title: Case C-102/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione Tributaria Regionale di Venezia - Sezione No 6, by order of that court of 14 January, 25 February and 11 March 1999 in the case of Veneta Assicurazione SpA against Ufficio del Registro di Padova

text:
15.5.1999               EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 136/13
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione                              Removal from the registrer of Case C-329/98 (1)
Tributaria Regionale di Venezia — Sezione No 6, by order
of that court of 14 January, 25 February and 11 March                                                (1999/C 136/26)
1999 in the case of Veneta Assicurazione SpA against
                 Ufficio del Registro di Padova
                                                                             By order of 12 February 1999 the President of the Court of
                                                                             Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                          (Case C-102/99)                                    from the register of Case C-329/98: Commission of the
                                                                             European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.
                          (1999/C 136/23)
                                                                             (1) OJ C 327, 24.10.1998.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Commissione Tributa-
ria Regionale di Venezia — Sezione No 6, (Regional Tax Court
— Sixth Chamber, Venice) of 14 January, 25 February and
11 March 1999, which was received at the Court Registry on
22 March 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Veneta
Assicurazione SpA against Ufficio del Registro di Padova on
the question whether or not Note I to Article 4, Part I, of                         Removal from the register of Case C-85/98 (1)
Presidential Decree No 131/86 is contrary to the provisions of
Directive 69/335/EEC (1), as subsequently amended.                                                   (1999/C 136/27)
                                                                             By order of 16 February 1999 the President of the Court of
                                                                             Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                             from the register of Case C-85/98: Commission of the
(1) OJ, English special edition, Series I 1969(II), p. 412.                  European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 184, 13.6.1998.
       Removal from the register of Case C-413/97 (1)
                          (1999/C 136/24)                                           Removal from the register of Case C-396/97 (1)
By order of 8 February 1999 the President of the First Chamber                                       (1999/C 136/28)
of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has
ordered the removal from the register of Case C-413/97:
Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic                    By order of 23 February 1999 the President of the First
of Germany.                                                                  Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                             has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-396/97:
                                                                             Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 41, 7.2.1998.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 26, 24.1.1998.
      Removal from the register of Case C-300/97 P (1)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-429/98 (1)
                          (1999/C 136/25)
                                                                                (1999/C 136/29)
By order of 11 February 1999 the President of the Sixth
Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities                  By order of 24 February 1999 the President of the Court of
has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-300/97 P:                Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
Tiercé Ladbroke SA v Commission of the European Communi-                     from the register of Case C-429/98: Commission of the
ties.                                                                        European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.
(1) OJ C 318, 18.10.1997.                                                    (1) OJ C 20, 23.1.1999.


title: Case C-86/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Amtsgericht Heidelberg by order of that court of 3 March 2000 in the business register case of HSB-Wohnbau GmbH

text:
C 149/22              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       27.5.2000
By issuing to those taxpayers five-year or ten-year Government         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Amtsgericht
bonds, the Italian State has gone far beyond the facultative           Heidelberg by order of that court of 3 March 2000 in the
power conferred on Member States by Article 18(4) of the                      business register case of HSB-Wohnbau GmbH
Sixth Directive, which allows the difference between tax
deducted and tax due to be carried forward, but only to the
following tax period. To carry the excess further forward                                        (Case C-86/00)
entails infringement of the rule clearly laid down by Article
18(4), frustrating that provision and ultimately constituting a                                 (2000/C 149/38)
serious contravention of the basic principle underlying the
common system of value added tax, namely, the right to
immediate exercise of the right to a refund.                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by order of the Amtsgericht, Heidel-
                                                                       berg (Local Court, Heidelberg), received at the Court Registry
(1) OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1.                                       on 7 March 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the business
                                                                       register case of HSB-Wohnbau GmbH on the following
                                                                       questions:
                                                                       A. Does the transfer to Spain of the registered office of a
                                                                           company properly constituted under German law, regis-
                                                                           tered in the German register, and whose sole shareholder
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesge-                        is a Spanish company, whereby it retains its legal person-
richtshof by order of that court of 10 February 2000 in the                ality, fall within the rights set out in Articles 43 and 48 of
case of Italian Leather SpA against WECO Polstermöbel                      the EC Treaty (formerly Articles 52 and 58 EC)?
                          GmbH & Co.
                                                                       B. Do Articles 43 and 48 of the EC Treaty (previously Articles
                         (Case C-80/00)                                    52 and 58 EC) preclude a national rule prohibiting the
                                                                           transfer to Spain of the registered office of a limited
                        (2000/C 149/37)                                    liability company properly constituted under German
                                                                           law, registered on the German register, and whose sole
                                                                           shareholder is a Spanish company, whereby it retains its
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     legal personality?
European Communities by order of the Bundesgerichtshof
(Federal Court of Justice, Germany) of 10 February 2000,
received at the Court Registry on 7 March 2000, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Italian Leather SpA v
WECO Polstermöbel GmbH & Co. on the following questions
concerning the interpretation of the EC Convention on
Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and
Commercial matters of 27 September 1968 (‘the Convention’)
(OJ 1972 L 299, p. 32):
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Giudice di Pace
                                                                       di Genova by order of that court of 28 February 2000 in
1. Can judgments be irreconcilable within the meaning of
                                                                                the case of Roberto Nicoli v Eridiana SpA
    Article 27(3) of the Convention when the only difference
    between them lies in the specific requirements for the
    adoption of a particular type of autonomous provisional                                      (Case C-87/00)
    measure (within the meaning of Article 24 of the Conven-
    tion)?
                                                                                (2000/C 149/39)
2. May and must the court of the enforcing State which has
    declared a foreign judgment requiring the debtor to desist         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    from certain activities to be enforceable in accordance with       European Communities by an order of the Giudice di Pace di
    Articles 34(1) and 31(1) of the Convention at the same             Genova (Magistrate’s Court, Genoa) of 28 February 2000,
    time order the measures necessary under the law of the             which was received at the Court Registry on 7 March 2000,
    enforcing State for enforcement of a restraining order?            for a preliminary ruling in the case of Roberto Nicoli v Eridiana
                                                                       SpA, on the following questions:
3. If the answer to Question 2 is in the affirmative, must the
    measures necessary under the law of the enforcing State
    for enforcement of the restraining order be ordered even if        1. Are Regulation (EC) No 1360/98 (1) of 26 June 1998 and
    the judgment to be recognised does not itself include                  Regulation (EC) No 1361/98 (2) 26 June 1998 valid, in
    comparable measures in accordance with the law of the                  view of the fact in that, as a result of belatedly fixing for
    State of judgment, and that law makes no provision at all              the 1998-99 marketing year certain prices applicable to
    for the immediate enforceability of such restraining orders?           the sugar sector, they belatedly determine the intervention
                                                                           prices to be observed on the Italian market, in breach of
                                                                           Article 3(4) and (5) of the basic regulation, Regulation
                                                                           No 1785/81 (3)?


