title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 22 April 1997 in Case C-395/95 P: Geotronics SA v. Commission of the European Communities (Phare Programme - Restricted invitation to tender - Action for annulment - Admissibility - EEA Agreement - Product origin - Discrimination - Action for damages)

text:
No C 199/6             1 EN 1                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   28 . 6 . 97
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            of 22 April 1997                                                      of 22 April 1997
in Case C-3 10/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from               in Case C-395/95 P: Geotronics SA v. Commission of the
the Tariefcommissie ): Road Air BV v. Inspecteur der
                                                                                European Communities (')
                  Invoerrechten en Accijnzen (')
(Association of overseas countries and territories —                     (Phare Programme — Restricted invitation to tender —
Import into the Community of goods originating in a non                  Action for annulment — Admissibility — EEA Agreement
member country but in free circulation in an overseas                    — Product origin — Discrimination — Action for
country or territory — Article 227 (3) of the EC Treaty —                                              damages)
Part Four of the EC Treaty (Articles 131 to 136a) —
Council Decisions 86/283/EEC, 91/110/EEC and 91/482/                                                ( 97/C 199/ 10 )
                                   EEC)
                              ( 97/C 199/09 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                  (Language of. the case: Dutch)
    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be         In Case C-395/95 P: Geotronics SA, a company
            published in the European Court Reports)                     incorporated under the laws of France, having its
                                                                         registered office at Lognes ( France ), represented by
                                                                         Tommy Pettersson, of the Swedish Bar, with an address
In Case C-3 10/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177             for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt &
of the EC Treaty from the Tariefcommissie                                Medernach, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt — appeal against
 ( Administrative Court for Customs and Excise )                         the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 26 October
 ( Netherlands ) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings              1995 in Case T-185/94 Geotronics v. Commission [ 1995 ]
pending before that court between Road Air BV and                        ECR 11-2795 , seeking to have that judgment set aside, the
Inspecteur der Invoerrechten en Accijnzen — on the                       other party to the proceedings being: Commission of the
 interpretation of the provisions of Part Four of the EEC                European Communities ( Agent: John Forman ) — the
Treaty and on the validity and interpretation of Council                 Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President,
Decision 86/283/EEC of 30 June 1986 on the association                   J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, J. L. Murray and L. Sevón,
 of the overseas countries and territories with the European              ( Presidents of Chambers ), C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G.
 Economic Community ( OJ No L 175 , 1 . 7. 1986, p. 1 ,                  Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, G. Hirsch, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm
 hereinafter 'the Fifth Decision') and Council Decision 91 /              and M. Wathelet ( Rapporteur), Judges; G. Tesauro,
  110/EEC of 27 February 1991 extending the validity of                  Advocate-General ; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for
 Council Decision 86/283/EEC ( OJ No L 58 , 5 . 3 . 1991 ,               the Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 April 1997, in
 p. 27) — the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez                        which it:
 Iglesias, President, G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de
 Almeida , J. L. Murray and L. Sevón ( Presidents of
 Chambers ), C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann ,
 D. A. O. Edward ( Rapporteur ), J. -P. Puissochet, G.                    1 . sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance
 Hirsch, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet and R.                             of 26 October 1995 in Case T-185/94 Geotronics v.
 Schintgen, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate                           Commission in so far as it dismissed the application
 General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the                         for annulment of the Commission 's letter of 10 March
 Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 April 1997, in                          1 994 as inadmissible;
 which it has ruled :
 Part Four of the EC Treaty, and more particularly                        2 . dismisses the remainder of the appeal;
 Articles 132 (1 ), 133 (1 ) and 134, must be interpreted as
 meaning that on 25 June 1991 customs duties could be
  levied on imports into the Community of goods
  originating in non-member countries which were in free                  3 . dismisses the application for annulment;
  circulation in a country forming part of the overseas
  countries and territories, to the extent to which, in
  accordance with Article 101 of Council Decision 91 /482/
  EEC of 25 July 1991 on the association of the overseas                  4.   orders Geotronics SA to bear all the costs incurred
  countries and territories with the European Economic                         both in the proceedings before the Court of First
  Community, the duties paid in the overseas country or                        Instance and in those before the Court of Justice.
  territory in question were lower than the duties applicable
  in the Community.
                                                                           O OJ No C 64 , 2 . 3 . 1996 .
  ( ] ) OJ No C 299 , 11 . 11 . 1995 .


title: Action brought on 5 April 1995 by Didier Gambier against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-95/95)

