title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 26 January 1995 in Case T-60/94: Myriam Pierrat v. Court of Justice of the European Communities (Members of the temporary staff - Recruitment of readers of judgments - Selection procedure - Rejection of an application - Duty to state reasons)

text:
4. 3. 95            I EN 1                Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 54/17
v. Commission of the European Communities (Agent: Ana                3 . orders the Court of Justice to pay all the costs.
Maria Alves Vieira ) — application for the annulment of the
Commission's decision of 30 September 1993 imposing on               (M OJ 1994 C 76, 12 . 3 . 1994 .
the applicant the disciplinary measure referred to in Article
86 (2 ) ( f) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the
European Communities, namely, removal from post
without    withdrawal      or   reduction  of entitlement   to
retirement pension — the Court of First Instance ( Fourth            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Chamber ), composed of K. Lenaerts, President, and R.
Schintgen and R. García-Valdecasas, Judges; H. Jung,                                       of 11 January 1995
Registrar, has given a judgment on 26 January 1995, in               in Case T-l 16/94 Cassa Nazionale di Previdenza ed
which it:                                                            Assistenza a favore degli Avvocati e Procuratori v. Council
                                                                                of the European Union (*)
1 . dismisses the application;                                       (Action for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 3604/93
                                                                     specifying definitions for the application of the prohibition
2. orders the parties to bear their own costs, including             of privileged access referred to in Article 104a of the EC
     those relating to the proceedings for interim                                     Treaty — Inadmissibility)
     measures .                                                                                ( 95/C 54/32 )
(!) OJ No C 325, 2 . 12 . 1993 .                                                     (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                     In Case T- 116/94 : Cassa Nazionale di Previdenza ed
                                                                     Assistenza a favore degli Avvocati e Procuratori,
                                                                     represented by Edilberto Ricciardi, of the Salerno Bar, and
                                                                     by Pietro Adonnino, Mario Sanino, Maurizio de Stefano
                                                                     and Alberto Colabianchi, all of the Rome Bar, with an
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of M.
                      of 26 January 1995                             Goebel, 6 Rue Heine, against the Council of the European
in Case T-60/94: Myriam Pierrat v. Court of Justice of the           Union (Agents: R. Bandilla and A. Lucidi ) — application for
                  European Communities ( J )                         annulment of Council Regulation ( EC ) No 3604/93 of
(Members ofthe temporary staff— Recruitment ofreaders                13 December 1993 specifying definitions for the application
of judgments — Selection procedure — Rejection of an                 of the prohibition of privileged access referred to in
            application — Duty to state reasons)
                                                                     Article 104a of the Treaty (2), the Court of First Instance
                                                                     (Third Chamber), composed of: J. Biancarelli (President),
                          ( 95/C 54/31                               C.P. Briët and C.W. Bellamy, Judges, H. Jung, Registrar,
                                                                     made an order on 11 January 1995, the operative part of
                (Language of the case: French)                       which is as follows :
                                                                     1 . the action is dismissed as inadmissible.
In Case T-60/94: Myriam Pierrat, a former member of the
temporary staff of the Court of Justice of the European              2. there is no need to rule on the applications to
Communities, residing in Luxembourg, represented by                       intervene.
Georges Vandersanden, of the Brussels Bar, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the office of Fiduciaire Myson          3 . the applicant shall bear its own costs and those incurred
S.à r.l., 1 Rue Glesener, against Court of Justice of the                 by the Council. Each ofthe interveners shall bear its own
European Communities (Agents : T. Millett and A. May) —                   costs.
application for the annulment of the decisions of the Court
to appoint Mrs B. as reader of judgments and to reject the           (M OJ No C 132, 14. 5 . 1994 .
applicant's application for the post of reader of judgments,         (2 ) OJ No L 332, 31 . 12 . 1993 , p . 4 .
and for the award to the applicant of one symbolic ecu as
compensation for the non-material damage which she
claims to have suffered — the Court of First Instance (First
Chamber ), composed of: J.L. Cruz Vilaça, President, H.
Kirschner and A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges; H. Jung,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 26 January 1995, in               Action brought on 9 January 1995 by Christian
which it:                                                            Vahrenkamp against Council of the European Union and
                                                                              Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-l/95 )
1 . annuls the decision of the President of the Court of
    Justice of 27 May 1993 to appoint Mrs B. as reader of                                         95/C 54/33 )
    judgments and the decision, notified to the applicant by
    letter of 8 June 1 993, to reject her application for the                      (Language of the case: German)
    post of reader of judgments;
                                                                     An action against the Council of the European Union and
2. dismisses the remainder of the application;                       the Commission of the European Communities was brought


title: Case C-532/07 P: Appeal brought on 29 November 2007 by Commission of the European Communities against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Grand Chamber) delivered on 12 September 2007 in Case T-36/04: Association de la presse internationale ASBL v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/37

         Appeal brought on 29 November 2007 by Commission of the European Communities against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Grand Chamber) delivered on 12 September 2007 in Case T-36/04: Association de la presse internationale ASBL v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-532/07 P)
   (2008/C 22/66)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Docksey and P. Aalto, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Association de la presse internationale ASBL (API)
   Form of order sought
   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               quash the contested judgment in part insofar as it annulled the decision of the Commission refusing access to documents requested by API as from the date of the hearing concerning all actions save infringement proceedings;

               —

               give final judgment in the matters that are the subject of this appeal;

               —

               order the Applicant in Case T-36/04 to pay the costs of the Commission arising from that case and from the present appeal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission respectfully submits that, first, the Court of First Instance has erred in law by interpreting court proceedings exception to the effect that the institutions must consider requests for access to written pleadings in non-infringement actions on a case by case basis as from the date of the hearing. In this respect the Commission respectfully submits that the conclusions of the Court of First Instance are inconsistent with its reasoning, that the CFI did not take into account the interest in the proper administration of justice or the interest of other persons mentioned in the procedure, and that the CFI only considered the rights and obligations of one of the parties. Whilst court documents submitted by the institutions are not excluded from the scope of Regulation 1049/2001 (1), the conclusion reached by the CFI has no basis in Community legislation or in the case law of the Court of Justice.
   Second, the CFI has erred in law by interpreting the investigations exception to the effect that the Commission must consider requests for access to written pleadings in infringement proceedings under Article 226 EC on a case by case basis as from the date of the judgement, including actions which have been decided but not yet been resolved, thus weakening the ability of the Commission as guardian of the Treaties to ensure respect by Member States of their obligations under Community law.
   Third, the CFI has erred in law by interpreting the court proceedings exception to the effect that the institutions must consider requests for access to their written pleadings on a case by case basis in actions which have been decided but which are related to pending actions, thus weakening their ability to defend their interests before the Community Courts and weakening the ability of the Commission as guardian of the Treaties to seek to enforce Community law.

      (1)  OJ L 145, p. 43.