title: Judgment of the Court of 28 March 2000 in Case C-7/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof): Dieter Krombach v André Bamberski (Brussels Convention — Enforcement of judgments — Public policy)

text:
10.6.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                               C 163/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       de Almeida, D.A.O. Edward, L. Sevón, R. Schintgen (Presidents
                                                                             of Chambers), P.J.G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet,
                                                                             G. Hirsch, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and H. Ragnemalm, Judges;
                         of 28 March 2000                                    A. Saggio, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for
                                                                             the Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 March 2000, in
                                                                             which it has ruled:
in Case C-7/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Bundesgerichtshof): Dieter Krombach v André Bam-
                              berski (1)
                                                                             Article 27, point 1, of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on
                                                                             Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commer-
(Brussels Convention — Enforcement of judgments — Public                     cial Matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on
                               policy)                                       the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United
                                                                             Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and by the
                                                                             Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic
                          (2000/C 163/01)                                    Republic, must be interpreted as follows:
                                                                             1. The court of the State in which enforcement is sought cannot,
                   (Language of the case: German)                                 with respect to a defendant domiciled in that State, take account,
                                                                                for the purposes of the public-policy clause in Article 27, point
                                                                                1, of that Convention, of the fact, without more, that the court
                                                                                of the State of origin based its jurisdiction on the nationality of
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published            the victim of an offence.
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             2. The court of the State in which enforcement is sought can, with
In Case C-7/98: reference to the Court pursuant to the Protocol                   respect to a defendant domiciled in that State and prosecuted for
of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of                   an intentional offence, take account, in relation to the public-
the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the                       policy clause in Article 27, point 1, of that Convention, of the
Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters                          fact that the court of the State of origin refused to allow that
by the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) (Germany)                     person to have his defence presented unless he appeared in person.
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Dieter Krombach and André Bamberski on the
interpretation of Article 27, point 1, of the abovementioned
Convention of 27 September 1968 (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 36), as                   (1) OJ C 72 of 7.3.1998.
amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the
Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (OJ 1978
L 304, p. 1 and — amended version — p. 77) and by the
Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the
Hellenic Republic (OJ 1982 L 388, p. 1) — the Court,
composed of: G.C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho


title: Case T-195/03: Action brought on 4 June 2003 by Gustav Thommes against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
23.8.2003             EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 200/25
Action brought on 28 May 2003 by Isabella Scippacercola                    hence Article 4(4) of Regulation 1049/2001 should have been
   against the Commission of the European Communities                      applied.
                         (Case T-187/03)                                   The applicant also claims in this respect that the Commission
                                                                           infringed Article 1(a) of Regulation 1049/2001 and the prin-
                                                                           ciple of the widest possible access to documents held by the
                         (2003/C 200/45)                                   Commission.
                   (Language of the case: English)                         Secondly, the applicant invokes a violation of Article 4(5) of
                                                                           Regulation 1049/2001 and Article 5(4) of Decision 2001/937
                                                                           (sic) to the extent that the Commission failed to assess the
                                                                           justification given by Greece and, in doing so, gave a de facto
An action against the Commission of the European Commu-                    power of veto to the Member State concerned.
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 28 May 2003 by Isabella                            The applicant furthermore invokes a violation of the obligation
Scippacercola,      Brussels,     Belgium,       represented      by       to state reasons and, finally, a violation of Article 4(6) of
Dr K. Adamantopoulos and Mr D. Papakrivopoulos, lawyers,                   Regulation 1049/2001 to the extent that the Commission
with an address for service in Luxembourg.                                 have allegedly failed to examine whether partial access should
                                                                           have been granted.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           (1) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of
—     annul the Commission decision in the form of a letter                    the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European
      dated 19 March 2003 and notified to the applicant by fax                 Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ L 145, p. 43).
                                                                           (2) 2001/937/EC, ECSC, Euratom: Commission Decision of 5 December
      of 31 March 2003, refusing to the latter access to the
                                                                               2001 amending its rules of procedure (notified under document
      cost-benefit study relating to the construction of the                   number C(2001) 3714) (OJ L 345, p. 94).
      Spata Airport;
—     order that the costs of, and occasioned by, these proceed-
      ings be borne by the respondent.
                                                                           Action brought on 4 June 2003 by Gustav Thommes
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-195/03)
The applicant has requested from the Commission, amongst
others, a copy of the cost-benefit analysis concerning the
creation of the Spata Airport. According to the applicant, this                                      (2003/C 200/46)
document should have accompanied the application by Greece
for assistance from the Cohesion Fund. The request for access
to documents was refused by the Commission. With the                                          (Language of the case: German)
refusal however, the Commission transmitted part of the
application for assistance from the Cohesion Fund, which
contained a short description of the main topics of the cost-              An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
benefit analysis. The confirmatory application by the applicant            nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
was also rejected.                                                         European Communities on 4 June 2003 by Gustav Thommes,
                                                                           residing in Wezembeek-Oppem in Brussels (Belgium), repre-
In support of its application, the applicant submits in the first          sented by M. Thewes, lawyer, with an address for service in
place that the Commission made a manifest error in law and a               Luxembourg.
manifest error in the appreciation of the facts. According to
the applicant, the Commission erred in its assumption that the             The applicant claims that the Court should:
document for which access was requested originated from a
Member State. According to the applicant, Greece was not the               —     annul the defendant's decisions of 17 July 2002, 1 August
original creator of the document, but merely forwarded the                       2002 and 3 March 2003;
document as part of its application for assistance from the
Cohesion Fund.
                                                                           —     declare void the recovery of the second half of the
                                                                                installation allowance for the resettlement of his family;
The applicant claims that, as a consequence, the Commission
wrongly relied on and misinterpreted Article 4(5) of Regulation            —     grant the applicant the installation allowance in respect of
1049/2001 (1) regarding public access to European Parliament,                    his transfer to Brussels;
Council and Commission documents and Article 5(4) of Deci-
sion 2001/937 (2) (sic). The applicant claims that the document            —     order the defendant to pay all the costs of the proceed-
should have been considered as a third party document and                        ings.
 ---pagebreak--- C 200/26             EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                       23.8.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant is an official at the Commission. He worked                The applicant in this case contests the appointing authority's
from 1992 to 2000 in Brussels. In 2000 he was transferred to             decision to dismiss her for inadequate performance.
Luxembourg and then on 1 September 2001 he was trans-
ferred back to Brussels, where he moved back into the house
in which he had previously lived.                                        In support of her claims, she pleads breach of Article 51 of
                                                                         the Staff Regulations since she could not in the circumstances
                                                                         have been found to be in any way incompetent, breach of the
The applicant alleges infringement of Article 5(1) of Annex VII          duty to have regard to the welfare of officials, misuse of
to the Staff Regulations. In his view, he and his family did in          powers, breach of the right to an inter partes hearing at the
fact move their family residence to his place of service in              time of the administrative inquiry, and disregard of the obliga-
Luxembourg. His transfer back to Brussels cannot therefore be            tion to state reasons and of the principles of proportionality
regarded as a return to his family residence.                            and good administration.
The applicant submits that, under Article 85 of the Staff                Finally, the applicant pleads that the principle of equal treat-
Regulations, recovery of a payment is justified only if the              ment has been infringed since similar cases have been treated
recipient was aware that there was no due reason for the                 differently.
payment or if the fact of the overpayment was patently such
that he could not have been unaware of it. In the applicant's
opinion, he was entitled to assume that the payment was
justified as the Commission, in full knowledge of the facts,
had decided to grant the installation allowance.
Lastly, the applicant alleges infringement of the principle of
equal treatment of staff members. Installation allowance is
                                                                         Action brought on 10 June 2003 by Lars Bo Rasmussen
payable to a staff member not entitled to the household
                                                                              against Commission of the European Communities
allowance but not to a staff member entitled to the household
allowance whose family have not yet settled at that staff
member's place of service.                                                                       (Case T-203/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 200/48)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Action brought on 6 June 2003 by Annelies Keyman                         An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
  against the Commission of the European Communities                     nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 10 June 2003 by Lars Bo
                        (Case T-200/03)                                  Rasmussen, residing in Hellerup (Denmark), represented by
                                                                         Gilles Bounéou, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxem-
                                                                         bourg.
                        (2003/C 200/47)
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                  (Language of the Case: French)
                                                                         —     annul Commission Decision No 34988 of 1 July 2000;
An action against the Commission of the European Commu-                  —     annul the decision of 21 January 2003 rejecting the
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                   complaint;
European Communities on 6 June 2003 by Annelies Keyman,
resident in Overijse, Belgium, represented by Carlos Mourato,            —     order the defendant to repay the sums wrongfully recov-
lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                             ered on the basis of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations
                                                                               together with interest for late payment;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         —     order the defendant to pay the applicant 10 000 EUR in
                                                                               damages or any other amount, even greater, that the
—     annul the appointing authority's decision of 10 March                    Court may decide is equitable in compensation for the
      2003 to dismiss her;                                                     non-material damage sustained;
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                              —     order the defendant to pay the costs, expenses and fees.


