title: Case C-371/01: Action brought on 26 September 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
C 348/12                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    8.12.2001
(Federal Social Court) of 2 August 2001, received at the Court           The Commission claims that the Court should:
Registry on 25 September 2001, for a preliminary ruling in
the case of Nadi Sahin against Bundesanstalt für Arbeit (Federal         —     declare that, by failing to adopt and to notify to the
Labour Office) on the following question:                                      Commission, within the time-limit laid down, the laws,
                                                                               regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
1.     Is Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol of 23 Novem-                comply fully with Council Directive 98/81/EC (1) of
       ber 1970 to the Agreement establishing an Association                   26 October 1998 amending Directive 90/219/EEC on
       between the European Economic Community and Turkey                      the contained use of genetically modified micro-organ-
       to be interpreted as meaning:                                           isms, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obli-
                                                                               gations under the EC Treaty;
       (a)  that a Turkish worker is entitled to plead a restriction
            on the freedom to provide services which is contrary         —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
            to the Additional Protocol and, if so,
       (b) that there is also a restriction on the freedom to
            provide services where a Member State of the                 Pleas in law and main arguments
            Community abolishes an existing work permit
            exemption for Turkish drivers engaged in inter-
            national haulage who are employed by a (Turkish)             In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 of the
            employer with its seat in Turkey?                            Treaty establishing the European Community, directives are
                                                                         binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member
                                                                         State to which they are addressed.
2.     Does such a restriction concern exclusively the freedom
       to provide services or does it also or solely concern
       conditions of access to employment within the meaning
       of Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association              Under the first paragraph of Article 10 of the Treaty, Member
       Council of 19 September 1980 on the development                   States are to take all appropriate measures, whether general or
       of the Association between the European Economic                  particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out
       Community and Turkey?                                             of the Treaty or resulting from action taken by the institutions
                                                                         of the Community.
3.     Is Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association
       Council of 19 September 1980 on the development                   It is not disputed by the Hellenic Republic that it must adopt
       of the Association between the European Economic                  measures to comply with the abovementioned directive.
       Community and Turkey also to be applied to Turkish
       employees of an employer with its seat in Turkey who,
       as long-distance lorry drivers engaged in international           The Commission records that until now the Hellenic Republic
       haulage, regularly pass through a Member State of the             has not adopted the appropriate measures for the full incorpor-
       Community without belonging to the (legitimate) labour            ation of the Directive at issue into Greek law.
       force of that Member State?
                                                                         (1) OJ L 330, 5.12.1998, p. 13.
Action brought on 26 September 2001 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities against the Hellen-
                            ic Republic                                  Action brought on 27 September 2001 by the Com-
                                                                            mission of the European Communities against Ireland
                         (Case C-371/01)
                                                                                (Case C-375/01)
                         (2001/C 348/21)
                                                                                (2001/C 348/22)
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 Sep-              An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
tember 2001 by the Commission of the European Communi-                   Justice of the European Communities on 27 September 2001
ties, represented by Götz zur Hausen, Legal Adviser, and Panos           by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
Panagiotopoulos, a national civil servant on secondment to its           by Richard Wainwright, acting as agent, with an address for
Legal Service.                                                           service in Luxembourg.


title: Action brought on 2 September 1996 by Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH and C. H. Boehringer Sohn Limited Partnership against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-152/96)

text:
No C 354/32            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      23 . 11 . 96
his classification in Grade B 5 on his recruitment to the Unit        Denis Waelbroeck and Denis Fosselard, of Liedekerke
on the Coordination of Fraud Prevention ( Uclaf).                     Wolters Waelbroeck & Kirkpatrick , with an address for
                                                                      service in Luxembourg at the chambers of Arendt &
                                                                      Medernach, 8—10 Rue Mathias Hardt.
In support of his action he claims to possess exceptional and
very specific qualifications in the fields covered by his duties .
That professional experience was acquired in the context of           The applicants claim that the Court should :
the Irish customs authorities and as a member of the
temporary staff in Uclaf at the Commission .
                                                                      — declare in accordance with Article 184 of the EC Treaty
                                                                           that Directive 96/22/EC, in so far as it prohibits the
First, he claims that the rule laid down by the Court of First             placing on the market of veterinary medicinal products
Instance in the judgment of 5 October 1995 in Case T-17/95                 containing beta-agonists for administration for
Alexopoulou has been disregarded . The applicant considers                 therapeutic purposes to farm animals, is unlawful and
that he fulfils the condition regarding special and                        therefore cannot serve as a justification for the
exceptional qualifications referred to in that judgment.                   restrictions      contained      in     Regulation       ( EC )
According to the applicant, it follows that, by not applying               No 1312/96 ,
to him the exception provided for in Article 31 ( 2 ) of the
Staff Regulations, the appointing authority committed a
manifest error of assessment .                                        — annul Regulation ( EC ) No 1312/96 in so far as it
                                                                           restricts the validity of the MRLs established for
                                                                           Clenbuterol to certain specific therapeutic purposes,
According to the applicant, the Commission merely relied                   and
on general arguments in the contested decision, namely its
own practice of recuiting to the starting grade even in
specialised fields , and on Article 27 of the Staff Regulations,      — order the Commission to bear the costs of the present
which imposes on it very high standards of recruitment,                    proceedings .
without countering any of the specific and precise
arguments he had put forward in his complaint .
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Finally, the applicant alleges breach of the duty to have
regard to the welfare of officials, inasmuch as the defendant         The application seeks the annulment of Commission
treated him unfairly by comparison with certain of his                Regulation ( EC ) No 1312/96 of 8 July 1996 ( OJ No L 170,
colleagues who, having been members of the temporary                  9 . 7. 1996 , p. 8 ) in so far as it restricts the validity of the
                                                                      maximum residue limits . ( MRLs ) which it establishes for
staff, were able to retain their grade after passing
competitions to establish them . This situation arises from           Clenbuterol hydrochloride to certain                therapeutical
the fact that the applicant devoted particular efforts to keep        indications in bovine and equine animals .
his post and therefore participated in a general competition
in 1991 , whereas competitions which were less stringent             The applicants state that the Commission has justified such
were held at the end of 1992/early 1993 to establish other            refusal exclusively by the fact that Council Directive
colleagues who , according to the applicant, had not shown            96/22/EC of 29 April 1996 ( OJ No L 125 , 23 . 5 . 1996 , p. 3 )
the same readiness .                                                  prohibits the administration of Clenbuterol to farm animals
                                                                      except for some specific therapeutic purposes in equines and
                                                                      in cows . They submit, however, that the provisions of that
                                                                      directive are contrary to EC law, as has already been shown
                                                                      in Case T-125/96 ( OJ No C 318 , 26 . 10 . 1996 , p. 15 ). They
                                                                      maintain therefore that those provisions should be declared
                                                                      inapplicable in this case .
Action brought on 2 September 1996 by Boehringer                     Accordingly, the applicants consider that the contested
Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH and C. H. Boehringer Sohn                   provisions are not substantiated by a proper statement of
Limited Partnership against the Commission of the                    reasons and that, as a result, the contested Regulation does
                     European Communities                             not comply with the requirements set out in Article 190 of
                                                                     the EC Treaty .
                        ( Case T-152/96 )
                          ( 96/C 354/63 )
                                                                     They further maintain that the provisions of the contested
                                                                      Regulation deprive them, without any valid justification, of
               (Language of the case: English)                       their right to manufacture and market most of their
                                                                     veterinary medicinal products containing Clenbuterol,
                                                                      although, in conformity with the relevant EC regulatory
An action against the Commission of the European                      requirements , they hold licences for the marketing of their
Communities was brought before the Court of First                     products .
Instance of the European Communities on 2 September
19 96 by Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH and C. H.
Boehringer Sohn Limited Partnership, represented by