29.4.2000             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 122/17
       Removal from the register of Case C-380/97 (1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-395/97 (1)
                         (2000/C 122/33)                                                     (2000/C 122/36)
By order of 20 January 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           By order of 1 February 2000 the President of the Court of
                                                                      Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-380/97 (reference for a preliminary
                                                                      from the register of Case C-395/97 (reference for a preliminary
ruling from the Arrondissementsrechtbank, The Hague): Emesa
Sugar (Free Zone) NV v Kingdom of the Netherlands and                 ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof): Landesgrundver-
                                                                      kehrsreferent der Tiroler Landesregierung v Herbert Kappes
Others.
                                                                      and Edwin Neuner.
(1) OJ C 387 of 20.12.1997.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 26 of 24.1.1998.
       Removal from the register of Case C-345/97 (1)
                         (2000/C 122/34)                                     Removal from the register of Case C-290/99 (1)
By order of 27 January 2000 the President of the Court of                                    (2000/C 122/37)
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case-345/97: Federal Republic of Germany
v Council of the European Union.                                      By order of 3 February 2000 the President of the Court of
                                                                      Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                      from the register of Case-290/99: Council of the European
(1) OJ C 357 of 22.11.1997.                                           Union v Martin Bangemann.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 314 of 30.10.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-407/97 (1)
                         (2000/C 122/35)
By order of 31 January 2000 the President of the Court of                    Removal from the register of Case C-288/98 (1)
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-407/97 (reference for a preliminary
ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof): Landesgrundver-                                       (2000/C 122/38)
kehrsreferent der Tiroler Landesregierung v Adolf Sparber,
Firma Atelier Delta Entwurf — und Planungsgesellschaft mbH,           By order of 18 February 2000 the President of the Court of
en liquidation, Hans-Eberhard Junkersdorf and Maria-Margare-          Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
te Junkersdorf.                                                       from the register of Case C-288/98 (reference for a preliminary
                                                                      ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione): Istituto Nazion-
                                                                      ale della Previdenza Sociale (INPS) v Mario Maraldi SpA.
(1) OJ C 41 of 7.2.1998.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.


title: Case C-378/11 P: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 21 September 2011 — Longevity Health Products, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Biofarma SA (Appeal — Community trade mark — Proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM — Failure to comply with the obligation to pay the appeal fee within the period prescribed — Decision of the Board of Appeal declaring that the appeal is deemed not to have been filed)

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/24

      Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 21 September 2011 — Longevity Health Products, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Biofarma SA
      (Case C-378/11 P) (1)

      (Appeal - Community trade mark - Proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM - Failure to comply with the obligation to pay the appeal fee within the period prescribed - Decision of the Board of Appeal declaring that the appeal is deemed not to have been filed)
      (2012/C 25/43)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: Longevity Health Products, Inc. (represented by: J. Korab, Rechtsanwalt)

         Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Biofarma SA

         Re:

      Appeal against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 15 April 2011 in Case T-95/11 Longevity Health Products v OHIM — Biofarma (VITACHRON MALE) by which that court dismissed an action brought by the applicant for the word mark ‘VITACHRON MALE’ for goods and services in, inter alia, Class 5 against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 10 January 2011 in Case R 1356/2010-4, declaring that the appeal against the Opposition Division’s decision — which refused registration of that mark in the opposition proceedings brought by the proprietor of the national marks ‘VITATHION’ for goods and services in Class 5 — was deemed not to have been filed since the appeal fee had not been paid within the time-limit.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The appeal is dismissed.

                  2.

                  Longevity Health Products, Inc. shall bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.


title: Case T-230/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 October 2008 — Rewe-Zentrale v OHIM (PORT LOUIS) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark PORT LOUIS — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Designation of the geographical origin of the goods — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/30

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 October 2008 — Rewe-Zentrale v OHIM (PORT LOUIS)
   (Case T-230/06) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark PORT LOUIS - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Designation of the geographical origin of the goods - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2008/C 313/53)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Rewe-Zentrale AG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey and A. Bognár, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, agent)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 June 2006 (Case R 25/2006-1) concerning an application to register the word mark PORT LOUIS as a Community trade mark.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 21 June 2006 (Case R 25/2006-1);

               2.

               orders OHIM to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 261 of 28.10.2006.


title: Action brought on 20 July 1998 by RJB Mining plc against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-111/98)

text:
26.9.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 299/39
customers are the UK electricity power generators, but it               aid to mines which, on the applicant's own
is also trying to find a market for its coal overseas, in               calculations and those of its advisers, can never be
particular in Germany and Spain. On 10 June 1998, the                   viable. Second, the effect of the aid is contributing
Commission adopted the contested Decision which was                     towards reducing permanently the production capacity
addressed to Germany. Article 1 of the Decision purported               of the lowest cost large-scale producer of steam coal in
to approve operating aid of DEM 6 299 million under                     the Community and the producer with the best (if not
Article 3 of the Code (1), closure aid of DEM 3 205                     the only) long-term prospects of viability having
million under Article 4 of the Code, operating aid of                   regard to current world market conditions.
DEM 87 million of the Code to maintain underground
miners, aid of DEM 200 million to cover exceptional
                                                                   (1) Commission Decision No 3632/93/ECSC of 28 December
losses under Article 5 of the Code to Ruhrkohle AG,
                                                                       1993, establishing Community rules for State aid to the coal
Saarbergwerke AG, Preussag Anthrazit GmbH and Sophia                   industry (OJ L 329, 30.12.1993, p. 12).
Jacob GmbH and, finally, aid of DEM 609,2 million to
cover exceptional costs under Article 5 of the Code to
Ruhrkohle AG, Saarbergwerke AG and Sophia Jacob AG,
enabling those companies to cover the cost which result
and have resulted from the restructuring of the coal
industry and which do not relate to current production.
                                                                   Action brought on 20 July 1998 by RJB Mining plc
The applicant claims to be gravely concerned by this                  against the Commission of the European Communities
decision, as the British coal industry has over the last 10
years undergone massive restructuring and rationalisation.                                 (Case T-111/98)
                                                                                (98/C 299/70)
The applicant seeks annulment of the contested decision
on the grounds of:
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
Ð lack of competence: the Code expressly provides that
    no aid may be granted until it has been approved by            An action against the Commission of the European
    the Commission. In breach of this requirement, the             Communities was brought before the Court of First
    Commission on 10 June 1998 apparently purported to             Instance of the European Communities on 20 July 1998
    approve retroactively aid which had already been               by RJB Mining plc, represented by Mark Brealey and
    granted by the German Government in 1997,                      Jonathan Lawrence, with an address for service in
                                                                   Luxembourg at the Offices of Arendt & Medernach, 8Ð
                                                                   10, rue Mathias Hardt, boite postale 39.
Ð lack of reasoning: despite the requirement of
    transparency on the ECSC Treaty, the contested
    Decision fails to explain the basis on which the aid
    was granted. Under the Code, operating aid can only            The applicant claims that the Court should:
    be granted if an undertaking or production unit has a
    reasonable prospect of achieving viability within the
    foreseeable future, yet the contested Decision contains        Ð annul the Commission Decision of 3 June 1998
    no facts which would enable the applicant to verify                 relating to financial interventions from Spain to the
    the viability of any mine. Similarly, the Code provides             coal industry from 1994 to 1998, which purport to
    that closure aid can only be granted if the relevant                authorise Spain to grant aid to its coal industry, and
    production      unit   will   (save     in   exceptional
    circumstances) close at a date prior to 2002. The
    contested Decision does not specify any dates for
    closure of production units. Moreover, the contested           Ð order that the Commission pay the costs of the action,
    Decision implicitly rejects, without reasons, a                     including those of the applicant.
    complaint field with the Commission by the applicant
    on 5 May 1998,
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Ð infringement of the principle of good administration:
    the applicant formally complained about the grant of
                                                                   The applicant is the same as in Case T-110/98 (application
    the German aid on 5 May 1998. On 10 June 1998 the
                                                                   for the annulment of the Commission Decision of 10 June
    Commission acknowledged receipt of the complaint
                                                                   1998 relating to financial interventions from Germany to
    and stated that the applicant would be kept informed.
                                                                   the coal industry in 1997).
    Yet on the same day the Commission adopted the
    contested Decision,
                                                                   On 3 June 1998 the Commission adopted the three
Ð manifest infringement of the Treaty and the Code:                contested Decisions which were addressed to the Kingdom
    First, the contested Decision has purported to approve         of Spain: the first Decision relates to aid from Spain to its
 ---pagebreak--- C 299/40               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  26.9.98
coal mining industry for the years 1994, 1995 and 1996;                       Removal from the register of Case T-49/98 (1)
the second and third Decisions concern the years 1997                                           (98/C 299/72)
and 1998. All of the contested Decisions contain operating
aids under Article 3 of the Code (1), closure aids under                               (Language of the case: Dutch)
Article 4 of the Code as well as aids to cover exceptional
charges under Article 5 of the Code.                                   By order of 15 July 1998 the President of the Second
                                                                       Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                       Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
The applicant claims to be gravely concerned by these                  Case T-49/98 ALZ NV v. Commission of the European
Decisions, as the British coal industry has over the last 10           Communities.
years undergone massive restructuring and rationalisation
and as the company was also trying to find a market for                (1) OJ C 137, 2.5.1998.
its coal overseas, in particular in Germany and Spain.
The pleas in law and main arguments are, with the
exception of an alleged infringement of the principle of
good administration, identical to those raised in Case                 Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-56/98 and
T-110/98 (2).                                                                                T-56/98 R (1)
                                                                                (98/C 299/73)
(1) Commission Decision No 3632/93/ECSC of 28 December
    1993, establishing Community rules for State aid to the coal                      (Language of the case: English)
    industry (OJ L 329, 30.12.1993, p. 12).
(2) See page 38 of this Official Journal.                              By order of 17 June 1998 the President of the First
                                                                       Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                       Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                       Cases T-56/98 and T-56/98 R VTech Electronics (UK) plc
                                                                       v. Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 166, 30.5.1998.
    Partial removal from the register of Case T-185/96 (1)
                          (98/C 299/71)
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case T-60/98 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 299/74)
By order of 10 July 1998 the President of the Third
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                                (Language of the case: French)
Communities has ordered the removal of the name of the
applicant Max Labat Automobiles 17 from the list of                    By order of 2 July 1998 the President of the Second
names of the applicants in Case T-185/96 Max Labat                     Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Automobiles 17 and Riviera Auto Service Ets Dalmasso v.                Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Commission of the European Communities.                                Case T-60/98 Ecord Consortium for Russian Cooperation,
                                                                       composed of the following members: Danagro Adviser A/
                                                                       S, Plunkett Foundation and Irish Agri-Food Development
(1) OJ C 54, 22.2.1997.                                                Ltd v. Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 209, 4.7.1998.