title: Case C-376/10 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 March 2012 — Pye Phyo Tay Za v Council of the European Union, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, European Commission (Appeal — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against the Republic of the Union of Myanmar — Freezing of funds applicable to persons, entities and bodies — Legal basis)

text:
               5.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 133/6

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 March 2012 — Pye Phyo Tay Za v Council of the European Union, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, European Commission
   (Case C-376/10 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against the Republic of the Union of Myanmar - Freezing of funds applicable to persons, entities and bodies - Legal basis)
   2012/C 133/10
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Pye Phyo Tay Za (represented by: D. Anderson QC, S. Kentridge QC, M. Lester, Barrister, and G. Martin, Solicitor)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and E. Finnegan, acting as Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: S. Hathaway, acting as Agent, and D. Beard, Barrister), European Commission (represented by: S. Boelaert and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 19 May 2010 in Case T-181/08 Tay Za v Council, by which the Court dismissed an application for partial annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 194/2008 of 25 February 2008 renewing and strengthening the restrictive measures in respect of Burma/Myanmar and repealing Regulation (EC) No 817/2006, in so far as the applicant’s name appears on the list of persons, entities or bodies to which those provisions apply (OJ 2008 L 66, p. 1)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 19 May 2010 in Case T-181/08 Tay Za v Council;

               2.

               Annuls Council Regulation (EC) No 194/2008 of 25 February 2008 renewing and strengthening the restrictive measures in respect of Burma/Myanmar and repealing Regulation (EC) No 817/2006 in so far as Mr Tay Za is concerned;

               3.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of both the proceedings at first instance and the appeal proceedings;

               4.

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the European Commission to bear their own costs in relation to both the proceedings at first instance and the appeal proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 25.9.2010.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 2 July 1996 in Case C-290/94: Commission of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Freedom of movement for persons - Employment in the public service)

