title: Case C-244/17: Action brought on 10 May 2017 — European Commission v Council of the European Union

text:
               24.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/29

         Action brought on 10 May 2017 — European Commission v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-244/17)
   (2017/C 239/36)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Gussetti, P. Aalto, L. Havas, Agents)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Council Decision (EU) 2017/477 of 3 March 2017 on the position to be adopted on behalf of the European Union within the Cooperation Council established under the Enhanced Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Kazakhstan, of the other part as regards the working arrangements of the Cooperation Council, the Cooperation Committee, specialised subcommittees or any other bodies (1),

               —

               order Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission argues that the addition of a procedural legal basis under Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), notably Article 31(1) TEU requiring unanimity, violates the Treaty as interpreted in the case law of the Court.
   This plea is substantiated by the following arguments:
   First, according to established case-law of the Court, a decision based on Article 218(9) TFEU is to be taken by qualified majority, even if one or more of the substantive legal bases would otherwise require unanimity for the conclusion of an international agreement. The addition of any legal basis otherwise aimed at ensuring unanimity has no effect on the procedure by which it was adopted within the Council.
   The Council decision adopted under the procedure set out in Article 218(9) TFEU does not aim at supplementing or amending the institutional framework of the agreement or changing its structure and thus cannot be assimilated to the conclusion or amendment of an international agreement, but it is aimed at ensuring its efficient implementation. Such a decision, in accordance with Article 218(8) first subparagraph and Article 218(9), should be adopted by qualified majority. Requiring the adoption of the decision by unanimity is illegal.
   Second, as also clarified by the Court's case-law, Article 218 TFEU provides ‘a single procedure of general application concerning the negotiation and conclusion of international agreements by the European Union in all the fields of its activity, including the CFSP’. The specific nature of the CFSP is reflected in the fact that the proposal is made jointly by the Commission (on account of the non-CFSP elements) and the High Representative (on account of the CFSP). This, however, cannot change the conclusion that a decision under Article 218(9) TFEU is to be adopted by qualified majority.
   A combination of these two strands of case-law leads to the conclusion that not only the negotiation and conclusion of an international agreement, but also the adoption of positions implementing such an agreement is governed by the single procedure provided for in Article 218 TFEU, in that case Article 218(9) TFEU, which provides for decision-making by qualified majority. No further procedural provision may be added. Even if such provision is added by the Council, it cannot have the effect of altering the decision making procedure.

      (1)  OJ 2017, L 73, p. 15


title: Case T-333/05: Action brought on 29 August 2005 — Ezerniece Liljeberg and Others v Commission

text:
               12.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/29

         Action brought on 29 August 2005 — Ezerniece Liljeberg and Others v Commission
   (Case T-333/05)
   (2005/C 281/54)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Kristine Ezerniece Liljeberg (Brussels, Belgium), and Others (represented by: G. Vandersanden, L. Levi, C. Ronzi, lawyers)

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision appointing the applicants in so far as it establishes their grade as grade A*6;

               —

               Consequently, wholly restore the applicants' rightful career prospects (including giving proper weight to their experience in the grade thus adjusted, their promotion rights and their pension rights), whilst observing strict equality in relation to the other officials who were successful candidates in the same competition and work in European institutions other than the Commission;

               —

               Grant the applicants default interest at the rate fixed by the European Central Bank on all the sums corresponding to the difference between the salary corresponding to their grade in the decision of recruitment and the grade to which they should have been entitled, up to the date on which the decision properly grading them is taken;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay all the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants are officials of the Commission entrusted with lawyer-linguist duties who were recruited on the basis of lists of suitable candidates resulting from competitions at LA 7/LA 6 levels before 1 May 2004. Article 13(2) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations provides that in such a case the institutions may recruit lawyer-linguists at grade A*7 instead of A*6. However, the Commission did not exercise that power and recruited the applicants at grade A*6.
   The applicants are challenging that decision with their application, claiming that the other institutions would have appointed successful candidates in the same position at grade A*7 and that the Commission itself employs lawyer-linguists as temporary agents at grade A*7. On that basis, the applicants claim infringement of the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination, of Article 1d(1) of the Staff Regulations, of the principle of assignment to an equivalent post and grade, of Article 9(3) of the Treaty of Amsterdam and, finally, of Article 13(2) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations.
   Moreover, the applicants claim that the Commission assured them that they would be recruited at grade A*7 and, on that basis, they allege infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, the principle of legal certainty, the principle of good administration, the principle of good faith, the principle of transparency and of the duty to have regard for the welfare and interests of officials.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 December 2001 in Case C-131/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Länsrätten i Norrbottens län): Ingemar Nilsson v Länsstyrelsen i Norrbottens län (Common agricultural policy — Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 — Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 — Integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes — Detailed rules for application — Register of animals not kept up to date by farmer — Penalties)