title: Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of  1 December 2005  in Case C-512/04 P Vitakraft-Werke Wührmann & Sohn GmbH & Co. KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Krafft SA (Appeal — Community trade mark — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Likelihood of confusion — Application for Community word mark VITAKRAFT — Opposition from the proprietor of national marks containing the word element  krafft  — Similarity between marks — Appeal manifestly inadmissible)

text:
               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/13

      ORDER OF THE COURT

   (Fourth Chamber)
   of 1 December 2005
   in Case C-512/04 P Vitakraft-Werke Wührmann & Sohn GmbH & Co. KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Krafft SA (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Likelihood of confusion - Application for Community word mark VITAKRAFT - Opposition from the proprietor of national marks containing the word element ‘krafft’ - Similarity between marks - Appeal manifestly inadmissible)
   (2006/C 60/27)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-512/04 P: Vitakraft-Werke Wührmann & Sohn GmbH & Co. KG, established in Bremen (Germany) (represented by U. Sander, Rechtsanwalt), the other parties to the proceedings being: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), (Agent: G. Schneider), Krafft SA, established in Andoain (Spain) (represented by P. Koch Moreno, abogada) — an appeal under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, brought on 14 December 2004, the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Schiemann, President of the Chamber, M. Ilešič (Rapporteur) and E. Levits, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 1 December 2005, the operative part of which is as follows

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed;

               2.

               Vitakraft-Werke Wührmann & Sohn GmbH & Co. KG shall pay the costs, including those of the interim proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 45 of 19.02.2005


title: Case T-83/05: Action brought on 18 February 2005 by the Italian Republic against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               30.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/38

         Action brought on 18 February 2005 by the Italian Republic against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-83/05)
   (2005/C 106/76)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 18 February 2005 by the Italian Republic, represented by Antonio Cingolo, Avvocato dello Stato.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               annul the Commission's decisions of: 16 December 2004 (P.E.P. Sicily 2000-2006), 13 January 2005 (P.E.P. Calabria Ob. 1 2000-2006), 13 January 2005 (P.E.P. Apulia Ob. 1 2000-2006), 17 January 2005 (Docup Lombardy Ob. 2 2000-2006), 17 January 2005 (P.E.P. Calabria Ob. 1 2000-2006) and 26 January 2005 (P.E.P. Sardinia Ob. 1 2000-2006), all intended to make implementation of the payment of certain advances in the sphere of aid schemes conditional upon fulfilment of obligations not required by the legislation in force, for the purpose of improperly limiting the expenditure which is eligible for the use of the Structural Funds concerned;

               2.

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments are those raised in Case T-345/04 Italian Republic v Commission
       (1).

      (1)  O.J.E.U. C 262 of 23 October 2004, p. 55.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 December 2000 in Case C-55/99: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Free movement of goods — Measures having equivalent effect — Medical reagents — Compulsory registration procedure applicable to all reagents — Obligation to state the registration number on the external packaging and the notice accompanying each reagent)