text:
9 . 11 . 96              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        No C 336/5
2 . Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the                               1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the
      costs .                                                                     Community;
(') OJ No C 59 , 26 . 2 . 1994 .                                            2 . Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
( 2 ) OJ , English Special Edition, 1968 ( II ), p. 475 .
                                                                            (') OJ No C 218 , 6 . 8 . 1994 .
                                                                            ( 2 ) OJ , English Special Edition 1968 ( II ), p. 475 .
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           of 2 July 1996
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
       in Case C-l 73/94: Commission of the European
             Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium (*)                                                     of 2 July 1996
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                             in Case C-290/94 : Commission of the European
Freedom of movement for persons — Employment in the                                       Communities v. Hellenic Republic ( ] )
                            public service)                                 (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                            ( 96/C 336/09 )                                 Freedom of movement for persons — Employment in the
                                                                                public service)
                                                                                ( 96/C 336/10 )
                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
           published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-l 73/94 : Commission of the European
Communities ( Agent: Dimitrios Gouloussis ) v. Kingdom of
Belgium ( Agent: Patrick Duray ) — Application for a                        In Case C-290/94 : Commission of the European
declaration that, by maintaining a nationality requirement                  Communities ( Agent: Maria Patakia ) v. Hellenic Republic
in relation to workers who are nationals of other Member                    ( Agents : Aikaterini Samoní-Rantou and Stamatina Vodina )
States as regards access to employment as officials or public              — Application for a declaration that, by imposing a Greek
employees of the public bodies responsible for the                          nationality condition in relation to workers who are
distribution of water, gas and electricity ( for example,                   nationals of other Member States as regards access to
Compagnie Intercommunale Bruxelloise des Eaux, Vlaamse                      employment in public, semi-public or municipal
Maatschappij voor Watervoorziening, Unerg, Sibelgaz,                        undertakings and companies distributing water, gas and
etc .), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its                     electricity, in the operational sectors of the public health
obligations pursuant to Article 48 of the EC Treaty and                     service, to teacher posts in nursery, primary and secondary
Articles 1 and 7 of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1612/68 of                schools and higher education establishments and
15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers                          universities subject to the Ministry of National Education,
within the Community ( 2 ) — the Court composed of: G. C.                   to posts in air and sea transport services , companies or
Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C. N. Kakouris, D. A. O.                     organizations, in the Greek National Railways ( OSE ), and
Edward, J. -P. Puissochet and G. Hirsch ( Presidents of                     in the public or municipal bodies, companies and
Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, F. A. Schockweiler, J. C.                        undertakings providing public city and intercity transport
Moitinho de Almeida , P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, J. L.                   services, to posts for scientific and non-scientific staff in
Murray, P. Jann ( Rapporteur ), H. Ragnemalm, L. Sevón                      public establishments conducting research for non-military
and M. Wathelet, Judges ; Advocate-General : P. Leger,                      purposes, to posts in public or semi-public bodies or
Registrar:         D.        Loutermann-Hubeau,              Principal      undertakings providing postal services ( ELTA ),
Administrator, has given a judgment on 2 July 1996 , in                    telecmmunications services ( OTE ) and radio and television
which it :                                                                  broadcasting services ( ET), and as regards access to
                                                                           musicians' posts at the Athens Opera and in municipal and
                                                                            local orchestras, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its
1 . Declares that, in not restricting the requirement of                    obligations pursuant to Article 48 of the EC Treaty and
      Belgian nationality to access to posts which, in the                 Articles 1 and 7 of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1612/68 of
      public legal entities responsible for the distribution of             15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers
      water, gas and electricity, involve direct or indirect               within the Community ( 2 ) — the Court composed of: G. C.
      participation in the exercise of powers conferred by                  Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C. N. Kakouris, D. A. O.
      public law and duties designed to safeguard the general               Edward , J. -P. Puissochet and G. Hirsch ( Presidents of
      interests of the State or of other public authorities, the            Chambers ), G. F. Mancini , F. A. Schockweiler, J. C.
      Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations              Moitinho de Almeida , P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann,
      pursuant to Article 48 of the EC Treaty and Article 1 of             J. L. Murray, P. Jann ( Rapporteur ), H. Ragnemalm,
      Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October                     L. Sevón and M. Wathelet, Judges; Advocate-General :
 ---pagebreak--- No C 336/6               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                  9 . 11 . 96
P. Leger, Registrar : D. Loutermann-Hubeau , Principal                      1 . Dismisses the application;
Administrator, has given a judgment on 2 July 1996 , in
which it :
                                                                           2 . Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
1 . Declares that, in not restricting the requirement of                   (') OJ No C 132 , 14 . 5 . 1994 .
      Greek nationality to access to posts involving direct or             ( 2 ) OJ No L 301 , 1993 , p . 13 .
      indirect participation in the exercise of powers
      conferred by public law and duties designed to
      safeguard the general interests of the State or of other
      public authorities in the public sectors of water, gas and
      electricity distribution, the operational public health
      services, in the sectors of public education, transport
      by sea and air, railways, city and intercity public                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      transport, research for civil purposes, posts and
      telecommunications           and    radio      and   television                              (Third Chamber )
      broadcasting, and at the Athens Opera and in municipal                                         of 4 July 1996
      and local orchestras, the Hellenic Republic has failed to
      fulfil its obligations under Article 48 of the EC Treaty             in Case C-254/95 P: European Parliament v. Angelo
                                                                                Innamorati ( 1 )
      and Article I of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68
      of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for                        (Appeal — Officials — Competitions — Rejection of
      workers within the Community;                                        candidature — Statement of reasons for the decision of a
                                                                                selection board in an open competition)
2 . Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                                                    ( 96/C 336/ 12 )
(') O J No C 370 , 24 . 12 . 1994 .                                                          (Language of the case: French)
( 2 ) OJ , English Special Ediditon 1968 ( II ), p. 475 .
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           In Case C-254/94 P : European Parliament ( Agents : Manfred
                                                                           Peter and Jose Luis Rufas Quintana ) — appeal against the
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
                           ( Sixth Chamber)                                Communities of 30 May 1995 in Case T-289/94 Innamorati
                             of 4 July 1996                                v. Parliament ( 1995 ) ECR-SC 11-393 , seeking to have that
                                                                           judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings being
in Case C-50/94 : Hellenic Republic v. Commission of the                   Angelo Innamorati ( represented by Jean-Noel Louis,
                     European Communities ( l )                            Thierry Demaseure, Veronique Leclercq and Ariane
      (Clearance of EAGGF accounts — Expenditure for                       Tornel ), the Court ( Third Chamber ), composed of: J. -P.
                                  .1990)                                   Puissochet ( Rapporteur ), President of the Chamber, J. C.
                             ( 96/C 336/ 11 )                              Moitinho de Almeida and C. Gulmann, Judges; N. Fennelly,
                                                                           Advocate-General; R. Grass , Registrar, has given a
                                                                           judgment on 4 July 1996 , in which it :
                   (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                            1 . Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                     of 30 May 1995 in Case T-289/94 Innamorati v.
            published in the European Court Reports)                             Parliament;
In Case C-50/94 : Hellenic Republic ( Agents : Vasileios                   2 . Dismisses Mr Innamorati 's application for annulment
Kontolaimos, Ioannis Chalkias, Christina Sitara and                              of the decision by which the Selection Board in Open
Vasileia Pelekou ) v. Commission of the European                                  Competition PE/59/A awarded him an eliminatory
Communities ( Agent: Xenophon Yataganas ) — application                          mark in the third written test in that competition and
for annulment of Commission Decision 93/659/EC of
                                                                                refused to admit him to the other tests;
25 November 1993 on the clearance of the accounts
presented by the Member States in respect of the
expenditure for 1990 of the European Agricultural                           3 . Orders the parties to bear their own costs incurred in
Guidance and Guarantee Fund ( EAGGF ), Guarantee                                 these proceedings and in those before the Court of First
Section ( 2 ), in so far as it concerns the Hellenic Republic the                 Instance .
Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: C. N. Kakouris,
President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch ( Rapporteur ) and                      (') OJ No C 268 , 14 . 10 . 1995 .
P. J. G. Kapteyn, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate-General ; H.
von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on
4 July 1996 , in which it:


title: Case C-390/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Roma (Italy) lodged on 19 September 2006 — Nuova Agricast srl v Ministero delle Attività Produttive

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/27

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Roma (Italy) lodged on 19 September 2006 — Nuova Agricast srl v Ministero delle Attività Produttive
   (Case C-390/06)
   (2006/C 294/47)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Tribunale ordinario di Roma
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Claimant: Nuova Agricast srl

      Defendant: Ministero delle Attività Produttive
   Question referred
   ‘The question concerns the validity of the EU Commission's decision of 12 July 2000, notified to the Italian Government by letter referenced SG(2000)D/105754 of 2 August 2000, solely with reference to the transitional provision which provides for exceptional derogation from the principle of “necessary aid” — on the occasion of the first implementation of the scheme in question — only for applications “made on the occasion of the last invitation to apply for support measures, organised on the basis of the preceding scheme and approved by the Commission until 31 December 1999, which were considered eligible for aid but were not cleared because insufficient financial resources were allocated to that invitation”, with the consequent unjustified passing-over — in breach of the principle of equal treatment and of the obligation to state the reasons on which the decision was based pursuant to Article 253 EC — of applications made in connection with earlier invitations, which had not been supported because of a lack of funds and which were waiting to be included automatically in the next invitation or to be revised and resubmitted in the first “appropriate” invitation established under the new scheme’.


