the Ría de Vigo has not been notified to the                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
Commission.
                                                                           1.    declare that the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its
(1) OJ 1976 L 31, p. 1; Spanish Special Edition 15/01, p. 133.                   obligations under Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June
(2) OJ 1979 L 281, p. 47; Spanish Special Edition 15/02, p. 156.                 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the
                                                                                award of public service contracts (1), in that award of the
                                                                                refuse disposal contract entered into by the town of
                                                                                Mödling failed to comply with the procedures and
                                                                                advertising rules laid down in Article 8, in conjunction
                                                                                with Article 11(1) and Article 15(2), of that directive;
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal De
                                                                           2.    order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.
Grand Instance de Paris (Third Chamber, Second Division)
by order of that Court of 5 December 2003 in the case of
Société TOD’S SpA (formerly named EMA Srl) and SARL
TOD’S France formerly named DEVA France against S.A.
    Heyraud; Voluntary intervener: Sté Technisynthese
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
                          (Case C-28/04)
                          (2004/C 71/18)                                   On 21 May 1999, the municipality of Mödling decided to use
                                                                           its own vehicle to carry out its statutory duties relating to
                                                                           refuse disposal. A company, AbfallGmbH, was incorporated
                                                                           for this purpose. The whole of the company’s share capital
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     was held by one member, namely the municipality of Mödling.
European Communities by order of the Tribunal De Grand                     The contract for disposal, under which the municipality of
Instance de Paris (Paris Regional Court) of 5 December 2003,               Mödling transferred exclusive responsibility for the collection
received at the Court Registry on 28 January 2004, for a                   and treatment of waste to AbfallGmbH, was entered into on
preliminary ruling in the case of Société TOD’S SpA (formerly              15 September 1999. The contract was entered into for an
named EMA Srl) and SARL TOD’S France formerly named                        unlimited period and came into force with retrospective effect
DEVA France against S.A. Heyraud; Voluntary intervener: Sté                on 1 July 1999. Two weeks after the conclusion of the contract
Technisynthese, on the following question:                                 for refuse disposal, the town council of the municipality of
                                                                           Mödling decided that the municipality of Mödling, as sole
                                                                           member of AbfallGmbH, should transfer 49 % of its shares to
Does Article 12 of the EC Treaty, which lays down the general              a private undertaking.
principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality,
mean that the right of an author to claim in a Member State
the copyright protection afforded by the law of that State may
not be subject to a distinction based on the country of origin             The Republic of Austria is of the opinion that the provisions
of the work?                                                               of Directive 92/50/EEC do not apply to the award of the waste
                                                                           disposal contract to AbfallGmbH, as it involved a so-called ‘in-
                                                                           house’ transaction.


title: Case C-333/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Leipzig (Germany) lodged on 19 June 2013 — Elisabeta Dano, Florin Dano v Jobcenter Leipzig

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/9

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Leipzig (Germany) lodged on 19 June 2013 — Elisabeta Dano, Florin Dano v Jobcenter Leipzig
   (Case C-333/13)
   (2013/C 226/18)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Sozialgericht Leipzig

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Elisabeta Dano, Florin Dano

      Defendant: Jobcenter Leipzig

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do persons who do not wish to claim payment of any benefits of social security law or family benefits under Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (1) but rather special non-contributory benefits under Article 3(3) and Article 70 of the Regulation fall within the scope ratione personae of Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004?

               2.

               If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Are the Member States precluded by Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, in order to prevent an unreasonable recourse to non-contributory social security benefits under Article 70 of the Regulation which guarantee a level of subsistence, from excluding in full or in part European Union citizens in need from accessing those benefits which are provided to their own nationals who are in the same situation?

               3.

               If Questions 1 or 2 are answered in the negative: Are the Member States precluded by a) Article 18 TFEU and/or b) Article 20(2)(a) TFEU in conjunction with the final sentence of Article 20(2) TFEU and Article 24(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC, (2) in order to prevent an unreasonable recourse to non-contributory social security benefits under Article 70 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 which guarantee a level of subsistence, from excluding in full or in part European Union citizens in need from accessing those benefits which are provided to their own nationals who are in the same situation?