text:
5.5.2001                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                               C 134/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       1.    Declares that, by imposing in Decree No 96-351 of 19 April
                                                                                1996 concerning the reagents mentioned in Article L.761-14-
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                          1 of the Code de la Santé Publique the obligation to state the
                                                                                registration number on the external packaging and to mention
                                                                                that registration on the notice accompanying each medical
                       of 14 December 2000
                                                                                reagent, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                                under Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
in Case C-55/99: Commission of the European Communi-                               Article 28 EC);
                     ties v French Republic (1)
                                                                             2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Free
movement of goods — Measures having equivalent effect —                      3.    Orders the French Republic and the Commission of the
Medical reagents — Compulsory registration procedure                               European Communities to bear their own costs.
applicable to all reagents — Obligation to state the regis-
tration number on the external packaging and the notice                      (1) OJ C 100 of 10.4.1999.
                   accompanying each reagent)
                           (2001/C 134/01)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                                  (Fifth Chamber)
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                of 14 December 2000
In Case C-55/99: Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: R.B. Wainwright and O. Couvert-Castéra) v French                    in Case C-99/99: Italian Republic v Commission of the
Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger and R. Loosli-Surrans) —                                   European Communities (1)
application for a declaration that, by introducing in Decree
No 96-351 of 19 April 1996 concerning the reagents men-                      (Action for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 2815/98 —
tioned in Article L.761-14-1 of the Code de la Santé Publique                                Marketing standards for olive oil)
(Code of Public Health) (JORF, 26 April 1996, p. 6386) a
registration procedure for all medical reagents, and by                                                 (2001/C 134/02)
imposing in that decree the obligation to state the registration
number on the external packaging and the notice
accompanying each reagent, the French Republic has failed to                                      (Language of the case: Italian)
fulfil its obligations under Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now,
after amendment, Article 28 EC) — the Court (Sixth Chamber),
composed of: V. Skouris, President of the Second Chamber,                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
acting as President of the Sixth Chamber (Rapporteur),                                           in the European Court Reports)
J.-P. Puissochet and F. Macken, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate
General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given             In Case C-99/99: Italian Republic (Agents: U. Leanza, G. Castel-
a judgment on 14 December 2000, in which it:                                 lani Pastoris, and O. Fiumara) v Commission of the European


title: Case C-241/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Il Tribunale Amminstrativo Regionale della Liguria (Second Chamber) by order of that court of 22 April 2004, in case of Acquedotto De Ferrari Galliera s.p.a. against Province of Genoa

text:
               28.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Il Tribunale Amminstrativo Regionale della Liguria (Second Chamber) by order of that court of 22 April 2004, in case of Acquedotto De Ferrari Galliera s.p.a. against Province of Genoa
   (Case C-241/04)
   (2004/C 217/20)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Il Tribunale Amminstrativo Regionale della Liguria, (Second Chamber) Italy of 22 April 2004 received at the Court Registry on 8 June 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Acquedotto De Ferrari Galliera s.p.a against Province of Genoa and Others on the following questions:

               —

               Is the interpretation of Articles 12 EC, 28 EC, 43 EC, 49 EC and 86 EC adopted by the Court of Justice in Case C-324/98 Teleaustria to be regarded as valid and binding on the national court even where there is no actual or potential risk of discrimination on the ground of nationality?

               —

               May Community law and in particular Articles 12 EC, 28 EC, 43 EC, 49 EC and 86 EC be interpreted in such a way as to permit Member States, when prescribing rules governing the award of concession contracts in accordance with the aforesaid provisions (as interpreted by the Court of Justice in Case C-324/98 Teleaustria), to introduce transitional rules preserving concessions already awarded without competitive tendering and, if so, for what duration?

               —

               May Article 86(2) be interpreted as permitting a derogation from Articles 12 EC, 28 EC, 43 EC and 49 EC (as interpreted by the Court of Justice in Case C-324/98 in relation to the requirement of competitive tendering for public service concessions), in the limited circumstances of a service concession being awarded for a transitional period of specified duration which is within reasonable limits, where the specific nature of the situation before the national court is such that the holding of a competitive tendering process for the concession of a public service of general economic interest, such as the integrated water service, could be detrimental to the timely implementation, activation and operation of the service in question?


title: Action brought on 17 February 1995 by the Council of the European Union against the European Parliament (Case C-41/95)

text:
 No C 87/6             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      8 . 4 . 95
 The appellants claim that the Court should :                        scope of Council Regulation ( EEC) No 3821/85 of
                                                                     20 December 1985 on recording equipment in road
 1 . set aside paragraphs 2 and 3 of the operative part of the       transport (2), vehicles belonging to private companies
      judgment of the Court of First Instance ( x );                 engaged in the collection and treatment of waste which
                                                                     transport waste skips or industrial waste, including cases
 2 . refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for          where such transport is effected over long distances ?
      examination of the fourth plea in law relied upon by the
      appellants in Case T-450/93 ;                                  (!) OJ No L 370, 31 . 12 . 1985 , p. 1 .
                                                                     (2 ) OJ No L 370, 31 . 12 . 1985 , p. 8 .
 3 . reserve the costs.
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Infringement of Community law:
                                                                     Action brought on 17 February 1995 by the Council of the
— The condition laid down by the Court of First Instance in                European Union against the European Parliament
     the judgment appealed against, namely that the                                            (Case C-41/95 )
     Commission should previously have consulted the                                            ( 95/C 87/12 )
     appellants in the present case, modifies the system in
     force concerning the administration of the European
     Social Fund ( ESF) as provided for in Council Regulation        An action against the European Parliament was brought
     (EEC) No 2950/83 (2 ). The ESF deals only with the              before the Court ofJustice of the European Communities on
     Member State. The appellants' contacts are directly with        17 February 1995 by the Council of the European Union,
     the Member State concerned. Consequently, the                   represented by Jean-Paul Jacque, Felix Van Craeyenest and
     Commission, in accordance with the regulation, is               Yves Cretien, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
     required to consult only the Member State prior to the          Luxembourg at the office of Bruno Eynard, European
   . adoption of a definitive decision to reduce assistance .        Investment Bank, 100 Boulevard Konrad Adenauer.
     The condition laid down by the Court of First Instance is
     also contrary to the principle of subsidiarity.                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
— As regards the finding that the reasons stated were                1 . annul the act of the President of the European
     insufficient, the Court of First Instance has not taken               Parliament of 15 December 1994 declaring the final
     into account the appellants' prior awareness of the                   adoption of the budget for the financial year
     background to the Commission's justified doubts and                   1995 (!);