text:
24 . 6 . 95              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 159/25
      development of rural areas in the Veneto Region' in so                    following the prior adjudication procedure under
      far as it concerns the 'measure ', contained in                           Article 8 of Decision No C(91 ) 1725 , adopted pursuant
      ' subprogramme 2 — Development of other economic                          to the framework Regulations (EEC ) No 2052/88 (2 )
      sectors and services ', entitled 'Measure 1 — Heading                     and ( EEC ) No 4253/88 ;
      1.10 : Reactivation of the former " GIBO " factory at
      Montagnana as the location for new activities and a               (c ) infringement of Article 14 ( 3 ) of Regulation ( EEC )
      service centre',                                                          No 4253/88 , and misuse of powers through failure to
                                                                                investigate and to state reasons : the proposal of the
— annul Commission Decision No C(93 ) 3752 of
                                                                                Veneto Region concerning Zaico SpA completely
                                                                                lacked the administrative mechanisms essential for
      9 December 1993 ( not published ) to the extent that it
                                                                                ensuring the effectiveness of the initiative . It follows
      increases the amount of Community financing for
                                                                                that the absence of any details in the programme as to
      Objective 5 (b ) of the Operational programme in
                                                                                how the financing was to be used should have
      relation to the measure contained in ' Subprogramme 2
      — Development of other economic sectors and services ',
                                                                                prevented the Commission from granting the aid
                                                                                requested .
      entitled 'Measure 1 — Heading 1.10 : Reactivation of the
      former " GIBO " factory at Montagnana as the location
      for new activities and a service centre ',                        Finally, the applicant argues that the measures in question
                                                                        conflict with Articles 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty, the
— annul all other measures connected therewith and/or                   freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide
                                                                        services .
      resulting therefrom, and order the Commission to pay
      the costs .
                                                                        (M OJ No L 374 , 31 . 12 . 1988 , p . 1 .
                                                                        ( 2 ) OJ No L 185 , 15 . 7 . 1988 , p . 9 .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant is the owner of a small to medium-sized
business in the Veneto Region, which carries on production
in the former ' GIBO' factory, which is situated in the
industrial and small trades estate of the Commune of
Montagnana , and which it occupies as tenant. He challenges             Action brought on 5 April 1995 by Didier Gambier against
the above Decisions in so far as they establish a financial                      the Commission of the European Communities
instrument, by way of contribution from the European                                               ( Case T-95/95 )
Regional Development Fund , for a project to reclaim,
                                                                                ( 95/C 159/53 )
rebuild and reuse the former ' GIBO ' kitchen factory, such
action being necessary, according to the Commission,
because the building had been dismantled in 1963 and not                                  (Language of the case: Frencb)
been rebuilt since .
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European
The applicant alleges:                                                  Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                        Instance of the European Communities on 5 April 1995 by
                                                                        Didier Gambier, residing at San Diego (United States of
( a ) infringement of Article 14 ( 3 ) of Regulation ( EEC )            America ), represented by Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Liège
        No 4253/88 (*), erroneous assessment of the facts, and          Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
        misuse of powers through failure to investigate and to          Chambers of Evelyne Korn, 21 Rue de Nassau.
        state reasons: the Commission incorrectly ascertained
        the essential facts concerning the financial instrument it
        has approved . The former ' GIBO ' factory cannot be           The applicant claims that the Court should :
        said to have been dismantled in 1963 and not rebuilt
        since, given that the applicant carries on his business        — annul the decision of the Commission to reassign the
        inside the building, and that machines , administrative               applicant to the Commission, bringing to an end his
        offices and areas equipped for staff and materials are                secondment to ITER ( International Thermonculear
        situated there;                                                       Experimental Reactor ),
( b ) infringement of the Community provisions on public               — declare unlawful the decision not to take steps in order
        contracts : the contested decision is in serious and                  to remedy the applicant's situation following the entry
        manifest breach of Community rules, the Commission                    into office of a new Director of the ITER project, with all
        having thereby effectively endorsed a particular                      the legal consequences that such a declaration entails,
        internal ( and regional ) administrative practice, which
        freely attributes the execution of public works to             — order the Commission to pay to him, in respect of the
        private persons, in this case Zaico SpA, without                      first contested decision(s ), compensation in the amount
 ---pagebreak--- No C 159/26           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      24 . 6 . 95
     of one-third of his basic salary between 5 January 1 995        Action brought on 6 April 1995 by Sinochem National
     to the end of his contract ( harm to his career ) and,          Chemicals Import &t Export Corporation against the
     provisionally, compensation in the amount of Bfr 1 ,                              Council of the European Union
     subject to increase (harm to family life ),                                               ( Case T-97/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 159/54 )
— order the Commission to pay to him, in respect of the
     second contested decision, compensation in the amount
     of Bfrs 1 000 000,                                                                 (Language of the case: Englisb)
— order the Commission to pay the costs .                            An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                     brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                     Communities on 6 April 1995 by Sinochem National
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  Chemicals Import & Export Corporation, represented by
                                                                     Mr Jean-François Bellis, with an address for service in
The applicant explains that he was engaged from 1 April              Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 1 1 Rue
1 993 by Directorate-General XII, Fusion Programme, of the           Goethe, L-1637 Luxembourg.
Commission as a member of the temporary staff
(Article 2 ( d ) of the Conditions of Employment of other
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should :
Servants of the Communities ) and assigned to the ITER
( International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor )
project as a member of the Director's Office at the centre           — annul the definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of
located at the University of San Diego . In July 1994 a new                furfuraldehyde originating in the People's Republic of
Project Director was appointed with immediate effect. From                 China, imposed by Council Regulation ( EC )
that time the applicant was excluded from what had been his                No 95/95 O ,
usual duties . At the beginning of January 1 995 the applicant
was informed by the Fusion Programme Director at DG XII              — annul the Council's decision to reject the undertaking
that he had been recalled to Europe for reasons to do with                 proposed by the applicant,
the service; as a new posting he was offered a post as
physicist at the JET laboratory where he had been Assistant
                                                                     — order the Council to bear the costs .
Director and Project Head before being posetd to ITER . The
return date was fixed at 15 April 1995 despite the fact that
the applicant had requested for a later date to be accepted
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
for personal and family reasons .
                                                                     The grounds on the basis of which the legality of the
As regards the decision to reassign him to the Commission,           contested decision is challenged can be summarized as
the applicant pleads, first, infringement of Articles 4.3 and        follows :
4.4 of the agreement on the secondment of staff between the
EAEC and the University of San Diego and abuse of process .
He also pleads error of assessment or defective factual              ( a ) The proceeding was initiated in breach of Articles 5 ( 2 )
grounds and misuse of powers . Finally, the applicant                       and 7 ( 1 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2423/88 inasmuch as
maintains that the Commission has failed in various ways to                 it concerns all imports of furfuraldehyde from the
comply with its duty to have regard for the welfare of                      People's Republic of China, whether used for the
officials .                                                                 cleaning of lubricating oils or in the manufacture of
                                                                            furfuryl alcohol, whilst the only alleged evidence of
                                                                            injury presented in the complaint and the notice of
As regards the Commission's failure to take steps, as it                    initiation of the proceeding only concerns
should have done, to remedy the situation which was                         furfuraldehyde for use in the cleaning of lubricating
detrimental to him since the entry into office of the new                   oils .
Director, the applicant considers that the institution should
have initiated the procedures provided for in Article 9 of the
abovementioned secondment agreement in the event of                  ( b ) The anti-dumping duty infringes Article 2 ( 1 ) of
disputes between the Director and a member of staff on                      Regulation ( EEC ) No 2423/88 and also the principle of
secondment .                                                                proportionality as it covers all imports of
                                                                            furfuraldehyde whilst the injury determination is based
                                                                            on the finding that injury has been caused only with
As regards the claims for damages, the applicant states that                respect to furfuraldehyde for use in the cleaning of
the contested decisions are unlawful and that they also                     lubricating oils, which accounts for a minority of
constitute service-related faults which have caused him                     European Union consumption.
obvious and indisputable material and non-material
damage.
                                                                     (c ) The finding that injury has been caused by imports
                                                                            from the PRC in the market for furfuraldehyde used for
                                                                            the cleaning of lubricating oils is vitiated by
                                                                            fundamental contradictions .


title: Case C-368/08: Action brought on 8 August 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               27.9.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/11

         Action brought on 8 August 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-368/08)
   (2008/C 247/19)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: U. Wölker and I. Dimitriou)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/35/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, and in any event by not notifying those provisions to the Commission, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 19(1) of that directive;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The time-limit for transposition of Directive 2004/35/EC into domestic law expired on 30 April 2007.

      (1)  OJ L 143, 30.4.2004, p. 56.