text:
C 44/4                   EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          16.2.2002
Articles 4(2) and 9(2) of Directive 97/33/EC of the European                1.    Annuls Council Regulation (EC) No 2772/1999 of
Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997 on interconnection                  21 December 1999 providing for the general rules for a
in Telecommunications with regard to ensuring universal service and               compulsory beef labelling system;
interoperability through application of the principles of Open
Network Provision (ONP) must be interpreted as not precluding the
Member States from authorising national regulatory authorities to           2.    Orders that the effects of those provisions of the contested
impose on an operator having significant power on the market the ex               regulation pursuant to which the Member States may have
ante obligation to provide access to the local subscriber loop and to             adopted decisions which could be affected by the annulment are
offer interconnection at local and higher-level switching centres.                to be regarded as definitive;
                                                                            3.    Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs;
( 1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.
                                                                            4.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain and the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities to bear their own costs.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       of 13 December 2001
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
in Case C-93/00: European Parliament v Council of the
                         European Union (1)                                                           (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 13 December 2001
(Regulation (EC) No 2772/1999 — Beef labelling system —
                    Competence of the Council)
                                                                            in Case C-131/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                            the Länsrätten i Norrbottens län): Ingemar Nilsson v
                           (2002/C 44/06)                                                  Länsstyrelsen i Norrbottens län (1)
                                                                            (Common agricultural policy — Regulation (EEC)
                     (Language of the case: French)                         No 3508/92 — Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 — Integrated
                                                                            administration and control system for certain Community
                                                                            aid schemes — Detailed rules for application — Register of
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published           animals not kept up to date by farmer — Penalties)
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (2002/C 44/07)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Swedish)
In Case C-93/00: European Parliament (Agents: C. Pennera and
E. Waldherr) v Council of the European Union (Agents:
G. Maganza and J. Monteiro), supported by Kingdom of Spain                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Agent: R. Silva de Lapuerta) and by Commission of the                                         in the European Court Reports)
European Communities (Agent: G. Berscheid) — application
for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 2772/1999 of
21 December 1999 providing for the general rules for a
compulsory beef labelling system (OJ 1999 L 334, p. 1) — the                In Case C-131/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P. Jann,           EC by the Länsrätten i Norrbottens län (Sweden) for a
F. Macken, N. Colneric and S. von Bahr (Presidents of                       preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
Chambers), A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, L. Sevón (Rapporte-            between Ingemar Nilsson and Länsstyrelsen i Norrbottens
ur), M. Wathelet, V. Skouris and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges;              län on the interpretation of Article 5 of Regulation (EEC)
C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for             No 3508/92 of 27 November 1992 establishing an integrated
the Registrar, has given a judgement on 13 December 2001,                   administration and control system for certain Community aid
in which it:                                                                schemes (OJ 1992 L 355, p. 1), the Court (Fifth Chamber),
 ---pagebreak--- 16.2.2002                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 44/5
composed of: S. von Bahr, President of the Fourth Chamber,                 l’académie de Reims, intervener: Syndicat général de l’Éduca-
acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber, D.A.O. Edward,              tion nationale et de la Recherche publique CFDT de la Marne
A. La Pergola, L. Sevón (Rapporteur) and C.W.A. Timmermans,               (SGEN CFDT 51), on the interpretation of Article 119 of the
Judges, Advocate General: C. Stix-Hackl, Registrar: R. Grass,              EC Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have been
has given a judgment on 13 December 2001, in which it has                  replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC), and Council Directive
ruled:                                                                     79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implemen-
                                                                           tation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women
                                                                           in matters of social security (OJ 1979 L 6, p. 24), the Court
Article 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 of 27 November            (Second Chamber), composed of: N. Colneric, President of the
1992 establishing an integrated administration and control system          Chamber, R. Schintgen and V. Skouris (Rapporteur), Judges,
for certain Community aid schemes, read together with Council              Advocate General: S. Alber, Registrar: R. Grass, has given a
Directive 92/102/EEC of 27 November 1992 on the identification             judgment on 13 December 2001, in which it has ruled:
and registration of animals and Articles 6(5) and 13 of Commission
Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 of 23 December 1992 laying down
detailed rules for applying the integrated administration and control      Pensions provided under a scheme such as the French retirement
system for certain Community aid schemes, as amended by Com-               scheme for civil servants fall within the scope of Article 119 of the
mission Regulation (EC) No 1648/95 of 6 July 1995, must be                 EC Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have been replaced
interpreted as meaning that entitlement to a compensatory allowance        by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC).
must be refused, except in cases of force majeure, solely because of the
absence of any entries in the register of animals kept by the farmer.
                                                                           The principle of equal pay for men and women enshrined in
                                                                           Article 119 of the Treaty is infringed by a provision of national law
(1) OJ C 163, 10.6.2000.                                                   such as Article L.24-I-3o(b) of the Civil and Military Retirement
                                                                           Pensions Code which, in providing that only female civil servants
                                                                           whose husbands suffer from a disability or incurable illness making
                                                                           it impossible for them to undertake any form of employment are
                                                                           entitled to a retirement pension with immediate effect, deprives male
                                                                           civil servants in the same situation of that right.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                    (1) OJ C 211, 22.7.2000.
                         (Second Chamber)
                       of 13 December 2001
in Case C-206/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal Administratif de Châlons-en-Champagne):                                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
    Henri Mouflin v Recteur de l’académie de Reims (1)
                                                                                of 13 December 2001
(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Equal
treatment for men and women — Applicability of Article 119                 in Case C-340/00 P: Commission of the European Com-
of the EC Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have                                    munities v Michael Cwik (1)
been replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC) or Directive
79/7/EEC — French civil and military retirement pension
scheme — Entitlement to a retirement pension with immedi-                  (Appeal — Officials — Article 17, second paragraph, of the
                     ate effect for women only)                            Staff Regulations — Freedom of expression — Limits —
                                                                                Statement of reasons)
                           (2002/C 44/08)
                                                                                (2002/C 44/09)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (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-206/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Tribunal Aministratif de Châlons-en-Champagne                    In Case C-340/00 P: Commission of the European Communi-
(France) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending               ties (Agent: J. Currall, assisted by D. Waelbroeck), appeal
before that court between Henri Mouflin and Recteur de                     against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the


title: Case C-240/03 P: Appeal brought on 27 May 2003 by Communità Montana della Valnerina against the judgment of the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of 13 March 2003 in Case T-340/00 Communità Montana della Valnerina v Commission

text:
23.8.2003             EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 200/11
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwal-                        the occupation concerned (in this case, typical of mari-
tungsgericht by order of that Court of 18 March 2003 in                        time shipping)?
the case of Mehmet Sedef against Freie und Hansestadt
Hamburg; Party to proceedings: The representative of the
      national interest in the Bundesverwaltungsgericht
                         (Case C-230/03)
                                                                         Appeal brought on 27 May 2003 by Communità Montana
                                                                         della Valnerina against the judgment of the Third Chamber
                                                                         of the Court of First Instance of 13 March 2003 in Case
                                                                         T-340/00 Communità Montana della Valnerina v Commis-
                                                                                sion
                         (2003/C 200/16)
                                                                                (Case C-240/03 P)
                                                                                (2003/C 200/17)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundesverwaltungsge-
richt (Federal Administrative Court) of 18 March 2003,                   An appeal against the judgment of the Third Chamber of the
received at the Court Registry on 26 May 2003, for a                     Court of First Instance of 13 March 2003 in Case T-340/00
preliminary ruling in the case of Mehmet Sedef against Freie             Communità Montana della Valnerina (supported by Italian
und Hansestadt Hamburg; Party to proceedings: The represen-              Republic) against Commission of the European Communities
tative of the national interest in the Bundesverwaltungsgericht          was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
on the following questions:                                              Communities on 27 May 2003 by Communità Montana della
                                                                         Valnerina, represented by Paolo De Caterini, Emilio Cappelli
                                                                         and Andrea Bandini, lawyers.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
1.    Are the third indent of Article 6(1) and Article 6(2) of
      Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 of the Associa-              —     confirm, in any event, the ‘deletion’ of the position of the
      tion Council set up by the Agreement establishing an                     ‘Route des Sentiers’, as held by the Court of First Instance
      Association between the European Economic Community                      in the contested judgment;
      and Turkey (‘Decision No 1/80’) to be interpreted as
      meaning that a Turkish worker who has been legally
                                                                         —     set aside the remainder of the judgment at first instance
      employed by various employers in maritime shipping
                                                                               and give final judgment on the dispute, annulling the
      forming part of the legitimate labour force of a Member
                                                                               whole of Commission decision No 2388 of 18 August
      State for more than 15 years since 1977 without a work
                                                                               2000;
      permit being required and who has satisfied the require-
      ments of the first indent of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/
      80 during that time is entitled to a residence permit              —     make an appropriate order as to costs.
      where — in addition to various breaks for reasons of
      illness and involuntary unemployment duly certified by
      the relevant authority — his employment in maritime
      shipping has undergone interruptions of between one
      and seventy days between individual employment relation-           Pleas in law and main arguments
      ships on 17 occasions (totalling approximately 13 months)
      and, by his own admission, the Turkish worker has spent
      the longer breaks with his family in Turkey without any            The appellant claims that the judgment of the Court of First
      involuntary unemployment then being certified? Does the            Instance is vitiated as follows:
      answer depend on whether such breaks are typical of the
      occupation concerned (in this case, typical of maritime            —     failure to make a finding in respect of one of the pleas in
      shipping)?                                                               law;
                                                                         —     breach of the principle of proportionality;
2.    Is entitlement to a residence permit under the third               —     infringement of Article 24 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/
      indent of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 conditional                   88 and of Commission Decision No 3182/93;
      on the Turkish worker already satisfying the requirements
      of the second indent of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80?          —     breach of the rights of the defence.
      Does the answer depend on whether a change of
      employer before the expiry of three years is typical of


title: Case C-97/07: Order of the President of the Court of 15 January 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (High Court of Justice of Galicia), Spain) — Doña Rosa Méndez López v Instituto Nacional de Empleo (INEM); Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS)

text:
               24.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 128/27

