title: Action brought on 28 June 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic (Case C-225/96)

text:
 No C 247/ 10           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      24 . 8 . 96
 3 . Whether the NBU laid down by the ABI for its members                      points 8 and 9 of the Annex thereto, save in respect of
      in relation to the 'all-embracing' guarantee covering the                mercury and lead,
      credit facility — since they are applied in a uniform and
      binding manner by the member banks — are, taken as a            — order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the
      whole, compatible with Article 85 of the Treaty, in                  proceedings .
      relation to the individual clauses discussed in the
      grounds of this order, in that they are liable adversely to
      affect trade between the Member States and have as              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
      their object and effect the prevention , restriction or
      distortion of competition within the Common                     Article 189 of the EC Treaty, in providing that a directive is
      Market;                                                         binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon the Member
                                                                      State to which it is addressed , places Member States under
4 . What effects any finding of incompatibility in                    an obligation to comply with the time-limits set by directives
      accordance with point 3 may have on the corresponding           for their implementation . In the present case, when the
     clauses of the ' all-embracing' guarantee agreements and         time-limit expired on 5 November 1981 , the Italian
     on the agreements themselves concluded 'downstream '             Republic had not adopted the measures necessary to comply
                                                                      in full with Directive 79/923/EEC .
      by individual banks, since, as a group, the banks
      belonging to the ABI may be regarded , within the
     meaning and for the purposes of Article 86 of the Treaty,        (') OJ No L 281 , 10 . 11 . 1979 , p . 47 .
     as holding a joint dominant position in the national
     credit market, whose specific application of the rules in
     question is regarded as an abuse .
(') Associazione Bancaria Italiana .
                                                                     Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
                                                                     Genova by order of that court of 1 8 June 1 996 EDIS-Edilizia
                                                                     Industriale Siderurgica Sri ( formerly EDIS SpA ) v. Ministero
                                                                                delle Finanze
                                                                                ( Case C-231 /96 )
Action brought on 28 June 1996 by the Commission of the                                          ( 96/C 247/20 )
    European Communities against the Italian Republic
                         ( Case C-225/96 )                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                           ( 96/C 247/19 )                           European Communities by order of 18 June 1996 of the
                                                                     Tribunale di Genova ( District Court, Genoa ), which was
                                                                     received at the Court Registry on 8 July 1996 , for a
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before            preliminary ruling in the case of EDIS-Edilizia Industriale
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                  Siderurgica Sri ( formerly EDIS SpA ) v. Ministero delle
28 June 1996 by the Commission of the European                       Finanze on the following questions :
Communities, represented by Antonio Aresu of its Legal
Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in             1 . For the purposes of amplifying and clarifying the ruling
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, also                 given in the judgment of 20 April 1 993 in Joined Cases
of the Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg .                          C-71 /91 and C-178/91 Ponente Carni SpA v.
                                                                          Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato ('), must the
The applicant claims that the Court should :                              provisions of the Treaty be interpreted as precluding the
                                                                          introduction and/or the retention by a Member State of
                                                                          a national provision such as that introduced by the
— declare that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
                                                                          Italian legislature in paragraph 2 of Article 13 of Decree
     obligations under the EC Treaty, by :
                                                                          No 641 of the President of the Republic of 26 October
                                                                          1972 where the effect of the application of that
     — not designating waters as needing protection or                    provision is to limit the temporal effects of a judgment
         improvement in order to support shellfish life and               given by the Court of Justice ?
         growth, in accordance with Article 4 of Directive
         79/923/EEC ('), and/or not communicating such               2 . Is Article 5 of the EC Treaty, as interpreted in the
         designations to the Commission , pursuant to                     Court's case-law, compatible with a national provision
         Article 13 of that Directive,
                                                                          ( Article 1 3 of Presidential Decree No 641 /72 ), which, as
                                                                          regards the procedural rules relating to judicial actions
     — not establishing programmes for the reduction of                   seeking to secure repayment of charges paid in breach of
         pollution, in accordance with Article 5 of Directive             Council Directive 69/335/EEC ( 2 ), provides for a
         79/923/EEC ,                                                     three-year prescription period running from the date of
                                                                          payment, where such prescription period is not laid
     — not setting values, in accordance with Article 3 of                down by national law for claims for the recovery of sums
         Directive 79/923/EEC, for the parameters listed at               undulv paid as between private persons ?


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 2 October 2003 in Case C-176/99 P: ARBED SA v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Agreements and concerted practices — European producers of beams — Notification of the statement of objections)

text:
15.11.2003              EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                               C 275/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       3.    Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
                                                                                Ireland to bear its own costs.
                      of 30 September 2003
                                                                             (1) OJ C 336 of 9.11.1996.
in Case C-301/96: Federal Republic of Germany v Com-
          mission of the European Communities (1)
(State aid — Decision 96/666/EC — Compensation for the
economic disadvantages caused by the division of Germany                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
— Serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State —
                Regional economic development)                                                          (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 2 October 2003
                         (2003/C 275/01)
                                                                             in Case C-176/99 P: ARBED SA v Commission of the
                   (Language of the case: German)                                               European Communities (1)
                                                                             (Appeal — Agreements and concerted practices — European
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       producers of beams — Notification of the statement of
                   in the European Court Reports)                                                          objections)
                                                                                (2003/C 275/02)
In Case C-301/96, Federal Republic of Germany (Agents: W.-                                       (Language of the case: French)
D. Plessing and T. Oppermann) v Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: K.-D. Borchardt, assisted by M. Núñez                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Müller), supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain and                                       in the European Court Reports)
Northern Ireland (Agent: J.E. Collins): Application for partial
annulment of Commission Decision 96/666/EC of 26 June
1996 concerning aid granted by Germany to the Volkswagen                     In Case C-176/99 P, ARBED SA established in Luxembourg
Group in Mosel and Chemnitz (OJ 1996 L 308, p. 46), the
                                                                             (Luxembourg), (represented by A. Vandencasteele): Appeal
Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, J.-P.
                                                                             against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
Puissochet, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen and C.W.A. Timmer-                     European Communities (Second Chamber, Extended Compo-
mans (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann,                       sition) of 11 March 1999 in Case T-137/94 ARBED v
V. Skouris, F. Macken (Rapporteur), S. von Bahr and J.N. Cunha
                                                                             Commission [1999] ECR II-303, seeking to have that judgment
Rodrigues, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,
                                                                             set aside, the other party to the proceedings being: Commission
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment             of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and W. Wils,
on 30 September 2003, in which it:                                           assisted by J.-Y. Art), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
                                                                             M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, A. La
                                                                             Pergola, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr, Judges; C. Stix-
1.   Dismisses the application;
                                                                             Hackl, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Adminis-
                                                                             trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 2 October
2.   Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs;                2003, in which it:
 ---pagebreak--- C 275/2                 EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                            15.11.2003
1.    Annuls the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 March         1.    Dismisses the appeal;
      1999 in Case T-137/94 ARBED v Commission;
                                                                             2.    Orders Eurofer ASBL to pay the costs.
2.    Annuls Commission Decision 94/215/ECSC of 16 February
      1994 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 65 of the
      ECSC Treaty concerning agreements and concerted practices              (1) OJ C 299 of 16.10.1999.
      engaged in by European producers of beams in so far as it
      concerns ARBED SA;
3.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay
      the costs of both the proceedings before the Court of First
      Instance and the present appeal proceedings.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(1) OJ C 299 of 16.10.1999.
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 2 October 2003
                                                                             in Case C-182/99 P: Salzgitter AG v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                             (Appeal — Agreements and concerted practices — European
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                                            producers of beams)
                        of 2 October 2003                                                             (2003/C 275/04)
in Case C-179/99 P: Eurofer ASBL v Commission of the                                            (Language of the case: German)
                   European Communities (1)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Appeal — Agreements and concerted practices — European                                         in the European Court Reports)
                        producers of beams)
                         (2003/C 275/03)                                     In Case C-182/99 P, Salzgitter AG, formerly Preussag Stahl
                                                                             AG, established in Salzgitter (Germany), (represented by
                   (Language of the case: German)                            H. Satzky and C. Frick): Appeal against the judgment of the
                                                                             Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Second
                                                                             Chamber, Extended Composition) of 11 March 1999 in Case
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       T-148/94 Preussag v Commission [1999] ECR II-613, seeking
                   in the European Court Reports)                            to have that judgment set aside in part, the other party to the
                                                                             proceedings being: Commission of the European Communities
                                                                             (Agents: J. Currall and W. Wils, assisted by H.-J. Freund), the
                                                                             Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of
                                                                             the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann (Rappor-
In Case C-179/99 P, Eurofer ASBL, established in Luxembourg                  teur) and S. von Bahr, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General;
(Luxembourg), (represented by N. Koch): Appeal against the                   M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European                      given a judgment on 2 October 2003, in which it:
Communities (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) of
11 March 1999 in Case T-136/94 Eurofer v Commission
[1999] ECR II-263, seeking to have that judgment set aside,                  1.    Dismisses the appeal;
the other party to the proceedings being: Commission of the
European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and W. Wils,                        2.    Orders Salzgitter AG to pay the costs.
assisted by H.-J. Freund), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed
of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward,
A. La Pergola, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr, Judges;                 (1) OJ C 299 of 16.10.1999.
C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
2 October 2003, in which it:


title: Case C-462/06: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 May 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation, France) — Glaxosmithkline, Laboratoires Glaxosmithkline v Jean-Pierre Rouard (Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Section 5 of Chapter II — Jurisdiction over individual contracts of employment — Section 2 of Chapter II — Special jurisdiction — Article 6, point 1 — More than one defendant)

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/7

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 May 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation, France) — Glaxosmithkline, Laboratoires Glaxosmithkline v Jean-Pierre Rouard
   (Case C-462/06) (1)

   (Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Section 5 of Chapter II - Jurisdiction over individual contracts of employment - Section 2 of Chapter II - Special jurisdiction - Article 6, point 1 - More than one defendant)
   (2008/C 171/11)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Cour de cassation
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Glaxosmithkline, Laboratoires Glaxosmithkline

      Defendant: Jean-Pierre Rouard
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour de Cassation (France) — Interpretation of Articles 6(1), 18(1) and 19 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Rules on jurisdiction over individual contracts of employment — Situation of a dismissed worker who had worked, in non-Member States, for two companies in a group with their seats in two different Member States
   Operative part of the judgment
   The rule of special jurisdiction provided for in Article 6, point 1, of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters cannot be applied to a dispute falling under Section 5 of Chapter II of that regulation concerning the jurisdiction rules applicable to individual contracts of employment.

      (1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.


title: Case C-407/04 P: Appeal brought on 24 September 2004 (fax of 16 September 2004) by Dalmine SpA against the judgment delivered on 8 July 2004 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-50/00 between Dalmine SpA and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/25

         Appeal brought on 24 September 2004 (fax of 16 September 2004) by Dalmine SpA against the judgment delivered on 8 July 2004 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-50/00 between Dalmine SpA and the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-407/04 P)
   (2004/C 300/51)
   An appeal against the judgment delivered on 8 July 2004 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-50/00 Dalmine SpA v Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 September 2004 by Dalmine SpA, represented by A. Sinagra, M. Siragusa and F.M. Moretti, lawyers.
   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested judgment of the Court of First Instance together with the decision originally contested; or

               —

               annul the contested judgment and, consequently, the parts of the Commission decision covered by such pleas put forward in the present notice of appeal as the Court may find to be acceptable and well founded;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the decision and substantially reduce the fine imposed, taking account of the grounds and facts put forward in the present notice of appeal, whether as a consequence of the errors of law committed by the Court of First Instance in assessing the appropriateness of the penalty, or as a consequence of the annulment, in whole or in part, of the judgment, with particular (but not exclusive) regard to the findings of the Court of First Instance in relation to the infringements found in Articles 1 and 2 of the decision;

               —

               assess whether, for various reasons and pursuant to its autonomous jurisdiction, it should refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for reconsideration and a new judgment which should take account of the Court of Justice's interpretation of the legislation and of the principles of law in the present case;

               —

               lastly, in any event, set aside the order as to costs in the judgment of the Court of First Instance and order the Commission to pay Dalmine's costs at first instance and those of the appeal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The appellant submits that the judgment of the Court of First Instance is flawed for:

               —

               infringement and misapplication of Community law, and infringement of the rights of the defence, in finding that the questions which the Commission put to the applicant, in particular by the decision requesting information under Article 11(5) of Regulation No 17/62 (1), were lawful;

               —

               infringement and misapplication of Community law and infringement of the rights of the defence in finding that the ‘Sharing Key’ document was admissible and of evidential value;

               —

               infringement and misapplication of Community law and infringement of the rights of the defence in finding that the minutes of the interview with the former director of Dalmine were admissible and of evidential value;

               —

               infringement of Article 81 EC as regards the legitimacy of the inclusion in the decision of extraneous grounds in the complaints made against the undertakings;

               —

               infringement of Article 81 EC, misapplication of the law, distortion of the evidence and breach of the duty to state reasons in respect of the determination of the object of the alleged infringement under Article 1 of the decision, the assessment of its implementation, the determination of its effects and the fact of treating a potential, unimplemented infringement, or one without any appreciable effect on competition, in the same way as fully implemented infringements which have an unlawful object and effect;

               —

               infringement of Article 81 EC, misapplication of the law, distortion of the evidence and breach of the duty to state reasons in respect of the alleged effect on trade between Member States;

               —

               action taken ultra vires, infringement of Community law and distortion of the facts and of the evidence as regards the Court of First Instance's reconstruction of the infringement found by the Commission in Article 2 of the decision;

               —

               action taken ultra vires, infringement of Community law and distortion of the facts and of the evidence as regards the finding of the unlawfulness of the objects and/or the effects of the supply contract between Dalmine and British Steel, in so far as it restricted competition on the market for plain end and threaded pipes;

               —

               infringement of Community law and distortion of the facts and of the evidence in so far as the terms of the supply contract between Dalmine and British Steel were found to be unlawful;

               —

               in the alternative, infringement of Article 81 EC and breach of the duty to state reasons in the assessment of the Commission's compliance with Article 15 of Regulation No 17/62 and of the Guidelines on the method of setting fines, as regards the gravity of the infringement said to be committed by Dalmine;

               —

               and, lastly, again in the alternative, infringement of Article 81 EC and breach of the duty to state reasons in the assessment of the Commission's compliance with Article 15 of Regulation No 17/62 and with the Guidelines on the method of setting fines, as regards the assessment of the duration of the infringement alleged to have been committed by Dalmine and of the attenuating circumstances.