17.7.1999               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 204/35
2. Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.                     Removal from the register of Case C-320/97 (1)
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those                                      (1999/C 204/74)
submitted in Case C-168/99 (2), the period prescribed in
Article 14(2) of the directive expired on 27 June 1997.               By order of 18 March 1999 the President of the Court of
                                                                      Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                      from the register of Case C-320/97: Commission of the
(1) OJ 1995 L 143, p. 75.                                             European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
(2) See this OJ, p. 28.
                                                                      (1) OJ No C 331 of 1.11.1997.
       Removal from the register of Case C-330/98 (1)
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-5/99 (1)
                         (1999/C 204/71)
                                                                                (1999/C 204/75)
By order of 10 March 1999 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           By order of 18 March 1999 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-330/98 (reference for a preliminary       Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof): The Wellcome Foun-             from the register of Case C-5/99 (reference for a preliminary
dation Ltd v Nycomed Austria GmbH.                                    ruling from the Landgericht Regensburg): Business registry
                                                                      case relating to Firma Wiesenhof Geflügelspezialitäten, a
                                                                      branch of Lohmann & Co. AG.
(1) OJ No C 340 of 7.11.1998.
                                                                      (1) OJ No C 86 of 27.3.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-186/97 (1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-245/98 (1)
                         (1999/C 204/72)                                                      (1999/C 204/76)
By order of 18 March 1999 the President of the Court of               By order of 19 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
from the register of Case C-186/97: Commission of the                 the register of Case C-245/98: Commission of the European
European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.                   Communities v French Republic.
(1) OJ No C 212 of 12.7.1997.                                         (1) OJ No C 278 of 5.9.1998.
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-398/96 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case     C-192/97 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 204/77)
                         (1999/C 204/73)
                                                                      By order of 21 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
By order of 18 March 1999 the President of the Second                 of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities           the register of Case C-398/96 (reference for a preliminary
has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-192/97:           ruling from Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio):
Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic             Associazione Produttori Vitivinicoli della Provincia di Treviso
of Germany.                                                           and Others v Ministero delle Risorse Agricole, Alimentari e
                                                                      Forestali (Ministero per le Politche Agricole).
(1) OJ No C 212 of 12.7.1997.                                         (1) OJ C 54 of 22.2.1997.


title: Case T-749/14: Action brought on 4 November 2014 — Chung-Yuan Chang v OHIM — BSH (AROMA)

text:
               19.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/44

      Action brought on 4 November 2014 — Chung-Yuan Chang v OHIM — BSH (AROMA)
      (Case T-749/14)
      (2015/C 016/68)
      Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: Peter Chung-Yuan Chang (San Diego, United States) (represented by: A. Sanz-Bermell y Martínez, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH (Munich, Germany)

         Details of the proceedings before OHIM

         Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

         Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark ‘AROMA’ — International registration designating the European Union No 924 502

         Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 September 2014 in Case R 1887/2013-4

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision, consequently rejecting the application for a declaration of invalidity submitted by BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH, and declare the grant of Community trade mark EM No 924502 to be valid for goods falling within Class 7 ‘Electric kitchen machines and utensils, namely blenders, juice extractors, pasta-making machines for home use, food processors and whisks’ and Class 11 ‘Electrical cooking appliances, namely convection ovens for home use, bread-making machines, steam cookers for home use, grills, deep-fat fryers, sandwich toasters, waffle-making machines, table-mounted stoves for soups, rice cookers, machines for freeze-drying foods, frying pans, pressure cookers, hotplates, roasting machines, roasting spits, ice-cream making machines and slow cookers’ whose registration is sought; and

                  —

                  order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Plea in law

                  —

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


title: Case T-4/14: Action brought on 2 January 2014 — Industrias Ponsa v Commission

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/50

         Action brought on 2 January 2014 — Industrias Ponsa v Commission
   (Case T-4/14)
   2014/C 52/97
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Industrias Ponsa, SA (Manresa-Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. García Muñoz, J. Jiménez-Blanco and J. Corral García, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul Articles 1 to 6 of the Decision;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the Decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the aid; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay all the costs arising from these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are those put forward in Case T-3/14 Anudal Industrial v Commission.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 October 2001 in Case C-78/00: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Articles 17 and 18 of the Sixth VAT Directive — Issue of Government bonds to refund excess VAT — Category of taxable persons whose tax position is in credit)

text:
8.12.2001                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 348/7
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                            Articles 17 and 18 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of
                                                                                17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member
                                                                                States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value
                                                                                added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                         Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995 amending Directive
                                                                                77/388/EEC and introducing new simplification measures
                                                                                with regard to value added tax — scope of certain exemptions
                         of 25 October 2001                                        and practical arrangements for implementing them;
                                                                             2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
in Case C-78/00: Commission of the European Communi-
                      ties v Italian Republic (1)
                                                                             (1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Articles 17 and 18 of the Sixth VAT Directive — Issue of
Government bonds to refund excess VAT — Category of
        taxable persons whose tax position is in credit)
                           (2001/C 348/11)                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fourth Chamber)
                     (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                of 11 October 2001
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                           in Case C-110/00: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Republic of Austria (1)
                                                                             (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                                Directive 97/59/EC)
In Case C-78/00: Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: E. Traversa) v Italian Republic (Agent: U. Leanza,                                              (2001/C 348/12)
assisted by G. De Bellis) — application for a declaration that,
by providing that the category of taxable persons whose tax                                      (Language of the case: German)
position for 1992 is in credit be belatedly issued with
government bonds instead of refunds of value added tax, the
Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Articles 17 and 18 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of                                      in the European Court Reports)
17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member
States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value
added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1),
as amended by Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995
amending Directive 77/388/EEC and introducing new simplifi-                  In Case C-110/00: Commission of the European Communities
cation measures with regard to value added tax — scope of                    (Agent: N. Yerrell and C. Ladenburger) v Republic of Austria
certain exemptions and practical arrangements for                            (Agent: C. Pesendorfer) — application for a declaration that,
implementing them (OJ 1995 L 102, p. 18) — the Court (Fifth                  by failing to adopt and/or notify to the Commission the laws,
Chamber), composed of: S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), President                   regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply
of the Fourth Chamber, acting as President of the Fifth                      with Commission Directive 97/59/EC of 7 October 1997
Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet and                       adapting to technical progress Council Directive 90/679/EEC
C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General;                      on the protection of workers from risks related to exposure to
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 25 October 2001,                biological agents at work (seventh individual Directive within
in which it:                                                                 the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/301/EEC) (OJ
                                                                             1997 L 282, p. 33), the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil
                                                                             its obligations under Article 2(1) of that Directive — the Court
                                                                             (Fourth Chamber), composed of S. von Bahr, President of the
1.    Declares that by providing that the category of taxable persons        Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and A. La Pergola (Rapporteur),
      whose tax position for1992 is in credit be belatedly issued with       Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, for the
      government bonds instead of refunds of the excess value added          Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 October 2001, in which
      tax the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under    it:


title: Judgment of the Court of 5 October 2000 in Case C-74/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division (Crown Office)): The Queen v Secretary of State for Health and Others (Directive 98/43/EC — Advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products — Validity)