         Order of the President of the Court of 15 January 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (High Court of Justice of Galicia), Spain) — Doña Rosa Méndez López v Instituto Nacional de Empleo (INEM); Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS)
   (Case C-97/07) (1)

   (2008/C 128/52)

      Language of the case: Spanish

   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.


title: Case C-481/08 P: Appeal brought on 10 November 2008 by Alcon Inc. against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 10 September 2008 in Case T-106/07 Alcon Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               24.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/15

         Appeal brought on 10 November 2008 by Alcon Inc. against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 10 September 2008 in Case T-106/07 Alcon Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-481/08 P)
   (2009/C 19/26)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellant: Alcon Inc. (represented by: M. Graf, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), *Acri.Tec AG Gesellschaft für ophthalmologische Produkte
   Form of order sought
   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the Judgment under appeal and annul the contested decision

               —

               Order OHIM to bear the costs

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The appellant contends that the contested judgment should be set aside on the following grounds:

               —

               Distortion of facts and evidence since the relevant consumers are normal consumers. This is a question of law which must be decided by the Court even when the argument was first raised in the oral hearing, ‘da mihi facta, dabo tibi ius’.

               —

               Error in application and interpretation of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (1) and distortion of facts and evidence since apparently only the pronunciation in the English language of the marks ‘BioVisc’ and ‘DUOVISC’ was taken into account, not the pronunciation in the French language.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ L 11, p. 1).


title: Action brought on 4 August 1995 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany (Case C-262/95)

text:
23 . 9 . 95           EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 248/9
1956 be regarded as discriminatory within the meaning of                Justice, Queen's Bench Division, of 1 8 July 1 995 , which was
Article 95 of the EC Treaty in relation to vehicles for which           received at the Court Registry on 4 August 1995 , for a
type-approval was given after the Treaty entered into force             preliminary ruling in the case of the Commissioners of
and before 1 January 1978 ?                                             Customs and Excise against DFDS A/S, on the following
                                                                        questions :
                                                                        on the proper interpretation of Council Directive
                                                                        77/388/EC (') on the harmonization of the laws of the
     Action brought on 2 August 1995 by the European                    Member States relating to turnover tax ( the Sixth VAT
   Parliament against the Council of the European Union                 Directive ), and in particular Article 26 thereof, where a tour
                                                                        operator has its headquarters in Member State A but
                        ( Case C-259/95
                                                                        supplies services in the form of package tours to travellers
                           ( 95/C 248/ 18                               through the agency of a company in Member State B:
An action against the Council of the European Union was                 ( a ) in what ( if any ) circumstances is the supply of those
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                           . services by the tour operator taxable in Member
Communities on 2 August 1995 by the European                                    State B ?
Parliament, represented by Christian Pennera , Head of
Division in its Legal Service, and Peter Dyrberg, of the Legal          ( b ) in what ( if any ) circumstances can it be said that the
Service , acting as agents, with an address for service in                      tour operator 'has established [its] business' in Member
Luxembourg at the Secretariat of the European Parliament,                       State B or ' has a fixed establishment from which [it] has
Tower Building, Kirchberg.                                                      provided the services' in Member State B ?
The European Parliament claims that the Court should :                  (') Council Directive 77/388/EEC ( Sixth Council Directive ) of
                                                                              17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member
— annul Council Decision No 95/ 184/EC of 22 May                              States relating to turnover taxes — common system of value
     1995 (') amending Decision No 3092/94/EC                                 added tax : uniform basis of assessment ( OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 .
     introducing a Community system of information on                         1977, p. 1 ).
     home and leisure accidents,
— order the defendant to pay the costs .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
Lack of legal basis :                                                   Action brought on 4 August 1995 by the Commission of the
                                                                        European Communities against the Federal Republic of
— the reference to Article 169 of the 1994 Act of Accession                                              Germany
     is inappropriate in this case because that provision does                                      ( Case C-262/95 )
     not permit legislative amendments to be made after the                                           ( 95/C 248/20 )
     entry into force of the Accession Treaty on 1 January
     1995 .
                                                                        An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
— Article 169 of the Act of Accession cannot permit the                 brought before the Court of Justice of the European
     Council unilaterally to amend and modify an act jointly             Communities on 4 August 1995 by the Commission of the
     adopted by the Parliament and the Council in                       European Communities, represented by Gotz zur Hausen,
     accordance with Article 189b of the EC Treaty . To apply           Legal Adviser, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
     it in the manner in which the Council did in adopting the          the office of Mr Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre C 254 ,
     contested Decision effectively undermines the                      Kirchberg.
     paramountcy of the EC Treaty and disregards the rule
     laid down in Article 9 of the Act of Accession .                   The applicant claims that the Court should :
 (') OJ No L 120, 31 . 5 . 1995 , p . 36 .                               ( 1 ) declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
                                                                                time-limits all the measures necessary in order to
                                                                                comply with the following Directives, in particular
                                                                                Article 3 of each of them, the Ferderal Republic of
                                                                                Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC
 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of                         Treaty:
Justice, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of
 18 July 1995 , in the case of the Commissioners of Customs                      — Council Directive 82/176/EEC (*) of 22 March
                 and Excise against DFDS A/S                                         1982 on limit values and quality objectives for
                                                                                mercury discharges by the chlor-alkali electrolysis
                         ( Case C-260/95 )
                                                                                industry,
                            ( 95/C 248/ 19 )
                                                                                — Council Directive 83/513/EEC ( 2 ) of 26 September
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                              1983 on limit values and quality objectives for
 European Communities by an order of the High Court of                               cadmium discharges,
 ---pagebreak--- No C 248/ 10               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    23 . 9 . 95
       — Council Directive 84/156/EEC ( 3 ) of 8 March 1984                     was not properly obtained . Since the German language
           on limit values and quality objectives for mercury                   version of the drafts was not made available within the
           discharges by sectors other than the chlor-alkali                    period prescribed in the rules of procedure of the said
           electrolysis industry,                                               committee, it was not possible to make a decision
                                                                                thereon,
       — Council Directive 84/49 1 /EEC ( 4 ) of 9 October
           1984 on limit values and quality objectives for                  — infringement of essential procedural requirements : the
           discharges of hexachlorocyclohexane,                                 majority required by the third sentence of Article 20 ( 3 )
                                                                                of Directive 89/106/EEC for the Standing Committee to
       — Council Directive 86/280/EEC ( 5 ) of 12 June 1986                     take a Decision was not obtained at the meeting on
           on limit values and quality objectives for discharges                30 November 1994 . The rules of procedure of the
           of certain dangerous substances included in List I of                Standing Committee lay down detailed provisions for
           the Annex to Directive 76/464/EEC;                                   the exercise of voting rights; there exists no written
                                                                                procedure for the adoption of resolutions, nor any
( 2 ) order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the                          provision for the exercise of voting rights after meetings
       costs .
                                                                                have ended,
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                         — infringement of Article 13 ( 4 ) of Directive 89/106/EEC :
                                                                                the initial testing of a product must in principle extend
limit values for emissions must be laid down on the basis of                    to all characteristics reasonably connected with the
environmental protection directives by means of provisions                      product which are important for the fulfilment of the
the mandatory nature of which must be undisputable, which                       essential requirements in accordance with the provisions
enable individuals to assert their rights and which provide                     of Annex I of Directive 89/106/EEC . However, the
those responsible for compliance with emission norms with                       Commission, in adopting the contested Decision, did not
precise information regarding their obligations . So-called                     deal fully with the relevant product characteristics; for
administrative provisions, the mandatory nature of which                        example, its consideration of health and environmental
does not extend beyond the local district of the                                protection aspects was merely selective and incomplete .
administrative authorities concerned, do not fulfil those                       Consequently, the contested Decision does not satisfy
requirements .                                                                  the concerns referred to in Article 100a ( 3 ) of the EC
                                                                                Treaty,
(')   OJ No    L 81 , 27 . 3 . 1982 , p . 29 .
(2)   OJ No    L 291 , 24 . 10 . 1983 ,   p. 1 .                            — infringement of the obligation to give a statement of
(3)   OJ No    L 74, 17. 3 . 1984 , p .   49 .                                  reasons (Article 190 of the EC Treaty ): the Federal
(4)   OJ No    L 274 , 17 . 10 . 1984,    p . 11                                Government was involved in the preparation of the
( 5)  OJ No    L 181 , 4 . 7. 1986 , p.   16 .                                  Decision, yet even it is unable to see the considerations
                                                                                on the basis of which the Commission declined to have
                                                                                regard to essential requirements ( for example, in the case
                                                                                of thermal insulating products : energy economy and
                                                                                heat retention, as well as hygiene, health and
Action brought on 7 August 1995 by the Federal Republic                         environmental protection; in the case of precast concrete
of Germany against the Commission of the European                               products : safety in use; in the case of windows, doors
                                 Communities                                    etc .: protection against noise ), and these must a fortiori
                                                                                be unclear to the Court of Justice, which has been called
                              ( Case C-263/95 )                                 upon to exercise its powers of judicial review .
                                ( 95/C 248/21 )
                                                                            (') OJ No L 129 , 14 . 6 . 1995 , p . 23 .
An action against the Commission of the European
 Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
 European Communities on 7 August 1995 by the Federal
 Republic of Germany, represented by Ernst Roder,
 Ministerialrat, and Bernd Kloke, Oberregierungsrat,                        Appeal brought on 4 August 1995 by the Commission of the
 Federal Ministry of Economics, D-53107 Bonn.                               European Communities against the judgment delivered on
                                                                            6 June 1995 by the Third Chamber ( extended composition )
 The applicant claims that the Court should :                               of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                            in Case T-14/93 between the Union Internationale des
 ( 1 ) annul Commission Decision 95/204/EC (') of 31 May                    Chemins de Fer and the Commission of the European
        1995 implementing Article 20 ( 2 ) of Council Directive                                        Communities
        89/ 106/EEC on construction products .
                                                                                ( Case C-264/95 P)
 ( 2 ) order the defendant to pay the costs .                                                          95/C 248/22 )
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                        An appeal against the judgment delivered on 6 June 1995 by
                                                                            the Third Chamber ( extended composition ) of the Court of
 — infringement of essential procedural requirements : the                  First Instance of the European Communities in Case
       opinion of the Standing Committee on Construction                    T-14/93 between the Union Internationale des Chemins de