               4.

               If, according to the answers to the abovementioned questions, the partial exclusion of benefits which guarantee a level of subsistence complies with European Union law: May the provision of non-contributory benefits which guarantee a level of subsistence for European Union citizens, outside acute emergencies, be limited to the provision of the necessary funds to return to their home State or do Articles 1, 20 and 51 of the Charter of Fundamental rights require further payments which enable permanent residence?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1).

      (2)  Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77).


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 April 2005 in Case C-335/03: Portuguese Republic v Commission of the European Communities (EAGGF — Beef premium — Monitoring — Representativeness of sampling — Transposition of monitoring results to the preceding years — Reasons)

text:
               28.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 132/10

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 14 April 2005
   in Case C-335/03: Portuguese Republic v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (EAGGF - Beef premium - Monitoring - Representativeness of sampling - Transposition of monitoring results to the preceding years - Reasons)
   (2005/C 132/17)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   In Case C-335/03 Portuguese Republic (Agent: L. Fernandes, assisted by C. Botelho Moniz and E. Maia Cadete) v Commission of the European Communities (Agents: A. Alves Vieira and L. Visaggio, assisted by N. Castro Marques and F. Costa Leite) — action for annulment under Article 230 EC, brought on 25 July 2003, — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann, R. Schintgen and J. Klučka,, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; K. Sztranc, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 April 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 239 of 04.10.2003.


title: Action brought on 7 February 1995 by SA Adia Intérim against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-19/95)