      (1)  OJ, English Special Edition, Series I, Chapter 1959-1962, p. 87.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura Circondariale di Roma - Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli by orders of that court of 10 January 1996 in criminal proceedings against Vittorio Ianilli and Francesco Cannizzaro (Cases C-24/96 and C-25/96)

text:
16 . 3 . 96             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       No C 77/9
      under the legislation of one Member State may not rely            Is Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1531/88 (') of 31 May
      on the provisions of Article 10 ( 1 ) of Regulation ( EEC )       1988 valid ?
      No 1408/71 in order to challenge a withdrawal of
      entitlement on the sole ground that the person resides in         (') Imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of
      the territory of another Member State ?                                 potassium permanganate originating in the People's Republic of
                                                                              China ( OJ No L 138 , 1988 , p. 1 ).
2. If the answer to question 1 is yes, is Regulation ( EEC )
      No 1247/92 made within the powers granted by the
      Treaty of Rome, and in particular by Articles 5 1 and 235
      of that Treaty ?
(') OJ No L 149, 1971 , p . 2 .                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by judgment of the
( 2 ) OJ No L 136 , 19 . 5 . 1992 , p . 1 .                             Supremo Tribunal Administrativo ( Second Chamber —
                                                                        Tax matters ) of 4 October 1995 in the proceedings
                                                                        pending before that court between Fazenda Publica and
                                                                                Fricarnes SA
                                                                                ( Case C-2 8/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 77/20 )
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura
Circondariale di Roma — Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli by
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
orders of that court of 10 January 1996 in criminal
                                                                        European Communities by judgment of the Second
proceedings against Vittorio Ianilli and Francesco
                               Cannizzaro
                                                                        Chamber for tax matters of the Supremo Tribunal
                                                                        Administrativo ( Supreme Administrative Court ) of
                 ( Cases C-24/96 and C-25/96 )                          4 October 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry
                             ( 96/C 77/ 18 )                            on 1 February 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                        proceedings pending before that court between Fazenda
                                                                        Publica ( tax authorities ) and Fricarnes SA on the following
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        questions :
European Communities by orders of the Pretura
Circondariale di Roma — Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli
( Rome District Magistrate's Court, Tivoli Division ) of                1 . Are the 'charges' described, which have                      the
10 January 1996 , which were received at the Court Registry                   characteristics described above, contrary                   to
on 29 January 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in ciriminal                    Article 95 ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) of the Treaty of Rome ?
proceedings against Vittorio Ianilli and Francesco
Cannizzaro . The questions referred by the Pretura                      2 . Are they to be regarded as charges having an effect
Circondariale di Roma — Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli to the
                                                                              equivalent to a customs duty on imports, prohibited by
Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling are identical with                   Articles 9 and 12 of that Treaty ?
those in Case C-58/95 ( 1 ).
                                                                        3 . Are they to be regarded as turnover taxes within the
(') OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 , p . 6 .
                                                                               meaning of Article 33 of the Sixth Directive (^ without
                                                                               prejudice to Article 378 of the Act of Accession ( 2 ) or any
                                                                               other Community legislation ?
                                                                        (>) OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 .
                                                                        ( 2 ) OJ No L 302 , 15 . 11 . 1985 , p . 135 .
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht
Hamburg by order of that court of 10 January 1996 in the
case of Rotexchemie International Handels GmbH & Co . v.
              Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Waltershof
                           ( Case C-26/96 )
                             ( 96/C 77/19 )                                     Removal from the register of Case C-263/94 ( 1 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 77/21 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht                      By order of 13 November 1995 the President of the Court of
Hamburg — Fourth Chamber of the Joint Chamber of the                    Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Finanzgericht Hamburg for the Länder of the Free and                    from the register of Case C-263/94 : Commission of the
Hanseatic City of Hamburg, Lower Saxony and                             European Communities v. Kingdom of the Netherlands .
Schleswig-Holstein — of 10 January 1996 , which was
received at the Court Registry on 30 January 1996 , for a
                                                                        H OJ No C 304 , 29 . 10 . 1994 .
preliminary ruling in the case of Rotexchemie International
Handels GmbH & Co . v. Hauptzollamt Ham
burg-Waltershof on the following question :


title: Case C-133/04: Actionbrought on 12 March 2004 by Kingdom of Spain againstCommission of the European Communities

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/38

         Action brought on 12 March 2004 by Kingdom of Spain against Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-133/04)
   (2004/C 106/66)
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 12 March 2004 by the Kingdom of Spain, represented by Enrique Braquehais Conesa, Abogado del Estado, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               Annul Council Regulation (EC) No 2287/2003 (1) of 19 December 2003 fixing for 2004 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required, in so far as it does not allocate quotas to Spain in relation to the fishing possibilities which were distributed before the accession of that State in respect of the North Sea;

               2.

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               Breach of the principle of non-discrimination:
               Article 166 of the Act of Accession of Spain laid down, so far as concerns access to waters and resources of the Spanish fleet, a transitional period which ended upon the expiry of the period prescribed in Article 8(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 170/83, that is on 31 December 2002. However, the contested regulation in practice maintains the restrictions on access in respect of Spanish vessels to waters in the North Sea and in the Baltic Sea by granting practically no quotas in those waters, thus disregarding the fact that the transitional period has ended and discriminating against Spanish fishermen by comparison with those from other Member States.

               2.

               Infringement of the Act of Accession of Spain:
               The restrictions laid down in that Act are being extended beyond the time-limit laid down in Article 166 thereof by means of the contested regulation and inasmuch as certain quotas have not been allocated to Spanish vessels in the North Sea and in the Baltic Sea.

               3.

               Breach of the principle of relative stability
               The contested regulation radically changes the decisive factors so far as concerns the percentage of catches since Spanish vessels are not on an equal footing with vessels of the other Member States in terms of the application of the principle of relative stability.

      (1)  OJ L 344 of 31.12.2003, p. 1.