title: Case C-35/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht by order of that Court of 8 November 2001 in the case of Landeszahnärztekammer Hessen against Dr Markus Vogel

text:
C 109/24                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        4.5.2002
where on the basis of the documents sent to him a sensible              3.    Are carers within the meaning of Paragraph 19 of
consumer could have thought that all he had to do to claim                    Volume XI of the SGB workers within the meaning of
the amount held for him was to return an enclosed payment                     Article 39 EC? If so, does that preclude denying them the
notice, so that the payment of the prize did not depend on an                 right to have ‘pension insurance contributions’ paid on
order for and delivery of goods from the undertaking promis-                  their behalf on the basis that they do not have their
ing the prize, but where a catalogue and a voucher for a trial                residence or habitual place of stay in the relevant country?
offer without obligation are sent to the consumer with the
prize notification?
If the first question is answered in the affirmative, there is no       (1) OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416.
need to answer the other two questions.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Socialgericht
Aachen by order of 18 January 2002 in the case of Maria
Barth against Landesversicherungsanstalt Rheinprovinz,
additional parties (1) PAX Familienfürsorge Krankenver-                 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwal-
sicherung and (2) Landesamt für Besoldung und Versor-                   tungsgericht by order of that Court of 8 November 2001
                   gung Nordrhein-Westfalen                             in the case of Landeszahnärztekammer Hessen against
                                                                                Dr Markus Vogel
                           (Case C-31/02)
                                                                                (Case C-35/02)
                          (2002/C 109/38)
                                                                                (2002/C 109/39)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Socialgericht Aachen
(Social Court, Aachen) of 18 January 2002, received at the
Court Registry on 4 February 2002, for a preliminary ruling in
the case of Maria Barth against Landesversicherungsanstalt              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Rheinprovinz, additonal parties (1) PAX Familienfürsorge                European Communities by order of the Bundesverwaltungsger-
Krankenversicherung and (2) Landesamt für Besoldung und                 icht (Federal Administrative Court) of 8 November 2001,
Versorgung Nordrhein-Westfalen on the following questions:              received at the Court Registry on 12 February 2002, for a
                                                                        preliminary ruling in the case of Landeszahnärztekammer
1.    Are the provisions of Regulation EEC No 1408/71 (1) of            Hessen against Dr Markus Vogel on the following question:
      the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social
      security schemes to employed persons and their families
      moving within the Community also applicable to the                Is it compatible with Article 1 of Council Directive
      German care insurance regime if cover for the risk                78/687/EEC (1) of 25 July 1978 concerning the coordination
      of becoming reliant on care under Paragraph 23, in                of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative
      conjunction with Paragraph 110, of Volume XI of the               action in respect of the activities of dental practitioners (OJ
      Sozialgesetzbuch (German Code of Social Law, herein-              1978 L 233, p. 10) for national legislation to permit doctors
      after ‘the SGB’), which relates to Social Care Insurance, is      in general to practise dentistry on a permanent basis without
      based in whole or in part on a private care insurance             having the dental training required by the directive and
      policy?                                                           certified by an appropriate diploma?
2.    Do the contributions payable to the statutory pension
                                                                        Does the answer to this question turn on whether the activity
      insurance scheme by care insurance institutions on behalf
                                                                        is pursued under the title ‘dental practitioner’?
      of carers not acting in the course of employment pursuant
      to Paragraph 44 of Volume XI of the SGB, in conjunction
      with Paragraphs 3(1)(1)(a) and 166(2) of Volume VI of
      the SGB, which relates to Statutory Pension Insurance,
      constitute ‘sickness benefits’ within the meaning of              (1) OJ L 233 of 24.8.1978, p. 10.
      Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation No EEC No 1408/71? If so,
      may such benefits be payable on behalf of carers who
      provide care in the country of the competent institution
      but live in a different Member State?