text:
9.12.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 355/3
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                       of 5 October 2000
                                                                                of 12 October 2000
in Case C-74/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s                  in Case C-314/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling
Bench Division (Crown Office)): The Queen v Secretary                    from the Nederlandse Raad van State (the Netherlands)):
               of State for Health and Others (1)                        Snellers Auto’s BV v Algemeen Directeur van de Dienst
                                                                                Wegverkeer (1)
(Directive 98/43/EC — Advertising and sponsorship of
                  tobacco products — Validity)                           (First authorisation of a vehicle for use on the public highway
                                                                         — Determination of the date — Technical standards and
                                                                         regulations — Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after
                        (2000/C 355/04)                                                     amendment, Article 28 EC))
                                                                                (2000/C 355/05)
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
In Case C-74/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the High Court of
Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Crown              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Office), United Kingdom, for a preliminary ruling in the                                    in the European Court Reports)
proceedings pending before that court between The Queen
and Secretary of State for Health and Others, ex parte: Imperial         In Case C-314/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
Tobacco Ltd and Others — on the interpretation on the                    the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Nederlandse
validity of Directive 98/43/EC of the European Parliament and            Raad van State (Council of State, the Netherlands) for a
of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the approximation of the                preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member            court between Snellers Auto’s BV and Algemeen Directeur van
States relating to the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco            de Dienst Wegverkeer — on the interpretation of Council
products (OJ 1998 L 213, p. 9) — the Court, composed of:                 Directive 83/189/EEC of 28 March 1983 laying down a
G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida            procedure for the provision of information in the field of
(Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward, L. Sevón and R. Schintgen                  technical standards and regulations (OJ 1983 L 109, p. 8), as
(Presidents of Chambers), P.J.G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, A. La              amended by Council Directive 88/182/EEC of 22 March 1988
Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet            (OJ 1988 L 81, p. 75) and by Directive 94/10/EC of the
and F. Macken, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate General; H. von             European Parliament and the Council of 23 March 1994
Holstein, Deputy Registrar, and L. Hewlett, Administrator, for           materially amending for the second time Directive 83/189 (OJ
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 5 October 2000, in                1994 L 100, p. 30), and of Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty
which it has ruled:                                                      (now, after amendment, Articles 28 EC and 30 EC) — the Court
                                                                         (Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann (Rapporteur),
                                                                         President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet and F. Macken,
                                                                         Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal
Since Directive 98/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the
                                                                         Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
Council of 6 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws, regulations
                                                                         12 October 2000, in which it has ruled:
and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the
advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products has been annulled
by the judgment delivered today in Case C-376/98 Germany v               1.    For the purposes of determining whether national rules, such as
Parliament and Council, there is no need to give a ruling on the               the Regeling houdende vaststelling van regels omtrent de wijze
question submitted.                                                            waarop de datum van eerste toelating tot de openbare weg op
                                                                               het kentekenbewijs, dan wel het registratiebewijs van een
                                                                               voertuig wordt bepaald, adopted on 9 December 1994,
                                                                               constitute a technical regulation covered by the obligation
                                                                               to notify the Commission laid down in Council Directive
                                                                               83/189/EEC of 28 March 1983 laying down a procedure for
(1) OJ C 136 of 15.5.1999.
                                                                               the provision of information in the field of technical standards
                                                                               and regulations, as amended by Council Directive 88/182/EEC
                                                                               of 22 March 1988, the subsequent amendments introduced by
                                                                               Directive 94/10/EC of the European Parliament and the
                                                                               Council of 23 March 1994 materially amending for the second
                                                                               time Directive 83/189 should not be taken into consideration.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 September 2003 in Case C-168/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Bosal Holding BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Freedom of establishment — Taxation — Taxes on company profits — Limitation of the deductibility in one Member State of costs connected with holdings of a parent company in its subsidiaries established in other Member States — Coherence of the tax system)

text:
C 264/8                   EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                                1.11.2003
2.     If the national court finds that the national provision laying                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
       down the time-limit is not compatible with the requirements of
       Community law and that no compatible interpretation of that
       provision is possible, it must refuse to apply the provision in                                  (Fifth Chamber)
       question.
                                                                                of 18 September 2003
(1) OJ C 161 of 2.6.2001.
                                                                             in Case C-168/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                             the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Bosal Holding BV v
                                                                                Staatssecretaris van Financiën (1)
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                             (Freedom of establishment — Taxation — Taxes on company
                                                                             profits — Limitation of the deductibility in one Member
                            (First Chamber)
                                                                             State of costs connected with holdings of a parent company
                                                                             in its subsidiaries established in other Member States —
                        of 11 September 2003
                                                                                Coherence of the tax system)
in Case C-155/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Cookies World Vertriebsge-                                                 (2003/C 264/13)
   sellschaft mbH iL v Finanzlandesdirektion für Tirol (1)
(Sixth VAT Directive — Motor vehicle made available                                               (Language of the case: Dutch)
under a leasing contract — Taxable transactions — Own
consumption — Article 17(6) and (7) — Exclusions provided
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
for under national law at the date of entry into force of the
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                                directive)
                           (2003/C 264/12)
                    (Language of the case: German)                           In Case C-168/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
                                                                             EC by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) for a
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
                     in the European Court Reports)                          court between Bosal Holding BV and Staatssecretaris van
                                                                             Financiën, on the interpretation of Article 52 of the EC Treaty
                                                                             (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC), of Article 58 of the EC
In Case C-155/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234                   Treaty (now Article 48 EC), and of Council Directive 90/435/
EC by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary                 EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                  applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of
Cookies World Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH iL and Finanzlandes-                 different Member States (OJ 1990 L 225, p. 6), the Court
direktion für Tirol, on the interpretation, in particular, of                (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the
Articles 5 and 6 of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of                Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur),
17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member                   P. Jann and S. von Bahr, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General;
States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value                   D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of Division, for the Registrar, has
added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1),                given a judgment on 18 September 2003, in which it has
the Court (First Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President               ruled:
of the Chamber, P. Jann and A. Rosas (Rapporteur), Judges;
L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Admin-                 Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common
istrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 Septem-              system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and
ber 2003, in which it has ruled:                                             subsidiaries of different Member States, interpreted in the light of
                                                                             Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC)
The provisions of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of                  precludes a national provision which, when determining the tax on
17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member                   the profits of a parent company established in one Member State,
States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added             makes the deductibility of costs in connection with that company’s
tax: uniform basis of assessment preclude a measure of a Member              holding in the capital of a subsidiary established in another Member
State which provides that payment for services supplied in other             State subject to the condition that such costs be indirectly instrumental
Member States to a person in the first Member State is subject to            in making profits which are taxable in the Member State where the
VAT whereas, had the services in question been supplied within the           parent company is established.
territory of the country, the person to whom they were supplied would
not have been entitled to deduction of input tax.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 200 of 14.7.2001.
(1) OJ C 200 of 14.7.2001.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 9 November 1995 in Case C-475/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Speyer): Jean-Louis Thévenon and Stadt Speyer - Sozialamt v. Landesversicherungsanstalt Rheinland-Pfalz (Social security - Article 6 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Replacement by Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of social security conventions concluded between Member States)