     suspicions that they had not complied with the
     conditions for the grant of the disputed decision.              2. consequently, declare that budget, as adopted by the
                                                                           European Parliament on the same day, invalid;
(*) Judgment of 6 December 1994, in Case T-450/93 .
(2 ) OJ No L 289, 22 . 10 . 1983 .                                   3 . state that the acts implementing the budget which have
                                                                           been adopted up until the date when judgment is
                                                                           delivered are retained in their entirety;
                                                                    4. order the European Parliament to pay the costs .
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de Police,
La Rochelle, by decision of that court of 31 January 1995 in
         the case of Ministere Public v. Pierre Goupil              — Infringement of Article 203 of the EC Treaty: the
                                                                          Parliament adopted 'amendments' relating to budget
                        (Case C-39/95 )                                   headings classified as compulsory expenditure, namely
                           (95/C 87/11 )                                  certain items of agricultural guarantee expenditure. In so
                                                                          doing, it compromised the division of powers between
                                                                          the two arms of the budgetary authority arising by virtue
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    of Article 203 (4), (5 ) and ( 6 ) of the EC Treaty.
European Communities by a decision of the Tribunal de
Police (Local Criminal Court), La Rochelle, of 31 January
                                                                    — Breach of the undertakings agreed to by the European
1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on                        Parliament in the context of the Joint Declaration of
17 February 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of                30 June 1982 on various measures to improve the
Ministere Public (Public Prosecutor's Office ) v. Pierre
                                                                          budgetary procedure (2) and the Interinstitutional
Goupil on the following question:                                         Agreement of 29 October 1993 on budgetary discipline
                                                                          and improvement of the budgetary procedure ( 3), and
Does Article 4 of Council Regulation (EEC ) No 3820/85 of                 consequently of the institutions' duty to cooperate in a
20 December 1985 on the harmonization of certain social                   straightforward manner with each other: by proceeding
legislation relating to road transport ( x ), exempt from the             to classify existing headings in the budget, and by laying
 ---pagebreak--- 8 . 4 . 95            I EN |                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                       No C 87/7
     down a procedure to be applied in the future for the               with the Directive referred to in the form of order sought by
     classification of new items, without departing from the            the Commission.
     method applicable pursuant to Article 203 (4 ) and ( 6 ),
     the three institutions concerned established a framework
                                                                        (!) OJ No L 357, 7. 12 . 1989, p. 31 .
     with which they are not entitled unilaterally to interfere.
     Although the Council agreed in 1993 , at the request of
     the other arm of the budgetary authority, thereafter to
     consider headings 2 and 3 of the agricultural
     expenditure items as non-compulsory expenditure, the
     expenditure linked to the Agricultural Guarantee Fund
     (that is to say, that set out in subsection B1 — EAGGF of          Action brought on 28 February 1995 by the Commission of
     the budget) remains compulsory expenditure in                        the European Communities against the French Republic
     accordance with the 1982 classification.
                                                                                (Case C-52/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 87/14
(!) OJ No L 369, 31 . 12 . 1994 .
(2 ) OJ No C 194, 28 . 7. 1982, p . 1 .
(3 ) OJ No C 331 , 7. 12 . 1993 , p . 1 .                               An action against the French Republic was brought before
                                                                        the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                        28 February 1995 by the Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities, represented by Gerard Rozet, Legal Adviser,
                                                                        acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                        at the office of Georgios Kremlis, of the Legal Service,
                                                                        Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Action brought on 24 February 1995 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
                            Luxembourg                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
                          (Case C-46/95 )
                                                                         1 . declare that,
                            ( 95/C 87/13
                                                                              — by not provisionally prohibiting the fishing by its
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was                               vessels of anchovy stocks in ICES zone VIII so as to
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                               ensure compliance with the fishing quotas allocated
Communities on 24 February 1995 by the Commission of                              to it in 1991 and 1992, and
the European Communities, represented by Thomas F.                            — by not taking action against the persons responsible
Cusack, acting as Agent, and Jean-Francis Pasquier, with an                       for fishing and fishing-related activities carried out
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Georgios                       in respect of such stocks following the imposition of
Kremlis, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                                the fishing prohibition enacted by the Commission
                                                                                in 1991 and 1992,
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                              the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
— declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations                 under Article 11 (2 ) and Article 1 of Regulation ( EEC )
     and administrative provisions necessary in order to                      No 2241/87 establishing certain control measures for
     implement Council Directive 8 9/6 18/Euratom f 1 ) of                    fishing activities ( a ) in conjunction with Article 3 of, and
     27 November 1989 on informing the general public                         the Annexes to, Regulations (EEC) No 3926/90 (2) and
     about health protection measures to be applied and steps                 (EEC ) No 3882/91 (3 ).
     to be taken in the event of a radiological emergency, or
     by failing to inform the Commission of the measures                 2. order the French Republic to pay the costs.
     taken by it to comply with the said directive, the Grand
     Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     under the Treaty establishing the European Atomic
     Energy Community,
                                                                         It is clear from the wording of Article 11 ( 2 ) of Regulation
                                                                         ( EEC ) No 2241/87 that the Member States are required to
— order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the                         take the necessary measures in order provisionally to
     costs .
                                                                         prohibit all fishing activities before the quota is exhausted.
                                                                        The French authorities have at no time taken any measures
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      provisionally to halt the fishing in question.
Article 1 89 of the EC Treaty, which provides that a Directive          The Commission further considers that the continuation by
is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each             French vessels of fishing and fishing-related activities in
Member State, requires the Member States to observe the                  relation to the fish stocks at issue following the imposition
time limits for transposition laid down in Directives.                   of the fishing prohibitions enacted by the Commission in
Although the time limit in the present case expired on                   1991 and 1992 constitutes an infringement by the persons
27 November 1991 , the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has                     responsible for those vessels. Having established such
not adopted the provisions necessary in order to comply                  infringements, the French authorities were required, under