title: Case C-13/03 P: Appeal brought on 13 January 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment delivered on 25 October 2002 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-80/02 between Tetra Laval BV and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
22.3.2003               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 70/5
where Sidel, with 60 % market share for all SBM machines by               As the concentration had already been implemented, the
capacity, has a leading position. By buying Sidel, Tetra                  Commission issued a statement of objections, to which Tetra
eliminated the strongest independent competitive constraint               replied, and held a hearing, with a view to taking a decision
coming from the biggest supplier on the PET side and would                setting out measures in order to restore conditions of effective
thus strengthen its carton dominance.                                     competition pursuant to Article 8(4) of the Regulation. On
                                                                          30 January 2002, the Commission adopted such a decision
                                                                          (‘the divestiture decision’).
( 1) OJ C 68, 16.03.2002, p. 19.
( 2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on
     the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ L 395,
     30.12.1989, p. 1).
( 3) Commission Decision C (2001) 3345 final of 30 October 2001
     declaring a concentration to be incompatible with the common         Article 1 of the divestiture decision orders Tetra ‘to separate
     market, Case No COMP/M.2416 Tetra Laval/Sidel.                       itself from Sidel... in accordance with the provisions of the
                                                                          Annex to this Decision’. Point 1(5) of the Annex requires Tetra
                                                                          to divest itself of its entire shareholding in Sidel. Point 4(1) of
                                                                          the Annex specifies a deadline for completion of the divestiture.
Appeal brought on 13 January 2003 by the Commission                       By separate applications, Tetra sought the annulment of both
of the European Communities against the judgment deliv-                   the prohibition decision (case T-5/02) and the divestiture
ered on 25 October 2002 by the First Chamber of the                       decision (case T-80/02). The Court of First Instance gave
Court of First Instance of the European Communities in                    judgment in both cases on 25 October 2002.
case T-80/02 between Tetra Laval BV and the Commission
                  of the European Communities
                         (Case C-13/03 P)
                                                                          In its judgment in case T-5/02, the Court of First Instance
                                                                          annulled the prohibition decision.
                          (2003/C 70/08)
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 25 October 2002
                                                                          In its judgment in case T-80/02 (‘the contested judgment’), the
by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                Court of First Instance observed that the concentration had
European Communities in case T-80/02 ( 1) between Tetra
                                                                          indeed been implemented and that the separation of the
Laval BV and the Commission of the European Communities,                  undertakings involved in the concentration was the logical
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                   consequence of the prohibition decision. It added that the
Communities on 13 January 2003 by the Commission of the
                                                                          adoption of a divestiture decision presupposes that the preced-
European Communities, represented by Michel Petite, Anthony               ing prohibition decision is valid. Accordingly, the annulment
Whelan and Per Hellström, acting as agents, with an address               of the prohibition decision deprives the divestiture decision of
for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                          any legal basis. The Court of First Instance concluded that,
                                                                          since it had annulled the prohibition decision by its judgment
                                                                          in case T-5/02, the action for the annulment of the divestiture
The Appellant claims that the Court should:                               decision had to be upheld, without examining the other pleas
                                                                          raised by Tetra.
—      annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
       25 October 2002 in case T-80/02;
—      order Tetra Laval BV to pay the Commission’s costs.
                                                                          The Commission has appealed on a number of points of law
                                                                          against the judgment of the Court of First Instance in case T-
                                                                          5/02. Should that appeal lead to the annulment of the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           judgment of the Court of First Instance in that case, the
                                                                          judgment of the Court of First Instance in case T-80/02 will be
                                                                          based on a premise vitiated by an error of law, that is, the
The Commission adopted a decision pursuant to Article 8(3)                invalidity of the prohibition decision. Just as the annulment of
of the Merger Regulation (2) on 30 October 2001 prohibiting               the prohibition decision was the sole ground for the annulment
the notified concentration between Tetra Laval SA, a wholly               of the divestiture decision, the invalidity of the judgment
owned subsidiary of Tetra Laval BV (‘Tetra’) and Sidel SA (‘the           annulling the former would entail the annulment of the
prohibition decision’) ( 3).                                              judgment pronouncing the invalidity of the latter.
 ---pagebreak--- C 70/6                   EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                             22.3.2003
The Commission submits, therefore, in reliance on the detailed             II.     a) Is Article 7(5) of the Electricity Directive ( 1) to be
legal submissions in its appeal in case T-5/02, that the                               interpreted as meaning that the prohibition of dis-
contested judgment should be annulled in the event that the                            crimination contained therein is restricted to the
appeal against the Court of First Instance’s judgment in case T-                       requirement that the system operator must not draw
5/02 is successful.                                                                    any distinction in granting access to the system by
                                                                                means of technical rules?
( 1) OJ C 156, 29.06.2002, p. 27.                                                     If so, is an allocation method relating to the cross-
( 2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on                       border transport capacity of electricity to be regarded
     the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ L 395,
                                                                                as a technical rule within the meaning of the abov-
     30.12.1989, p. 1).
( 3) Commission Decision C (2001) 3345 final of 30 October 2001                       ementioned provision?
     declaring a concentration to be incompatible with the common
     market, Case No COMP/M.2416 Tetra Laval/Sidel.                               b) In the event that the allocation method must be
                                                                                regarded as a technical rule or in the event that
                                                                                Article 7(5) of the Electricity Directive is not limited
                                                                                to technical rules, is a rule under which preferential
                                                                                cross-border transport capacity is made available for
                                                                                contracts concluded in connection with a particular
                                                                                public task compatible with the prohibition of dis-
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van
                                                                                crimination contained in that article?
Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven by judgemnt of that Court
of 13 November 2002 in the proceedings between 1. Ver-
eniging voor Energie, Milieu en Water, 2. Amsterdam
                                                                           (1 ) Directive 96/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
Power Exchange Spotmarket B.V., and 3. N.V. Eneco and                           of 19 December 1996 concerning common rules for the internal
Directeur van de Dienst uitvoering en toezicht energie;                         market in electricity (OJ L 27 of 30.01.1997, p. 20).
Joined party: B.V. Netherlands Elektriciteit Administratie-
                               kantoor
                           (Case C-17/03)
                           (2003/C 70/09)
                                                                           Appeal brought on 17 January 2003 by Vela Srl and
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     Tecnagrind SL against the judgment delivered on 7 Nov-
European Communities by judgment of the College van Beroep                 ember 2002 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First
voor het bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court for Trade and                 Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases
Industry) of 13 November 2002, received at the Court                       T-141/99, T-142/99, T-150/99 and T-151/99 between Vela
Registry on 16 January 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the               Srl and Tecnagrind SL and the Commission of the
proceedings between 1. Vereniging voor Energie, Milieu en                                        European Communities
Water, 2. Amsterdam Power Exchange Spotmarket B.V., and
3. N.V. Eneco and Directeur van de Dienst uitvoering en
toezicht energie; Joined party: B.V. Netherlands Elektriciteit                                         (Case C-18/03 P)
Administratiekantoor on the following questions:
                                                                                (2003/C 70/10)
I.     a) Can Article 86(2) EC be invoked to justify continuing
           to grant a company which was formerly entrusted
           with the operation of services of general economic
           interest and which entered into certain commitments             An appeal against the judgment delivered on 7 November
           in connection with such operation a special right to            2002 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
           enable it to honour those commitments after the                 the European Communities in Joined Cases T-141/99, T-142/
           particular task assigned to it has been completed?              99, T-150/99 and T-151/99 between Vela Srl and Tecnagrind
                                                                           SL and the Commission of the European Communities was
       b) If this question is answered in the affirmative, is a rule       brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
           which provides for the preferential allocation for a            ties on 17 January 2003 by the appellants, represented by
           period of ten years of half to a quarter (declining             Maurizio Carretta, lawyer.
           over time) of the cross-border transport capacity for
           electricity to the undertaking concerned nevertheless
           invalid because it                                              The appellants claim that the Court should:
           1.    is not proportionate in relation to the — public
                 — interest served thereby;                                1.     As regards the substance,
           2.    affects trade to such an extent as would be                      —     annul Commission Decision C (1999) 540 of
                 contrary to the interests of the Community?                            9 March 1999