text:
 No C 87/14            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      8 . 4 . 95
     under Article 92 ( 3 ) (c), and acting in a manner              — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision of the
     inconsistent with its own guidelines on restructuring of             Commission of 19 October 1994 expressly rejecting his
     firms in difficulty,                                                 complaint,
— in holding, contrary to Article 92 ( 1 ), that the third           — order the Commission to pay the costs .
    injection did not constitute State aid, through a
    misapplication of the 'private investor' criterion in a
    manner which is inconsistent with its own guidelines and         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    with the behaviour of a true private investor, Union
    Carbide Corporation,                                             The applicant, an official of the Commission in the LA
                                                                     career bracket, contests the decision of the appointing
                                                                     authority classifying him in grade LA 5 , step 1 , in
— in failing to open Article 93 (2 ) proceedings in respect of       consequence of his reinstatement on 1 April 1994 in his
    the third injection, thereby depriving the parties               original service following his secondment, at his own
    concerned of their procedural guarantees under                   request, to the European Centre for the Development of
    Article 93 (2 ) and ( 3 ) as interpreted in the Court's          Vocational Training ( Cedefop ) for a period of seven
    consistent case-law,                                             years .
— in failing to verify and monitor the information and               He points out in that regard that, during that secondment
    proposals put to it by the Italian authorities, thereby          period, he passed a competition held with a view to the
    failing to apply the 'private investor' test correctly and to    drawing up of a reserve list of principal translators/revisers
    ensure that alleged capacity closures had been or would          appointed to grade LA 5 , step 1 , as at 1 October 1990 .
    be made permanent and were of sufficient scale to be in          Consequently, his reinstatement in grade LA 5, step 1 , failed
    the Community interest.                                          to take account, as regards seniority in step, of the period
                                                                     during which he worked at Cedefop .
(!) OJ No C 151 , 2 . 6 . 1994 , p. 3 .                              He asserts in particular that there has been an infringement
                                                                     of the provisions of the Staff Regulations relating to
                                                                     secondment and, more especially, of Article 37 of the Staff
                                                                     Regulations, inasmuch as that Article provides that an
                                                                     official on secondment is to continue to enjoy all his rights
                                                                     under the conditions contained in Articles 38 and 39 . He
                                                                     states in that regard that Article 39 of the Staff Regulations,
                                                                     which governs the secondment of an official at his own
                                                                     request, contains no specific rules as to his right to
                                                                     advancement and his eligibility for promotion. Since that
Action brought on 2 February 1995 by Nuno Do Paqo                   Article constitutes a provision derogating from the ordinary
Quesado against the Commission of the European                       rules, it must be strictly interpreted.
                           Communities
                          (Case T-15/95 )                            It follows that, since officials who are seconded at their own
                           (95/C 87/31 )                             request are not expressly excluded by that provision, they
                                                                    must continue to enjoy the right to automatic advancement
                                                                     in step. To apply any contrary interpretation would be to
                (Language of the case: French)                       disregard the principle of 'career continuity'.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 2 February 1995
by Nuno Do Vaqo Quesado, residing in Trier ( Germany),
represented by Jean-Noel Louis and Veronique Leclercq, of
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg         Action brought on 7 February 1995 by SA Adia Interim
at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 1 Rue Glesener.               against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-19/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 87/32 )
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
— annul the decision of the Commission of 1 March 1994
    inasmuch as it classifies the applicant in grade LA 5, step
    1 , with seniority in grade and in step from 1 April            An action against the Commission of the European
    1994,                                                           Communities was brought before the Court of First
 ---pagebreak--- 8 . 4 . 95          I EN |                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 87/15
Instance of the European Communities on 7 February 1995              ( Gabon), represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar,
by SA Adia Interim, the head office of which is in Brussels,         with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
represented by Vincent Thiry, of the Liege Bar, with an              Myson Sari, 1 Rue Glesener.
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Tom
Gilliams, 47 Grand Rue.                                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:                          — annul the decision of the Commission of 4 May 1994
                                                                         refusing the applicant full reimbursement of his medical
— declare the application admissible and well-founded,                   expenses in accordance with Article 24 of Annex X to
                                                                         the Staff Regulations,
— annul the decisions taken,
                                                                     — order the defendant to pay in full the difference between
                                                                         the expenditure actually incurred and payments from
— order the Commission of the European Communities to
                                                                         the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme,
     pay the applicant all the costs of the proceedings,
     including, in particular, travel and subsistence expenses       — declare that the General Provisions implementing the
     and the fees of the applicant's adviser.                             first and second paragraphs of Annex X to the Staff
                                                                          Regulations are unlawful,
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                     — order the defendant to pay all the costs.
The applicant, a company incorporated under Belgian law
which has been engaged for nine years in contractual                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
relations with the Commission involving the placing of
temporary workers at the latter's disposal with a view to the        The applicant pleads, first, infringement of Article 24 of
performance by them of miscellaneous duties in the                   Annex X to the Staff Regulations. He points out that that
premises of the Commission, contests the Commission's                Article contains no mention of any restriction or ceiling on
decision, adopted in the context of the invitation to tender         reimbursement, regardless of the expenditure actually
issued in that field on 13 July 1994, to award the contract to       incurred, and that, as a result, as soon as an official becomes
other undertakings.                                                  eligible under Article 24 of Annex X to the Staff
                                                                     Regulations, he is entitled to reimbursement of all expenses
It maintains that the contested decision is vitiated by the          not covered by the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme.
absence of any express statement of reasons, to which
particular importance attaches in public contract matters by         The applicant also maintains that the General Provisions
virtue of Article 12 of Directive 92/50/EEC relating to the          implementing the first and second paragraphs of Annex X to
coordination of procedures for the award of public service           the Staff Regulations are unlawful, inasmuch as they
contracts, which obliges the contracting authority to inform         provide for an 'excessiveness threshold' beyond which
any eliminated tenderer who so requests of the reasons for           medical expenses are not reimbursed. He considers that
rejection of his tender and of the name of the successful            limitation to be contrary to Article 24 of Annex X, which
tenderer.                                                            provides for cover in respect of the full difference between
                                                                     expenditure actually incurred and payments from the Joint
In the applicant's view, the contested decision breaches the          Sickness Insurance Scheme, and that, consequently, the
principles of equality and impartiality, inasmuch as the              General Provisions are unlawful .
 defendant institution failed to apply the criterion of the most
economically advantageous tender, in the light of the
conditions laid down in the specification.
                                                                     Action brought on 10 February 1995 by Efthimia Bitha,
                                                                     Vasiliki Bitha and Georgios Bitha against the Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities
Action brought on 8 February 1995 by Marco                                                   (Case T-23/95 )
 Mazzocchi-Alemanni against the Commission of the                                             ( 95/C 87/34 )
                    European Communities
                        (Case T-21/95 )                                              (Language of the case: French)
                          ( 95/C 87/33 )
                                                                     An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities was brought before the Court of First
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                      Instance of the European Communities on 10 February
                                                                      1995 by Efthimia Bitha, Vasiliki Bitha and Georgios Bitha,
An action against the Commission of the European                     residing in Thessaloniki ( Greece), represented by Jean-Noel
 Communities was brought before the Court of First                    Louis, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Instance of the European Communities on 8 February 1995               Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 1 Rue
by Marco Mazzocchi-Alemanni, residing in Libreville                   Glesener .