title: Case T-169/08: Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2012 — DEI v Commission (Competition — Abuse of dominant position — Greek market for the supply of lignite and Greek wholesale electricity market — Decision finding an infringement of Article 86(1) EC, read in combination with Article 82 EC — Grant or maintenance of rights awarded by the Hellenic Republic in favour of a public undertaking for the extraction of lignite)

text:
               10.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/11

         Judgment of the General Court of 20 September 2012 — DEI v Commission
   (Case T-169/08) (1)

   (Competition - Abuse of dominant position - Greek market for the supply of lignite and Greek wholesale electricity market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 86(1) EC, read in combination with Article 82 EC - Grant or maintenance of rights awarded by the Hellenic Republic in favour of a public undertaking for the extraction of lignite)
   2012/C 343/13
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI) (Athens, Greece) (represented by: P. Anestis, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Christoforou, A. Bouquet and A. Antoniadis, Agents, assisted by A. Oikonomou, lawyer)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: K. Boskovits and P. Mylonopoulos, Agents, assisted initially by A. Komninos and M. Marinos, and subsequently by M. Marinos, lawyers)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Energeiaki Thessalonikis AE (Echedoros, Greece); and Elliniki Energeia kai Anaptyxi AE (HE & DSA), (Kifissia, Greece) (represented by: P. Skouris and E. Trova, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 824 final of 5 March 2008, concerning the grant or maintenance by the Hellenic Republic of rights in favour of DEI for the extraction of lignite

      Operative part

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision C(2008) 824 final of 5 March 2008, concerning the grant or maintenance by the Hellenic Republic of rights in favour of Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI) for the extraction of lignite.

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by DEI.

               3.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic, Elliniki Energeia kai Anaptyxi AE (HE & DSA) and Energeiaki Thessalonikis AE to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 183, 19.7.2008.


title: Action brought on 19 December 1995 by SIC - Sociedade Independente de Comunicação, SA against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-231/95)