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht Dortmund by order of that court of 27 December 1994 in the case of Reisebüro Broede v. Gerd Sandker (Case C-3/95)

text:
No C 54/6               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      4 . 3 . 95
1 . declared that, by failing to indicate in the contract notice      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerisches
     at issue the persons authorized to be present at the             Verwaltungsgericht, Ansbach, by an order of that court of
     opening of tenders and the date, time and place of               23 November 1994 in the administrative law case of Hellen
     opening, and by introducing into the general terms and                            Gerster v. Freistaat Bayern
     conditions a technical specification defined by reference                                   Case C-l/95 )
     to a product of a specific make, the Kingdom of the
     Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under                                      ( 95/C 54/10 )
     Council Directive 77/62/EEC of 21 December 1976                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     coordinating procedures for the award of public supply           European Communities by an order of the 12th Chamber of
     contracts, as amended by Council Directives                      the      Bayerisches          Verwaltungsgericht     (Bavarian
     80/767/EEC       and      88/295/EEC,   and also     under       Administrative Court) of 23 November 1994, which was
     Article 30 of the Treaty;                                        received at the Court Registry on 5 January 1995 , for a
                                                                      preliminary ruling in the administrative law case of Hellen
2. ordered the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the                  Gerster v. Freistaat Bayern, on the following questions:
     costs.
                                                                      1 . Is Article 119 of the EEC Treaty applicable to
                                                                          officials ?
(!) OJ No C 238 , 2 . 9 . 1993 .
(2 ) OJ No L 13 , 15 . 1 . 1977, p. 1 .                               2 . If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative, is there
(3 ) OJ No L 215, 18 . 8 . 1980, p. 1 .                                   an infringement of Article 119 of the EEC Treaty and of
(4) OJ No L 127, 20. 5. 1988, p. 1 .                                      Council Directive 75/117/EEC (.*) in the form of indirect
                                                                          discrimination against women where the second
                                                                          sentence of section 13 (2) of the Laufbahnverordnung
                                                                          ( Career on regulations, 'LBV') provides that, for the
                                                                          purpose of calculating the periods of services of officials,
                                                                          periods of employment involving working hours of at
                                                                          least one-half to two-thirds of normal working hours are
                  ORDER OF THE COURT                                      counted only as two-thirds of normal working
                       of 10 January 1995                                 hours ?
in Case C-l/94 S-A: Dupret SA v. Commission of the                    3 . If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative, is there
                  European Communities ( l )                              an infringement of Council Directive 76/207/EEC (2) in
(Application for authorization to serve a garnishee order on              the form of indirect discrimination against women in
       the Commission of the European Communities)                        regard to access to career progression (promotion),
                            ( 95/C 54/09 )                                where the second sentence of section 13 (2 ) of the LBV
                                                                          provides that, for the purpose of calculating the periods
                                                                          of service of officials, periods of employment involving
               (Language of the case: French)                             working hours of at least one-half of two-thirds of
                                                                          normal working hours are counted only as two-thirds of
In Case 1/94 SA: Dupret SA, a company governed by Belgian                 normal working hours ?
law which is in liquidation, represented by Georges-Albert            (!) OJ No L 45 , 19 . 2 . 1975 , p. 19.
Dal, of the Bussels Bar, receiver, 18 Rue de l'Aurore, 1050           (2) OJ No L 39, 14. 2 . 1976, p. 40.
Brussels, against Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: S. Van Raepenbusch) — application
for authorization to serve a garnishee order on the
Commission of the European Communities — the Court,                   Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht
composed of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, F. A.                Dortmund by order of that court of 27 December 1994 in
Schockweiler, P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann (Presidents of                    the case of Reisebüro Broede v. Gerd Sandker
Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, C. N. Kakouris, J. C. Moitinho                                       (Case C-3/95 )
de Almeida, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward ( Rapporteur),
                                                                                ( 95/C 54/11 )
A. M. La Pergola and J.-P. Puissochet, Judges; C. O. Lenz,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
10 January 1995, the operative part of which is as                    European Communities by order of the Ninth Civil
follows :
                                                                      Chamber of the Landgericht ( Regional Court) Dortmund of
                                                                      27 December 1994, which was received at the Court
1 . There is no need to give a decision on the                        Registry on 1 1 January 1995, for a preliminary ruling in the
     application;                                                     case of Reisebüro Broede v. Gerd Sandker on the following
                                                                      questions:
2. each party is to bear its own costs.                               does Article 59 of the EEC Treaty preclude a national rule
                                                                      which prohibits an undertaking established in another
(!) OJ No C 218 , 6 . 8 . 1994.                                       Member State from securing judicial recovery of foreign
                                                                      debts on the ground that this activity is reserved under the
                                                                      national rule for persons to whom a special official licence
                                                                      has been issued for that purpose ?
 ---pagebreak--- 4. 3. 95               m                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      No C 54/7
If the answer is in the affirmative : Is this also the case where               non-Member State if he would ( in theory) be entitled,
national law alone is to be applied in the recovery                             were he a national of the State in which he resides, and
proceedings on the ground that the parties to the                               according to its laws, to claim unemployment benefit
enforcement proceedings are resident within the State and                       from the competent authority of the State in which he
the enforceable decision was also obtained within the                           resides by virtue of a convention between that State and
State ?                                                                         the non-Member State ?
                                                                         ( b ) Do the provisions of an international social security
                                                                                convention which is concluded with a non-Member
                                                                                State and which ranks as domestic law by virtue of
Reference for a preliminary ruling, made pursuant to the                        having been ratified constitute legislation within the
orders of the Landessozialgericht Nordrhein-Westfalen of                        meaning of Article 3 ( 1 ) of Regulation (EEC )
25 November 1994 in the cases of Fritz Stober v.                                No 1408/71 ?
Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit and Jose Manuel Piosa Pereira v.
                     Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit                            (c) Is it possible to infer from Community law a rule that
                    (Cases C-4/95 and C-5/95 )                                  Community law is not applicable to employment in a
                                                                                non-Member State ?
                            ( 95/C 54/12 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   ( d) Does Chapter 6 of Title III of Regulation (EEC)
European Communities by order of the Landessozialgericht                        No 1408/71 lay down definitive rules for the
Nordrhein-Westfalen (North Rhine-Westphalia Higher                              calculation of periods of employment, thus excluding
Social Court) — 13th Chamber — of 25 November 1994,                             the application of the principle of equality of treatments
which were received at the Court Registry on 12 January                         in that regard ?
1995, for a preliminary ruling in the cases of Fritz Stober v.
Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit (Federal Employment Office )                    (*) Official Journal, English Special Edition 1971 II, p. 416 .
( Case C-4/95 ) and Jose Manuel Piosa Pereira v.
Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit on the following question:
for the purposes of the payment of family allowances in the
Federal Republic of Germany, is a person who carries on an
activity as a self-employed person in the Federal Republic of            Appeal brought on 13 January 1995 by John Deere Ltd
Germany and as such satisfies the definition of a                        against the judgment delivered on 27 October 1994 by the
'self-employed person' within the meaning of Article                     Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
1 ( a ) ( iv ) but not the definition contained in the first             European Communities in case T-35/92 between John
sub-alternative of the second alternative in Article 1 (a ) ( ii) in     Deere Ltd and the Commission of the European
conjunction with Paragraph I.C.(b ) of Annex I a                                                    Communities
'self-employed person' within the meaning of Article 73 of                                        (Case C-7/95 P)
Regulation (EEC ) No 1408/71 ( x )?
                                                                                ( 95/C 54/14 )
( x ) Official Journal, English Special Edition 1971 II, p. 416.
                                                                         An appeal against the judgment delivered on 27 October
                                                                          1994 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance
                                                                         of the European Communities in case T-35/92 between John
                                                                         Deere Ltd and the Commission of the European
Reference for a preliminary ruling, made pursuant to the                 Communities, was brought before the Court of Justice of
order of the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Landessozialgericht                the European Communities on 13 January 1995 by John
of 28 November 1994 in the case of Aororita Hansen v.                    Deere Ltd, of 15/19 York Place, Edinburgh (United
                      Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit                           Kingdom), represented by Hans-Jorg Niemeyer and Rainer
                           (Case C-6/95 )                                Bechtold, Rechtsanwalte, of Gleiss Lutz Hootz Hirsch and
                             ( 95/C 54/13 )                              Partners, Brussels, with an address for service in
                                                                         Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch and Wolter, 11 ,
                                                                         Rue Goethe.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European           Communities         by      order      of     the
Schleswig-Holsteinisches Landessozialgericht ( Schleswig                The Appellant claims that the Court should:
Holstein Higher Social Court) — 7th Division — of
28 November 1994, which was received at the Court                        1 . quash the decision of the Court of First Instance of
Registry on 13 January 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the                  27 October 1994 in case T-35/92, notified to the
case of Aororita HanEen v. Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit                            Appellant on 3 November 1994;
( Federal Employment Office) on the following questions:
                                                                         2 . annul      the   Commission      decision   92/157/EEC      of
(a ) Under Article 3 ( 1 ) of Regulation ( EEC )                               17 February 1992 relating to a proceeding under
       No 1408/71 0 ), is a national of a Member State                         Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (IV/B-2/3 1.370 and 31.446
       residing in another Member State entitled to                            — UK Agricultural Tractor Registration Exchange (*))
       unemployment benefit on the basis of employment in a                    and