title: Case C-102/04: Actionbrought on 27 February 2004 by the Kingdom ofSweden against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/24

         Action brought on 27 February 2004 by the Kingdom of Sweden against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-102/04)
   (2004/C 106/43)
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 February 2004 by the Kingdom of Sweden, represented by A. Kruse, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Sweden.
   The Kingdom of Sweden claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Directive 2003/112/EC (1) of 1 December 2003 amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC (2) to include paraquat as an active substance,

               —

               order the Commission to pay the Kingdom of Sweden's costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission adopted Directive 2003/112/EC on 1 December 2003. By that directive, paraquat was included as an active substance in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market.
   By adopting the directive the Commission has disregarded Articles 6 and 174 EC, Article 5 of Council Directive 91/414/EEC and Article 7(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market.
   In adopting the directive the Commission has clearly gone beyond the limits of its discretionary powers in that it has failed to apply the principle of caution when assessing and dealing with the risk posed by paraquat both to human and to animal health. Its failure to apply the principle of caution has in turn made it impossible to ensure the high level of protection required by the EC Treaty and in Directive 91/414/EEC. In disregarding the need for a high level of protection, the Commission must also be considered not to have fulfilled the requirements of environmental protection and the principle of integration laid down in the EC Treaty. The Commission has thus breached Articles 6 and 174(2) EC and Article 5 of Directive 91/414/EEC. The Commission has also mishandled this matter by failing to have regard for available published data on paraquat and the risks associated with that substance. In so doing it has breached Articles 174(3) EC and Article 5(1) of Directive 91/414/EEC and Article 7(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92.

      (1)  OJ L 321, 6.12.2003, p. 32.

      (2)  OJ L 230, 19.8.1991, p. 1.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 March 2000 in Case T-72/98: Astilleros Zamacona SA v Commission of the European Communities (State aid — Shipbuilding — Article 4(3) of Council Directive 90/684/EEC — Determination of the ceiling for production aid)