text:
No C 77/ 14            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                        16 . 3 . 96
Action brought on 18 December 1995 by Societe Bretagne               therefore to the beneficiary of the aid, it is unfair for the
Angleterre Irlande ( BAI) against the Commission of the              complainant not to be informed of it. The injustice is all
                     European Communities                            the greater because, unknown to the complainant, the
                        ( Case T-230/95 )                            agreement to which it objects was drawn up by the State
                                                                     concerned in conjunction with the Commission, according
                           ( 96/C 77/32 )
                                                                     to its own press release. Consequently, the inquiry into the
                                                                     matter was neither impartial nor diligent.
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     Because it does not have the text of the Commission 's
An action against the Commission of the European                     decision, the applicant finds itself in the following position :
Communities was brought before the Court of First                    either the Commission's decision did not put an end to
Instance of the European Communities on 18 December                  the infringement complained of by the applicant and
 1995 by Societe Bretagne Angleterre Irlande ( BAI ), a              is unlawful, or that decision gives all operators the
company whose registered office is in Roscoff ( France ),            opportunity of entering into agreements with State
represented by Jean-Michel Payre, of the Paris Bar, with an          authorities which make it possible for them to ensure that
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                 their vessels are profitable. In the first case, the applicant
Aloyse May, 31 Grand-rue.                                            would be unable to exercise its right to take legal action,
                                                                     because it does not know the reasons on which the decision
                                                                     is based . In the second case, it would for the same reason be
The applicant claims that the Court should:                          unable to make use of such an opportunity.
— order the Commission to compensate the loss suffered
     by the applicant because it has not been informed of the
     decision taken by the Commission in Case C-32/93 ( Ex
     NN 40/93 ) or, if it should be so informed during the
     proceedings, because the Commission is late in fulfilling
     its obligation,                                                 Action brought on 19 December 1995 by SIC — Sociedade
                                                                     Independente de Comunica^ao, SA against the Commission
— order the Commission to pay the costs .                                             of the European Communities
                                                                                Case T-231/95 )
Pleans in law and main arguments:                                                              ( 96/C 77/33 )
The applicant, a company governed by French law which                An action against the Commission of the European
was for many years the sole operator of a shipping line              Communities was brought before the Court of First
between the ports of Plymouth in England and Santander in            Instance of the European Communities on 19 December
Spain, objects to the fact that the Commission has failed,           1995 by SIC — Sociedade Independente de Comunica^ao,
despite a number of requests and formal notices, to inform           SA, whose registered office is at 119 Estrada da Outurela ,
the applicant of the terms of a decision given in response to a      Carnaxide, Linda-a-Velha, represented by Carlos Botelho
complaint lodged under Article 93 ( 2 ) of the EC Treaty.            Moniz and Ana Santos Reis, Advogados, with chambers at
                                                                     63 6° Rua Castilho, Lisbon, with an address for service in
That complaint concerned aids granted by the 'Diputacion             Luxembourg at the chambers of Aloyse May, 31
Foral de Vizcaya' ( Regional Government of Biscay ) and the          Grand-rue .
' Gobierno Vasco' ( Basque Government ) to a company,
Ferries Golfo de Vizcaya SA, 50 % controlled by the United
Kingdom company Peninsular and Oriental European                    The applicant claims that the Court should :
Ferries ( P&O ), which has since March 1993 been operating
a competing line between the ports of Portsmouth and                — find and declare that the defendant has, in breach of
Bilbao . More specifically, those authorities had undertaken             Articles 92 and 93 of the EC Treaty and of general
to purchase travel vouchers from Ferries Golfo de Vizcaya                principles of law, failed in its duty to give a decision on
amounting to the sum of Pta 1 314 190 000 during the line's              the request for a procedure to be commenced under
first three years of operation during which it was forecast to           Article 93 ( 2 ) made to it by the applicant in its complaint
be running at a loss. Those payments were to be made even if             ( No IV/34.811 ) concerning the aid granted by the
the crossings did not take place; the price agreed was                   Portuguese Government to RTP — Radiotelevisao
substantially higher than the shipping company's public                  Portuguesa , SA,
fares .
                                                                    — order the Commission to pay the costs in their
At the beginning of June 1995 the applicant learned from                 entirety.
the newspapers that the Commission had given a decision,
but it still does not know either the content of that decision       Pleas in law and main arguments:
or the date on which it was adopted, even though it has
requested the information a number of times .                       The applicant states that Article 92 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty lays
                                                                     down a rule concerning the incompatibility of aid with the
First of all, the applicant maintains that once a decision has      common market; Article 92 ( 2 ) and ( 3 ) allows exceptions to
been adopted, its existence made public in a press release           that rule . The Commission has sole competence to decide as
and its content imparted to the State in question, and               to the availability of exceptions, in other words to decide as
 ---pagebreak--- 16 . 3 . 96           I EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 77/ 15
to the compatibility of an aid with the functioning of the          Action brought on 15 January 1996 by S against the Court
common market . It is clear from the substantive rules                        of Justice of the European Communities
referred to, and from the fact that exclusive powers are                                     ( Case T-4/96
conferred on the Commission , that the adjectival rules
under Article 93 ( 3 ) make it incumbent on the Member                                         ( 96/C 77/34 )
States to notify the Commission, before approval and
implementation within the Member State concerned, of any                            (Language of the case: French)
plans to grant aid which they intend adopting. In the event
of the Member States not observing the notification                 An action against the Court of Justice of the European
requirement, the prohibition of implementation of the               Communities was brought before the Court of First
measures concerned is fully effective domestically; that rule       Instance of the European Communities on 15 January 1996
can thus be relied on by a competitor before the national           by S, represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi,
courts if national procedural law provides means for                of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
challenging the aid granted, but the national courts must           Luxembourg at the office of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 1 Rue
confine themselves to ensuring the effectiveness of the             Glesener .
prohibition pending the Commission's final decision. By
virtue of those rules, the Commission is under a duty to give       The applicant claims that the Court should :
a decision as to the compatibility with the common market
of unnotified aid measures which have come to its notice in         — annul the decision of the Court of Justice of the
the mean time, in particular when it has been informed of               European Communities, in its capacity of appointing
their existence by a complaint lodged by a competitor of the            authority, of 11 April 1995 , in so far as it applies an
recipient of the aid.                                                   invalidity rate of 6 % for calculating the sum referred to
                                                                        in Article 73 of the Staff Regulations,
The applicant considers that in this case the Commission            — recognize the applicant's entitlement to the sum
was informed, by means of the complaint submitted, of the               provided for in Article 73 of the Staff Regulations,
adoption and implementation in Portugal of aid measures in              calculated on the basis of a rate of invalidity of 30% ,
favour of RTP, approved by the Government, without
fulfilment of the duty of notification . This means that the        — annul, in so far as necessary, the decision rejecting the
Commission should, within a reasonable period, have                     applicant's complaint, taken on 2 October 1995 and
adopted one of two decisions : either one approving the                 notified on 16 October 1995 ,
measures in question, after giving the Portuguese authorities
an apportunity to submit their observations, in the event of        — order the defendant to pay the costs .
its immediately coming to the view that the measures are
compatible with the common market; or a decision to                 Pleas in law and main arguments:
initiate an investigative procedure under Article 93 ( 2 ) in the
event of its being unable, on the basis of a straightforward        The applicant, a pensioned official of grade LA 6 at the
preliminary analysis, to consider such measures compatible          Court of Justice, challenges the method of calculation of the
with the common market. The Commission took neither                 sum referred to in Article 73 of the Staff Regulations, which
course, still being engaged in its preliminary examination          she claims is based on an incorrect rate of invalidity .
after two-and-a-half years .
                                                                    The contested decision was adopted on the basis of two
                                                                    medical reports from the medical committee, according to
The fact that the Commission did not express a view, at the         which the applicant has a permanent partial invalidity of
preliminary stage, undermines the applicant's rights, the           30 % , 20 % of which arose in the course of the performance
latter being prevented from securing judicial protection to         by the applicant of her duties in the defendant
safeguard its legitimate interests. Accordingly, the                institution .
applicant, on 1 1 August 1995, called on the Commission to
act: it sent a letter requiring the Commission, under and for       The applicant argues firstly that there has been a breach of
the purposes of Article 175 of the EC Treaty, to give a             Article 73 of the Staff Regulations and of Articles 3 ( 2 ) and
decision on the complaint submitted, in particular the              12 ( 2 ) of the Rules and the scale of rates of invalidity
request that a procedure be commenced under                         annexed thereto . She considers that when a disease or the
Article 93 ( 2 ). The Commission replied, albeit outside the        aggravation of a disease arises in the course of or in
period of two months laid down in Article 175 , by letter of        connection with the performance of duties with the
16 October 1995 ; in that letter the Commission did not take        Communities, the official is entitled to benefits and it is not
any position, merely stating that it had received a study and       necessary for the work in the institutions to have been the
would seek information from the Portuguese authorities in           predominant cause of the disease .
order to analyse the situation . Consequently, the
Commission is in breach of its obligation to adopt a measure        The applicant also submits that once the causal link had
defining its position on the complaint submitted to it by the       been established and the rate of permanent invalidity fixed
applicant.                                                          at 30 % , the defendant was in breach of Article 73 ( 2 ) ( c ) of
                                                                    the Staff Regulations and Articles 3 ( 2 ) and 12 ( 2 ) of the
                                                                    Rules and of the scale of rates of invalidity annexed thereto
                                                                    by taking a rate of 6 % into consideratioin for calculation of
                                                                    the sum in question .