28.8.1999             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 246/47
       Removal from the register of Case T-214/97 (1)                           Removal from the register of Case T-149/98 (1)
                        (1999/C 246/99)                                                         (1999/C 246/101)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
By order of 20 April 1999 the President of the First Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities               By order of 12 April 1999 the President of the Second
has ordered the removal from the register of Case T-214/97:              Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance
Bernard Lavorel v Commission of the European Communities.                of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                         the register of Case T-149/98: Société Générale v Commission
                                                                         of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 318 of 18.10.1997.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 358 of 21.11.1998.
Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-302/97 and
                          T-303/97 (1)
                       (1999/C 246/100)                                         Removal from the register of Case T-165/98 (1)
                   (Language of the case: French)                                               (1999/C 246/102)
By order of 15 April 1999 the President of the First Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                                  (Language of the case: Italian)
has ordered the removal from the register of Joined Cases
T-302/97 and T-303/97: AZ COM. and S.P.R.L. École de                    By order of 21 May 1999 the President of the Fourth Chamber
Maîtrise Automobile v Commission of the European Com-                    of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
munities.                                                                has ordered the removal from the register of Case T-165/98:
                                                                         Grandi Molini SpA v Commission of the European Communi-
(1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.                                                ties.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 378 of 5.12.1998.


title: Case T-126/03: Action brought on 14 April 2003 by Reckitt Benckiser (España), S.L. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
7.6.2003               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 135/37
equality of treatment as regards the use of English during the             considerations are mistaken, there would be no serious
selection procedure, in addition to other alleged defects in the           social difficulties if British Energy became insolvent, and the
same procedure. The applicant also argues that insufficient                contested Decision is, therefore, in breach of paragraph 23 (c)
reasons were stated for the contested decision.                            of the Guidelines. The applicant also claims that the aid in
                                                                           question is not restricted to the amount needed to keep British
                                                                           Energy in business, because if British Energy were placed into
                                                                           administration, as provided for by English insolvency law, the
                                                                           cost of keeping it in business might be smaller. For this reason
                                                                           the applicant considers that the contested Decision is also
                                                                           contrary to paragraph 23(e) of the Guidelines. The applicant
                                                                           further claims that the contested Decision violated para-
                                                                           graph 23 (a) of the Guidelines, by failing to take into account
Action brought on 14 April 2003 by AES Drax Power                          that the contested aid takes the form of cash placed on deposit
Limited against the Commission of the European Com-                        by the government. According to the applicant these deposits
                              munities                                     remove the market risk of dealing with British Energy and are
                                                                           therefore not identical to loans or state guarantees of loans
                                                                           provided for in paragraph 23 (a) of the Guidelines. Finally, the
                          (Case T-124/03)                                  applicant contends that the defendant exceeded the limits
                                                                           placed upon the exercise of its discretion by the EC Treaty and
                                                                           the general principles of EC law in failing to take account of
                         (2003/C 135/59)
                                                                           the impact of the contested aid on the competitors of British
                                                                           Energy.
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                           (1 ) OJ 1999 No C 288 p. 2.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 14 April 2003 by AES Drax Power
Limited, Selby, United Kingdom, represented by K. P. E. Lasok
QC and Ms. E. Gibson-Bolton, Solicitor.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           Action brought on 14 April 2003 by Reckitt Benckiser
—     Order any measures of enquiry necessary to resolve the               (España), S.L. against the Office for Harmonisation in the
      issues of fact in this case                                               Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
—     Annul the contested decision of 27 November 2002
      authorising State Aid NN101/02 to British Energy plc.                                         (Case T-126/03)
—     order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs
                                                                                (2003/C 135/60)
                                                                           (Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was
                                                                                submitted: English)
In September 2002 the United Kingdom Government awarded
a package of rescue aid to British Energy plc., one of the main
producers of electricity in the United Kingdom and a nuclear
stations operator. By the contested Decision the defendant                 An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
decided that this state aid was compatible with the EC Treaty.             Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
The applicant, a competitor of British Energy, seeks the                   the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
annulment of that Decision, contending that the defendant                  14 April 2003 by Reckitt Benkiser (España), S.L., Barcelona,
breached its own Guidelines on State Aid for Rescuing and                  Spain represented by Ms Monica Esteve Sanz, lawyer,
Restructuring firms in difficulty ( 1). The applicant disputes the
defendant’s findings that in the absence of the aid in question
British Energy would be insolvent and have to cease operating
and that if it did so there would be serious consequences both             ALADIN Gesellschaft für innovative mikrobiologische Systeme
for nuclear safety and for the security of power supply in                 GmbH was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of
the United Kingdom. According to the applicant all these                   Appeal.
 ---pagebreak--- C 135/38              EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                           7.6.2003
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             Mark or sign cited in          National mark ‘ALADDIN’ for cer-
                                                                        opposition:                    tain goods (‘polish for metals’) in
                                                                                Class 3
—     Declare that the decision of the First Board of Appeals of
      31 January 2003 rendered in case 389/2002-1, has                  Decision of the Oppo-          Opposition rejected.
      infringed Article 4, paragraphs 2 and 3 and/or article 8          sition Division:
      paragraph 1, letter b) of Regulation 40/94 (1);
                                                                        Decision of the Board of       Opponent’s appeal dismissed.
                                                                        Appeal:
—     Consequently, altering this decision, declare the dismissal
      of registration of community trade mark application               Pleas in law:                  Misapplication of Article 43 para-
      no. 397.323 ALADIN (word), or — eventually — order
                                                                                graphs 2 and 3 and Article 8
      the devolution of the case to the First Board of Appeal;                                         paragraph 1 b) of Regulation 40/
                                                                                94. The applicant challenges the
                                                                                Board of Appeal’s ruling that the
—     Order the defendant and if the case might be, the
                                                                                applicant’s trade mark, cited in
      intervener to pay all the costs of these proceedings and
      the costs of the opposition and appeal incurred within                                           opposition, had only been used
                                                                                for one particular category of
      the OHIM.
                                                                                goods (‘cotton impregnated with
                                                                                a metal polishing agent for house-
                                                                                hold use’) and that, given that
                                                                                use, there was no likelihood of
                                                                                confusion between the two
                                                                                marks. According to the applicant
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                this is not a case where the earlier
                                                                                mark has been used in relation to
                                                                                only part of the goods for which it
Applicant for Com-             ALADIN Gesellschaft für innova-                                         is registered. The applicant asserts
munity trade mark:             tive mikrobiologische Systeme                                           that the earlier mark had been
                               GmbH.                                                                   registered for ‘polish for metals’
                                                                                and that ‘impregnated cotton with
                                                                                a polishing agent’ is, in fact, ‘pol-
Community trade mark           Word mark ‘ALADIN’, for certain                                         ish for metals’, meaning that the
concerned:                     goods in classes 1, 3, 35, 37                                           earlier mark had been used for all
                               and 42 (application No 397323)                                          the products for which it was
                                                                                registered.
Proprietor of mark or          RECKITT BENCKISER (ESPAÑA),
sign cited in the oppo-        S.L.                                     (1 ) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
sition proceedings:                                                          Community trade mark (OJ 11, p. 1).