text:
27.5.2000             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 149/31
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             A.J. Tweedale Willoughby and, at the hearing, by B.H.E.
                                                                        Halliday, Solicitors, London, with an address for service in
                        of 16 March 2000                                Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loeff, Claeys and Verbeke, 58
                                                                        Rue Charles Martel, against Office for Harmonisation in the
in Case T-72/98: Astilleros Zamacona SA v Commission                    Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents:
              of the European Communities (1)                           F. López de Rego, A. Di Carlo and A. von Mühlendahl) —
                                                                        application for annulment of the decision of the Second Board
                                                                        of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
(State aid — Shipbuilding — Article 4(3) of Council                     Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 February 1999 (Case
Directive 90/684/EEC — Determination of the ceiling for                 R 150/98-2) refusing registration of the word OPTIONS as a
                          production aid)                               Community trade mark — the Court of First Instance (Fourth
                                                                        Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili, President, R.M. Moura Ramos
                         (2000/C 149/58)                                and P. Mengozzi, Judges; G. Herzig, Administrator, for the
                                                                        Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 March 2000, in which
                                                                        it:
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                        1. Dismisses the application;
In Case T-72/98 Astilleros Zamacona SA, established in
Santurce, Spain, represented by A. Creus Carreras, of the               2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
Barcelona Bar, and B. Uriarte, of the Madrid Bar, Cabinet
Cuatrecasas, 60 Avenue de Cortenberg, Brussels, Belgium v
                                                                        (1) OJ C 174 of 19.6.1999.
Commission of the European Communities, (Agents: P. Nem-
itz, M. Desantes and M. Muñoz) — application for the
annulment of Commission Decision 98/157/EC of 5 Novem-
ber 1997 concerning aid Spain proposes to grant to Astilleros
Zamacona SA in respect of five tugboats (OJ 1998 L 50, p. 38)
— the Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition),
composed of: A. Potocki, President, K. Lenaerts, J. Azizi,
J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; J. Palacio González,                      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
16 March 2000, in which it:                                                                     of 7 March 2000
1. Dismisses the action;                                                in Case T-2/95 (92): Industrie des Poudres Sphériques v
                                                                                Council of the European Union (1)
2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                                                                        (Taxation of costs — Costs of an intervener — Lawyer’s fees
(1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.98.                                                            — Travel and accommodation expenses)
                                                                                (2000/C 149/60)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             In Case T-2/95 (92): Industrie des Poudres Sphériques, estab-
                                                                        lished in Annemasse, France, represented by C. Momège, of
                        of 30 March 2000                                the Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                        Chambers of A. May, 398 Route d’Esch, against Council of the
                                                                        European Union (Agents: originally R. Torrent and J. Monteiro,
in Case T-91/99: Ford Motor Company v Office for
                                                                        then Mr Torrent and Y. Cretien, and subsequently Mr Torrent,
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                                                                        A. Tanca and P. Bentley), supported by Commission of the
                      Designs) (OHIM) (1)
                                                                        European Communities (Agents: N. Khan and X. Lewis),
                                                                        Péchiney Électrométallurgie, established in Courbevoie, France,
(Community trade mark — The word OPTIONS — Absolute                     and Chambre Syndicale de l’Électrométallurgie et de l’Électro-
ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article            chimie, established in Paris, represented originally by J.-P.
7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Acquisition through                  Gunther and H. de Broca, of the Paris Bar, then by Mr Gunther
                 use in part of the Community)                          alone, and subsequently by O. Prost, of the Paris Bar, 99-101
                                                                        Rue de la Loi, Brussels — application for taxation of the costs
                         (2000/C 149/59)                                to be reimbursed by the applicant to the intervener Péchiney
                                                                        Électrométallurgie following the judgment of the Court of First
                                                                        Instance of 15 October 1998 in Case T-2/95 Industrie des
                  (Language of the case: English)                       Poudres Sphériques v Council [1998] ECR II-3939 — the
                                                                        Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition),
In Case T-91/99: Ford Motor Company, established in Dear-               composed of: R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas, President, P. Lindh, R.M.
born, Michigan, United States of America, represented by                Moura Ramos, J.D. Cooke and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung,


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 June 1999 in Case C-172/98: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Article 6 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 12 EC) - Freedom of establishment - Requirement for there to be Belgian members in order for an association to be granted legal personality)