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 March 2003 in Case T-293/01: Donatella Ineichein v Commission of the European Communities (Temporary staff — Daily subsistence allowance — Place of recruitment — Evidence)

text:
24.5.2003               EN                            Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 124/19
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 5 March 2003
                         of 19 March 2003
                                                                              in Case T-273/01: Innova Privat-Akademie GmbH v Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities (1)
in Joined Cases T-188/01, T-189/01 and T-190/01: Vassilios                    (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — ‘BSS’
Tsarnavas v Commission of the European Communities (1)                        — Article 51 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Absolute
                                                                              ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(d) of Regulation No 40/
                                                                              94 — Distinctive character acquired through use — Articles
                                                                                7(3) and 51(2) of Regulation No 40/94)
(Officials — Admissibility — Promotion — Consideration
   of comparative merits of officials from different services)                                          (2003/C 124/33)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                           (2003/C 124/32)
                                                                              In Case T-273/01: Alcon Inc, formerly Alcon Universal Ltd,
                                                                              established in Hünenberg (Switzerland), represented by H.
                    (Language of the case: French)                            Porter, Solicitor and C. Morcom QC, with an address for
                                                                              service in Luxembourg, v Commission of the European
                                                                              Communities (Agents: M. de Pauw and B. Martenczuk: Action
                                                                              brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of
                                                                              the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
                                                                              Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 13 July 2001 (Case R 273/
                                                                              2000-1), the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), compo-
In Joined Cases T-188/01, T-189/01 and T-190/01: Vassilios
                                                                              sed of: R.M. Moura Ramos, President, J. Pirrung and
Tsarnavas, an official of the Commission of the European
Communities, residing in Brussels, represented by N. Lhoëst,                  A.W.H. Meij, Judges, Registrar: J. Plingers, Administrator, has
                                                                              given a judgment on 19 March 2003, in which it:
lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: D. Martin)
— application for the annulment of the decisions of the                       1.     Dismisses the application;
Commission not to promote the applicant in the 1998,
1999 and 2000 promotions procedures — the Court of First                      2.     Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
Instance (First Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President,
R.M. Moura Ramos and H. Legal, Judges; Blanca Pastor, Deputy                  (1 ) OJ C 3 of 5.1.2002.
Registrar, gave a judgment on 19 March 2003, in which it:
1.     Annuls the decisions of the Commission not to promote
       the applicant in the 1998, 1999 and 2000 promotions
       procedures;                                                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 5 March 2003
2.     Dismisses as inadmissible the application in Case T-190/01;
                                                                              in Case T-293/01: Donatella Ineichein v Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
3.     Orders the Commission to pay the costs in Cases T-188/01
       and T-189/01;
                                                                              (Temporary staff — Daily subsistence allowance — Place of
                                                                                recruitment — Evidence)
4.     Orders the parties to bear their own costs in Case T-190/01.
                                                                                (2003/C 124/34)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
( 1) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001 and C 303 of 27.10.2001.
                                                                              In Case T-293/01: Donatella Ineichein, member of the tempor-
                                                                              ary staff of the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                              residing in Brussels, represented by M.-A. Lucas, lawyer, against
 ---pagebreak--- C 124/20                 EN                            Official Journal of the European Union                                           24.5.2003
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: J. Currall)                     2.     Dismisses the remainder of the application as inadmissible.
— application for, first, annulment of the decision of the
Commission of 29 July 2001 fixing the applicant’s place of                     3.     Orders the Commission to bear, in addition to its own costs,
recruitment at Brussels and refusing to grant her the daily                           half of the costs incurred by the applicant.
subsistence allowance and, secondly, for an order requiring
the Commission to pay the applicant the amounts correspond-                    4.     Orders the applicant to bear half of his costs.
ing to her entitlement stemming from her place of recruitment
being fixed at Rome — the Court of First Instance (Single-                     (1 ) OJ C 180, 27.7.2002.
judge Chamber); Blanca Pastor, Deputy Registrar, gave a
judgment on 5 March 2003, in which it:
1.     dismisses the application;
2.     orders the parties to bear their own costs.                                    ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 20 March 2003
( 1) OJ C 44 of 16.2.2002.
                                                                               in Case T-76/94: Rendert Jansma v Council of the Euro-
                                                                               pean Union and Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties ( 1)
                                                                               (Action for damages — Non-contractual liability — Milk —
                                                                               Additional levy — Reference quantity — Producer having
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   entered into a non-marketing undertaking — Sale of the
                                                                               SLOM holding — Limitation period — No need to adjudi-
                                                                                cate)
                           of 13 March 2003
                                                                                (2003/C 124/36)
in Case T-166/02: José Pedro Pessoa e Costa v Commission
                 of the European Communities ( 1)                                                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
(Officials — Decision to institute disciplinary proceedings
— Decision rejecting a request for transfer to the European                    In Case T-76/94: Rendert Jansma, residing in Engelbert (Nether-
       Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction)                         lands), represented by E.H. Pijnacker Hordijk and H.J. Bronk-
                                                                               horst, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
                                                                               against Council of the European Union (Agent: A.-M. Colaert)
                            (2003/C 124/35)
                                                                               and Commission of the European Communities (Agents: T. van
                                                                               Rijn and H.-J. Rabe) — application for compensation under
                      (Language of the case: French)                           Article 178 and the second paragraph of Article 215 of the EC
                                                                               Treaty (now Article 235 EC and the second paragraph of
                                                                               Article 288 EC) for damage suffered by the applicant as a
                                                                               result of his having been prevented from marketing milk by
In Case T-166/02: José Pedro Pessoa e Costa, official of the                   virtue of Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 March
Commission of the European Communities, residing in Lisbon,                    1984 adopting general rules for the application of the levy
represented by J.N. Louis, E. Marchal and A. Coolen, lawyers,                  referred to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the
with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Com-                        milk and milk products sector (OJ 1984 L 90, p. 13), as
mission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall, F.                    supplemented by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1371/84
Clotuche-Duvieusart and D. Waelbroeck) — application for                       of 16 May 1984 laying down detailed rules for the application
annulment, first, of the decision of the Commission of 3 July                  of the additional levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation
2001 to institute disciplinary proceedings against the applicant               (EEC) No 804/68 (OJ 1984 L 132, p. 11) — the Court of First
and, second, of its decision of 23 July 2001 rejecting the                     Instance (First Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President,
request of the Director of the European Monitoring Centre for                  R.M. Moura Ramos and H. Legal, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
Drugs and Drug Addiction that the applicant be transferred to                  made an order on 20 March 2003, the operative part of which
that body — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber),                       is as follows:
composed of K. Lenaerts, President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger,
Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has                  1.     There is no longer any need to adjudicate.
given a judgment on 13 March 2003 in which it:
                                                                               2.     The defendant is to bear its own costs.
1.     Annuls the decision of the Commission of 23 July 2001
       rejecting the request of the Director of the European Monitoring        (1 ) OJ 1994 C 90.
       Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction that the applicant be
       transferred to that body.