title: Case T-65/99: Action brought on 3 March 1999 by Grammes Strintzi Naftiliaki AE against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 136/18               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      15.5.1999
— In the alternative, the Commission calculated arbitrarily              Grounds for annulment and main arguments
    the period during which the applicant is alleged to have
    been party to an agreement or agreements for the joint
    setting of the carriage charges.                                     — Manifest errors by the Commission in its assessment of the
                                                                             facts and with regard to the applications of Article 85 (1)
                                                                             of the Treaty and of Regulation (EEC) No 4056/86.
— Assuming that the applicant was party to such an agree-
    ment, that agreement is not covered by the prohibition in                Insufficient reasoning in relation to the Commission’s view
    Article 85 (1) of the Treaty, being an agreement of minor                that the applicant had not lost its independence so far as
    significance, because as the Commission acknowledged,                    concerns the setting of carriage charges in the international
    the applicant is a small or medium-sized enterprise.                     section of the timetable.
    Furthermore, the Commission contradicted itself because,
    while it accepted that the infringement had limited impact,              The above defects in the contested decision lead to the
    it stated that the agreement significantly impeded compe-                conclusion that the Commission misused its power to
    tition in a substantial part of the relevant market.                     impose fines.
— In the further alternative, the amount of the fine imposed             — Manifest error by the Commission in its assessment of
    on the applicant offends against the principle of pro-                   the content of the letters from the Greek Permanent
    portionality.                                                            Representative’s Office and the Greek Ministry for
                                                                             Merchant Shipping and failure to set out the reasons why
                                                                             it ignored the applicant’s analysis of those letters.
                                                                         — Manifest error by the Commission relating to the appli-
                                                                             cation of Community law and insufficient reasoning: the
                                                                             consultation between the companies involved does not fall
                                                                             within the scope of Article 85 (1) of the Treaty.
                                                                         — The fine which the Commission imposed on the applicant
Action brought on 3 March 1999 by Grammes Strintzi                           amounts to a misuse of powers.
Naftiliaki AE against the Commission of the European
                          Communities
                                                                         — In the alternative, that fine is disproportionately high.
                         (Case T-65/99)
                                                                         — Finally, it is alleged that the illegality of the inspection
                                                                             carried out by the Commission at the offices of the
                        (1999/C 136/39)                                      company ETA constitutes a substantive infringement.
                    (Language of the case: Greek)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 3 March 1999 by Grammes Strintzi
Naftiliaki AE, whose registered office is in Piraeus, Greece,            Action brought on 4 March 1999 by Minoikes Grammes
represented by Konstantinos Adamantopoulos and Basilios                  ANE against the Commission of the European Communi-
Akritidis, of the Athens Bar, with an address for service in                                            ties
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Claude Medernach, 8-10 rue
Mathias Hardt, L-2010 Luxembourg.
                                                                                (Case T-66/99)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                     (1999/C 136/40)
— annul in its entirety the Commission decision of 9
    December 1998 relating to a proceeding under Article 85                                 (Language of the case: Greek)
    of the Treaty (IV/34.466 — Greek Ferry Boats);
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
— in the alternative, annul Article 1 of that decision with
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
    regard to the duration of the infringement of Article 85 (1)
                                                                         European Communities on 4 March 1999 by Minoikes
    of the Treaty so far as concerns the applicant, or in any
                                                                         Grammes ANE whose registered office is in Heraklion, Crete
    event reduce the fine imposed on the applicant;
                                                                         (Greece), represented by Ilias Soufleros, of the Athens Bar, with
                                                                         an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                 Aloyse May, 31 Grand-rue, L-1661 Luxembourg.


title: Case T-379/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 November 2006 — J v Commission (Remuneration — Expatriation allowance and installation allowance — Conditions laid down in Articles 4(1)(a) and 5(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Work done for another State — Recovery of sums paid but not due)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/36

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 November 2006 — J v Commission
   (Case T-379/04) (1)

   (Remuneration - Expatriation allowance and installation allowance - Conditions laid down in Articles 4(1)(a) and 5(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - ‘Work done for another State’ - Recovery of sums paid but not due)
   (2006/C 331/79)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: J (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: C. Forte, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and M. Velardo, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of the Commission's decision of 10 June 2004 expressly rejecting the applicant's complaints, and of the Commission's decision of 31 October 2003 refusing her the expatriation allowance and the installation allowance provided for in Articles 4 and 5, respectively, of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of the European Communities, and of the Commission's decision of 10 December 2003 demanding repayment of the sums received in that respect.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application.

               2.

               Orders the parties each to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 284, 20.11.2004.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) 30 April 2002 in Case C-400/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca do Porto): Club-Tour, Viagens e Turismo SA v Alberto Carlos Lobo Gonçalves Garrido, Third party: Club Med Viagens Ld..a (Directive 90/314/EEC — Package travel, package holidays and package tours — Definition of "package travel" and "pre-arranged")

text:
C 144/10                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          15.6.2002
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Third Chamber)                                                             (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                25 April 2002
                            30 April 2002
                                                                           In Joined Cases C-418/00 and C-419/00: Commission of
in Case C-400/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                       the European Communities v French Republic (1)
the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca do Porto): Club-Tour,
Viagens e Turismo SA v Alberto Carlos Lobo Gonçalves
                                                                           (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
       Garrido, Third party: Club Med Viagens Ld.ª (1)
                                                                           Community system for the conservation and management
                                                                           of fishery resources — Inspection of fishing vessels and
(Directive 90/314/EEC — Package travel, package holidays                   monitoring of catches (Article 5(2) of Regulation (EEC)
and package tours — Definition of ‘package travel’ and ‘pre-               No 170/83, Article 1(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2241/87,
                              arranged’)                                   Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 3760/92 and Article 2 of
                                                                           Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93) — Late suspension of fishing
                                                                           (Article 11(1) and (2) of Regulation No 2241/87 and
                           (2002/C 144/14)                                 Article 21(1) and (2) of Regulation No 2847/93) — Absence
                                                                           of penal or administrative action against those responsible
                                                                           for exceeding quotas (Article 1(2) of Regulation No 2241/
                  (Language of the case: Portuguese)                                87 and Article 31 of Regulation No 2847/93))
                                                                                (2002/C 144/15)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
In Case C-400/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234                                     in the European Court Reports)
EC by the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca do Porto (Portugal) for
a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Club-Tour, Viagens e Turismo SA and Alberto
Carlos Lobo Gonçalves Garrido; Third party: Club Med Viagens               In Joined Cases C-418/00 and C-419/00, Commission of the
Ld.ª, on the interpretation of Article 2(1) of Council Directive           European Communities, (Agents: T. van Rijn and B. Mongin) v
90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 on package travel, package                      French Republic, (Agents: C. Vasak and G. de Bergues):
holidays and package tours, the Court (Third Chamber),                     Application for a declaration that:
composed of: F. Macken, President of the Chamber, C. Gul-
mann (Rapporteur) and J. N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; A. Tiz-               —     by failing to determine the appropriate detailed rules for
zano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a                         the utilisation of the quotas allocated to it for the 1991 to
judgment on 30 April 2002, in which it:                                          1994 fishing years (Case C-418/00) and the 1995 and
                                                                                1996 fishing years (Case C-419/00),
1.    The term ‘package’ used in Council Directive 90/314/EEC of           —     by failing to ensure compliance with the Community
      13 June 1990 on package travel, package holidays and package               rules on the conservation of species through monitoring
      tours, must be interpreted so as to include holidays organised             of fishing activities, and through appropriate inspection
      by travel agents, at the request of and in accordance with the             of landings and catch records,
      specifications of a consumer or limited group of consumers.
                                                                           —     by not provisionally prohibiting fishing by vessels flying
                                                                                the French flag or registered in French territory when the
2.    The term ‘pre-organised combination’ used in Article 2(1) of               catches landed were deemed to have exhausted the
      Directive 90/314 must be interpreted so as to include                      corresponding quota and by finally prohibiting fishing
      combinations of tourist services put together at the time when             only when the corresponding quota had been consider-
      the contract is concluded between the travel agency and the                ably exceeded, in the 1991 to 1994 fishing years (Case
      consumer.                                                                  C-418/00), and the 1995 and 1996 fishing years (Case
                                                                                C-419/00), and
(1) OJ C 372 of 23.12.2000.
                                                                           —     by failing to take penal or administrative action against
                                                                                any master of a vessel or other person responsible for
                                                                                fishing after a prohibition had been imposed, in the
                                                                                1991 to 1994 fishing years (Case C-418/00), and the
                                                                                1995 and 1996 fishing years (Case C-419/00),