title: Case C-207/99 P: Appeal brought on 31 May 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment delivered on 25 March 1999 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-76/98 between Claudine Hamptaux and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 246/10               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      28.8.1999
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          between officials must serve the objective set in Article 27 of
                                                                         the Staff Regulations of securing for the institution the services
The application is made on the basis of an arbitration clause            of officials of the highest standard of ability, efficiency and
and is founded on a standard contract governed by French                 integrity.
law.
Appeal brought on 10 May 1999 by the European Parlia-                    Appeal brought on 31 May 1999 by the Commission of
ment against the judgment delivered on 9 March 1999 by                   the European Communities against the judgment deliver-
the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                  ed on 25 March 1999 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court
European Communities in Case T-273/97 between Pierre                     of First Instance of the European Communities in Case
               Richard and European Parliament                           T-76/98 between Claudine Hamptaux and the Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities
                        (Case C-174/99 P)
                                                                                (Case C-207/99 P)
                         (1999/C 246/19)
                                                                                (1999/C 246/20)
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 9 March 1999
by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the               An appeal against the judgment delivered on 25 March 1999
European Communities in Case T-273/97 between Pierre                     by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
Richard and European Parliament was brought before the                   European Communities in Case T-76/98 between Claudine
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 10 May 1999              Hamptaux and the Commission of the European Communities
by the European Parliament, represented by João Sant’Anna, of           was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
its Legal Service, acting as agent, assisted by Denis Waelbroeck,        Communities on 31 May 1999 by the Commission of the
of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg           European Communities, represented by Christine Berardis-
at the Secretariat General of the European Parliament, Mail and          Kayser and F. Duvieusart-Clotuche, of its Legal Service, acting
Registration Department, Tower Building, Office 017.                     as Agents, assisted by Denis Waelbroeck, lawyer, with an
                                                                         address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
The appellant claims that the Court should:                              Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchherg.
— set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9             The appellant claims that the Court should:
     March 1999 in Case T-273/97 between Pierre Richard and
     the European Parliament;                                            — declare the appeal admissible and well-founded;
— consequently, refer the case back to the Court of First                — consequently, annul the contested judgment and dismiss
     Instance;                                                                the respondent’s claim;
— reserve a decision as to costs until final adjudication.               — alternatively, refer the case back, in consequence, to the
                                                                              Court of First Instance;
Pleas and main arguments
                                                                         — reserve the costs.
Breach of Community law, specifically of Article 29 of the
Staff Regulations: in the judgment under appeal, the Court of            Pleas in law and main arguments
First Instance fundamentally changed the interpretation of
Article 29(1) of the Staff Regulations. Instead of taking the            Contradiction in the grounds of judgment and error of law
view that Article 29(1) provides for a procedure to fill a vacant        as regards the promotion procedure carried out by the
post, with separate rules — it being a question for the                  Commission: the Court of First Instance erred — and contra-
appointing authority whether they enable the most suitable               dicted its own findings of fact — in concluding that, according
person to be found — the Court of First Instance espoused the            to the promotion procedure carried out by the Commission,
view that Article 29 provides for a series of four separate              officials whose names had already appeared on the list of those
stages or phases, each of which must be formally initiated and           most deserving of promotion in the previous year but had not
closed before the appointing authority can move on to the                been promoted would automatically be included on the list of
next. The Court also took the view that, as from the moment              most deserving officials. It is apparent from the facts accepted
when a suitable candidate is discovered during the first stage           by the Court of First Instance itself that the names of such
under Article 29, the institution is no longer entitled to extend        officials do not automatically feature on that list and that they
the range of choice available by considering possibilities under         are not automatically promoted, since the Commission checks
other rules, laid down in Article 29(1)) of the Staff Regulations.       in each individual case to ensure that the officials concerned
In so doing, the judgment under appeal contravenes two of                have not ceased to be ‘meritorious’, that is to say, that they are
the fundamental principles which must be respected in the                still deserving of promotion, which necessarily involves an
case of any appointment of officials to vacancies: (i) the               examination of their comparative merits.
principle laid down in Article 7(1) of the Staff Regulations,
according to which all appointments must be made exclusively
in the interests of the service; (ii) the principle that all choices


title: Case T-222/99: Action brought on 5 October 1999 by Jean-Claude Martinez and Charles de Gaulle against the European Parliament

text:
18.12.1999            EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 366/29
Harm                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments
1. Loss of income due to cancelled and lost bookings                    The applicant contests the finding that her absences were
                                                                        unlawful, submitting that:
    a) Cancelled bookings
                                                                        — the Council infringed Article 59(3) of the Staff Regulations
    b) Lost bookings                                                         in refusing to request the Invalidity Committee to deter-
                                                                             mine the validity of the medical certificates submitted by
                                                                             the applicant as evidence that her absences were caused by
2. Loss of income by reason of reduction of the price of the                 illness; and
    services offered
                                                                        — the Council is in breach of its obligations to give reasons
3. Harm resulting from the increased burden on the budget                    for its decisions and to respect the rights of the defence, in
    for financing the construction of new ships, by reasony of               that it has failed to produce any information of a medical
    interest due on additional borrowing                                     nature which would enable the doctor treating the appli-
                                                                             cant to understand the reasons which have led the medical
4. Lower profits by reason of loss of income in future seasons               officers checking the certificates submitted to question
    and of clientele.                                                        their validity.
                                                                        As regards the disciplinary action, the applicant points out
                                                                        that this was taken following her refusal to undergo periodical
                                                                        medical examinations. She emphasises in this connection that
                                                                        she was acting on the advice of her own doctor who believed
                                                                        that such examinations might have a deleterious effect on her
                                                                        health, a view which, according to the applicant, was recently
                                                                        confirmed by the Invalidity Committee’s decision of 23 March
                                                                        1999 finding her definitively incapable of performing her
Action brought on 30 September 1999 by Gitte Rasmus-                    duties in view of the seriousness of the illness afflicting her.
         sen against Council of the European Union                      The applicant argues that she is not in breach, therefore, of the
                                                                        Staff Regulations and that, consequently, the decision to take
                       (Case T-221/99)                                  disciplinary action lacks legal foundation and, at the very least,
                                                                        is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment.
                       (1999/C 366/62)
                                                                        Lastly, the applicant maintains that, by requiring her to
                                                                        undergo medical examinations deleterious to her health, the
                                                                        Council acted in dereliction of its duty on a number of counts,
                  (Language of the case: French)                        thereby incurring liability.
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 30 September 1999 by Gitte Rasmussen,
residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël Louis, Greta-
Françoise Parmentier and Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange.                              Action brought on 5 October 1999 by Jean-Claude Marti-
                                                                        nez and Charles de Gaulle against the European Parliament
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Case T-222/99)
— annul the Council decision declaring that the applicant’s
    absences between 28 September 1998 and 18 March 1999                                          (1999/C 366/63)
    were unlawful;
— annul the Council’s decision to issue the applicant with a                                 (Language of the case: French)
    written warning by way of disciplinary action;
                                                                        An action against the European Parliament was brought before
— order the Council to make a token payment to the                      the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
    applicant of one euro by way of compensation for the                on 5 October 1999 by Jean-Claude Martinez, residing at
    non-physical damage suffered;                                       Montpellier (France), and Charles de Gaulle, residing in Paris,
                                                                        represented by François Wagner, of the Nice Bar, 2 Rue de la
— order the Council to pay the costs.                                   Poissonnerie, Nice.
 ---pagebreak--- C 366/30                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                    18.12.1999
The applicants claim that the Court should:                                    — the contested interpretation infringes fundamental
                                                                                rights, by disregarding the right to freedom of associ-
— annul the decision of the European Parliament dated                               ation and the principle of equal treatment.
    14 September 1999 concerning the interpretation of the
    Rules of Procedure;
— declare the interpretation of Rule 29(1) of the Rules of
    Procedure proposed by the Committee on Constitutional
    Affairs and the Rules of Procedure to be contrary to the
    Community legal order, the rule of law, the founding
    principles of the Union and fundamental rights.                        Action brought on 26 October 1999 by Marie-Josée
                                                                                Bollendorff against the European Parliament
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                     (Case T-260/99)
The applicants, who are Members of the European Parliament,                                         (1999/C 366/64)
state that on 19 July 1999 the constitution of the ‘Groupe
Technique des Députés Indépendants (TDI) — Groupe mixte’
was communicated to the President of the Parliament, in                                       (Language of the case: French)
accordance with Rule 29 of the Parliament’s Rules of Pro-
cedure. At the plenary sitting on 20 July all the political groups         An action against the European Parliament was brought before
opposed the creation of that mixed group. The Committee on                 the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
Constitutional Affairs and the Rules of Procedure was therefore            26 October 1999 by Marie-Josée Bollendorff, resident in
called upon to provide an opinion on the conformity of that                Bertrange, Luxembourg, represented by Laurent Mosar, of the
new group with Rule 29(1) of the Rules of Procedure. It                    Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
proposed an interpretation to the effect that it is not possible,          at his Chambers, 8 Rue Notre-Dame.
within the meaning of that rule, to accept the constitution of a
group which openly denies possessing any political character
and the existence of any political affinities between its                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
members. On 14 September 1999 the matter was submitted
to a vote of the Parliament, which, by a simple majority,                  — annul the decision by which the appointing authority held
adopted the interpretation proposed by the Committee. It is                    her absence from 9 March 1999 to 12 March 1999 to be
that decision of the Parliament which is contested in the                      unauthorised and deducted 28.50 working hours from her
present case.                                                                  annual leave;
                                                                           — in the alternative, in so far as is necessary annul the express
In support of their action, the applicants advance two pleas in                decision of the European Parliament, notified on 26 July
law:                                                                           1999, rejecting her complaint under Article 90(2) of the
                                                                               Staff Regulations;
(a) T h e d i s c r i m i n a t o r y n a t u r e o f t h e c o n -
    tested decision:                                                       — order the European Parliament to pay the applicant the
                                                                               sum of LUF 100 000 by way of damages for non-pecuniary
    — the contested interpretation necessarily involves                        harm;
         unequal treatment, inasmuch as it has the effect of
         denying the Members concerned the administrative                  — order the European Parliament to pay the costs.
         advantages and the benefit of being able to participate
         in the work of the Parliament which are conferred by
         membership of a Parliamentary group;                              Pleas in law and main arguments
    — the contested interpretation diverges from most Euro-                The applicant disputes that her absences were improper,
         pean legislative systems and parliamentary practices.             contending:
(b) F a i l u r e t o r e s p e c t t h e C o m m u n i t y ’ s            — that the second paragraph of Article 25 of the Staff
    legal order and the rule of law in the                                     Regulations has been infringed in that the defendant did
    substantive sense of the term:                                             not notify her of any decision withdrawing days of leave;
    — the contested interpretation violates the general prin-              — that her right to a fair hearing has been infringed in that
         ciple of legal certainty, in that it is manifestly contrary           she was not asked to explain her conduct, in particular as
         to the spirit of the Rules of Procedure and fails to                  regards her failure to attend the medical examinations. Nor
         observe the principle of the protection of legitimate                 should the validity of the medical certificate produced by
         expectations, which has crystallised around the pro-                  her have been denied without her first undergoing a
         vision in question over the last twenty years;                        medical examination;