title: Case C-497/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Versailles (France) lodged on 10 July 2017 — Oeuvre d’assistance aux bêtes d’abattoirs (OABA) v Ministre de l’agriculture et de l’alimentation, Premier minister, Bionoor, Ecocert France, Institut national de l’origine et de la qualité (INAO)

text:
               16.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/20

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Versailles (France) lodged on 10 July 2017 — Oeuvre d’assistance aux bêtes d’abattoirs (OABA) v Ministre de l’agriculture et de l’alimentation, Premier minister, Bionoor, Ecocert France, Institut national de l’origine et de la qualité (INAO)
   (Case C-497/17)
   (2017/C 347/26)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour administrative d’appel de Versailles

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Oeuvre d’assistance aux bêtes d’abattoirs (OABA)

      Respondents: Ministre de l’agriculture et de l’alimentation, Premier ministre, Bionoor, Ecocert France, Institut national de l’origine et de la qualité (INAO)

      Question referred

   Must the applicable rules of European Union law, deriving from, inter alia:

               —

               Article 13 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

               —

               Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007, (1) the detailed rules for the implementation of which are laid down by Commission Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 of 5 September 2008, (2) and

               —

               Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 of 24 September 2009 (3)

         be interpreted as permitting or prohibiting approval of the use of the European label ‘organic farming’ in relation to products derived from animals which have been slaughtered in accordance with religious rites without first being stunned, where such slaughter is conducted in accordance with the requirements laid down by Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 (OJ 2007 L 189, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 of 5 September 2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products with regard to organic production, labelling and control (OJ 2008 L 250, p. 1).

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 of 24 September 2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing (OJ 2009 L 303, p. 1).


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 28 June 1996 in Case T-500/93: Y v. Court of Justice of the European Communities (Officials - Actions for annulment of measures - Disciplinary proceedings - Right to a fair hearing - Evidence of witnesses - 'Legitimate defense' - 'Exceptio veritatis' - Mitigating circumstances - Statement of reasons - Action for damages -Non-material damage)

text:
 No C 233/8              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  10 . 8 . 96
 Court     of First   Instance    in  Case   T-58/92   Moat    v.       1 , annuls the decisions of the Council of 9 and 15 June
 Commission [ 1993 ] ECR 11-1443 , the delay in completing                   1994 rejecting the applicants ' requests foi
 his 1991 to 1993 staff report, and the failure to give a                    compensation of 9 February 1994 , together with the
 reasoned reply to a memorandum of 30 March 1994                            decision of 4 January 1995 rejecting the applicants '
 described as a request and/or complaint — the Court of First               complaint of 6 September 1 994 ;
 Instance ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of: R. Schintgen ,
 President, R. Garcia-Valdecasas and J. Azizi , Judges; J.             2 , orders the Council to pay each of the applicants the sum
 Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a                 of Bfrs 500 000 by way of compensation for the
 judgment on 21 June 1996 , in which it :                                   combined material and non-material damage;
  1 . dismisses the action -,
                                                                       3 , dismisses the remainder of the application;
 2 , orders each party to bear its own costs.                          4 , orders the Council to pay the costs.
 (') OJ No C 87 , 8 . 4 . 1995 .                                       C ) Ol No C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995 .
                                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                      of 28 June 1996
                          of 26 June 1996                             in Case T-500/93 : Y v . Court of Justice of the European
 in Case T-91 /95 : Lieve de Nil and Christiane Impens v.                                      Communities ( 1 )
              Council of the European Union (')                        (Officials — Actions for annulment of measures —
 (Officials — Internal 'upgrading' competition — Measures              Disciplinary proceedings — Right to a fair hearing —
 taken to comply with a judgment declaring an act void —              Evidence of witnesses — 'Legitimate defense ' — 'Exceptio
Article 1 76 of the EC Treaty — New tests — Regrading —               veritatis ' — Mitigating circumstances — Statement of
Non-retroactive — Material and non-material damage —                    reasons — Action for damages —Non-material damage)
                           Compensation)                                                         ( 96/C 233 / 16 )
                           ( 96/C 233/ 15 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                      In Case T-500/93 : Y v . Court of Justice of the European
                                                                      Communities ( Agents : Timothy Millett and, initially, Carlos
In Case T-91 /95 : Lieve de Nil , an official of the Council of       Pinto Correia , and Isabel Jalles ) — application for
the European Union , residing at Wolvertem ( Belgium ), and           annulment of the decision of the Court of Justice of
Christiane Impens, an official of the Council of the                  28 September 1992 imposing on the applicant the
European Union, residing at Brussels , represented by                 disciplinary measure of deferment of advancement to a
Jean-Noël Louis , Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel , of            higher step for two years , and for compensation for the
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg           non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant —
at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sàrl , 1 Rue Glesener, v .         the Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber ), composed
Council of the European Union ( Agents : Yves Chrétien and            of: H. Kirschner, President, and C. W. Bellamy and
Diego Canga Fano ) — application by each of the applicants,           A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges ; J. Palacio Gonzalez ,
first, for annulment of the decision of the Council of 15 June        Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
1994 , and, in so far as may be necessary, of the decision of         28 June 1996 , in which it :
the Council of 9 June 1994 , respectively rejecting expressly
and by implication the request for compensation for the                1 , annuls the decision of the Court of Justice of
damage suffered as a result of the inadequate measures                      28 September 1992 imposing on the applicant the
taken by the Council to comply with the judgment of the                     disciplinary measure of deferment of advancement to a
Court of First Instance of 1 1 February 1 993 in Case T-22/91               higher step for two years ;
Railoa-Denti and Others v . Council 1 1 9 9 3 ] ECR 11-69 , and
of the decision of the Council of 4 January 1 995 expressly
rejecting the subsequent complaint, and, second , for an              2 , dismisses the remainder of the application;
order requiring the Council to pay each of them Bfrs
500 000 in respect of material damage and the token sum of            3 , orders the Court of Justice to pay the costs.
ECU 1 in respect of non-material damage — the Court of
First Instance ( Second Chamber ), composed of: H.
                                                                      C ) O J No C 272 , 8 . 10 . 1993 .
Kirschner, President, and C. W. Bellamy and A.
Kalogeropoulos, Judges ; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 26 June 1996 , in which it :