text:
No C 16/2               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  20 . 1 . 96
2 , such interim relief can be ordered by the national court            of the grounds of the order for reference, has disclosed no
      only if:                                                          factor of such a kind as to affect their validity.
      — that court entertains serious doubts as to the validity         H OJ No C 76 , 12 . 3 . 1994 .
         of the Community Aft and, if the validity of the
         contested Act is not already in issue before the Court
         of Justice, itself refers the question to the Court of
         Justice;                                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 9 November 1995
      — there is urgency, in that the interim relief is necessary
         to avoid serious and irreparable damage being                  in Case C-475/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling
         caused to the party seeking the relief;                        from the Sozialgericht Speyer): Jean-Louis Thévenon and
                                                                        Stadt Speyer — Sozialamt v. Landesversicherungsanstalt
      — the court takes due account of the Community                                              Rheinland-Pfalz (')
         interest; and
                                                                        (Social security — Article 6 of Regulation (EEC)
      — in its assessment of all those conditions, it respects          No 1408/71 — Replacement by Regulation (EEC)
         any decisions of the Court ofJustice or the Court of           No 1408/71 of social security conventions concluded
         First Instance ruling on the lawfulness of the                                      between Member States)
          Regulation or on an application for interim                                                 ( 96/C 16/04 )
          measures seeking similar interim relief at
          Community level.                                                               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
i 1 ) OJ No C 76 , 12 . 3 . 1994 .
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                        In Case C-475/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                        of the EC Treaty by the Sozialgericht Speyer ( Social Court,
                                                                        Speyer ) ( Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                    proceedings pending before that court between Jean-Louis
                       of 9 November 1995                               Thévenon and Stadt Speyer — Sozialamt ( Social Assistance
in Case C-466/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from               Office of the City of Speyer ) of the one part
the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main): Atlanta                      and the Landesversicherungsanstalt Rheinland-Pfalz
Fruchthandelsgesellschaft mbH and Others v. Bundesamt                   ( Rhineland-Palatinate Regional Insurance Office ) of the
             für Ernährung und Forstwirtschaft (')                      other part on the interpretation of Council Regulation
                                                                        ( EEC ) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of
 (Bananas — Common organization ofthe market — Import                   social security schemes to employed persons, to
               regime — Assessment of validity)                         self-employed persons and to members of their families
                             ( 96/ C 16/03 )                            moving within the Community, as amended and updated by
                                                                        Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 ( OJ
                (Language of the case: German)                          No L 230, p . 6 ), and of Articles 48 ( 2 ) and 51 of the EC
                                                                        Treaty — the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias,
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be           President, C. N. Kakouris and G. Hirsch ( Presidents of
          published in the European Court Reports)                       Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, F. A. Schockweiler, J. C.
                                                                        Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann
In Case C-466/93 : reference to the Court under Article 1-77             ( Rapporteur), J. L. Murray, P. Jann and H. Ragnemalm,
of the EC Treaty from the Verwaltungsgericht                            Judges; Advocate-General: G. Cosmas; Registrar: D.
 ( Administrative Court ) Frankfurt am Main for a                        Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, has given a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                judgment on 9 November 1995 , in which it rules:
court between Atlanta Fruchthandelsgesellschaft mbH and
 Others and Bundesamt für Ernàhrung und Forstwirtschaft                 Articles 48 (2) and SI of the EC Treaty must be interpreted
— on the validity of Title IV and Article 21 ( 2 ) of Council            as meaning that they do not preclude the replacement by
 Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/93 of 13 February 1993 on the                 Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on
 common organization of the market in bananas ( OJ No                    the application of social security schemes to employed
 L 47, p. 1 ) — the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez                  persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their
 Iglesias, President, C. N. Kakouris, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P.             families moving within the Community, as amended and
 Puissochet and G. Hirsch ( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F.              updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001 /83 of
 Mancini, F. A. Schockweiler ( Rapporteur), J. C. Moitinho               2 June 1983, pursuant to Article 6 thereof, of a convention
 de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, P.              binding two Member States exclusively where, prior to the
Jann and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; M. B. Elmer,                              entry into force of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 , an
 Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for              insured person completed insurance periods in only one of
 the Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 November 1995 , in             the signatory States, even where the application of the
 which it rules :                                                        bilateral social security convention would have placed that
                                                                         insured person in a more favourable position.
 Consideration of Title IV and Article 21 (2) of Council
 Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 of 13 February 1993 on the                    f 1 ) OJ No C 43 , 12 . 2 . 1994 .
 common organization of the market in bananas, in the light


title: Case C-315/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Obvodní soud pro Prahu 6 (Czech Republic) lodged on 26 June 2015 — Marcela Pešková, Jiří Peška v Travel Service a.s.

text:
               14.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 414/12

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Obvodní soud pro Prahu 6 (Czech Republic) lodged on 26 June 2015 — Marcela Pešková, Jiří Peška v Travel Service a.s.
   (Case C-315/15)
   (2015/C 414/15)
   Language of the case: Czech

      Referring court

   Obvodní soud pro Prahu 6

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Marcela Pešková, Jiří Peška

      Defendant: Travel Service a.s.

      Questions referred

               1)

               Is a collision between an aircraft and a bird an event within the meaning of paragraph 22 of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Wallentin-Hermann, Case C-549/07, EU:C:2008:771 (‘Wallentin-Hermann’), or does it constitute extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of recital 14 in the preamble to Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (2) (‘the Regulation’), or is it impossible to classify it under either of those concepts?

               2)

               If the collision between an aircraft and a bird constitutes extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of recital 14 in the preamble to the Regulation, may preventative control systems established in particular around airports (such as sonic bird deterrents, cooperation with ornithologists, the elimination of spaces where birds typically gather or fly, using light as a deterrent and so on) be considered to be reasonable measures to be taken by the air carrier to avoid such a collision? What in this case constitutes the event within the meaning of paragraph 22 of Wallentin-Hermann?

               3)

               If a collision between an aircraft and a bird is an event within the meaning of paragraph 22 of Wallentin-Hermann, may it also be considered to be an event within the meaning of recital 14 in the preamble to the Regulation and may, in such a case, the body of technical and administrative measures which an air carrier must implement following a collision between an aircraft and a bird which nevertheless did not result in damage to the aircraft be considered to constitute exceptional circumstances within the meaning of recital 14 in the preamble to the Regulation?