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 October 2000 in Case T-202/99: Léon Rappe v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Promotion — Staff report — Delay in its drafting)

text:
23.12.2000            EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 372/11
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               Action brought on 18 September 2000 by Verde Sport
                                                                          SpA and Others against Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
                       of 5 October 2000                                                   (Cases T-274/00 and T-296/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 372/23)
in Case T-202/99: Léon Rappe v Commission of the
                  European Communities (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
(Officials — Promotion — Staff report — Delay in its                      ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                             drafting)                                    European Communities on 18 September 2000 by Verde
                                                                          Sport SpA and Others, represented by Alfredo Bianchini, of
                                                                          the Venice Bar.
                        (2000/C 372/22)
                                                                          The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                          —     annul Commission Decision 2000/394/EEC of 25 No-
                                                                                vember 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by
                                                                                way of relief from social security contributions under
                  (Language of the case: French)                                Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995;
                                                                          —     in the alternative, annul the abovementioned decision in
                                                                                so far as it requires recovery of the relief granted;
In Case T-202/99: Léon Rappe, an official of the Commission
of the European Communities, residing in Orp-Jauche                       —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
(Belgium), represented by J.-N. Louis, G.-F. Parmentier and
V. Peere, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the offices of Société de Gestion Fiduciaire
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
SARL, 13 Avenue du Bois, against Commission of the
European Communities (Agents: F. Duvieusart-Clotuche and
B. Wägenbaur) — application, first, for annulment of the                  The pleas in law and main arguments are those relied upon in
Commission’s decision not to promote the applicant to grade               Cases T-234/00 Fondazione Opera S. Maria della Carità v
A 6 in the course of the 1998 promotion procedure and,                    Commission and T-235/00 Codess Sociale and Others (1).
second, for damages — the Court of First Instance (Third
Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts, President, J. Azizi and
M. Jaeger, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the           (1) Not yet published.
Registrar, has given a judgment on 5 October 2000, the
operative part of which is as follows:
1.    The Commission’s decision not to promote the applicant to
      grade A 6 in the course of the 1998 promotion procedure is
      annulled;
                                                                          Action brought on 22 September 2000 by Manuel Francis-
                                                                          co Caballero Montoya against Commission of the Euro-
                                                                                pean Communities
2.    The remainder of the application is dismissed;
                                                                                (Case T-303/00)
3.    The Commission shall bear the costs.
                                                                                (2000/C 372/24)
(1) OJ C 314 of 30.10.99.                                                                     (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
                                                                          European Communities on 22 September 2000 by Manuel
                                                                          Francisco Caballero Montoya, residing in Brussels represented
                                                                          by Juan Ramón Iturriagagoitia.


title: Case C-347/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio — Sezione Seconda ter — by order of that Court of 9 June 2003 in the case of Regione Autonoma Friuli Venezia Giulia and Agenzia Regionale per lo Sviluppo Rurale (ERSA) against Ministero per le Politiche Agricole e Forestali and Regione Veneto