title: Case T-354/99: Action brought on 10 December 1999 by Kuwait Petroleum (Nederland) B.V. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 102/28              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       8.4.2000
— infringement of Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December                   Action brought on 22 December 1999 by Telefon & Buch
    1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States                   VerlagsgmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the
    relating to trade marks and of Directive 84/450/EEC of                       Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
    10 September 1984 relating to misleading advertising;
                                                                                (Case T-357/99)
— violation of the principles of legal certainty, protection of
    legitimate expectations, proportionality, non-discrimina-
    tion and subsidiarity.                                                                      (2000/C 102/57)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                                                                        An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                        Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
                                                                        Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                        22 December 1999 by Telefon & Buch VerlagsgmbH, of
Action brought on 10 December 1999 by Kuwait Pet-                       Perchtoldsdorf (Republic of Austria), represented by Hans
roleum (Nederland) B.V. against the Commission of the                   Georg Zeiner and Brigitte Heaman-Dunn, Rechtsanwälte, of
                    European Communities                                Messrs Zeiner & Zeiner, Vienna, with an address for service in
                                                                        Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Feider, of Messrs Beghin,
                                                                        Feider, Allen & Overy, 56-58 Rue Charles Martel.
                        (Case T-354/99)
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                        (2000/C 102/56)
                                                                        — amend the decision adopted on 21 October 1999 by the
                                                                            Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in
                   (Language of the Case: Dutch)                            the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) in appeal
                                                                            No R 352/1999-3, in such a way that there are no
                                                                            obstacles under Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of the Community
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                   Trade Mark Regulation to registration of the Community
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                  trade mark UNIVERSALTELEFONBUCH (application
European Communities on 10 December 1999 by Kuwait                          No 455881);
Petroleum (Nederland) B.V., of Rotterdam (Netherlands), rep-
resented by P.S.R.F. Mathijsen, of the Brussels Bar.
                                                                        — alternatively, annul the decision adopted on 21 October
                                                                            1999 by the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                                                                            Designs) in appeal No R 352/1999-3
(a) annul the Commission’s decision (C(1999) 2539 final) (1)
    of 20 July 1999 concerning State aid granted by the                 — order the defendant to pay the costs.
    Netherlands to 633 service stations in the region bordering
    Germany;
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
(b) order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                        The trade mark con-           verbal mark        ‘UNIVERSALTE-
                                                                        cerned:                       LEFONBUCH’         — application
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                       No 455881
                                                                        Goods or service con-         Goods and services in Classes 9
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case             cerned:                       (including     recorded     storage
T-242/99.                                                                                media), 16 (including printing
                                                                                products), 41 (including pub-
                                                                                lishing services) and 42 (including
(1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.                                                                    editing services)
                                                                        Decision        contested     Refusal of registration by the
                                                                        before the Board of           examiner
                                                                        Appeal:


title: Case F-142/15: Action brought on 17 November 2015 — ZZ v Parliament

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/78

         Action brought on 17 November 2015 — ZZ v Parliament
   (Case F-142/15)
   (2016/C 027/101)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: A. Tymen, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the Parliament’s decision not to act upon the request for assistance submitted by the applicant and an application for damages in respect of the non-material harm allegedly incurred.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the implied decision which became effective on 11 April 2015 rejecting the applicant’s request for assistance of 11 December 2014;

               —

               annul the decision dated 20 August 2015, received on 24 August 2015, rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 24 April 2015;

               —

               order the defendant to pay damages, assessed on equitable principles at EUR 50 000, to compensate the applicant for the non-material harm incurred;

               —

               order the European Parliament to pay all the costs.


title: Action brought on 9 December 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Case C-417/97)

text:
C 41/14                EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                         7.2.98
Action brought on 9 December 1997 by the Commission                 force the necessary provisions in order to comply with the
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic            Directives referred to in the Commission's application.
                        (Case C-416/97)
                                                                    (1 ) OJ L 340, 31.12.1993, p. 21.
                          (98/C 41/27)                              (2 ) OJ L 201, 4.8.1994, p. 26.
                                                                    (3 ) OJ L 104, 23.4.1994, p. 32.
                                                                    (4 ) OJ L 340, 31.12.1993, p. 15.
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
9 December 1997 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Francesco P. Ruggeri
Laderchi, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                                                                    Action brought on 9 December 1997 by the Commission
Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
                                                                    of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
Kirchberg.
                                                                                Luxembourg
                                                                                (Case C-417/97)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                   (98/C 41/28)
1. declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
                                                                    An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
    within the prescribed period the laws, regulations or
                                                                    brought before the Court of Justice of the European
    administrative provisions necessary to comply with:
                                                                    Communities on 9 December 1997 by the Commission of
                                                                    the European Communities, represented by Christina
    (a) Council Directive 93/119/EC of 22 December                  Tufvesson, Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address
         1993 on the protection of animals at the time of           for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez
         slaughter or killing (1),                                  de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
    (b) Council Directive 94/42/EC of 27 July 1994                  The Commission of the European Communities claims
         amending Directive 64/432/EEC on health                    that the Court should:
         problems affecting intra-Community trade in
         bovine animals and swine (2),
                                                                    1. declare that, by failing within the prescribed period to
                                                                         adopt all of the laws, regulations and administrative
    (c) Commission Directive 94/16/EC of 22 April 1994                   measures (including measures providing for the
         amending Council Directive 74/63/EEC on                         imposition of penalties) necessary in order to comply
         undesirable substances and products in animal                   with Council Directive 93/22/EEC of 10 May 1993 on
         nutrition (3),                                                  investment services in the securities field (1), the Grand
                                                                         Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
    (d) Council Directive 93/118/EC of 22 December                       obligations under Article 31 of that Directive;
         1993 amending Directive 85/73/EEC on the
         financing of health inspections and controls of
                                                                    2. order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the
         fresh meat and poultrymeat (4),
                                                                         costs.
    or in any event by failing to notify such provisions, the       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
    under those Directives;
                                                                    The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third
                                                                    paragraph of Article 189 and of the first paragraph of
2. order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                     Article 5 of the EC Treaty is such as to oblige Member
                                                                    States to whom directives are addressed to adopt the
                                                                    measures necessary for the implementation of such
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 directives within the time-limit prescribed therein. The
                                                                    time-limit in question expired on 1 July 1995 but the
                                                                    Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has not adopted the
Under Article 189 of the EC Treaty, according to which a            necessary measures.
directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved,
upon each Member State to which it is addressed,                    (1) OJ L 141, 11.6.1993, p. 27.
Member States are required to observe the time-limits laid
down in directives for their transposition. That time-limit
expired without the Italian Republic having brought into


C 299/28              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                 16.10.1999
3. In evaluating those eligible for promotion, the Promotions            Diekmeier and Others v Council of the European Union and
    Committee did not follow the criteria laid down in the               Commission of the European Communities.
    promotion guidelines, but relied on other criteria. Those
    criteria also contravened the recommendations formulated
                                                                         (1) OJ C 74 of 25.3.1995 and C 159 of 24.6.1995.
    by the Directorate-General to which the applicant belongs.
Partial removal from the register in Joined Cases T-85/93                        Removal from the register of Case T-2/98 (1)
                         and Others (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 299/42)
                        (1999/C 299/40)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                  (Language of the cases: German)
                                                                         By order of 1 February 1999 the President of the Second
                                                                         Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
By order of 21 May 1999, the President of the Fourth Chamber,
                                                                         Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         Case T-2/98: Petra Van Eynde-Neutens v Commission of the
European Communities has ordered the removal of Case
T-252/94 from the list of cases in Joined Cases T-85/93 and              European Communities.
Others: Helmut Bösl v Council of the European Union and
Commission of the European Communities.                                  (1) OJ C 55 of 20.2.1998.
(1) OJ C 275 of 1.10.1994.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-168/98 (1)
Partial removal from the register in Joined Cases T-366/94                                       (1999/C 299/43)
                         and Others (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                        (1999/C 299/41)
                                                                         By order of 11 February 1999 the President of the First
                  (Language of the cases: German)                        Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                         Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                         Case T-168/98: Anastasios Bisopoulos v Commission of the
By order of 21 May 1999, the President of the Fourth Chamber
                                                                         European Communities.
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
has ordered the removal of Cases T-16/95 and T-100/95 from
the list of cases in Joined Cases T-366/94 and Others: Hilde             (1) OJ C 397 of 19.12.1998.