title: Case T-375/02: Action brought on 17 December 2002 by Alessandro Cavallaro against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
22.2.2003              EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 44/37
Pleas in law and main arguments                                             for the recruitment of administrators (Grade A 7/A 6) in the
                                                                            field of External Relations and Management of Aid to Third
                                                                            Countries, selecting ‘External Relations’, challenges the decision
The applicant challenges the decision of the appointing                     of the Commission, the examining body, to assess his test (e)
authority not to grant his request that the judgment of                     — written test — at one point below that necessary (19/40)
the Tribunal de Paix de Luxembourg (Magistrates’ Court,                     for admission to the oral test.
Luxembourg) of 26 November 1998 be correctly implemented
and that, consequently, the termination of attachment which
was ordered, with effect from 11 November 1998, in respect
of sums deducted by way of attachment from the salary of an                 In support of his claims the applicant alleges:
official of the defendant institution take effect on that date and
not in March 1998.                                                          —     Misuse of powers, insufficient statement of reasons and
                                                                                breach of the rights of the defence as regards the refusal
                                                                                to give him information as to the marking criteria let
In support of his claims, the applicant pleads:                                   alone the marking procedure and the marks of the
                                                                                individual examiners.
—     the principle under which the institutions are bound by a
      duty to cooperate in good faith with national institutions;
                                                                            —     Breach of Article 3 of the Staff Regulations, insufficient
—     that the attachment procedure is entirely legal as regards                  statement of reasons and breach of the rights of the
      Community law.                                                              defence as regards the refusal to provide information as
                                                                                to the linguistic knowledge of the third examiner.
                                                                            —     Breach of the principle of equal treatment in the test and
                                                                                of the principle of sound administration. In that respect
                                                                                it is stated that the material distributed to the candidates
                                                                                in Italian was not prepared with sufficient care. It should
Action brought on 17 December 2002 by Alessandro                                  also be noted that there was inconsistency in the grounds
Cavallaro against the Commission of the European Com-                             relating to the interpretation of the ‘instructions to
                             munities                                             candidates’.
                         (Case T-375/02)                                    —     Clear error of fact in the marking of the first answer in
                                                                                written test (e) of the competition.
                         (2003/C 44/70)
                                                                            —     Misrepresentation of the truth, illogicality and contradic-
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                               tory grounds as regards the marking of the second answer
                                                                                in written test (e) of the competition.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 17 December 2002 by Alessandro
Cavallaro, represented by C. Forte, lawyer.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                            Action brought on 9 December 2002 by ‘O’ against the
—     annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of                               Commission of the European Communities
      11 September 2002 to give him insufficient marks
      for written test (e) of the Open Competition for the
      recruitment of administrators (Grade A 7/A 6) COM/A/                                            (Case T-376/02)
      6/01 and, in consequence, not to admit him to the oral
      tests in that competition;
                                                                                (2003/C 44/71)
—     annul the subsequent stages of that competition, in so far
      as is necessary to restore the applicant’s rights;
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                            ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                            European Communities on 9 December 2002 by ‘O’, represent-
The applicant in this case, who had applied to take Open                    ed by Jean Van Rossum, Lawyer, with an address for service in
Competition COM/A/6/01 for the constitution of a reserve list               Luxembourg.


title: Action brought on 3 November 1998 by UPS Europe NV/SA against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-182/98)