text:
C 246/6                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          28.8.1999
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                           of 29 June 1999
                                                                                of 29 June 1999
in Case C-158/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Staatssecretaris van
            Financiën v Coffeeshop ‘Siberië’ vof (1)                        in Case C-172/98: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Kingdom of Belgium (1)
(Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Turnover taxes
— Common system of value added tax — Sixth Directive —                      (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Article
   Scope — Supply of a table for the sale of narcotic drugs)                6 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 12 EC)
                                                                            — Freedom of establishment — Requirement for there to be
                                                                            Belgian members in order for an association to be granted
                                                                                legal personality)
                           (1999/C 246/10)
                                                                                (1999/C 246/11)
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(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-158/98: Reference to the Court under Article 234                  In Case C-172/98: Commission of the European Communities
EC (ex Article 177) by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden,                       (Agent: M. Patakia) v Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: J. Devadder)
Netherlands, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                    — application for a declaration that by requiring the presence
pending before that court between Staatssecretaris van Finan-               of a Belgian member in the administration of an association or
ciën and Coffeeshop ‘Siberië’ vof on the interpretation of                  a minimum, and majority, presence of members of Belgian
Article 2 of Directive 77/388/EEC: Sixth Council Directive of               nationality in order for the legal personality of an association
17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member                  to be recognised, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil
States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value                  its obligations under Article 6 of the EC Treaty (now, after
added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1)                amendment, Article 12 EC) — the Court (Sixth Chamber),
— the Court composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President,               composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn, President of the Chamber,
P.J.G. Kapteyn, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann (Rappor-            J.L. Murray and H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur), Judges; G. Cos-
teur) (Presidents of Chambers), J.C. Moitinho de Almeida,                   mas, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judg-
D.A.O. Edward, H. Ragnemalm and R. Schintgen, Judges;                       ment on 29 June 1999, in which it:
N. Fennelly, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 29 June 1999, in which it has ruled:
                                                                            1. Declares that, by requiring the presence of a Belgian member in
                                                                                the administration of an association or a minimum, and
                                                                                majority, presence of members of Belgian nationality in order for
Article 2 of Directive 77/388/EEC: Sixth Council Directive of 17                 the legal personality of an association to be recognised, the
May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States                   Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under
relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax:                   Article 6 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 12
uniform basis of assessment is to be interpreted as meaning that in              EC);
the circumstances of the main action renting out a space for the sale
of narcotic drugs falls within the scope of that directive.
                                                                            2. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 234 of 25.7.1998.


title: Case T-470/13: Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2016 — Merck v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for antidepressant medicinal products containing the active pharmaceutical ingredient citalopram — Concept of restriction of competition ‘by object’ — Potential competition — Generic medicinal products — Barriers to market entry resulting from the existence of patents — Agreements concluded between a patent holder and a generic undertaking — Error of law — Error of assessment — Imputability of infringements — Liability of a parent company for infringements of the competition rules committed by its subsidiaries — Legal certainty — Reasonable time — Fines)

text:
               17.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/12

         Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2016 — Merck v Commission
   (Case T-470/13) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for antidepressant medicinal products containing the active pharmaceutical ingredient citalopram - Concept of restriction of competition ‘by object’ - Potential competition - Generic medicinal products - Barriers to market entry resulting from the existence of patents - Agreements concluded between a patent holder and a generic undertaking - Error of law - Error of assessment - Imputability of infringements - Liability of a parent company for infringements of the competition rules committed by its subsidiaries - Legal certainty - Reasonable time - Fines))
   (2016/C 383/16)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Merck KGaA (Darmstadt, Germany) (represented initially by B. Bär-Bouyssière, K. Lillerud, L. Voldstad, B. Marschall, P. Sabbadini, R. De Travieso, M. Holzhäuser and S. O, lawyers, M. Marelus, Solicitor, and R. Kreisberger and L. Osepciu, Barristers, and subsequently by B. Bär-Bouyssière, L. Voldstad, M. Holzhäuser, A. Cooke, M. Gampp, lawyers, M. Marelus, R. Kreisberger and L. Osepciu)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by J. Bourke, F. Castilla Contreras and T. Vecchi, and subsequently by F. Castilla Contreras, T. Vecchi, B. Mongin and C. Vollrath, acting as Agents, assisted by S. Kingston, Barrister)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Generics (UK) Ltd (Potters Bar, United Kingdom) (represented initially by G. Drauz, M. Rosenthal and B. Record, lawyers, and subsequently by G. Drauz and M. Rosenthal)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2013) 3803 final of 19 June 2013 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39226 — Lundbeck), and for reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by that decision.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Merck KGaA to bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission;

               3.

               Orders Generics (UK) Ltd to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 325, 9.11.2013.