               4)

               If the body of technical and administrative measures taken following a collision between an aircraft and a bird which nevertheless did not result in damage to the aircraft constitutes exceptional circumstances within the meaning of recital 14 in the preamble to the Regulation, is it permissible to require, as reasonable measures, the air carrier to take into consideration, when it plans flights, the risk that it will be necessary to take such technical and administrative measures following a collision between an aircraft and a bird and to make provision for that fact in the flight schedule?

               5)

               How must the obligation on the air carrier to pay compensation, as provided for in Article 7 of the Regulation, be assessed where the delay is caused not only by administrative and technical measures adopted following a collision between the aircraft and a bird which did not result in damage to the aircraft, but also to a significant extent by repairing a technical problem unconnected with that collision?

      (1)  OJ L 46, 17.2.2004, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ L 36, 8.2.1991, p. 5.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 September 2001 in Case T-335/99: Henkel KGaA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Shape of a product for washing machines or dishwashers — Three-dimensional mark — Absolute ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
C 369/12                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                 22.12.2001
                                                         COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                      of 13 September 2001
                                                                                of 19 September 2001
in Case T-160/99: Gunnar Svantesson and Others v
               Council of the European Union (1)                          in Case T-335/99: Henkel KGaA v Office for Harmonis-
                                                                          ation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                                (OHIM) (1)
(Officials — Internal competition — Composition of selec-
                             tion board)
                                                                          (Community trade mark — Shape of a product for washing
                          (2001/C 369/18)                                 machines or dishwashers — Three-dimensional mark —
                                                                          Absolute ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation
                                                                                (EC) No 40/94)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (2001/C 369/19)
In Case T-160/99: Gunnar Svantesson, an official of the
Council of the European Union, residing in Brussels, Lena                                    (Language of the case: German)
Hellsten, an official of the Council of the European Union,
residing in Brussels. Monica Hägg, former official of the
Council of the European Union, residing in Brussels, represent-
ed by M.-A. Lucas, avocat, with an address for service in
Luxembourg, against Council of the European Union (Agents:
M. Bauer and I. Lopez Cardoso) — application for the
                                                                          In Case T-335/99: Henkel KGaA, established in Düsseldorf
annulment of the decisions of the selection board for Internal
                                                                          (Germany), represented by H.F. Wissel and C. Osterrieth,
Competition COUNCIL/LA/262 not to mark the optional
                                                                          lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
papers sat by the applicants and not to admit them to the oral
                                                                          Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
tests for that competition, and for the annulment of the whole
                                                                          and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: A. von Mühlendahl, D. Schen-
of that competition — the Court of First Instance (Fourth
                                                                          nen and S. Laitinen) — application brought against the
Chamber), composed of P. Mengozzi, President, V. Tiili and
                                                                          decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for
R.M. Moura Ramos, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment
                                                                          Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
on 13 September 2001, in which it:
                                                                          Designs) of 21 September 1999 (Case R 70/1999-3), which
                                                                          was notified to the applicant on 28 September 1999 — the
                                                                          Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of
1.    Annuls the decisions of the selection board for Internal            A.W.H. Meij, President, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges;
      Competition COUNCIL/LA/262 not to admit the applicants              D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
      to the oral tests and not to mark their optional papers for the     judgment on 19 September 2001, in which it:
      competition;
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;                         1.    Dismisses the action;
3.    Orders the Council to pay the costs.                                2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
(1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.                                                (1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.


title: Case T-61/01: Action brought on 15 March 2001 by Vendedurías de Armadores Reunidos S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 150/32               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      19.5.2001
      —     order the defendant to continue employing the               According to the applicant, there has been a clear breach of:
            applicant on the contractual terms as a security man;
3.    order the defendant to pay the costs.                             —     Council Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86 of 18 December
                                                                              1986 on Community measures to improve and adapt
                                                                              structures in the fisheries and aquaculture sector (1) and
                                                                              of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1956/91 of 21 June
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               1991 laying down detailed rules for the application of
                                                                              Council Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86 as regards
                                                                              measures to encourage the creation of joint enterprises (2);
The origin of the case is the same as in Cases T-373/00 (Tralli
v ECB, OJ C 61 of 24 February 2001, p. 61) and T-27/01
(Tralli v ECB, not yet published). The pleas in law and
arguments are the same as those advanced in these cases.                —     Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1116/88 of 20 April
                                                                              1988 laying down detailed rules for the application of
                                                                              decisions granting aid for projects concerning Com-
                                                                              munity measures to improve and adapt structures in the
                                                                              fisheries and aquaculture sector and in structural works
                                                                              in coastal waters (3).
                                                                        The applicant submits that the European Commission failed
Action brought on 15 March 2001 by Vendedurı́as de                      to observe the procedure laid down in those regulations for
Armadores Reunidos S.A. against the Commission of the                   cases in which, on account of the need for supplementary
                    European Communities                                analysis of the conditions for payment, the payment of aid
                                                                        granted to a joint enterprise has to be suspended. The
                                                                        Commission’s breach arises from three facts: (1) it did not
                           (Case T-61/01)                               consult the Standing Committee for the Fishing Industry; (2) it
                                                                        did not consult the Spanish authorities. Nor did it give them
                                                                        an opportunity to be involved in the suspension procedure;
                         (2001/C 150/63)                                (3) it did not adopt the suspension by means of a formal
                                                                        decision but merely by letter. According to Community case-
                                                                        law, a failure to observe an established procedure entails the
                                                                        nullity ab initio of the measures.
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              The applicant draws attention to the fact that, as regards the
European Communities on 15 March 2001 by Vendedurı́as de                Community’s liability, the three requirements laid down by
Armadores Reunidos S.A., established in Huelva (Spain),                 case-law are met in the present case: there is a wrongful act,
represented by Ramón Garcı́a-Gallardo (lawyer) and Mª Dolor-           actual harm and a causal link between the wrongful conduct
es Domı́nguez Pérez.                                                    and the damage caused. The compensation claimed is the
                                                                        accrued interest for late payment, in application of the
                                                                        principle established by case-law that the recipient of aid has a
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             right, at the very least, to payment of interest in the case of an
                                                                        infringement of the applicable legislation.
—     order the European Commission to pay Vendedurı́as de
      Armadores Reunidos S.A. compensation for damage and
      loss caused by the delayed payment of a part of its aid;
                                                                        (1) OJ 1986 L 376 p. 7, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC)
—     order the Commission of the European Communities to                   No 3944/90 of 20 December 1990 (OJ 1990 L 380, p. 1) and
      pay the costs in their entirety.                                      Council Regulation (EEC) No 3946/92 of 19 December 1992 (OJ
                                                                            1992 L 401, p. 1).
                                                                        (2) OJ 1992 L 401, p. 1.
                                                                        (3) OJ 1988 L 112, p. 1.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The action involves a claim alleging non-contractual liability
on the part of the Commission for the unlawful suspension of
payment of 20 % of the aid granted to the applicant, causing
it serious financial loss.