title: Case C-442/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of  3 November 2005  in Finanzamt Oschatz v Zweckverband zur Trinkwasserversorgung und Abwasserbeseitigung Torgau-Westelbien

text:
               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/18

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 3 November 2005 in Finanzamt Oschatz v Zweckverband zur Trinkwasserversorgung und Abwasserbeseitigung Torgau-Westelbien
   (Case C-442/05)
   (2006/C 60/35)
   Language of the case: German
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court) of 3 November 2005, received at the Court Registry on 14 December 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Finanzamt Oschatz and Zweckverband zur Trinkwasserversorgung und Abwasserbeseitigung Torgau-Westelbien on the following question:
   Does connection of the water distribution network to a property owner's installation (the so-called ‘household connection’) by a water supply undertaking for a separately calculated fee come under the heading of ‘the supply of water’ within the meaning of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 (1) on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes (Annex D (2) and Annex H Category 2)?

      (1)  OJ L 145, p. 1.


title: Case C-78/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’Appel, Rouen (France) lodged on 8 February 2010 — Marc Berel, in his capacity as the authorised agent of the company Port Angot Développement, Mr Hess, in his capacity as receiver of the company Port Angot Développement, the company Rijn Schelde Mondia France, Receveur Principal des Douanes, Port of Rouen, Administration des Douanes, Port of Le Havre, the company Port Angot Développement, successor in title of the company Manutention de Produits Chimiques et Miniers (Maprochim), Asia Pulp & Paper France v Administration des Douanes, Rouen, Receveur Principal des Douanes, Le Havre, Administration des Douanes, Le Havre

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/22

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’Appel, Rouen (France) lodged on 8 February 2010 — Marc Berel, in his capacity as the authorised agent of the company Port Angot Développement, Mr Hess, in his capacity as receiver of the company Port Angot Développement, the company Rijn Schelde Mondia France, Receveur Principal des Douanes, Port of Rouen, Administration des Douanes, Port of Le Havre, the company Port Angot Développement, successor in title of the company Manutention de Produits Chimiques et Miniers (Maprochim), Asia Pulp & Paper France v Administration des Douanes, Rouen, Receveur Principal des Douanes, Le Havre, Administration des Douanes, Le Havre
   (Case C-78/10)
   2010/C 113/34
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour d’Appel, Rouen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Marc Berel, in his capacity as the authorised agent of the company Port Angot Développement, Mr Hess, in his capacity as receiver of the company Port Angot Développement, the company Rijn Schelde Mondia France, Receveur Principal des Douanes, Port of Rouen, Administration des douanes — Havre Port, Société Port Angot Développement, successor in title of the company Manutention de Produits Chimiques et Miniers (Maprochim), Asia Pulp & Paper France

      Defendants: Administration des Douanes, Rouen, Receveur Principal des Douanes, Le Havre, Administration des Douanes, Le Havre

      Question referred

   Do Articles 213, 233 and 239 of the Community Customs Code (1) prevent a joint and several co-debtor of a customs debt who is not the beneficiary of a decision to remit that debt from enforcing, against the administration responsible for collection, the decision to remit based on Article 239 of the Community Customs Code which that administration notified to another joint and several co-debtor, in order to be excused payment of the customs debt?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).


title: Case T-289/08: Action brought on 29 July 2008 — Deutsche BKK v OHIM

text:
               27.9.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/18

         Action brought on 29 July 2008 — Deutsche BKK v OHIM
   (Case T-289/08)
   (2008/C 247/36)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Deutsche BKK (Wolfsburg, Germany) (represented by H.P. Schrammek, C. Drzymalla and S. Risthaus, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 May 2008 in Case R 318/2008-4, notified on 2 June 2008;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Deutsche BKK’ for services in Classes 36, 41 and 44 (application No 4 724 894).

      Decision of the Examiner: Refusal of the application.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.
   Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of Article 73 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) due to the rejection of documents without the possibility for prior comments;

               —

               Infringement of the first sentence of Article 4(1) of Regulation No 40/94 due to the Office's improper investigation of the facts;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 40/94 due to denial of protection for the mark ‘Deutsche BKK’ because of absolute grounds for refusal of protection for the mark;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94 due to refusal to recognise distinctive character in consequence of use.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).


title: Case T-62/03: Action brought on 24 February 2003 by Georges Vassilakis against Commission of the European Communities

text:
26.4.2003              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 101/51
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           —     annul the implied rejection of the applicant’s complaint
                                                                                of 16 July 2002;
Trade mark concerned:          QUICK-GRIP.        —    Application
                               No 1760867.                                —     order the Commission to pay the costs even in the event
                                                                                that the present application is dismissed.
Product or service:            ‘Hand tools, clamps, c-clamps, bar
                               clamps, hold-down clamps, weld-
                               ing clamps, chain clamps, locking
                               bar clamps, locking hold-down
                               clamps, locking pipe clamps, pipe          Pleas in law and main arguments
                               clamps, part and fittings for the
                               aforesaid goods’ in International
                               Class 8.                                   In support of his arguments, the applicant alleges, first, lack of
                                                                          a statement of reasons. The applicant claims furthermore that
Decision        challenged     Refusal of registration.                   the assessment of the comparative merits of the officials
before the Board of                                                       eligible for promotion was incorrect and that it was not carried
Appeal:                                                                   out in relation to all the officials eligible for promotion.
Pleas in Law relied on:        Incorrect       application       of
                               Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of the Regu-
                               lation No 40/94.
                                                                          Action brought on 25 February 2003 by Fondation Alsace
                                                                              against Commission of the European Communities
Action brought on 24 February 2003 by Georges Vassila-                                              (Case T-65/03)
  kis against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (2003/C 101/89)
                          (Case T-62/03)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                         (2003/C 101/88)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 25 February 2003 by Fondation
                                                                          Alsace, whose registered office is at Strasbourg (France),
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 represented by François Ruhlmann, lawyer.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 24 February 2003 by Georges
Vassilakis, residing in Brussels, represented by Georgy Manalis,
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
lawyer.
                                                                          —     annul the decision of the Commission of 20 December
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                     2002 or, in the alternative, the preceding decision related
                                                                                to it;
—     annul the decision of the Commission of the European
      Communities, as the appointing authority, not to include            —     order the Commission to pay the Association Fondation
      the applicant’s name in the list of officials promoted to                 Alsace EUR 3 000 by way of preparation allowance and
      Grade A 5 in the 2002 exercise to promote officials from                  costs of proceedings;
      one career to the next, as mentioned in Administrative
      Information No 40-2002 of 17 May 2002;                              —     order the European Commission to pay all the costs of
                                                                                the proceedings.
—     annul the list of officials promoted to A 5 in the 2002
      exercise to promote officials from one career to the next,                Alternatively:
      as mentioned in Administrative Information No 40-2002
      of 17 May 2002, insofar as it does not include the                  —     grant the Association Fondation Alsace the longest period
      applicant’s name;                                                         possible for payment.