text:
C 20/30              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 23.1.1999
                                                   COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                           Instance of the European Communities on 3 November
                     of 23 October 1998                             1998 by UPS Europe NV/SA, represented by T. R.
                                                                    Ottervanger, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
in Case T-25/96 (92): Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher                 the Office of Loeff Clayes Verbeke, 5, Rue Charles
Luftfahrt-Unternehmen and Another v. Commission of the              Martel, L-2134 Luxembourg.
                  European Communities (1)
                     (Taxation of costs)
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
                        (1999/C 20/54)
               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                    Ð annul the decision of the Commission not to start
                                                                        proceedings under Article 93(2) of the EC Treaty
In Case T-25/96 (92): (1) Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher                 against the Federal Republic of Germany with regard
Luftfahrt-Unternehmen, established in Bonn, composed of                 to the state aid issues raised in the complaint of the
the following members: Aero Lloyd Flugreisen GmbH &                     applicant.
Co. Luftverkehrs-KG, established at Oberursel (Germany),
Air Berlin GmbH & Co. Luftverkehrs KG, established in
Berlin, Condor Flugdienst GmbH, established at
Kelsterbach (Germany), Germania Fluggesellschaft mbH,               Ð order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the
established in Berlin, Hapag-Lloyd Fluggesellschaft mbH,                applicant in the present proceedings.
established at Langenhagen (Germany) and LTU
Lufttransport Unternehmen GmbH & Co. KG, established
in Düsseldorf, and (2) Hapag-Lloyd Fluggesellschaft mbH,            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
established at Langenhagen (Germany), represented by
Gerrit Schohe, Rechtsanwalt, Hamburg, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc                   On 7 July 1994, the applicant, part of the United Parcel
Baden, 34 b Rue Philippe II, v. Commission of the                   Service' (UPS) group of companies, which is active
European Communities (agent: Paul Nemitz) Ð                         worldwide in the business of parcel delivery, lodged a
application for taxation of costs pursuant to the order             complaint with the Commission asking it to initiate
made by the Court of First Instance on 14 March 1997 in             proceedings to establish among other things that abusive
Case T-25/96 Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher Luftfahrt-Un-            market behaviour by, and cross-subsidisation with respect
ternehmen and Hapag-Lloyd v. Commission [1997] ECR                  to, Deutsche Bundespost Postdienst, now Deutsche Post
II-363 Ð the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber,                AG, are contrary to the EC Treaty, in particular
Extended Composition), composed of: J. D. Cooke,                    Articles 86, 90, 92 and 93 thereof.
President, and R. García-Valdecasas, P. Lindh, J. Pirrung
and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order
on 23 October 1998, the operative part of which is as               On 19 December 1997, the Commission sent a letter
follows:                                                            stating that it would start proceedings under Article 93(2)
                                                                    of the Treaty at the beginning of next year'. On 10 August
The total amount of the costs to be reimbursed by the               1998, the applicant sent a letter requesting the
Commission to the applicants is fixed in the sum of                 Commission take a position on its complaint against the
DEM 30 000, together with any VAT payable on that                   Federal Republic of Germany under Article 92. On
sum.                                                                2 October 1998, the Commission wrote in response to this
                                                                    request that it would examine' the position and the
(1) OJ C 145, 18.5.1996.                                            behaviour of Deutsche Post AG under Article 86 of the
                                                                    Treaty and would not start Ð at least for the time being
                                                                    Ð a procedure under Article 93 (the contested decision).
                                                                    In support of its application, the applicant puts forward
Action brought on 3 November 1998 by UPS Europe                     four pleas:
NV/SA against the Commission of the European
                         Communities
                       (Case T-182/98)                              1. The Commission has infringed Article 93(2) of the EC
                                                                        Treaty by not initiating a procedure under this article
                        (1999/C 20/55)                                  against the Federal Republic of Germany. In its letter
                                                                        of 19 December 1997, the Commission indicated that
               (Language of the case: English)                          it would start proceedings at the beginning of 1998. In
                                                                        the applicant's view, this statement implies that at that
An action against the Commission of the European                        point in time the Commission had reached the
Communities was brought before the Court of First                       conclusion that it experienced serious difficulties in
 ---pagebreak--- 23.1.1999             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 20/31
    assessing whether the aid measures referred in the              Ð order the Commission and Council to pay the
    complaint were compatible with the common market.                    applicants:
    It therefore follows that the Commission was required
    to initiate a procedure under Article 93(2) and that the
    decision not to do it was unlawful.                                  (a) the individual sums set out in the schedule
                                                                              attached to the application at Annex 7, modified
                                                                              to the date of judgment; and, in the event that no
                                                                              order is made in respect of the applicants'
2. The contested decision of the Commission infringes                         liability for UK taxation on such sums;
    Article 190 of the EC Treaty in so far as it does not
    provide the applicant with an adequate explanation of
    the reasons which led the Commission to alter its                    (b) such further sum as may represent:
    original position.
                                                                              (i)   the sum payable by the applicants in respect
                                                                                of UK taxation, the quantification of such
                                                                                sums being adjourned pending negotiation
3. The Commission has infringed the principle of the
                                                                                between the parties and the UK tax
    protection of legitimate expectations.
                                                                                authorities; alternatively
                                                                              (ii) the actual liabilities for which the applicants
4. The Commission has infringed the principle of sound                              are liable to the UK tax authorities, the
    administration inasmuch as, in the present case, it has                         Council and Commission being liable to
    not dealt diligently with the applicant's complaint.                            indemnify the applicants in respect of any
                                                                                such contingent liability; and
                                                                    Ð order the Council and Commission to bear the costs of
                                                                         these proceedings.
Action brought on 19 November 1998 by Dorothy Bell
and Others against the Commission of the European                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
  Communities and the Council of the European Union
                       (Case T-184/98)
                                                                    The applicants in the present case are all UKAEA (United
                        (1999/C 20/56)                              Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority) members of the JET
                                                                    Team Staff and they seek damages against the Commission
                                                                    and Council for failure to adopt measures to implement
                                                                    the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Joined
               (Language of the case: English)                      Cases T-177/94 Altmann and Others and T-377/94 Casson
                                                                    and Others, delivered on 12 December 1996 (1), despite
                                                                    being expressly requested to do so.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities and the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European          Their submissions are in substance the same as those in
Communities on 19 November 1998 by Dorothy Bell and                 Case T-30/98 Altmann and Others (2), save as regards the
Others, represented by Mr Kenneth Parker QC and Mr                  dates from which the applicants maintain that their claim
Rhodri Thompson, Monckton Chambers, 4 Raymond                       for damages commences. Although there are technical
Buildings, Gray's Inn, London WC1R 5BP, United                      differences in the basis for their claims, in that the
Kingdom.                                                            judgment did not annul any decision relating to the
                                                                    applicants in the present case, the applicants maintain that
                                                                    the substance of their claim is identical to that of the
                                                                    claim of the applicants in Case T-30/98 and that the
The applicants claim that the Court should:                         Commission and Council were bound as a matter of
                                                                    Community law to remedy the legal wrong suffered by all
                                                                    the UKAEA members of the JET Team Staff and identified
                                                                    in the judgment or to pay compensation for their failure
Ð declare that the rejection of the applicants' complaint           to do so.
    whereby the Commission and Council failed to take
    any specific measures vis-aÁ-vis the applicants to
    implement the judgment of the Court in Joined Cases             (1) [1996] ECR II-2041.
    T-177/94 and T-377/94 Altmann and Others v.                     (2) OJ C 184, 13.6.1998, p. 11.
    Commission of 12 December 1996 is unlawful and a
    service-related fault for which the Commission and
    Council are liable;