title: Cases T-290/99 to T-316/99: Actions brought on 27 October 1999 by Autobedrĳf Ueffing C.V. and Others against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 63/22                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      4.3.2000
                                                       COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Action brought on 3 November 1999 by Polyxeni Tessa                     Actions brought on 27 October 1999 by M.G.W. Ruypers,
and Andreas Kh. Tessas against the Council of the                       trading as Garage M.J.G. Ruypers, and Others against the
                        European Union                                           Commission of the European Communities
                        (Case T-270/99)                                                  (Cases T-285/99 to T-289/99)
                         (2000/C 63/42)                                                         (2000/C 63/43)
                   (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance on 3 November                Actions against the Commission of the European Communities
1999 by Polyxeni Tessa and Andreas Kh. Tessas, residing                 were brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
in Larisa, Odos Tagmatarkhou Velissariou 21-23 (Greece),                Communities on 27 October 1999 by M.G.W. Ruypers,
represented by Andreas Kh. Tessas, Lawyer, with an address              trading as Garage M.J.G. Ruypers, of Valkenburg (Netherlands),
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aikaterini                 and others, represented by M.J.C. Deriks, of the Rotterdam Bar.
Thill-Kamitaki, 4 Rue de l’Avenir.
                                                                        The applicants claim that the Court should:
The applicants claim that the Court of First Instance should:
                                                                        (a) annul the Commission’s decision [C(1999) 2539 final] (1)
— uphold this action for annulment with a view to declaring                 of 20 July 1999 concerning State aid granted by the
    void, for the reasons referred to in the claims for relief in           Netherlands to 633 service stations in the region bordering
    the application, the decision of 15 December 1998                       Germany;
    (No 14015/98) of the Council of the European Union
    relating to the taking over by the Greek State of the debts         (b) order the Commission to pay the costs.
    of certain bodies of the agricultural economy owed to the
    Agricultural Bank of Greece;
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
— order the Council of the European Union to pay our costs.
                                                                        The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Cases
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         T-273/99 to T-278/99.
First plea                                                              (1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.
Misapplication, by the Council’s Decision of 15 December
1998 (No 14015/98), relating to the taking over by the Greek
State of the debts of certain bodies of the agricultural economy
owed to the Agricultural Bank of Greece, of the third
subparagraph of Article 88(2) EC.
                                                                        Actions brought on 27 October 1999 by Autobedrijf
Second plea                                                             Ueffing C.V. and Others against the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
Manifest error on the part of the Council in adopting the above
contested decision inasmuch as it considered that there were
                                                                                (Cases T-290/99 to T-316/99)
exceptional circumstances within the meaning of the third
paragraph of Article 88(2) EC. Wrongful exercise on the part
of the Council of the discretion conferred on it under the third                                (2000/C 63/44)
paragraph of Article 88(2) EC.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
Third plea
The adoption of the above contested decision was a misuse of            Actions against the Commission of the European Communities
powers.                                                                 were brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                        Communities on 27 October 1999 by Autobedrijf Ueffing
                                                                        C.V., of Groenlo (Netherlands), and others, represented by
                                                                        M.J.C. Deriks, of the Rotterdam Bar.
 ---pagebreak--- 4.3.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 63/23
The applicants claim that the Court should:                             Pleas in law and main arguments
(a) annul the Commission’s decision [C(1999) 2539 final] (1)            The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Cases
    of 20 July 1999 concerning State aid granted by the                 T-273/99 to T-278/99. The applicant additionally claims that
    Netherlands to 633 service stations in the region bordering         the decision was prepared without due care, inasmuch as it is
    Germany;                                                            based on clearly incorrect facts, including inter alia the
                                                                        assumption that the applicant sells and supplies motor fuels
(b) order the Commission to pay the costs.                              and that it consequently forms part of the category of persons
                                                                        actually in receipt of aid.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         (1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Cases
T-273/99 to T-278/99. The applicants additionally claim that
the decision was prepared without due care, inasmuch as it is
based on clearly incorrect facts, including inter alia the premiss
that each service station is a party to an exclusive purchasing
agreement.
                                                                        Action brought on 15 November 1999 by W.F. Milder
(1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.                                        against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-320/99)
                                                                                (2000/C 63/46)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch )
Action brought on 8 November 1999 by Avia Nederland                     An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Coöperatie U.A. against the Commission of the European                  ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                          Communities                                   European Communities on 15 November 1999 by W.F. Milder,
                                                                        of Gendt (Netherlands), represented by M.J.C. Deriks, of the
                                                                        Rotterdam Bar.
                        (Case T-318/99)
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                         (2000/C 63/45)
                                                                        (a) annul the Commission’s decision [C(1999) 2539 final] (1)
                                                                            of 20 July 1999 concerning State aid granted by the
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)                            Netherlands to 633 service stations in the region bordering
                                                                            Germany;
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               (b) order the Commission to pay the costs.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 8 November 1999 by Avia Neder-
land Coöperatie U.A., of Soest (Netherlands), represented by
M.J.C. Deriks, of the Rotterdam Bar.                                    Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Cases
                                                                        T-273/99 to T-278/99.
(a) annul the Commission’s decision [C(1999) 2539 final] (1)
    of 20 July 1999 concerning State aid granted by the
    Netherlands to 633 service stations in the region bordering         (1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.
    Germany;
(b) order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-345/10: Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 May 2012 — Portugal v Commission (EAGGF — Guidance Section — Reduction of financial assistance — Measures to support investments in agricultural holdings — Effectiveness of controls)

text:
               30.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/19

         Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 May 2012 — Portugal v Commission
   (Case T-345/10) (1)

   (EAGGF - Guidance Section - Reduction of financial assistance - Measures to support investments in agricultural holdings - Effectiveness of controls)
   2012/C 194/30
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes and J. Saraiva de Almeida, agents, and by M. Figueiredo, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Guerra e Andrade and G. von Rintelen, agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 4255 of 29 June 2010 concerning the application of financial corrections to assistance from the EAGGF, Guidance Section, allocated to Operational Programme No CCI 1999.PT.06.1.PO.007 (Portugal — National Objective 1 programme) for the measure ‘Investments in agricultural holdings’.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010


title: Case C-306/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg by order of that court of 29 April 1999 in the case of Banque Internationale pour l'Afrique Occidentale S.A. (BIAO) in liquidation v Finanzamt für Großunternehmen in Hamburg