text:
1.11.2003             EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 264/17
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale                           its entirety, should the prohibition of the use in Italy after
Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio — Sezione Seconda                          2007 of the name ‘Tocai’, which arises from the exchange
ter — by order of that Court of 9 June 2003 in the case of                    of letters between the parties to the agreement, annexed
Regione Autonoma Friuli Venezia Giulia and Agenzia                            to the agreement, be regarded as invalid and of no
Regionale per lo Sviluppo Rurale (ERSA) against Minis-                        effect because it is inconsistent with the rules governing
tero per le Politiche Agricole e Forestali and Regione                        geographical homonyms established in the agreement
                             Veneto                                           itself (see Article 4(5) of the protocol to the agreement)?
                         (Case C-347/03)
                                                                         4.   Should the Second Joint Declaration annexed to the 1993
                        (2003/C 264/27)                                       agreement (OJ 1993 L 337), which implies that the
                                                                              contracting parties were unaware, at the time of their
                                                                              negotiations, of the existence of homonyms connected
                                                                              with European and Hungarian wines, be regarded as a
                                                                              clear misrepresentation of reality (given that the Italian
                                                                              and Hungarian names used to refer to ‘Tocai’ wines have
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        existed alongside each other for centuries, were officially
European Communities by order of the Tribunale Amministra-                    recognised in 1948 in an agreement between Italy and
tivo Regionale del Lazio — Sezione Seconda ter (Regional                      Hungary and were recently brought within the scope of
Administrative Court for Lazio — Second Division / III) of                    Community law) such as to render null and void that part
9 June 2003, received at the Court Registry on 7 August 2003,                 of the 1993 agreement which prohibits the use in Italy of
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Regione Autonoma                      the name Tocai, on the basis of Article 48 of the Vienna
Friuli Venezia Giulia and Agenzia Regionale per lo Sviluppo                   convention on the law of the Treaties?
Rurale (ERSA) against Ministero per le Politiche Agricole e
Forestali and Regione Veneto on the following questions:
1.    Can the Europe Agreement establishing an association
      between the European Communities and their Member                  5.   In light of Article 59 of the Vienna convention on the
      States, of the one part, and the Republic of Hungary, of                law of the Treaties, is the TRIPS agreement on trade-
      the other part, concluded on 16 December 1991 and                       related aspects of intellectual property rights (OJ 1994
      published in OJ 1993 L 347, provide a proper and                        L 336), which was concluded within the context of the
      sufficient legal basis for conferring on the European                   World Trade Organisation and entered into force on
      Community power to conclude the Community Agree-                        1 January 1996, thus after the Community Agreement of
      ment between the European Community and the Repub-                      1993 (OJ 1994 L 337) entered into force, to be interpret-
      lic of Hungary on the reciprocal protection and control                 ed as meaning that its provisions governing homonyms
      of wine names of 29 November 1993 (1) (OJ 1993                          in vine names apply in place of those of the Community
      L 337), with particular reference to Article 65(1), to joint            Agreement of 1993 where there is inconsistency between
      declaration no 13 and to Annex XIII (points 3, 4 and 5)                 the two, given that the parties to both agreements are the
      of the European Agreement of 1991 on the possible                       same?
      reservation of the sovereignty and jurisdiction of the
      Member States in the matter of national geographical
      names used with reference to food and wine and restraint
      of any transfer of jurisdiction of competence in that
      matter to the European Community.
                                                                         6.   In the case of two names that are homonyms and refer to
                                                                              two different wines produced in two different countries
2.    In view of what is said in opinion no 1/94 of the Court                 both party to the TRIPS Agreement (and both where the
      of Justice of the European Communities concerning                       homonym relates to two geographical names used in
      the exclusive jurisdiction of the European Community,                   both the countries party to TRIPS and where it relates to
      should the Community Agreement between the European                     a geographical name in one country and the like name
      Community and the Republic of Hungary on the protec-                    relates to a vine traditionally cultivated in another country
      tion and control of wine names of 29 November 1993                      party to TRIPS), must Articles 22 to 24 of the Third Part
      (OJ 1993 L 337), which specifies the protection of                      of Annex C to the Treaty Establishing the World Trade
      geographical names which have intellectual and commer-                  Organisation, which contains the TRIPS Agreement (OJ
      cial property significance, be declared invalid and of no               1994 L 336), which entered into force on 1 January
      effect within the Community legal order because the                     1996, be interpreted as meaning that both the names
      agreement itself has not been ratified by the individual                may continue to be used provided that they have been
      Member States of the European Community?                                used in the past by the respective producers either in
                                                                              good faith or for at least 10 years prior to 15 April 1994
                                                                              (Article 24(4)) and each name clearly indicates the
3.    In the event that the Community Agreement of 1993 (OJ                   country or region or area of the origin of the wine to
      1993 L 337) is to be regarded as lawful and applicable in               which it refers in such a way as not to mislead consumers?
 ---pagebreak--- C 264/18               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                        1.11.2003
7.    Does the right of ownership set out in Article 1 of                      the conclusion of the contract were held in a doorstep-
      Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human                        selling situation, as defined in Paragraph 1 of the Gesetz
      Rights (The Rome Convention of 1950) and taken up in                     über den Widerruf von Haustürgeschäften und ähnlichen
      Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the                   Geschäften (Law on the cancellation of doorstep trans-
      European Union proclaimed in Nice in October 2000                        actions and analogous transactions), both as regards the
      also cover intellectual property in the names of the places              contract for the purchase of the immovable property
      of origin of wines and the exploitation of those names,                  and the loan agreement serving solely to finance that
      and, consequently, does the principle expressed by that                  purchase?
      law preclude application of the agreement set out in the
      exchange of letters annexed to the Agreement between                2.   Are the requirements of the rule concerning a high
      the European Community and the Republic of Hungary                       level of protection in the field of consumer protection
      on reciprocal protection and control of wine names (OJ                   (Article 95(3) EC) and the effectiveness of consumer
      1994 L 337), but not included in the body of that                        protection safeguarded by Directive 85/577/EEC satisfied
      agreement, under which wine-producers of the Friuli-                     by a national legal system or the interpretation thereof
      Venezia Giulia region are not permitted to use the name                  which limits merely to the reversal of the loan agreement
      ‘Tocai Friulano’, particularly in view of the total lack of              the legal effects of the revocation of the declaration of
      any compensation to the wine-producers of Friuli-Vene-                   intent to enter into a loan agreement, even in connection
      zia Giulia thus dispossessed, the lack of any general public             with such capital investment models in which the loan
      interest justifying their dispossession and the evident                  would not have been granted at all without the acquisition
      disregard for the principle of proportionality?                          of the immovable property?
8.    In the event that it is held that the Community laws                3.   Is a national rule on the legal effects of cancelling a loan
      contained in the Community Agreement between the                         agreement to the effect that the cancelling consumer
      European Community and the Republic of Hungary on                        must pay back the loan proceeds to the financing bank,
      the protection and control of wine names of 29 Novem-                    even though according to the plan drawn up for the
      ber 1993 (OJ 1993 L 337) and/or the exchange of letters                  capital investment the loan serves solely to finance the
      annexed thereto are unlawful to the extent described in                  immovable property and is paid directly to the vendor of
      the preceding questions, must the provisions of Regu-                    the immovable property, consistent with the protective
      lation (EC) No 753/2002 (2), under which use of the                      purpose of the rule on cancellation laid down in
      name ‘Tocai Friulano’ is to be prohibited after 31 March                 Article 5(2) of Directive 85/577/EEC?
      2007 (Article 19(2)) be regarded as invalid and of no
      effect?                                                             4.   Where a legal effect of cancellation, under national law,
                                                                               results in the consumer being required, after declaring
                                                                               cancellation, immediately to pay back — in accordance
(1) Read: 23 November 1993.                                                    with the plan drawn up for the capital investment — the
(2) OJ L 118 of 4.5.2002, p. 1.                                                loan proceeds which have thus far not been redeemed at
                                                                               all, plus interest thereon at the normal market rate, is this
                                                                               effect contrary to the rule concerning a high level of
                                                                               protection in the field of consumer protection
                                                                               (Article 95(3) EC) and to the principle of the effectiveness
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht                          of consumer protection enshrined in Directive 85/577/
Bochum by order of that Court of 29 July 2003 in the                           EEC?
proceedings between 1. Mrs Elisabeth Schulte, 2. Mr Wolf-
   gang Schulte and Deutsche Bausparkasse Badenia AG                      (1) OJ L 372, p. 31.
                         (Case C-350/03)
                         (2003/C 264/28)
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesgerichts-
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    hof by order of that Court of 9 July 2003 in the case of
European Communities by order of the Landgericht Bochum                   Dr Elisabeth Mayer against Versorgungsanstalt des Bundes
(Bochum Regional Court) of 29 July 2003, received at the                                            und der Länder
Court Registry on 11 August 2003, for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings between 1. Mrs Elisabeth Schulte, 2. Mr Wolf-                                      (Case C-356/03)
gang Schulte and Deutsche Bausparkasse Badenia AG on the
following questions:                                                                               (2003/C 264/29)
1.    Does Article 3(2)(a) of Council Directive 85/577/EEC (1)
      of 20 December 1985 to protect the consumer in respect              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      of contracts negotiated away from business premises also            European Communities by order of the Bundesgerichtshof
      cover such contracts for the purchase of immovable                  (Federal Court of Justice) of 9 July 2003, received at the Court
      property which must be regarded as merely a component               Registry on 18 August 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the
      of a credit-financed capital investment model and in the            case of Dr Elisabeth Mayer against Versorgungsanstalt des
      case of which the contract negotiations conducted up to             Bundes und der Länder on the following questions:


title: Case C-57/02 P: Appeal brought on 22 February 2002 by Compañía Española para la Fabricación de Aceros S.A. (Acerinox) against the judgment delivered on 13 December 2001 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-48/98 between Compañía Española para la Fabricación de Aceros S.A. (Acerinox) and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
4.5.2002              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 109/29
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-                 was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
hof by order of that Court of 22 January 2002 in the case               Communities on 22 February 2002 by Compañı́a Española
  of IHW Rebmann GmbH against Hauptzollamt Weiden                       para la Fabricación de Aceros S.A. (Acerinox), established in
                                                                        Madrid, Spain, represented by Alexandre Vandencasteele and
                         (Case C-56/02)                                 Denis Waelbroeck, lawyers.
                        (2002/C 109/49)
                                                                        The Appellant claims that the Court should:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  —     annul the contested judgment of the Court of First
European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof                          Instance of 13 December 2001 in case T-48/98; as well
(Federal Finance Court) of 22 January 2002, received at the                   as
Court Registry on 22 February 2002, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of IHW Rebmann GmbH against Hauptzollamt
                                                                        —     annul the Commission’s decision of 21 January 1998
(Principal Customs Office) Weiden on the following question:
                                                                              fining the Appellant or at the very least substantially
                                                                              reduce the amount of the fine, or alternatively refer the
Is Article 187, second paragraph, of Council Regulation                       case back to the Court of First Instance;
(EEC) No 2913/92 (1) of 12 October 1992 establishing the
Community Customs Code (‘the Customs Code’) (OJ 1992
L 302, p. 1) to be interpreted as meaning that, where                   —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
compensating products that are declared as returned goods are
released for free circulation, the factual particulars required to
calculate the import duties legally owed on those compensating
products must also be declared and proved, or is it for the
endorsing customs office, so far as possible, to ascertain those        Pleas in law and main arguments
factual particulars from the supervising office using an INF 1
sheet, pursuant to the procedure established in Article 613 of
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (2) of 2 July 1993
laying down provisions for the implementation of Council                The Appellant submits that the judgment of the Court of First
Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community                  Instance is flawed for the following reasons:
Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1), in the version in force
until 30 June 2001?
                                                                        —     the Court of First Instance based its findings with regard
                                                                              to Acerinox’s participation in the alleged cartel in Spain
(1) OJ L 302 of 19.10.1992, p. 1.                                             on a manifestly erroneous construction of the Appellant’s
(2) OJ L 253 of 11.10.1993, p. 1.                                             pleadings and therefore failed to properly motivate its
                                                                              judgment on this point;
                                                                        —     the Court of First Instance failed to adequately motivate
                                                                              its rejection of the Appellant’s argument that its
                                                                              implementation of the alloy surcharge outside Spain,
                                                                              which did not follow the pattern allegedly agreed in
Appeal brought on 22 February 2002 by Compañı́a                              December 1993, reflected mere parallelism of conduct;
Española para la Fabricación de Aceros S.A. (Acerinox)
against the judgment delivered on 13 December 2001 by
the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of                     —     the Court of First Instance has applied an erroneous legal
the European Communities in case T-48/98 between                              test in assessing the duration of the alleged infringement;
Compañı́a Española para la Fabricación de Aceros S.A.
(Acerinox) and the Commission of the European Com-
                            munities                                    —     even if an infringement could be said to continue for as
                                                                              long as its consequences are felt (rather than for as
                                                                              long as some concertation continues to exist between
                        (Case C-57/02 P)
                                                                              undertakings), the Court of First Instance failed to motiv-
                                                                              ate its rejection as irrelevant of the Appellant’s argument
                        (2002/C 109/50)                                       that, in July 1994, the price of nickel reached its original
                                                                              level;
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 13 December                 —     the Court of First Instance failed to properly motivate its
2001 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance                      rejection of the Appellant’s argument concerning the
of the European Communities in case T-48/98 (1) between                       disproportionate level of its fine when its position on the
Compañı́a Española para la Fabricación de Aceros S.A. (Aceri-              market is compared to that of other addressees of the
nox) and the Commission of the European Communities,                          decision;
 ---pagebreak--- C 109/30               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     4.5.2002
—     in refusing to grant the Appellant the same reduction of        Action brought on 26 February 2002 by the Commission
      fine as that granted to other participants because the          of the European Communities against the United
      Appellant denied its participation in an infringement,                Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
      the Court of First Instance has violated fundamental
      principles of law (right of defence) recognised by the
      Court of Justice in its case-law.                                                        (Case C-62/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 109/52)
(1) OJ C 137, 02.05.98, p. 20.
                                                                      An action against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
                                                                      Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of
                                                                      the European Communities on 26 February 2002 by the
                                                                      Commission of the European Communities, represented by
                                                                      Michael Shotter, acting as agent, with an address for service in
Action brought on 25 February 2002 by the Commission                  Luxembourg.
   of European Communities against Kingdom of Spain
                                                                      The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                          (Case C-58/02)
                                                                      —     declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                         (2002/C 109/51)                                    and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                            Directive 1999/94/EC of the European Parliament and of
                                                                            the Council of 13 December 1999 relating to the
                                                                            availability of consumer information on fuel economy
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before                   and CO2 emissions in respect of the marketing of new
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 25 Febru-               passenger cars (1) or, in any event, by failing to notify
ary 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,                     such provisions to the Commission, the United Kingdom
represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana and Michael Shotter,                 of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil
acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at              its obligations under Article 12(1) and 12(2) of this
the office of Luis Escobar, Wagner Centre, C 254.                           Directive;
                                                                      —     order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
      within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      Directive 98/84/EC of the European Parliament and of
      the Council of 20 November 1998 on the legal protection
      of services based on, or consisting of, conditional             Article 249 EC, under which a directive shall be binding as to
      access (1), the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its       the result to be achieved, upon each Member State, carries by
      obligations under that directive;                               implication an obligation on the Member States to observe the
                                                                      period for compliance laid down in the directive. That period
                                                                      expired on 18 January 2001 without the United Kingdom
—     Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
                                                                      having informed the Commission of the provisions adopted to
                                                                      comply with the directive referred to in the conclusions of the
                                                                      Commission.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                      Since the Commission is in possession of no other information
                                                                      enabling it to conclude that the United Kingdom has adopted
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put          the necessary provision, it is compelled to assume that the
forward in Case C-44/02 (2); the time-limit for transposition         United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
expired on 28 May 2000.                                               Directive.
(1) OJ 1998 L 320, p. 54.
(2) OJ C 97, 20.4.2002, p. 4.                                         (1) OJ L 12, 18.1.2000, p. 16.