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 October 1999 in Case C-439/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Sandoz GmbH v Finanzlandesdirektion für Wien, Niederösterreich und Burgenland (Loan agreements — Stamp duty — Rules governing imposition — Discrimination)

text:
C 6/8                     EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        8.1.2000
1. Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the       2. Articles 73b(1) and 73d(1)(b) of the Treaty preclude a provision
    laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to                  of national law such as the first sentence of the fourth
    comply with Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November                       subparagraph of Article 33 Tarifpost 8 of the Gebührengesetz.
    1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights
    related to copyright in the field of intellectual property, Ireland
    has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.               (1) OJ C 72 of 7.3.1998.
2. Orders Ireland to pay the costs.
(1) OJ No C 258 of 15.8.1998.
                                                                             Action brought on 23 September 1999 by the Com-
                                                                             mission of the European Communities against Hitesys
                                                                                SpA
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Case C-356/99)
                            (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                (2000/C 6/16)
                         of 14 October 1999
                                                                             An action against Hitesys SpA, whose registered office is in
in Case C-439/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                    Aprilia, Latina (Italy), was brought before the Court of Justice
the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Sandoz GmbH v Finanzlan-                        of the European Communities on 23 September 1999 by the
desdirektion für Wien, Niederösterreich und Burgen-                          Commission of the European Communities, represented by
                                  land (1)                                   Eugenio de March, Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, and Mr Dal
                                                                             Ferro, of the Vicenza Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                             Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
(Loan agreements — Stamp duty — Rules governing impo-                        Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                     sition — Discrimination)
                                                                             The applicant claims that the Court should:
                              (2000/C 6/15)
                                                                             1. Order Hitesys SpA, the defendant company, to repay EUR
                                                                                132 500 by way of principal amount and EUR 61 032,8
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                by way of interest at 8,25 %, for the period running from
                                                                                8 January 1994 to 8 September 1999, totalling EUR
                                                                                194 443,7, to which must be added EUR 30 364 in default
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                interest in respect of each additional day of delay until full
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                payment is made with respect to the financing under
                                                                                contract No JOU2-CT93-0417;
In Case C-439/97: Reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Verwaltungsgerichts-               2. order Hitesys to pay the costs.
hof, Austria, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
pending before that court between Sandoz GmbH v Finanzlan-
desdirektion für Wien, Niederösterreich und Burgenland — on
the interpretation of Articles 73b and 73d of the EC Treaty                  Pleas and main arguments
(now Articles 56 EC and 58 EC), and of Articles 1 and 4
of Council Directive 88/361/EEC of 24 June 1988 for the                      The action, brought under an arbitration clause, seeks the
implementation of Article 67 of the Treaty (OJ 1988 L 178,                   repayment of monies advanced in view of contract No
p. 5) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen,                JOU2-CT93-0417 for a research project in the field of the
President of the Second Chamber, acting as President of the                  non-nuclear energy-Joule II (1991-1994) programme adopted
Sixth Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur) and G. Hirsch,                    by the Council of Ministers of the European Union (1). The
Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,                     Commission decided to terminate the contract, governed by
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment             Italian law, on the ground of breach of contract by the
on 14 October 1999, in which it held that:                                   defendant.
1. Articles 73b(1) and 73d(1)(b) and (3) of the EC Treaty [now
    Articles 56(1) EC and 58(1)(b) and (3) EC] are to be interpreted         (1) Council Decision 91/484/EEC of 9 September 1991 (OJ 1991
    as not precluding the imposition of duty, under a national                   L 257, p. 37).
    provision such as the first subparagraph of Article 33 Tarifpost
    8 of the Gebührengesetz, on loans contracted in another Member
    State.


3 . 2 . 96            EN 1                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 31 / 17
        Removal from the register of Case C-82/94 ( )                 from the register of Case C-56/95 : Briihler Kreditbank eG v.
                                                                      Finanzamt Briihl .
                           ( 96/C 31 /35 )
By order of 24 October 1995 the President of the Court of             (') OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 .
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-82/94 : Andreas Mohringer v.
Zentrale zur Bekampfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV
( ) OJ No C 120 , 30. 4 . 1994 .                                             Removal from the register of Case C-86/95 (')
                                                                                ( 96/C 31 /38 )
                                                                      By order of 15 November 1995 the President of the Court of
       Removal from the register of Case C-108/94 ( )                 Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                      from the register of Case C-86/95 : Commission of the
                           ( 96/C 31 /36 )                            European Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany .
By order of 27 October 1995 the President of the Court of             (') OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 .
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-108/94 : Commission of the
European Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany .
(') OJ No C 161 , 11 . 6 . 1994 .
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-101/95 ( )
                                                                                96 /C 3 1 /3 9
                                                                      By order of 18 October 1995 the President of the Court of
        Removal from the register of Case C-56/95 ( )                Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                           ( 96/C 31 /37 )                            from the register of Case C-101 /95 : Commission of the
                                                                      European Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany .
By order of 18 October 1995 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal               (•) OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 .
                                                     COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               legal persons who are members of that association and
                                                                      whose names are included on the list annexed to the
                       ( Third Chamber)
                                                                      judgment, and Nederlandse Bond van Waaghouders van
                   of 13 December 1995                                Levend Vee, along with the natural and legal persons who
in Joined Cases T-481 /93 and T-484/93 Vereniging van                 are members of that association and whose names are
Exporteurs in Levende Varkens and Nederlandse Bond van                included on the list annexed to the judgment, having their
Waaghouders van Levend Vee v. Commission of the                       registered offices in Roosendaal (Netherlands ), represented
                 European Communities ( ] )                           by Inne Cath, of the Hague Bar, with an address for service
(Live pigs — Commission Decisions 93/128/EEC and                      in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Lambert Dupong,
93/1 77/EEC concerning certain protection measures, with              14 Rue des Bains, against Commission of the European
regard to swine vesicular disease, in the Netherlands and             Communities ( Agents : Thomas van Rijn, Tom Ottervanger
Italy — Actions for annulment — Actions for                           and Harold Nyssens ) — application for the annulment of
                                                                      Commission Decisions 93/128/EEC and 93/1 77/EEC, of
                          compensation)
                                                                      26 February 1993 and 26 March 1993 respectively,
                           ( 96/C 31 /40 )                            concerning certain protection measures with regard to
                                                                      swine vesicular disease in the Netherlands and Italy ( OJ
                                                                      1993 No L 50 , p. 29 , and OJ 1993 No L 74, p. 88 ), and for
                                                                      the award of damages — the Court of First Instance ( Third
               (Language of the cases: Dutch)                         Chamber ), composed of C. P. Briet, acting as President,
                                                                      C. W. Bellamy and J. Azizi, Judges; B. Pastor,
                                                                      Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                       13 December 1995 , in which it :
In Joined Cases T-481 /93 and T-484/93 : Vereniging van
Exporteurs in Levende Varkens, along with the natural and              1 . dismisses the applications;