text:
20.11.1999              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 333/13
— Infringement of Community law, inasmuch as the contest-                  1. Is Article 11(1) of Italian Law No 448 of 23 December
     ed order denied the appellants a form of effective legal                  1998 (G.U.R.I. No 302 of 29 December 1998, ordinary
     protection, contrary to the provisions of Article 6 of the                supplement) compatible with Community law, in particu-
     European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights                    lar with Articles 10 and 12 of Council Directi-
     in conjunction with Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European                ve 69/335/EEC (1) of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect
     Union, by wrongly regarding the preliminary ruling pro-                   taxes on the raising of capital, inasmuch as it provides that
     cedure as an obligatory means of legal protection of the                  the administrative charge is payable at a flat annual rate
     interests of individuals.                                                 for registration of ‘other company documents’ for each of
                                                                               the years from 1985 to 1992, equal to the sum of the
                                                                               sum of ITL 750 000 for public limited companies and
                                                                               partnerships limited by shares and ITL 400 000 for private
                                                                               limited companies and ITL 90 000 for other companies?
                                                                           2. Is Article 11(3) of Law No 448/98 compatible with Com-
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di                         munity law, inasmuch as it provides that interest on the
Brescia, Terza Sezione Civile, (District Court, Brescia,                       sums to be reimbursed in so far as they exceed the
Third Civil Chamber) by order of 30 July 1999 in the                           sum provided for by Article 11(1) should be calculated
cases of (1) Markfactor SpA and (2) F. Apollonio & C. SpA                      according to the legal rate in force at the date on which
                 against Ministero delle Finanze                               that Law entered into force (2.5% per annum) and not
                                                                               according to the rate provided for by Article 5 with
                 (Cases C-303/99 and C-304/99)                                 respect to Article 1 of Law No 29 of 26 January 1961, as
                                                                               subsequently amended?
                          (1999/C 333/27)
                                                                           (1) OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (11), p. 412.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Brescia,
Terza Sezione Civile, of 30 July 1999, received at the Court
Registry on 12 August 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the
cases of (1) Markfactor SpA and (2) F. Apollonio & C. SpA
against Ministero delle Finanze on the following question:
Is Article 11(1) of Italian Law No 448 of 23 December 1998                 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
(G.U.R.I. No 302 of 29 December 1998, ordinary supplement)                 Hamburg by order of that court of 29 April 1999 in the
compatible with Community law, in particular with Articles 10              case of Banque Internationale pour l’Afrique Occidentale
and 12 of Council Directive 69/335/EEC (1) of 17 July 1969                 S.A. (BIAO) in liquidation v Finanzamt für Großunterneh-
concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, inasmuch                                       men in Hamburg
as it provides that the administrative charge is payable at a flat
annual rate for registration of ‘other company documents’ for                                        (Case C-306/99)
each of the years from 1985 to 1992, equal to the sum of
the sum of ITL 750 000 for public limited companies and
partnerships limited by shares and ITL 400 000 for private                                           (1999/C 333/29)
limited companies and ITL 90 000 for other companies?
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (11), p. 412.                         European Communities by an order of the Finanzgericht
                                                                           Hamburg (Finance Court, Hamburg) of 29 April 1999, which
                                                                           was received at the Court Registry on 13 August 1999, for a
                                                                           preliminary ruling in the case of Banque Internationale pour
                                                                           l’Afrique Occidentale S.A. (BIAO) in liquidation v Finanzamt
                                                                           für Großunternehmen in Hamburg on the following questions:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
Brescia, Terza Sezione Civile, (District Court, Brescia,                   I. Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice to give a preliminary ruling
Third Civil Chamber) by order of 30 July 1999 in the case
      of Leglerdata SpA against Ministero delle Finanze
                                                                           Does the Court of Justice have jurisdiction in the procedure
                                                                           for preliminary rulings under Article 177 of the EC Treaty (old
                          (Case C-305/99)                                  version) (Article 234 EC in the version in force from 1 May
                                                                           1999 under the Treaty of Amsterdam of 2 October 1997 (new
                          (1999/C 333/28)                                  version)) to interpret the Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC
                                                                           of 25 July 1978 on the annual accounts of certain types of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     companies (OJ 1978 L 222, p. 11, ‘the Directive’) not only
European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Brescia,                 where there is doubt as to the application in conformity with
Jerza Sezione Civile, of 30 July 1999, received at the Court               the Directive of the national commercial law on accounts of
Registry on 12 August 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the                capital companies [in this case, Paragraph 264 et seq. of the
case of Leglerdata SpA against Ministero delle Finanze on the              German Handelsgesetzbuch (Commercial Code, ‘the HGB’)],
following questions:                                                       but also:
 ---pagebreak--- C 333/14               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   20.11.1999
1.     where elements of the Directive were taken over when it          3.     Is it permitted or required to ascertain the country risk
was transposed into the national commercial accounting law              on the basis of one’s own connections, experience and
applicable to all traders (in this case Paragraph 238 et seq. of        information, or of knowledge in the sector or by using rating
the HGB), even though for them the ‘true and fair view’                 tables, or by a combination of those methods, or by a different
requirement set out in the preamble to and Article 2 of the             estimation?
Directive was not adopted in the wording of the legislation
(unlike in the case of capital companies, Paragraphs 264(2)             4.     May a risk be taken into account even if
and 289(1) of the HGB);
                                                                        (a) it already existed when the basic transaction was entered
2.     where national tax law (in this case the first sentence               into, and
of Paragraph 5(1) of the German Einkommensteuergesetz
                                                                        (b) it is many times greater than the profit or earnings to be
(Income Tax Law, ‘the EStG’) in conjunction with Para-
                                                                             made from it (in this case, a guarantee fee for a period of
graph 8(1) of the German Körperschaftsteuergesetz (Corpor-
                                                                             less than one year)?
ation Tax Law, ‘the KStG’) and Paragraph 7 of the German
Gewerbesteuergesetz (Trace Tax Law, ‘the GewStG’) assumes
that the commercial law principles of proper accounting are             5.     Are the country risk and the creditworthiness risk to be
applicable for ascertaining the profits of traders who draw up          taken into account, if necessary, alongside each other for the
balance sheets, and                                                     same loan by means of a value adjustment or a provision,
                                                                        whether as a single amount or as separate amounts?
(a) where these are regulated in the provisions for all traders
     (Paragraph 238 et seq. of the HGB) harmonised (by the              6.     Is a combination of provisions for risk also permissible
     Directive) or                                                      if one risk is ascertained individually and the other risk
                                                                        globally?
(b) where the specific accounting provisions for capital com-
     panies (Paragraph 264 et seq. of the HGB) apply;                   7.     Is double provision for a risk properly avoided by the
                                                                        fact that, after one risk has been taken into account, only the
                                                                        loan amount arithmetically reduced thereby is then used as the
3.     where national tax law refers in another connection to           basis of assessment of the remaining other risk?
concepts or criteria from commercial accounting law?
                                                                        III. Value clarification
II. Balance-sheet treatment of loan risks
                                                                        1.     Must not only increases but also decreases in risks be
                                                                        taken into account as value clarification, going beyond the
1.     Where foreign loans have been granted, is a country risk         wording of Article 31(1)(c)(bb) of the Directive (first clause of
(foreign currency risk or transfer risk) to be included in the          Paragraph 253(1)(4) of the HGB)?
balance sheet as a value adjustment — as on the ‘Assets’ side
by means of writing down of foreign debts (Articles 19 and              2.     Does a loan repayment between the balance-sheet date
39(1)(b) and (c) of the Directive, Paragraph 253(3) and (4) of          and the date on which the balance sheet is drawn up constitute
the HGB) — also on the ‘Liabilities’ side by means of                   a (retrospectively) value-clarifying fact and not merely a
provisions (Article 20(1) of the Directive, first sentence of           value-influencing fact which has effect only in the year of
Paragraph 249(1) of the HGB) for off-balance-sheet contingent           repayment?
liabilities under guarantees for foreign debts due to third
parties (Article 14 of the Directive, Paragraph 251 of the HGB;         3.     For value clarifications of risks which are of relatively
‘risk subparticipation agreement’)?                                     slight importance for the undertaking concerned, instead of
                                                                        the period up to the signature of the balance sheet or the
2.     Is it compatible with the requirement of separate valu-          establishment of the annual accounts, may the date on which
ation of balance sheet items (Article 31(1)(e) of the Directive,        valuation of the relevant balance-sheet item is completed be
Paragraph 252(1)(3) of the HGB), instead of taking risks into           taken?
account purely by individual value adjustments or provisions,
alternatively to take them into account by means of globalised
value adjustments or provisions, even if a loan default is not
preponderantly probable in the individual case:
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
                                                                        Roma by order of 1 July 1999 in the criminal proceedings
(a) May a creditworthiness risk which is not acute but merely                              against Armando Caterino
     latent be covered by a global value adjustment, not only in
     the form of writing down a debt but also by means of a
     provision for a contingent (guarantee) liability?                                           (Case C-311/99)
(b) May a not preponderantly probable country risk be taken                                      (1999/C 333/30)
     into account by means of a country-related globalised
     value adjustment (globalised individual value adjustment),         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     not only in the form of writing down a debt but also by            European Communities by order of 1 July 1999 from the
     means of a provision for a contingent (guarantee) liability?       Tribunale di Roma (District Court, Rome), which was received


title: Case C-341/06 P: Appeal brought on 4 August 2006 by Chronopost SA against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 7 June 2006 in Case T-613/97 Union française de l'express (Ufex) and Others v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               14.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/4