title: Case C-249/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesvergabeamt Wien by order of that court of 25 June 2001 in the review procedure brought by the architect and qualified engineer Werner Hackermüller against 1. BIG Bundesimmobiliengesellschaft mbH and 2. WED Wiener Entwicklungsgesellschaft mbH

text:
C 245/8                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          1.9.2001
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di                        failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(1) of Council
Ascoli Piceno, Italy, by order of that court of 30 March                      Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on access
2001 in criminal proceedings against Piergiorgio Gambelli                     for Community air carriers to intra-Community air
                            and Others                                        routes;
                                                                        2.    Order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs
                         (Case C-243/01)
                                                                              of the proceedings.
                         (2001/C 245/14)
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Tribunale di Ascoli             In adopting Regulation No 2408/92 the Council, pursuant to
Piceno of 30 March 2001, which was received at the Court                Article 80(2) EC, defined the detailed rules for application of
Registry on 22 June 2001, for a preliminary ruling in                   the principle of freedom to supply services within the area of
the criminal proceedings pending before that court against              air transport, as set out in Article 49 EC. When the provisions
Piergiorgio Gambelli and Others, on the following question:             of Regulation No 2408/92 fall to be interpreted, therefore,
                                                                        recourse must be had to that principle, which goes further
                                                                        than simply prohibiting discrimination of a service provider
A decision is sought as to the compatibility with Article 43 et
                                                                        established in another Member State on the ground of that
seq. and Article 49 et seq. of the EC Treaty regarding freedom
                                                                        person’s nationality, providing as it does also for the removal
of establishment and freedom to provide cross-frontier ser-
                                                                        of any restriction whatsoever — even if applicable without
vices, and the repercussions thereof within the national legal
                                                                        distinction to domestic service providers and to service providers
order, of domestic legislation like the Italian provisions
                                                                        from other Member States — which prohibits, obstructs or
contained in Article 4(1) et seq., Article 4 bis and Article 4 ter
                                                                        renders less attractive the activities ’of a service provider who
of Law No 401 of 13 December 1989 (as most recently
                                                                        is established in another Member State and lawfully provides
amended by Article 37(5) of Law No 388 of 23 December
                                                                        similar services there. Under Article 1 of the Netherlands
2000) which impose prohibitions — enforced by criminal
                                                                        Regulation of 9 May 1995, there is an exemption from
penalties — on the pursuit, by any person and at any place, of
                                                                        mandatory checks for ’flights with a domestic destination. This
the activities of collecting, taking, booking and forwarding
                                                                        does not apply in the case of flights on which passengers can
offers of bets, in particular bets on sporting events, unless
                                                                        mingle with passengers for flights having an international
the requirements concerning concessions and authorisations
                                                                        destination’. As a result of this, a cross-border flight within the
prescribed by domestic law have been complied with.
                                                                        Community involves the carrier in higher costs than in
                                                                        the case of a comparable domestic flight. The Netherlands
                                                                        Regulation also makes it possible for security checks to be
                                                                        carried out for domestic flights (on the ground that passengers
                                                                        on such flights may mingle with passengers for international
                                                                        flights), but without any charge being levied in that connection.
Action brought on 25 June 2001 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Kingdom of the
                           Netherlands.
                          (Case C-246/0l)                               Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverga-
                                                                        beamt Wien by order of that court of 25 June 2001 in the
                         (2001/C 245/15)                                review procedure brought by the architect and qualified
                                                                        engineer Werner Hackermüller against 1. BIG Bundesim-
                                                                        mobiliengesellschaft mbH and 2. WED Wiener Entwick-
An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought                                   lungsgesellschaft mbH
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
on 25 June 2001 by the Commission of the European                                                   (Case C-249/01)
Communities, represented by M. Huttunen and H.M.H. Spey-
art, acting as Agents.                                                                             (2001/C 245/16)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by order of the Bundesvergabeamt
1.    Rule that, by adopting and maintaining in force                   Wien (Federal Contracting Authority, Vienna) of 25 June 2001,
      Articles 37g and 37j of the Luchtvaartwet (Law on Air             received at the Court Registry on 28 June 2001, for a
      Traffic) and Article 1 of the Regulation of the Netherlands       preliminary ruling in the review procedure brought by the
      Minister of Justice of 9 May 1995 on the exemption of             architect and qualified engineer Werner Hackermüller against
      flights on which passengers are subject to checks for             1. BIG Bundesimmobiliengesellschaft mbH and 2. WED Wien-
      dangerous objects, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has             er Entwicklungsgesellschaft mbH on the following questions:
 ---pagebreak--- 1.9.2001              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 245/9
Question 1:                                                            The appellant claims that the Court should:
Is Article 1(3) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 Decem-           —     find the present appeal admissible;
ber 1989 (1) on the coordination of the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions relating to the application of review
procedures to the award of public supply and public works              —     find the appeal well founded as to the substance;
contracts to be interpreted as meaning that any person seeking
the award of a specific pending public contract is entitled to
institute a review procedure?                                          —     order, if the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice
                                                                             allow it, the present appeal to be joined to the appeal
                                                                             against the order of the Court of First Instance (Second
                                                                             Chamber) of 7 June 2001 in Case T-328/00 concerning
                                                                             the same dispute and lodged this day;
Question 2:
                                                                       —     set aside the order delivered by the Court of First Instance
                                                                             (Second Chamber) of 7 June 2001 in Case T-202/00
In the event that the answer given to Question 1 is no:
                                                                             Costacurta v Commission;
Is the abovementioned provision to be understood as meaning            —     make a decision as to how Case T-202/00 Costacurta v
that, if a tenderer’s bid is not eliminated by the contracting               Commission is to proceed in accordance with Article 54
authority, but the review body finds in the course of the review             of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice;
procedure that the contracting authority would have been
bound to eliminate it, the tenderer has been or risks being
harmed by the infringement alleged by him — in this case the           —     order the Commission of the European Communities
finding by the contracting authority that a rival tenderer                   already to pay the costs of the interlocutory proceedings
submitted the best bid — and that he must therefore have the                 and of the present appeal;
right to bring a review procedure?
                                                                       —     reserve the costs as to the substance; find, none the less,
( 1) OJ L 395, p. 33.                                                        that Article 88, rather than Article 87(2), of the Rules of
                                                                             Procedure of the Court of First Instance are applicable;
                                                                       —     reserve to the appellant all other rights, dues, pleas and
                                                                             actions.
Appeal brought on 2 July 2001 by Mario Costacurta
against the order delivered on 7 June 2001 by the Second               Pleas and main arguments
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities in Case T-202/00 between Mr Costacurta
     and the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                       —     Lack of jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance and
                                                                             breach of Community law.
                       (Case C-250/01 P)
                                                                       —     Prejudice to the appellant’s interests, misuse of powers.
                        (2001/C 245/17)
                                                                       —     Error in law inasmuch as the Court of First Instance ruled
An appeal against the order delivered on 7 June 2001 by the                  that retirement meant that the appellant no longer had
Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                any right to seek annulment of the contested act: the
Communities in Case T-202/00 between Mr Costacurta and                       appellant claims the right to have his administrative
the Commission of the European Communities was brought                       status regularised a posteriori.
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
2 July 2001 by Mario Costacurta, represented by Mr Petit,
of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Ufficio del Giudice di Pace di Genova by order of that court of 30 December 1996 in the case of Autotrasporti Librandi snc against Cuttica Spedizioni e Servizi Internazionali srl (Case C-38/97)

text:
No C 94/ 10             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                            22 . 3 . 97
     proportionality under the third paragraph of Article 3 b                 ( a ) the tariff proposal is drawn up on the basis of
     of the EC Treaty, and the principle of subsidiarity                            criteria which are described by the national
    -under the second paragraph of Article 3b of the EC                             legislature as being in the public interest and
     Treaty ?                                                                       defined in abstract terms by Law No 298/74 and
                                                                                in detail by Presidential Decree No 56/78 , but in
                                                                                practice refer to the characteristics of a 'typical
                                                                                undertaking' specified by Decree No 56/78
                                                                                (Articles 3 and 4 ) which no longer corresponds to
                                                                                the realities of the market in question;
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Ufficio del
Giudice di Pace di Genova by order of that court of
30 December 1996 in the case of Autotrasporti Librandi                        ( b ) the public authority's powers ( which have never
  snc against Cuttica Spedizioni e Servizi Internazionali srl                       been exercised ) to refer the committee's proposal
                                                                                back to it and to adopt tariffs ex officio if the
                          Case C-38/97 )
                                                                                committee's new proposal is not considered
                           ( 97/C 94/ 19 )                                          satisfactory are strictly confined to merely
                                                                                examining whether the proposal is in accordance
                                                                                with the criteria delegated by the legislature in
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                              1974 ( Article 53 of Law No 298/74 ) to secondary
European Communities by order of the Ufficio del Giudice                            implementing legislation adopted , in 1978
di Pace di Genova of 30 December 1996 in the case of                                (Presidential Decree No 56/78 ) and never since
Autotrasporti Librandi snc against Cuttica Spedizioni e                             updated;
Servizi Internazionali srl on the following questions :
1 . Is national legislation which provides for mandatory                      ( c ) the conditions for setting the mandatory tariff are
     tariffs for the carriage of goods by road to be                                fixed in that way and, more importantly, the
     approved and brought into force by the public                                  public authority's review of the legality of the
     authority on the basis of a proposal from a committee                          tariff is restricted to checking whether the tariff
     on which interested economic operators are in the                              proposed by the committee corresponds to the
     majority ( Ministerial Decree of 2 February 1994 )                             economic and technical data of a 'typical
     compatible with Articles 3 ( f) and (g), 5 , 85 and 86 of                      undertaking' which is not representative of the
     the Treaty, as interpreted by the judgment of the Court                        market in question;
     of Justice of 5 October 1995 in Case 96/94 Centro Ser
     vizi Spediporto v. Spedizioni Marittima del Golfo H ?
                                                                              ( d ) in that context the public authority is given the
2 . If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: is a                         task of ensuring that the tariff determined in that
     national provision ( Article 3 of Decree Law No 82/93                          way enables haulage undertakings to obtain a
    transposed by Law No 162/93 ) which extends                                     return described as 'fair' ( Article 52 of Law
     mandatory tariffs in the field of contracts for road                           No 298/74 ) but based on rigid and totally obsolete
     haulage services to cover other types of contract                              legislative data which cannot be reviewed by the
     relating to different services, such as, in particular,                        public authority even though they are now
     contracts whereby a contractor undertakes to achieve                           divorced from reality and consequently do not
     a particular result ( contratti di appalto ) and/or                            reflect the actual cost of the service provided by
    contracts for hire, compatible with Articles 3 ( f) and                         road-haulage undertakings ?
     (g ), 5 , 85 and 86 of the Treaty ?
3 . Does the concept of 'general interest' referred to by
                                                                       6 . In the alternative, the Court is asked to clarify what
    the Court of Justice in the judgments in Reiff (2 ) and
                                                                              concept of 'collective agreement' allows the national
    Delta correspond to the concept of 'public interest'
                                                                              court to decide that there is no tariff agreement
     mentioned by the Court, in a similar legal situation, in
                                                                              contrary to Article 85 of the Treaty.
    the judgment in Centro Servizi Spediporto v. Spedizio
     ni Marittima del Golfo ( 3 )?
                                                                       ( 1 ) Case C-96/94 Centro Servizi Spediporto; judgment of
4. Is that concept ('general interest' and/or 'public                        5 October 1995 ( OJ No C 299, 11 . 11 . 1995 , p. 6 ).
                                                                       (2 ) Case C-185/91 Reiff [ 1993 ] ECR I, p. 5801 and Case C-153/
     interest') defined by Community law or left to the                      93 Delta [ 1994] ECR I, p . 2517.
    competence of the individual Member States ?                       ( 3 ) Case C-96/94 ( see footnote 1 ).
5 . In particular, can that concept cover a national
     situation     such  as    that  described   in   the  main
    proceedings in which :


18.12.1999            EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 366/25
       Removal from the register of Case C-211/99 (1)                     Removal from the register of Case C-121/99 (1)
                        (1999/C 366/50)                                                   (1999/C 366/53)
By order of 30 September 1999 the President of the Court of        By order of 6 October 1999 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal        Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-211/99: Commission of the              from the register of Case C-121/99: Commission of the
European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.                  European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
(1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.                                         (1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-100/98 (1)
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case C-227/99 (1)
                        (1999/C 366/51)
                                                                                (1999/C 366/54)
By order of 4 October 1999 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal        By order of 8 October 1999 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-100/98: Kingdom of Sweden v            Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
Council of the European Union.                                     from the register of Case C-227/99: Commission of the
                                                                   European Communities v Portuguese Republic.
(1) OJ No C 209 of 4.7.1998.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-44/99 (1)
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case C-200/99 (1)
                        (1999/C 366/52)
                                                                                (1999/C 366/55)
By order of 4 October 1999 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal        By order of 13 October 1999 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-44/99: Commission of the               Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
European Communities v French Republic.                            from the register of Case C-200/99: Commission of the
                                                                   European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain
(1) OJ C 100 of 10.4.1999.                                         and Northern Ireland.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.