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, Commercial Court, by order of that court of 31 October 1995, in the case of The Queen against Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte: National Farmers' Union and others (Case C-354/95)

text:
No C 351 / 10            EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       30 . 12 . 95
( 1 ) declare that, by failing within the prescribed period                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
       to adopt, alternatively, to communicate to the                      Justice, Queen 's Bench Division, Commercial Court, by
       Commission, all of the laws, regulations and                        order of that court of 31 October 1995 , in the case of The
       administrative measures necessary in order to comply                Queen against Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food,
       with Council Directive 91 /371 /EEC of 20 June 1991 on                         ex parte: National Farmers ' Union and others
       the implementation of the Agreement between the                                                  Case C-354/95 )
       European Economic Community and the Swiss
       Confederation concerning direct insurance other than                                              ( 95/C 351 / 18 )
       life assurance ( 1 ), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has
       failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and
       the said Directive;                                                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities by an order of the High Court of
( 2 ) order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the                       Justice, Queen's Bench Division, Commercial Court of
       costs .                                                             31 October 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry
                                                                           on 20 November 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                        of The Queen against Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and
                                                                           Food , ex parte: National Farmers ' Union and others, on the
The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third
                                                                           following questions :
Paragraph of Article 189 and of the first paragraph of
Article 5 of the EC Treaty is such as to oblige Member States
to whom directives are addressed to adopt the measures
necessary for the implementation of such directives within                 ( 1 ) are Article 9 ( 2 ) to ( 4 ) of Commission Regulation
the time limit prescribed therein . The time limit in question                     ( EEC) No 3887/92 0 of 23 December 1992 laying
expired on 4 July 1993 but the Grand Duchy of                                      down detailed rules for applying the integrated
Luxembourg has not adopted the necessary measures .                                administration and control system for certain
                                                                                Community aid schemes ( prior to the entry into force
(') Of No L 205 , 27 . 7 . 1991 , p . 48 .                                         of Regulation ( EC ) No 1648/95 (2 )) of 6 July 19 95
                                                                                amending Regulation ( EEC ) No 3887/92 laying
                                                                                down detailed rules for applying the integrated
                                                                                administration and control system for certain
                                                                                Community aid schemes to be construed as requiring
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de                            that all area related payments be refused to farmers
Commerce, Pontoise, by judgment of that court of                                   whose set aside land actually determined is found to be
3 October 1 995 in the case of Phytheron International SA                          less than that declared in an aid application when the
                        v. Jean Bourdon SA                                         difference is more than 20 % but when no false
                             Case C-352/95 )                                       intention or serious negligence has been found ?
                              ( 95/C 351 /1 7 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     ( 2 ) Are Articles 9 ( 2 ) to ( 4 ) of Commission Regulation
European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal de                              ( EEC ) No 3887/92 ( prior to the entry into force of
 Commerce ( Commercial Court ), Pontoise, of 3 October                             Regulation ( EC ) No 1648/95 ) to be construed as
 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on                                requiring that all beef premiums be refused to farmers
 15 November 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of                        whose forage area actually determined is found to be
Phytheron International SA v. Jean Bourdon SA on the                               less than that declared in an area aid application when
 following questions :                                                             the difference is more than 20% , but when no false
                                                                                intention or serious negligence has been found ?
 1 . can a product which is covered by a protected trade
      mark and which is lawfully acquired by a trader in
      Member State A in Member State B, where it is approved                ( 3 ) If the answer to question 1 and/or 2 is 'yes'» are
      and marketed under the same trade mark , be lawfully                         Articles 9 ( 2 ) to ( 4 ) of Commission Regulation ( EEC )
      imported from Member State B and marketed in                                 No 3887/92 ( prior to the entry into force of Regulation
      Member State A when the product in question :                                 ( EC ) No 1648/95 ) invalid , wholly or in part, by reason
                                                                                of breach of any principle of Community law,
      — is a genuine product which has not undergone any
                                                                                particularly legal certainty, non-discrimination and/or
           processing,
                                                                                proportionality ?
      — has not undergone any alteration in packaging, save
           for the addition on the label of a number of
           statements designed to comply with the legislative               ( 4 ) If the answer to question 1 and/or 2 is 'no', how are
           requirements of Member State A, and                                      Articles 9 ( 2 ) to ( 4 ) of Commission Regulation ( EEC )
                                                                                No 3887/92 ( prior to the entry into force of Regulation
      — is also approved in Member State A ?                                        ( EC ) No 1648/95 ) to be construed ?
 2 . Does a prohibition based on the trade mark legislation
      of Member State A infringe Article 30 of the EC
                                                                             ( 5 ) Regardless of the answers to questions 1 to 4, is it
      Treaty ?
                                                                                valid and lawful for Commission Regulation ( EEC )
                                                                                No 3887/92 to impose the sanction of loss of the entire
 ---pagebreak--- 30 . 12. 95           HENI                   Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 351 / 11
        specific area related payment on a farmer whose area            from the register of Case C-98/95 : Commission of the
        actually determined is found to be less than that               European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium .
        declared in the aid application when the difference
        more than 20 % but when no false intention or serious           (') OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 .
        negligence has been found ?
(') OJ No L 391 , 31 . 12 . 1992 , p . 36 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 156 , 7 . 7. 1995 , p . 27 .
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C- 113/95 ( )
                                                                                95/C 351 /21 )
         Removal from the register of Case C-14/95 ( )                  By order of 4 October 1995 the President of the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                           ( 95/C 351 / 19                              from the register of Case C- 113/95 : Commission of the
                                                                        European Communities v. Italian Republic .
By order of 26 September 1995 the President of the Sixth
Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European                         (') OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 .
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
C-14/95 : Commission of the European Communities v.
Kingdom of Belgium .
(') O J No C 54 , 4 . 3 . 1995 .
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-125/95 ( )
                                                                                ( 95/C 351 /22 )
                                                                        By order of 24 October 1995 the President of the Court of
         Removal from the register of Case C-98/95 ( )                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                           ( 95/C 351 /20 )                             from the register of Case C-125/95 : Commission of the
                                                                        European Communities v. Portuguese Republic .
By order of 22 September 1995 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                 (') OJ No C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995 .
                                                       COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                should not be taken into consideration, and of the
                        of 19 October 1995                              defendant's decision of 22 March 1993 rejecting that
     in Case T-562/93 : Dieter Obst v. Commission of the
                                                                        application and, second, for compensation for the material
                                                                        and non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant
                    European Communities (')                            — the Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber ), composed
(Officials — Recruitment procedure — Act adversely                      of: B. Vesterdorf, President, and D. P. M. Barrington and A.
affecting an official — Article 45 of the StaffRegulations —            Saggio, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on
Notice of vacancy — Misuse of powers — Statement of                     19 October 1995 , in which it:
              reasons — Compensation for damage)
                            ( 95/C 351 /23 )                            1 . orders the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum
                                                                            of ECU 2 000 by way of damages for breach of
                 (Language of the case: German)                             duty;
In Case T-562/93 : Dieter Obst, an official of the                      2 . dismisses the remainder of the application;
Commission of the European Communities, residing at
Everberg ( Belgium ), represented initially by Heinz-Jorg
Moritz and subsequently by Lothar Mahlberg,                             3 . orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay
Rechtsanwalte, with an address for service in Luxembourg                    one quarter of the costs of the applicant, who is ordered
care of Marianne Moritz, 25a Rue de Schonfels, Bridel , v.                   to bear three quarters of his own costs.
Commission of the European Communities ( Agents : Joseph
Griesmar and Bertrand Wagenbaur ) — application, first, for             (') OJ No C 338 , 15 . 12 . 1993 .
the annulment of notice No 45/93 of the Advisory
Committee on Appointments of 18 February 1993 ,
inasmuch as it indicates that the application of the applicant