         Appeal brought on 4 August 2006 by Chronopost SA against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 7 June 2006 in Case T-613/97 Union française de l'express (Ufex) and Others v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-341/06 P)
   (2006/C 249/09)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant:
      Chronopost SA (represented by: D. Berlin, avocat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities, French Republic, La Poste, Union française de l'express (Ufex), DHL International SA, Federal express international (France) SNC, CRIE SA
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               quash the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 June 2006 inasmuch as it annuls Commission Decision 98/365/EC of 1 October 1997 (1) on the ground of inadequate reasoning and failure to apply the concept of State aid;

               —

               endorse the remainder of the judgment of the Court of First Instance, give final judgment without referring the case back to the Court of First Instance, and affirm the legality of Commission Decision 98/365/EC of 1 October 1997;

               —

               order the applicants at first instance to pay the entire costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant puts forward three grounds of appeal.
   By its first ground of appeal, the applicant alleges an infringement, by the Court of First Instance, of the general principles of Community law and, in particular, of the right to a fair trial in so far as that Court did not provide all of the necessary guarantees of impartiality as the judge who acted as Rapporteur in the contested judgment of 7 June 2006 was also a member of the Chamber which adopted the judgment — annulled by the Court — in Case T-613/97 Ufex and Others v Commission [2000] ECR II-4055.
   By its second ground of appeal, the applicant alleges that the Court exceeded its competence and infringed Articles 230 EC and 253 EC in that it carried out, in the guise of a review of the statement of reasons provided, a review of the substance of Commission Decision 98/365/EC of 1 October 1997 concerning alleged State aid granted by France to SFMI-Chronopost (OJ 1998, L 164, p. 37) and of the allegedly manifest errors of assessment which the Commission made in the exercise of its discretion. The applicant also alleges that the Court substituted its own assessment for that of the Commission, thereby exceeding its competence and causing another infringement of Articles 230 and 253 EC.
   By its third ground of appeal, the applicant finally alleges that the Court made several errors of law by comparing the conduct of a public undertaking benefiting from a reserved sector to that of a private undertaking, by applying to the creation of an undertaking by a parent company the case-law concerning the relationships between parent companies and existing subsidiaries and concluding that SFMI was given an advantage, resulting from the transfer to its books of Postadex's customers. For these various reasons, the Court infringed Article 87 EC.

      (1)  OJ 1998 L 164, p. 37


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 February 1999 in Case T-244/97: Chantal Mertens v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Competitions - Conditions for admission - Evidence)

text:
C 100/18             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                10.4.1999
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                          represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis and FrancËoise Parmentier,
                                                                   of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
                    of 11 February 1999                            Luxembourg at the Offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30
in Case T-244/97: Chantal Mertens v. Commission of the             Rue de Cessange, v. Commission of the European
                 European Communities (1)                          Communities (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and Julian
                                                                   Currall) Ð application for annulment of the Commission's
(Officials Ð Competitions Ð Conditions for admission Ð             decision of 11 March 1997 rejecting the candidature of
                         Evidence)                                 the applicant, an official of the institution, for a post
                      (1999/C 100/34)                              advertised in the context of a procedure for the selection
                                                                   of temporary staff Ð the Court of First Instance (Third
                                                                   Chamber), composed of: M. Jaeger, President, and K.
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                   Lenaerts and J. Azizi, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for
                                                                   the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 February 1999,
In Case T-244/97: Chantal Mertens, an official of the              in which it:
Commission of the European Communities, residing at
Zellik (Belgium), represented by Lucas Vogel, of the
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at         1. Annuls the Commission's decision of 11 March 1997
the Chambers of Christian Kremer, 8-10 Rue Mathias                     rejecting the candidature of Carlos Alberto Leite
Hardt, v. Commission of the European Communities                       Mateus for the vacant post advertised under reference
(Agent: Christine Berardis-Kayser) Ð application for                   No NPPR/2002/96.
annulment of the implicit decision rejecting the complaint
lodged by the applicant on 28 January 1997 and, in so far
as may be necessary, of the decisions of the selection             2. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
board in competition COM/C/3/95, notified to the
applicant on 13 January and 22 August 1997, refusing to            (1) OJ C 94, 28.3.1998.
include her name in the list of suitable candidates for that
competition, together with annulment of the decision
notified to the applicant on 9 June 1997 by the Director-
General of the Directorate-General for Personnel and
Administration Ð the Court of First Instance (Third
Chamber), composed of: M. Jaeger, President, and K.
Lenaerts and J. Azizi, Judges; J. Palacio GonzaÂlez,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
11 February 1999, in which it:
                                                                                of 11 February 1999
1. Dismisses the application.                                      in Case T-79/98: Manuel TomaÂs Carrasco Benítez v.
                                                                   European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal
                                                                                Products (EMEA) (1)
2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                   (Temporary staff Ð Grading Ð Professional experience Ð
 1
                                                                   Manifest error of assessment Ð Acquired rights Ð Duty
( ) OJ C 331, 1.11.1997.
                                                                   to have regard for the welfare and interests of staff Ð
                                                                   Reasonable career prospects Ð Equality of treatment and
                                                                    non-discrimination Ð Absence of a statement of reasons)
                                                                                (1999/C 100/36)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                    of 11 February 1999
                                                                   In Case T-79/98: Manuel TomaÂs Carrasco Benítez, a
in Case T-21/98: Carlos Alberto Leite Mateus v.                    member of the temporary staff of the European Agency
       Commission of the European Communities (1)                  for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products, residing in
(Officials Ð Compatibility of the status of an official with       London, represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis and FrancËoise
that of a member of the temporary staff Ð Resignation Ð            Parmentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
Obligation to state reasons Ð Call for expressions of              in Luxembourg at the Offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL,
                          interest)                                30 Rue de Cessange, v. European Agency for the
                                                                   Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA) (Agents:
                      (1999/C 100/35)                              Marino Riva, Frances Nuttall, Denis Waelbroeck and
                                                                   Olivier Speltdoorn) Ð application for annulment of the
               (Language of the case: French)                      decision fixing the applicant's grade as grade A 7, step 3,
                                                                   upon his engagement as a member of the temporary staff
                                                                   Ð the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed
In Case T-21/98: Carlos Alberto Leite Mateus, an official          of: M. Jaeger, President, and K.- Lenaerts and J. Azizi,
of the Commission of the European Communities,                     Judges; J. Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for the


title: Case C-270/99 P: Appeal brought on 19 July 1999 by the Z against the judgment delivered on 4 May 1999 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-242/97 between Z and the European Parliament

text:
2.10.1999              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 281/5
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht                        — order the respondent to pay the costs of the two sets
Hamburg, by order of that court of 23 June 1999 in the                            of proceedings.
cases of Carl Kühne KG (GmbH & Co.), Rich. Hengsten-
berg GmbH & Co. and Ernst Nowka GmbH & Co. KG v
               JÜTRO Konservenfabrik GmbH                               Pleas in law and main arguments
                         (Case C-269/99)                                 The Court of First Instance, basing its decision on incorrect
                                                                         premisses, namely an erroneous characterisation and interpret-
                         (1999/C 281/08)                                 ation of certain provisions laid down in regulations, in
                                                                         particular Article 7 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   officials, failed in the present case to penalise the unlawfulness
European Communities by order of the Landgericht Hamburg                 of non-compliance with strict time-limits, thereby disregarding
(District Court, Hamburg) of 23 June 1999, received at the               the principles of legal certainty and of the rights of the defence.
Court on 19 July 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the cases of
Carl Kühne KG (GmbH & Co.), Rich. Hengstenberg GmbH &
Co. and Ernst Nowka GmbH & Co. KG v JÜTRO Konservenfa-
brik GmbH on the following question:
Is Commission Regulation (EC) No 590/1999 (1) of 18 March
1999 supplementing, by the addition of the designation
‘Spreewälder Gurken’, the Annex to Regulation (EC)                       Action brought on 20 July 1999 by the Commission
No 1107/96 (2) on the registration of geographical indications           of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
and designations of origin under the procedure laid down in                                            Belgium
Article 17 of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 (3) compatible with
European Community law?                                                                            (Case C-271/99)
(1) OJ L 74 of 19.3.1999, p. 8.                                                                    (1999/C 281/10)
(2) OJ L 148 of 21.6.1996, p. 1.
(3) OJ L 208 of 24.7.1992, p. 1.                                         An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before
                                                                         the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 20 July
                                                                         1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                         represented by Gérard Berscheid, of its Legal Service, acting as
                                                                         Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
                                                                         of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Appeal brought on 19 July 1999 by the Z against the
judgment delivered on 4 May 1999 by the First Chamber
                                                                         The Commission of the European Communities claims that
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communi-
ties in Case T-242/97 between Z and the European                         the Court should:
                            Parliament
                                                                         (1) declare that, by failing to bring into force within the
                                                                             prescribed time-limits the laws, regulations and adminis-
                        (Case C-270/99 P)
                                                                             trative measures necessary in order to comply with Council
                                                                             Directive 95/71/EC of 22 December 1995 amending the
                         (1999/C 281/09)                                     Annex to Directive 91/493/EEC laying down the health
                                                                             conditions for the production and the placing on the
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 4 May 1999 by                    market of fishery products (1), the Kingdom of Belgium has
the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                      failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of Directive
European Communities in Case T-242/97 between Z and the                      95/71/EC;
European Parliament was brought before the Court of Justice
of the European Communities on 19 July 1999 by Z, represent-             (2) order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
ed by Jean-Noël Louis, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL,
30 Rue de Cessange.                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third paragraph
    declare and rule that                                                of Article 249 EC and of the first paragraph of Article 10 EC
                                                                         is such as to oblige Member States to which directives are
    — the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the                 addressed to adopt the measures necessary in order to
         European Communities (First Chamber) of 4 May 1999              implement those directives before the expiration of the
         in Case T-242/97 Z v European Parliament is to be               time-limit prescribed for so doing. The time-limit in question
         annulled;                                                       expired on 1 July 1997 but Belgium has not adopted the
                                                                         necessary measures.
    adjudicating on the case afresh, declare that
    — the decision of the Secretary-General of the Parliament            (1) OJ L 332 of 30.12.1995, p. 40.
         of 28 October 1996, imposing on the appellant the
         disciplinary measure of downgrading from grade C 1,
         step 4, to grade C 5, step 1, is to be annulled;


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 December 2000 in Joined Case T-130/98 and T-131/98: Francis Panichelli v European Parliament (Temporary agents — Engaged on the basis of Article 2(c) of the Conditions of Employment of other Servants of the Communities — Reclassification of a post — Absence of promotion to Grade A 4 — Staff reports — Action for annulment and claim for damages — Admissibility of the action — Dismissal pursuant to Article 47(2)(a) of the Conditions of Employment of other Servants of the Communities — Whether internal procedure observed — Reason for dismissal — Misuse of powers)

text:
7.4.2001                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 108/15
3.    Orders the applicants to bear 10 % of their own costs;               3.    orders the defendant to bear the costs in Case T-130/98.
4.    Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay 90 %          4.    orders each of the parties to bear their own costs, including
      of the costs incurred by the applicants;                                   those relating to the interlocutory proceedings, in Case
                                                                                T-131/98.
5.    Orders the French Republic, Chronopost SA and La Poste to
      bear their own costs.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 327 of 24.10.1998.
(1) OJ C 72 of 7.3.1998.
                                                                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 5 December 2000
                       of 13 December 2000
                                                                           in Case T-136/98: Anna Maria Campogrande v Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities (1)
in Joined Case T-130/98 and T-131/98: Francis Panichelli
                     v European Parliament (1)
                                                                           (Officials — Duty to render assistance — Sexual harass-
(Temporary agents — Engaged on the basis of Article 2(c)                                                    ment)
of the Conditions of Employment of other Servants of the
Communities — Reclassification of a post — Absence of                                                (2001/C 108/25)
promotion to Grade A 4 — Staff reports — Action for
annulment and claim for damages — Admissibility of the
action — Dismissal pursuant to Article 47(2)(a) of the
Conditions of Employment of other Servants of the Com-                                         (Language of the case: French)
munities — Whether internal procedure observed — Reason
                for dismissal — Misuse of powers)                          In Case T-136/98: Anna Maria Campogrande, an official at
                                                                           the Commission of the European Communities, residing in
                          (2001/C 108/24)                                  Brussels, represented by A. Krywin, of the Brussels Bar, with
                                                                           an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                           A. Lutgen, 1 Rue Jean-Pierre Brasseur, against Commission of
                                                                           the European Communities (Agents: C. Berardis-Kayser and
                     (Language of the case: French)                        F. Clotuche-Duvieusart) — first, application for annulment of
                                                                           the implied decision of the Commission rejecting the appli-
In Joined Cases T-130/98 and T-131/98: Francis Panichelli,                 cant’s request for assistance of 27 June 1997 and, secondly, a
former temporary agent of the European Parliament, residing                claim for damages to make good the harm suffered — the
in Wezembeek-Oppem (Belgium), represented by E. Boigelot,                  Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of V. Tiili,
of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg             President, R.M. Moura Ramos and P. Mengozzi, Judges; Blanca
at the Chambers of L. Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim,                   Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a
against European Parliament (Agents: M. Moore and J. Sant’An-              judgment on 5 December 2000, in which it:
na) — application for (Case T-130/98) annulment of the
implied rejection of the applicant’s request of 11 July 1997               1.    annuls the implied decision of the Commission rejecting the
and for an order requiring the defendant to pay damages and                      applicant’s request for assistance of 27 June 1997;
(Case T-131/98) for annulment of the decision communicated
on 2 July 1998 bringing to an end the applicant’s temporary                2.    dismisses the remainder of the application;
contract — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),
composed of J. Pirrung, President, A. Potocki and A.W.H. Meij,
Judges; Blanca Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Regis-             3.    orders the Commission to pay the costs.
trar, gave a judgment on 13 December 2000, in which it:
1.    joins Cases T-130/98 and T-131/98 for the purpose of the             (1) OJ C 327 of 24.10.1998.
      judgment.
2.    dismisses the applications in Cases T-130/98 and T-131/98.


title: Judgment of the Court of 13 January 2004 in Case C-453/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrĳfsleven): Kühne & Heitz NV v Productschap voor Pluimvee en Eieren (Poultrymeat — Export refunds — Failure to refer a question for a preliminary ruling — Final administrative decision — Effect of a preliminary ruling given by the Court after that decision — Legal certainty — Primacy of Community law — Principle of cooperation — Article 10 EC)

text:
C 47/2                  EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                             21.2.2004
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                 2.    The obligation to provide information deriving from
Gesamtbetriebsrat der Kühne & Nagel AG & Co. KG and                               Articles 4(1) and 11(1) of the Directive encompasses infor-
Kühne & Nagel AG & Co. KG, on the interpretation of Articles 4                    mation on the average total number of employees and their
and 11 of Council Directive 94/45/EC of 22 September 1994                         distribution across the Member States, the establishments of
on the establishment of a European Works Council or a                             the undertaking and the group undertakings, and on the
procedure in Community-scale undertakings and Community-                          structure of the undertaking and of the undertakings in the
scale groups of undertakings for the purposes of informing                        group, as well as the names and addresses of the employee
and consulting employees (OJ 1994 L 254, p. 64), the Court,                       representation which might participate in the setting up of a
composed of: V. Skouris, President, P. Jann and J.N. Cunha                        special negotiating body in accordance with Article 5 of the
Rodrigues (Presidents of Chambers), A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puisso-                  Directive or in the establishment of a European Works
chet, R. Schintgen, F. Macken (Rapporteur), N. Colneric and                       Council, where that information is essential to the opening of
S. von Bahr, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; M.-                            negotiations for the establishment of such a council.
F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
a judgment on 13 January 2004, in which it has ruled:
                                                                            (1) OJ C 45 of 10.2.2001.
1.   Articles 4(1) and 11(1) of Council Directive 94/45/EC of
     22 September 1994 on the establishment of a European Works
     Council or a procedure in Community-scale undertakings and
     Community-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes of
     informing and consulting employees must be interpreted as
     meaning that:
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
     —     where, in a situation such as that at issue before the                                    of 13 January 2004
           national court, the central management of a Community-
           scale group of undertakings is not located in a Member           in Case C-453/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
           State, central management’s responsibility for providing         the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven): Kühne &
           the employees’ representatives with the information essen-          Heitz NV v Productschap voor Pluimvee en Eieren (1)
           tial to the opening of negotiations for the establishment
           of a European Works Council lies with the deemed
           central management under the second subparagraph of              (Poultrymeat — Export refunds — Failure to refer a question
           Article 4(2) of the Directive;                                   for a preliminary ruling — Final administrative decision —
                                                                            Effect of a preliminary ruling given by the Court after that
                                                                            decision — Legal certainty — Primacy of Community law
                                                                                — Principle of cooperation — Article 10 EC)
     —     where central management does not, for the purpose of
           establishing a European Works Council, make certain
           information available to the deemed central management                                      (2004/C 47/03)
           under the second subparagraph of Article 4(2) of the
           Directive, the latter, in order to be able to fulfil its
           obligation to provide information to the employees’                                   (Language of the case: Dutch)
           representatives, must request the information essential to
           the opening of negotiations for the establishment of such
           a council from the other undertakings belonging to the           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
           group which are located in the Member States, and has a                              in the European Court Reports)
           right to receive that information from them;
     —     the management of each of the other undertakings                 In Case C-453/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
           belonging to the group which are located in the Member           EC by the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Nether-
           States is under an obligation to supply the deemed               lands) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
           central management under the second subparagraph of              before that court between Kühne & Heitz NV and Productschap
           Article 4(2) of the Directive with the information               voor Pluimvee en Eieren, on the interpretation of Community
           concerned where it is in possession of the information or        law and, in particular, the principle of cooperation arising
           is in a position to obtain it;                                   from Article 10 EC, the Court, composed of: V. Skouris,
                                                                            President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, C. Gulmann,
                                                                            J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and A. Rosas, Presidents of Chambers,
                                                                            D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen,
     —     the Member States concerned are to ensure that the               F. Macken, N. Colneric (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr, Judges;
           management of those other undertakings supplies the              P. Léger, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator,
           information to the deemed central management under the           for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 January 2004,
           second subparagraph of Article 4(2) of the Directive.            in which it has ruled:
 ---pagebreak--- 21.2.2004                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                  C 47/3
The principle of cooperation arising from Article 10 EC imposes on            Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the
an administrative body an obligation to review a final administrative         Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 January 2004, in which
decision, where an application for such review is made to it, in order        it has ruled:
to take account of the interpretation of the relevant provision given in
the meantime by the Court where                                               Article 141 EC, in principle, precludes legislation, such as that at
                                                                              issue before the national court, which, in breach of the European
—     under national law, it has the power to reopen that decision;           Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
                                                                              Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950, prevents a couple
—     the administrative decision in question has become final as a           such as K.B. and R. from fulfilling the marriage requirement which
      result of a judgment of a national court ruling at final instance;      must be met for one of them to be able to benefit from part of the
                                                                              pay of the other. It is for the national court to determine whether in a
—     that judgment is, in the light of a decision given by the Court         case such as that in the main proceedings a person in K.B.’s situation
      subsequent to it, based on a misinterpretation of Community             can rely on Article 141 EC in order to gain recognition of her right
      law which was adopted without a question being referred to the          to nominate her partner as the beneficiary of a survivor’s pension.
      Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 234(3) EC; and
                                                                              (1) OJ C 150 of 19.5.2001.
—     the person concerned complained to the administrative body
      immediately after becoming aware of that decision of the Court.
(1) OJ C 61 of 24.2.2001.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                              of 11 December 2003
                          of 7 January 2004                                   in Case C-215/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                                the Amtsgericht Augsburg): Bruno Schnitzer (1)
in Case C-117/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division):                       (Freedom to provide services — Directive 64/427/EEC —
K.B. v National Health Service Pensions Agency, Secretary                     Skilled services in the plastering trade — National rules
                        of State for Health (1)                               requiring foreign skilled-trade undertakings to be entered on
                                                                                the trades register — Proportionality)
(Article 141 EC — Directive 75/117/EEC — Equal treatment
                                                                                (2004/C 47/05)
for men and women — Transsexual partner not entitled to a
survivor’s pension payable solely to a surviving spouse —
                Discrimination on grounds of sex)                                                 (Language of the case: German)
                           (2004/C 47/04)                                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                     (Language of the case: English)
                                                                              In Case C-215/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
                                                                              EC by the Amtsgericht Augsburg (Germany) for a preliminary
In Case C-117/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234                    ruling in the proceedings before that court against Bruno
EC by the Court of Appeal of England and Wales (Civil                         Schnitzer, on the interpretation of Articles 49 EC, 50 EC, 54
Division) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending                 EC and 55 EC and Council Directive 64/427/EEC of 7 July
before that court between K.B. and National Health Service                    1964 laying down detailed provisions concerning transitional
Pensions Agency, Secretary of State for Health, on the interpret-             measures in respect of activities of self-employed persons in
ation of Article 141 EC and of Council Directive 75/117/EEC                   manufacturing and processing industries falling within ISIC
of 10 February 1975 on the approximation of the laws of the                   Major Groups 23-40 (Industry and small craft industries) (OJ,
Member States relating to the application of the principle of                 English Special Edition 1963-1964, p. 148), the Court (Fifth
equal pay for men and women (OJ 1975 L 45, p. 19), the Court,                 Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), acting
composed of: V. Skouris, President, C.W.A. Timmermans,                        for the President of the Fifth Chamber, A. La Pergola and
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur) and A. Rosas (Presidents                    S. von Bahr, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,
of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, F. Macken,                     Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
N. Colneric and S. von Bahr, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,                  on 11 December 2003, in which it has ruled: