title: Appeal brought on 30 August 1995 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment delivered on 29 June 1995 by the First Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance in Case T-31/91 between Solvay SA and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-287/95 P)

text:
28 . 10 . 95             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 286/3
— Discrimination, inadequate statement of reasons ( see                    Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
      Cases C-71 /95 (2 ) and C-155/95 ( 3 )).                             Case T-7/93 (') between Langnese-Iglo GmbH and the
                                                                           Commission of the European Communities, supported
(') Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 1219/95 of 30 May 1995                 by Mars GmbH, was brought before the Court of Justice
      adopting transitional measures for the application of the tariff     of the European Communities on 18 August 1995 by
      quota arrangements for imports of bananas for the third quarter      Langnese-Iglo GmbH, Hamburg ( Federal Republic of
      of 1995 as a result of the accession of Austria , Finland and        Germany ), represented by Martin Heidenhain, Bernard M.
      Sweden ( OJ No L 120 , 31 . 5 . 1995 , p. 20 ).                      Maassen, Horst Satzky, Rechtsanwälte, Frankfurt am
( 2 ) OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 , p . 13 .                               Main, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
(■') OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 , p . 3 .
                                                                           Chambers of Jean Hoss, 15 Cote d'Eich, L-1450
                                                                           Luxembourg.
                                                                           The appellant claims that the Court should:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura                          1 . set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
Circondariale di Verona — Sezione Distaccata di Isola della                     the European Communities of 8 June 1995 in Case
Scala by order of that court of 27 July 1995 and supplement                     T-7/93 Langnese-Iglo GmbH v. Commission of the
of 4 September 1995 in the case of Impresa Agricola Buratti                     European Communities in so far as it dismissed the
Leonardo, Pierluigi and Livio against TAV Tabacchicoltori                       appellant's action against Commission Decision
                 Associati Veneti soc.coop. a r.l .                             93/406/EEC of 23 December 1992 , in a proceeding
                                                                                under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty ( Case
                           ( Case C-2 73/95                                     IV/34.072 );
                             ( 95/C 286/05 )
                                                                           2 . declare void Articles 1 , 2 and 3 of Commission Decision
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                          93/406/EEC of 23 December 1992, in a proceeding
European        Communities         by     order  of the     Pretura            under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty ( Case
Circondariale di Verona — Sezione Distaccata di Isola della                     IV/34.072 );
Scala (Verona District Magistrate's Court — Isola della
Scala Division ) of 27 July 1995 , supplemented on                         3 . order the Commission to pay the costs of the
4 September 1995 , which were received at the Court                             proceedings before the Court of First Instance and the
Registry on 11 August and 12 September 1995 , for a                             costs of the appeal proceedings; or
preliminary ruling in the case of Impresa Agricola Buratti                 in the alternative,
Leonardo, Pierluigi and Livio against TAV Tabacchicoltori
Associati Veneti soc.coop . a r.l . on the following                            refer the case back to the Court of First Instance of the
question :
                                                                                European Communities .
'Is Regulation ( EEC ) No 3478/92 ( 1 ) and in particular
Articles 10 and 1 1 thereof to be interpreted as meaning that              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
the date to be taken into consideration for the purpose of
applying the agricultural conversion rate to the processing                Infringement of Community law when appraising the pleas
premium is the date on which the tobacco is delivered to the               in law: ( a ) infringement of the principle of the protection of
processor by the producer group or the date on which the                   legitimate expectations, ( b ) infringement of Article 85 ( 1 ) of
product is supplied by the individual producer to the group                the Treaty ( effects on competition of the exclusive dealing
itself, and what constitutes " delivery under contract " within            agreements ) and ( c ) infringement of the principles of
the meaning of the abovementioned provisions ?'                            proportionality and of equal treatment .
(') O J No L 351 , 2 . 12 . 1992 , p . 17 .                                (') OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 , p . 18 .
Appeal brought on 18 August 1995 by Langnese-Iglo                          Appeal brought on 30 August 1995 by the Commission of
GmbH against the judgment delivered on 8 June 1995 by the                  the European Communities against the judgment delivered
Second Chamber, extended composition, of the Court of                      on 29 June 1995 by the First Chamber ( Extended
First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-7/93                  Composition ) of the Court of First Instance in Case T-3 1/9 1
between Langnese-Iglo GmbH and the Commission of the                       between Solvay SA and the Commission of the European
      European Communities, supported by Mars GmbH                                                    Communities
                         ( Case C-279/95 P )                                                      ( Case C-287/95 P
                              ( 95/C 286/06 )                                                        ( 95/C 286/07 )
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 8 June 1995                    An appeal against the judgment delivered on 29 June 1995
 by the Second Chamber, extended composition, of the                        by the First Chamber ( Extended Composition ) of the Court
 ---pagebreak--- No C 286/4              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   28 . 10 . 95
of First Instance in Case T-31 /91 between Solvay SA and the                  such as to affect the interests of the addressee of the
Commission of the European Communities was brought                            decision .
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
30 August 1995 by the Commission of the European                       (') OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 , p . 21 .
Communities, represented by J. Curral and B. J. Drijber, of
the Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg
at the office of C. Gomez de la Cruz .
The appellant claims that the Court should :                           Appeal brought on 30 August 1995 by the Commission of
                                                                       the European Communities against the judgment delivered
1 . set aside the Court of First Instance 's judgment in Case          on 29 June 1995 by the First Chamber ( Extended
    T-31 /91 (');                                                      Composition ) of the Court of First Instance in Case T-32/91
                                                                       between Solvay SA and the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
2 . dismiss the ground of annulment of the Commission's                                          Case C-288/95 P)
    decision based upon the lack of authentication;                                                 95/C 286/08 )
3 . remit the case to the Court of First Instance for a                An appeal against the judgment delivered on 29 June 1995
    decision on the other grounds of annulment alleged                 by the First Chamber ( Extended Composition ) of the Court
    against the Commission 's decision ;                               of First Instance in Case T-32/91 between Solvay SA and the
                                                                       Commission of the European Communities was brought
                                                                       before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
4 . order Solvay to pay the costs of the appeal .                      30 August 1995 by the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities, represented by J. Curral and B. J. Drijber, of
                                                                       the Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    at the office of C. Gomez de la Cruz .
— Errors of law and reasoning as regards the admissibility             The appellant claims that the Court should :
    of Solvay's new plea in law, the organization of the
    procedure and the rules of proof and evidence . The                 1 . set aside the Court of First Instance's judgment in Case
    Court of First Instance committed an error of law by                      T-32/91 ( 1 );
    holding that the statements by the Commission to which
    reference is made could amount in themselves to a new              2 . dismiss the ground of annulment of the Commission 's
    matter of fact for the purposes of Article 48 ( 2 ) of its                 decision based upon the lack of authentication;
    Rules of Procedure . The Court committed an error of
                                                                        3.     remit the case to the Court of First Instance for a
    law by holding that there was no limit of time for raising
    a new plea in law under Article 48 ( 2 ) of its Rules of                   decision on the other grounds of annulment alleged
    Procedure . In ordering the Commission to produce the                      against the Commission 's decision;
    text of the decision at issue as authenticated at the time,
    the Court committed an error of law, in that it took a              4 . order Solvay to pay the costs of the appeal .
     mistaken view of its procedure and the rules of proof and
     evidence, and also made a mistake of reasoning in that it          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     failed to explain in both the order of 25 October and the
     judgment why it had concluded that it should order the             The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
     Commission to produce that text .                                  in Case C-287/95 P ( 2 ).
 — Errors of law and reasoning as regards the purpose of                (') OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 , p. 21 .
     authentication and the consequences of a failure to                ( 2 ) See page 3 of this Official Journal .
     authenticate the decision at the time of its adoption. The
     Court committed an error of law by holding that
     authentication was a formal requirement which had to
     be observed independently of the existence or not of any
     evidence capable of casting doubt on the authenticity of
     the notified text . The Court committed an error of law            Action brought on 30 August 1995 by the Commission of
     and of reasoning by holding that authentication had to                the European Communities against the Italian Republic
     take place before the act was notified to the addressee,                                     ( Case C-290/95 )
     failing which it was void, and that the authentication
                                                                                ( 95/C 286/09 )
     carried out in the present case had been defective . The
     Court committed an error of law and incidentally failed
     to fulfill its obligation to give reasons for its judgment by       An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
     failing to consider whether the alleged defect had been             the Court of Justice of the European Communities on


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 31 March 2003 in Case T-227/02: André Hecq v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Time-limits — Inadmissibility)

text:
19.7.2003                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                             C 171/27
agreement between Vice-President Kinnock and the trade                      1.    The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
unions and staff associations of the Commission concerning
the resources available to staff representatives and the rules on           2.    Each party shall pay its own costs.
the resources available to staff representatives from 1 January
2002 — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed
of B. Vesterdorf, President, R. M. Moura Ramos and H. Legal,                (1 ) OJ C 247 of 12.10.02.
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 31 March 2003,
the operative part of which is as follows:
1.     The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
2.     Each party shall pay its own costs.
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
( 1) OJ C 247 of 12.10.02.                                                                            of 3 April 2003
                                                                            in Case T-258/02: Hendrikus Boukes v European Parlia-
                                                                                ment ( 1)
                                                                            (Officials — Action for annulment — Action now devoid of
                                                                                purpose — No need to give a decision)
                                                                                (2003/C 171/46)
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                          of 31 March 2003
in Case T-227/02: André Hecq v Commission of the                            In Case T-258/02: Hendrikus Boukes, a former official of the
                    European Communities ( 1)                               European Parliament, residing in Waldbredimus (Luxem-
                                                                            bourg), represented by E. Boigelot, lawyer, with an address for
                                                                            service in Luxembourg, against the European Parliament
   (Action for annulment — Time-limits — Inadmissibility)                   (Agents: H. von Hertzen and L. G. Knudsen) — application for
                                                                            annulment of the decision of the Secretary-General of the
                                                                            European Parliament of 4 January 2002 refusing to treat his
                           (2003/C 171/45)                                  marriage to a person of the same sex, contracted under the
                                                                            Netherlands Law of 21 December 2000, as falling within the
                                                                            definition of marriage for the purpose of the Staff Regulations
                                                                            and to grant him all the rights, privileges and immunities
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            arising from the applicable Community provisions — the
                                                                            Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of V. Tiili,
                                                                            President, P. Mengozzi and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung,
                                                                            Registrar, made an order on 3 April 2003, the operative part
                                                                            of which is as follows:
In Case T-227/02: André Hecq, Secretary-General and rep-
resentative of the Syndicat des Fonctionnaires Internationaux
et Européens (SFIE), residing in Mondercange (Luxembourg),                  1)    There is no longer any need to give a decision on the present
represented by L. Vogel and D. Amatulli, lawyers, against the                     action.
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: J. Currall)
— application for the annulment of the Commission decision                  2)    There is no need to give a decision on the Kingdom of the
of 15 June 2001, approving the agreement between Vice                             Netherlands’ application to intervene.
President Kinnock and the trade unions and staff associations
of the Commission concerning the resources available to staff               3)    The Parliament shall pay both the applicant’s and its own costs.
representatives and the rules on the resources available to staff
representatives from 1 January 2002 — the Court of First
Instance (First Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President              (1 ) OJ C 274 of 9.11.02.
and R.M. Moura Ramos and H. Legal, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
made an order on 31 March 2003, the operative part of which
is as follows:


title: Case T-176/99: Action brought on 4 August 1999 by Colette Jemaa against the Council of the European Union

text:
2.10.1999              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 281/27
The applicants claim that the Court should:                               In support of its claim, the applicant submits that the contested
                                                                          decision:
— annul the decisions taken by the selection board in
    competition No COM/A/10/98 excluding the applicants                   — infringes Article 253 EC, in so far as, in the circumstances
    from the tests subsequent to the pre-selection tests, the                 of the present case, it is not sufficient for the Commission
    said decisions being contained in letters sent to the                     merely to state that Article 82 EC does not prevent an
    applicants on 16 June 1999;                                               undertaking which has a monopoly from expanding into
                                                                              other areas. The applicant stresses that, to its knowledge,
— consequently, annul all of the steps taken and acts done                    the decision is the first one in which the Commission
    subsequently in the procedure relating to competition                     expresses its views on the question whether an undertaking
    No COM/A/10/98;                                                           enjoying an exclusive right to perform a service of general
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                      interest can use the profits deriving from the reserved
                                                                              market to acquire control of an undertaking in a neigh-
                                                                              bouring liberalised country.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           — ignores the fact that the use of profits deriving from an
                                                                              exclusive right which is granted solely in order to ensure
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case                   performance of a service of general economic interest
T-172/99 Pentericci v Commission (1).                                         would constitute an abuse of a dominant position, pro-
                                                                              hibited under Article 82 EC.
(1) Not yet published in the Official Journal.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 340, of 7.11.98, p. 25.
Action brought on 2 August 1999 by UPS Europe NV/SA
  against the Commission of the European Communities                      Action brought on 4 August 1999 by Colette Jemaa
                                                                                against the Council of the European Union
                          (Case T-175/99)
                                                                                (Case T-176/99)
                         (1999/C 281/51)
                                                                                (1999/C 281/52)
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European                An action against the Council of the European Union was
Communities on 2 August 1999 by UPS Europe NV/SA,                         brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
represented by T.R. Ottervanger and D. Arts, with an address              Communities on 4 August 1999 by Colette Jemaa, residing
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loeff Claeys                 in Geneva (Switzerland), represented by Jean-Noël Louis,
Verbeke, 5 rue Charles Martel.                                            Greta-Françoise Parmentier and Véronique Peere, of the Brus-
                                                                          sels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                          offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the Commission’s decision of 10 June 1999 rejecting               The applicant claims that the Court should:
    the applicant’s complaint;
                                                                          — annul the decision rejecting the applicant’s request for
— order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the                       authorisation to rent and occupy, from 1 April 1998, an
    applicant in the present proceedings;                                     apartment corresponding to the needs of her family at a
                                                                              monthly rent of CHF 4 800 plus service charges;
— take such further action as the Court may deem appro-
    priate.                                                               — order the defendant to pay an allowance corresponding to
                                                                              the amount of that rent plus service charges from 1 April
                                                                              1998 and interest at the annual rate of 6 % from the date
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               on which the rental payments in question fell due;
                                                                          — order the defendant in addition to pay, by way of
The applicant in the present case, which is also the applicant                compensation for the material damage suffered, the sum
in Case T-127/98 UPS Europe v Commission, (1) challenges the                  of CHF 100 216, plus the sum of 50 000 euro by way of
Commission’s decision rejecting its complaint, but only that                  compensation for the non-material damage suffered by the
part of it which concerns Article 82 EC and relates to the                    applicant and her family;
concentration by means of which Deutsche Post AG (DPAG)
intends to acquire control of DHL International Ltd.                      — order the defendant to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 281/28                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        2.10.1999
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant in the present case, who is also the applicant in
Case T-20/98 Jemaa v Council (1), contests the decision of the
appointing authority rejecting her request that it bear the              The applicants, who have already made an application to the
expense of an apartment corresponding to the needs of her                Commission for review of its tacit or implied refusal to grant
family by reimbursing the amount of her monthly rent.                    access to certain minutes of the Advisory Committee on VAT
                                                                         (the VAT Committee) established by Article 29 of the Sixth
                                                                         VAT Directive (1), are now attacking the Commission’s express
The decision refusing her request is based on the grounds,               and definitive decision refusing ‘access to the minutes in
first, that the applicant was at the material time occupying             question’.
accommodation which was owned by her, and, second,
that she was not required, for reasons connected with the
performance of her duties, to move her place of residence
outside Geneva, where she had been sent.
                                                                         The applicants submit that the contested decision infringes
                                                                         the Code of Conduct attached to Commission Decision
In support of her claims, the applicant pleads infringement of           94/90/ECSC/EC/Euratom (Access Code) and/or Article 253 EC
Article 71 of the Staff Regulations and of Articles 5, 18 and            on the following grounds:
23 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations, together with failure
to comply with the duty to have regard for the welfare and
interests of officials. She maintains in that regard that none of        — The contested decision fails to indicate the means of
the aforementioned provisions makes reimbursement of the                      redress, and thus infringe a mandatory rule of law relating
actual cost of the renting of accommodation by an official                    to the application of the Treaty;
posted outside the Community conditional on a change of
residence for reasons connected with the performance of his
or her duties, or on the official concerned not being the owner          — The third paragraph of the contested decision, in which
of real property in the place of employment.                                  the refusal to allow access is expressed, is utterly devoid
                                                                              of reasons. Should, however, the contested decision be
                                                                              construed as meaning that the defendant refuses access to
(1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998, p. 35.                                              the minutes in question because the rule of confidentiality
                                                                              extends to the minutes of meetings, then the applicants
                                                                              submit that the contested decision is inadequately
                                                                              reasoned;
                                                                         — The contested decision does not contain any particular
                                                                              reasons for which the minutes in question fall under a
                                                                              relevant head of exception to the general right to and
Action brought on 6 August 1999 by Sonia Marion Elder                         principle of the fullest possible public access to documents.
and Robert Dale Elder against the Commission of the
                     European Communities
                          (Case T-178/99)                                For the sake of completeness, the applicants submit that
                                                                         where consultation of statutory committee (such as the VAT
                                                                         Committee or a ‘comitology’ committee) is, as here, an
                         (1999/C 281/53)                                 essential procedural requirement, the non-observance of which
                                                                         leads to the annulment of a legislative act, there can never be
                                                                         any justification for refusing to produce proof of such
                   (Language of the case: English)                       consultation, in the form of a probative contemporaneous
                                                                         report (such as minutes), since in the absence of proof the
                                                                         legislative act in question must be declared void. That being
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         so, not only is the contested decision manifestly invalid, but
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         the very validity of the UK legislation in question would be
European Communities on 6 August 1999 by Sonia Marion
                                                                         endangered if the defendant were to persist in its refusal to
Elder and Robert Dale Elder, represented by Scott Crosby, of
                                                                         grant access to the minutes as requested by the applicants.
Kemmler Rapp Böhlke & Crosby, 9 Rond-Point Schuman,
Brussels.
The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                         (1) Case T-78/99 (Elder and Elder v Commission), OJ C 174 of 19 June
— annul the decision of the defendant dated 8 June 1999                      1999, p. 11.
     refusing access to the minutes of the VAT Committee as
     specified in the application for review dated 6 January
     1999;
— order the defendant to pay the applicants’ costs pursuant
     to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First
     Instance.


C 333/22              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 20.11.1999
       Removal from the register of Case C-331/98 (1)                ordered the removal from the register of Case C-345/98:
                                                                     Commission of the European Communities v Ireland.
                       (1999/C 333/50)
                                                                     (1) OJ C 327 of 24.10.1998.
By order of 21 June 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-331/98: Commission of the European
Communities v Ireland.
(1) OJ C 327 of 24.10.1998.                                                 Removal from the register of Case C-20/98 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 333/53)
                                                                     By order of 30 June 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                     of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
       Removal from the register of Case    C-39/99 (1)              the register of Case C-20/98 (reference for a preliminary
                                                                     ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Salzburg):
                       (1999/C 333/51)                               Karl-Heinz Meinert v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Salzburg-
                                                                     Umgebung.
By order of 22 June 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-39/99: Commission of the European             (1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.
Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland.
(1) OJ C 86 of 27.3.1999.
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-106/99 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 333/54)
       Removal from the register of Case C-345/98 (1)                By order of 5 July 1999 the President of the Court of Justice of
                                                                     the European Communities has ordered the removal from the
                       (1999/C 333/52)                               register of Case C-106/99: Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities v Portuguese Republic.
By order of 29 June 1999 the President of the Fourth Chamber
of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has              (1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.


title: Case T-122/08 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 11 April 2008 — Cyprus v Commission (Application for interim relief — Procurement notice for a contract to encourage economic development in the northern part of Cyprus — Application for suspension of operation of the notice — No urgency)

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/38

         Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 11 April 2008 — Cyprus v Commission
   (Case T-122/08 R)
   (Application for interim relief - Procurement notice for a contract to encourage economic development in the northern part of Cyprus - Application for suspension of operation of the notice - No urgency)
   (2008/C 171/73)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: P. Kliridis, Agent)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. van Nuffel and I. Zervas, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for suspension of the operation of a procurement notice issued by the Commission for the encouragement of economic development in the northern part of Cyprus, concerning the establishment of a programme management unit to support the implementation of investment projects in the field of water, waste water and solid waste.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim relief is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 11 January 1996 in Case C-273/94: Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of the Netherlands (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Obligation to give prior notification under Directive 83/189/EEC)

text:
16 . 3 . 96           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 77/3
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  Netherlands ( Agents : J. W. de Zwaan and J. S. van den
                         ( Fifth Chamber)                             Oosterkamp ) — application for a declaration that, by
                                                                      adopting on 19 September 1990 an order derogating from
                      of 11 January 1996                              the Margarinebesluit without notifying it to the
in Case C-480/93 P: Zunis Holding SA and Others v.                    Commission at the drafting stage, the Kingdom of the
        Commission of the European Communities (')                    Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8
(Appeals — Competition — Merger control —                             of Council Directive 83/189/EEC of 28 March 1983 laying
Admissibility of an action for annulment of a decision                down a procedure for the provision of information in the
              refusing to re-open the procedure)                      field of technical standards and regulations ( OJ No L 109,
                                                                      1983 , p. 8 ), as amended by Council Directive 88/ 182/EEC
                            ( 96/C 77/04 )                            of 22 March 1988 ( OJ No L 81 , 1988 , p. 75 ), — the Courth
                                                                      ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of G. Hirsch, acting for the
                (Language of the case: English)                       President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini , F. A.
                                                                      Schockweiler, J. L. Murray and H. Ragnemalm
                                                                      ( Rapporteur), Judges; Advocate General : D. Ruíz-Jarabo
In Case C-480/93 P, Zunis Holding SA, Finan SRL and                   Colomer; Registrar: D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal
Massinvest SA ( represented by Nicholas Forwood QC and                Administrator, gave a judgment on 11 January 1996 , in
Stanley Crossick ) — appeal against the judgment of the               which it :
Court of First Instance of the European Communities
( Second Chamber ) of 28 October 1993 in Case T-83/92
                                                                      1 . Declares that, by adopting on 19 September 1990 an
Zunis Holding and Others v. Commission [ 1 993 ] ECR
11-1169, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other                order derogating from the Margarinebesluit without
party to the proceedings being the Commission of the                       notifying it to the Commission at the drafting stage, the
European Communities ( Agents : Giuliano Marenco and                       Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its
Richard Lyal ) — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of                  obligations under Article 8 of Council Directive
D. A. O. Edward , President of the Chamber, J. -P.                         83/189/EEC of 28 March 1983 laying down a
                                                                           procedure for the provision ofinformation in the field of
Puissochet ( Rapporteur ), J. C. Moitinho de Almeida ,
C. Gulmann and P. Jann, Judges; C. O. Lenz, Advocate
                                                                           technical standards and regulations.
General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
given a judgment on 11 January 1996 , in which it:                    2 . Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the
                                                                           costs .
1 . Dismisses the appeal.
                                                                      (') Of No C 331 , 26 . 11 . 1994 .
2 . Orders the appellants to pay the costs.
(') OJ No C 59 , 26 . 2 . 1994 .
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 16 January 1996
                                                                      in Case C-130/91 REV II ISAE/VP ( Instituto Social de
                                                                      Apoio ao Emprego e a Valorização Profissional) and Others
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      v. the Commission of the European Communities ( l )
                         ( Sixth Chamber )                                     (Application for revision — Inadmissibility)
                                                                                ( 96/C 77/06 )
                      of 11 January 1996
in Case      C-273/94: Commission of the              European
      Communities v. Kingdom of the Netherlands ( 1 )                               (Language of the case: Portuguese)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Obligation to give prior notification under Directive                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                            83/189/EEC)                                         published in the European Court Reports)
                            ( 96/C 77/05 )
                                                                      In Case C-130/91 REV II : ISAE/VP ( Instituto Social de
                                                                      Apoio ao Emprego e a Valorização Profissional ) and
                 (Language of the case: Dutch)                        Interdata ( Centro de Processamento de Dados Limidada )
                                                                      ( represented by Agostinho Amado Rodrigues ) v. the
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be          Commission of the European Communities ( Agent: Ana
          published in the European Court Reports)                    Maria Alves Vieira ) — application for revision of the order
                                                                      of the Court of Justice of 14 January 1992 in Case C-130/91
                                                                      ISAE/VP and Interdata v. Commission [ 1992] ECR 1-69, the
In Case C-273/94 : Commission of the European                         Court, composed of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President,
Communities ( Agent: H. van Lier ) v. Kingdom of the                  C. N. Kakouris, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet and


2.8.2003              EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                   C 184/29
       Removal from the register of Case C-405/00 (1)                         Removal from the register of Case C-345/01 (1)
                         (2003/C 184/54)                                                        (2003/C 184/58)
By order of 9 April 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the               By order of 14 April 2003 the President of the Court of
register of Case C-405/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling          Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
by the Consiglio di Stato): Coopsette Scrl v ANAS, Impresa             from the register of Case C-345/01: Commission of the
Mambrini Costruzioni srl.                                              European Communities v Republic of Austria.
(1) OJ C 372 of 23.12.2000.                                            (1) OJ C 331 of 24.11.2001.
       Removal from the register of Case C-432/00 (1)
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-466/01 (1)
                         (2003/C 184/55)
                                                                                (2003/C 184/59)
By order of 13 May 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the               By order of 6 May 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
register of Case C-432/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling          of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
by the Tribunale Amminstrativo Regionale per la Lombardia):            register of Case C-466/01: Commission of the European
Europetrol SpA v Azienda Lombarda Edilizia Residenziale                Communities v Hellenic Republic.
Milano (A.L.E.R.), Orion SCRL.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 84 of 06.04.2002.
(1) OJ C 28 of 27.01.2001.
Removal from the register of Joined Cases C-66/01 and
                            C-74/01 (1)                                       Removal from the register of Case C-146/02 (1)
                         (2003/C 184/56)                                                        (2003/C 184/60)
By order of 19 March 2003 the President of the Court of                By order of 6 May 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
from the register of Joined Cases C-66/01 and C-74/01 (Refer-          register of Case C-146/02: Commission of the European
ence for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwal-              Communities v Republic of Austria.
tungssenat): Dr Manfred Hückel.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 131 of 01.06.2002.
(1) OJ C 118 of 21.04.2001.
       Removal from the register of Case C-179/01 (1)                         Removal from the register of Case C-267/02 (1)
                         (2003/C 184/57)
                                                                                (2003/C 184/61)
By order of 9 April 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the               By order of 16 April 2003 the President of the Court of
register of Case C-179/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling          Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
by the Consiglio di Stato): Impresa Binda & C. s.p.a. v Comune         from the register of Case C-267/02: Commission of the
di Torino, ED.ART. s.r.l.                                              European Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 200 of 14.07.2001.                                            (1) OJ C 219 of 14.09.2002.


title: Case C-495/06 P: Appeal brought on 1 December 2006 by Bart Nijs against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 3 October 2006 in Case T-171/05 Bart Nijs v Court of Auditors

text:
               24.2.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/9

         Appeal brought on 1 December 2006 by Bart Nijs against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 3 October 2006 in Case T-171/05 Bart Nijs v Court of Auditors

   (Case C-495/06 P)
   (2007/C 42/15)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Bart Nijs (represented by: F. Rollinger, avocat)

      Other party to the proceedings: Court of Auditors of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the appeal admissible and well-founded;

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 3 October 2006 in Case T-171/05 Bart Nijs v Court of Auditors;

               —

               annul the decisions which were the subject of the application in Case T-171/05, inter alia the decision establishing the definitive version of the appellant's staff report for the 2003 reporting period and the decision to promote Ms Y to the position of reviser in the Dutch unit of the Court of Auditor's translation service in 2004;

               —

               grant the application for compensation for the damage suffered, corresponding to the applicant's loss of income as against the situation in which he would have been placed had he been promoted;

               —

               order the Court of Auditors to pay the costs of the action, of the two sets of interim proceedings and of the present appeal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By his appeal, the appellant essentially alleges that the Court of First Instance omitted to rule on the ninth plea in the application, concerning the Appointing Authority's failure to comply with its obligation to notify the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) of the instances of intimidation and fraud adversely affecting the Community invalidity pensions scheme of which it had been informed. Had such an investigation been carried out, it would have revealed a number of breaches of procedure by the Appointing Authority and, in particular, the fact that Ms Y unlawfully temporarily carried out higher duties and the fact that the appellant's superior unlawfully carried out his/her duties. Likewise, the fact that the Appointing Authority did not inform the Appeal Committee of the personal interest which the superiors of the two officials concerned had in those officials' assessments casts doubt on the legality of the definitive version of the appellant's staff report.
   In the second place, the appellant disputes the Court of First Instance's statement that he did not provide any evidence such as to prove the accuracy of his claim that Ms Y was asked to carry out on a temporary basis the duties of a reviser or, at least, to make that claim plausible. Firstly, he was not actually aware of that temporary posting in March 2003 and that information, discovered more than two years later, therefore indeed constitutes a new fact, which means that his pleading of 16 December 2005 should be held admissible. Secondly, the 11 pleas put forward in the application, far from weakening the argument as to the unlawful temporary posting, have the completely opposite effect and actually strengthen it. However, the Court of First Instance did not comment on any of those pleas and based its reasoning on a single plea, which the appellant himself has never relied on.
   Lastly, the appellant maintains that the decisions not to promote him and to promote Ms Y must be regarded as constituting one indivisible decision which was indeed taken before the official date, namely on the application of Article 7(2) of the Staff Regulations to Ms Y's career in autumn 2003, and that the decision to promote Ms Y does constitute an act adversely affecting the appellant on the grounds that it changes his legal position and simultaneously constitutes an abuse of power, a disguised sanction and a measure which discriminates against him.


title: Case T-60/99: Action brought on 1 March 1999 by Malcolm Townsend against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 160/24               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          5.6.1999
Action brought on 26 February 1999 by Mukand Limited,                    — The adoption of the Definitive Regulation is vitiated by the
Isibars Limited, Ferro Alloys Corporation Limited and                         infringement of a fundamental procedural requirement
Viraj Impoexpo Limited against the Council of the Euro-                       pursuant to article 10.9 of the Basic Regulation and/or
                            pean Union                                        article 13.1 of the ASCM, thus making the Definitive
                                                                              Regulation void ab initio, having been initiated without due
                                                                              consultation with the Government of India.
                           (Case T-58/99)
                                                                         — The Definitive Regulation infringes articles 1.1, 2.1(a)(ii)
                          (1999/C 160/45)                                     and 15.2 of the Basic Regulation and/or articles 1.1(a)1(ii)
                                                                              and 19.3 of the ASCM, and/or the principle of pro-
                                                                              portionality, and/or makes a manifest error of assessment
                   (Language of the case: English)                            of the facts and procedure, by imposing countervailing
                                                                              duties in inappropriate amounts in respect of the Indian
                                                                              ‘Passbook Scheme’.
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 26 February 1999 by Mukand Limited,                       (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2026/97 of 6 October 1997 on
Isibars Limited, Ferro Alloys Corporation Limited and Viraj                  protection against subsidised imports from countries not members
Impoexpo Limited, represented by Dr. Konstantinos Ada-                       of the European Community (OJ L 288, 21.10.1997, p. 1).
mantopoulos and Mr Jonathan Branton, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt & Meder-
nach, 8-10, rue Mathias Hardt.
The applicant applies to the Court for:
— a declaration, pursuant to articles 173 and 174 of the
    Treaty establishing the European Communities (‘the
    Treaty’), that Council Regulation (EC) No 2450/98 of                 Action brought on 1 March 1999 by Malcolm Townsend
    13 November 1998 imposing definitive countervailing                    against the Commission of the European Communities
    duties against imports of stainless steel bars originating in
    India (‘the Definitive Regulation’), adopted pursuant to
    the Basic Regulation (1) is null and void. The Definitive                                       (Case T-60/99)
    Regulation was published in the Official Journal of the
    European Communities on 14 November 1998 (OJ L 304,
    14.11.1998, p. 1),                                                                             (1999/C 160/46)
— an order that the costs of an occasioned by these proceed-
    ings be borne by the defendant.                                                          (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 1 March 1999 by Malcolm Town-
The applicants are fully integrated producer-exporters of                send, residing at Sterrebeek (Belgium), represented by Jean-
stainless steel bright bars and exported these bars to the               Noël Louis and Greta-Françoise Parmentier, of the Brussels
Community during the period of investigation relevant to the             Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices
Definitive Regulation.                                                   of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30, rue de Cessange.
By the Definitive Regulation a definitive countervailing duty            The applicant claims that the Court should:
ranging from 14,4 to 25,5 % was imposed on imports of
stainless steel bars falling within CN Codes 7222 20 11, 7222            — annul the Commission’s decision refusing to cover the
20 21, 7222 20 31 and 7222 20 81 originating in India.                        applicant’s wife against the risks of sickness and accidents,
The applicants submit that the Definitive Regulation should be           — order the Commission to pay the costs.
annulled on the following grounds:
— The Definitive Regulation infringes articles 1.1, 8.1, 8.6,            Pleas in law and main arguments
    8.7 and 15.1 of the Basic Regulation and/or articles 15
    and 19 of the 1994 World Trade Organisation’s Agreement
    on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (ASCM), and/or              The applicant, a grade A 4 official, works in the Secretariat of
    makes a manifest error of assessment of the facts and the            the Monetary Committee (DG II). His wife was seconded as a
    law, by imposing a countervailing duty in the absence of a           teacher to the European School in Brussels until 1995. Since
    correct and proper determination that imports of the                 then, she has been in receipt of an early retirement pension.
    product concerned have caused material injury to the                 She resides with the applicant in Brussels and is no longer in
    Community industry producing the like product.                       employment.
 ---pagebreak--- 5.6.1999               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 160/25
According to the applicant’s wife, the fact that she does not             — in the alternative, annul or reduce the fine imposed on the
reside in the United Kingdom means that she does not qualify                   applicant,
for cover against the risks of sickness and accidents, and is not
therefore eligible for benefits of the same nature and of the             — order the Commission to pay the costs.
same level by virtue of any other legal provision or regulations.
The applicant paid two invoices amounting to a total of BEF               Pleas in law and main arguments
122 268 by way of settlement of health care expenses incurred
in relation to his wife; he then sought reimbursement from the            The applicant, a publicly-owned shipping company, is the only
Brussels Settlements Office of the Sickness Insurance Scheme.             Italian company which provides a daily ferry service for cars,
The applicant was thereupon informed that, since his wife had             passengers and goods all the year round between Italy
been retired since 1995, she was deemed to be covered by her              and Greece. In particular, it provides that service on the
own sickness insurance scheme, to which claims should be                  Brindisi/Corfu/Igoumenitsa/Patras route.
directed in the first instance, with the Community scheme
being involved only on a ‘top-up’ basis.
                                                                          The applicant seeks annulment of the Commission Decision
                                                                          of 9 December 1998 relating to a proceeding under Article 85
The applicant contests, in particular, the formal decision of the         of the EC Treaty (IV/34466 — Greek Ferry Boats), Article 1 of
Settlements Office refusing to provide primary cover for his              which finds that the applicant has joined in an agreement with
wife.                                                                     the principal Greek ferry operators between Italy and Greece,
                                                                          fixing the rates to be applied to lorries on the Patras-Bari and
In support of his action, he pleads:                                      Patras-Brindisi lines.
— infringement of article 72 (1) of the Staff Regulations,                In support of its claims, the applicant puts forward the
                                                                          following pleas in law:
— the unlawfulness of article 3 of the Rules on sickness
    insurance for officials of the European Communities,                  — infringement of article 190 of the Treaty so far as concerns
                                                                               the lack of reasoning in the definition of the relevant
— the unlawfulness of the decision of the Central Office                       market and the contradiction between the reasons and the
    laying down conditions in respect of income enabling                       operative part,
    spouses to qualify for supplementary reimbursement from
    the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme; and, lastly,                     — infringement of article 85 of the Treaty and article 11 of
                                                                               Council Regulation (EEC) No 4056/86 of 22 December
— a manifest error of assessment.                                              1986 laying down detailed rules for the application of
                                                                               articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty to maritime transport (1),
                                                                               in so far as the Commission charges the applicant with
                                                                               joining an alleged agreement incompatible with compe-
                                                                               tition where there is no evidence for such a charge,
                                                                          — misapplication of Article 85, as regards the evaluation of
                                                                               the evidence concerning its conduct, and in particular
Action brought on 1 March 1999 by Adriatica di Naviga-                         concerning the fact that it did not take part in any actions
zione against the Commission of the European Communi-                          contrary to the principles of the law on competition,
                                ties
                                                                          — breach of the principles of equity and equal treatment, in
                                                                               that the Commission excluded responsibility on the part
                          (Case T-61/99)                                       of several undertakings in a similar situation,
                         (1999/C 160/47)                                  — absence of any appreciable damage to trade between
                                                                               Member States,
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                        — in the alternative, incorrect characterisation of any contra-
                                                                               vention committed.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                In the further alternative, if the applicant were to be held to
European Communities on 1 March 1999 by Adriatica di                      have infringed article 85, as alleged, it claims infringement of
Navigazione SpA, represented by Umberto Ferraro, of the                   article 19 of Regulation (EEC) No 4056/86, in that the
Genoa Bar, and Mario Siragusa, of the Rome Bar, with an                   Commission imposed a fine and in any event made an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger,            incorrect assessment of the gravity and duration of the
Hoss & Prussen, 2, place Winston Churchill.                               contravention, setting the fine at ECU 980 000.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               (1) OJ L 378, 31.12.1986, p. 4.
— annul in whole or in part the contested decision in so far
    as it concerns the applicant,


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (First Chamber, extended composition) of 18 September 1995 in Case T-49/93: Société Internationale de Diffusion et d'Édition (SIDE) v. Commission of the European Communities (State aid - Articles 92 and 93 - Actions for annulment of measures - Aid for exports of books)

text:
No C 286/ 12              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  28 . 10 . 95
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
              ( First Chamber, extended composition )                                       of 18 September 1995
                        of 18 September 1995                            in Case T-471 /93 : Tiercé Ladbroke SA v. Commission of
in Case T-49/93 : Société Internationale de Diffusion et                               the European Communities f 1 )
        d'Edition ( SIDE ) v. Commission of the European                (Competition — State aid — Levy on bets taken on
                           Communities ( 1 )                            horse-races — Transfer of resources to an undertaking
                                                                                established in another Member State)
(State aid — Articles 92 and 93 — Actions for annulment of
               measures — Aid for exports of books)                                               ( 95/C 286/29 )
                             ( 95/C 286/28 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                        In Case T-471 /93 : Tiercé Ladbroke SA, represented by
                                                                        Jeremy Lever QC and Christopher Vajda, of the Bar of
In Case T-49/93 : Societe Internationale de Diffusion et                England and Wales, and Stephen Kon, Solicitor, with an
d'Édition ( SIDE), established in Bagneux (France),                     address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                        Winandy & Err, 60 Avenue Gaston Diderich v. Commission
represented by Jean-Marie Meffre, Claire Adenis-Lamarre
and Nicole Coutrelis, of the Paris Bar, with an address for             of the European Communities ( agent : Eric White ),
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Loesch, 1 1 ,             supported by French Republic ( agents : Edwige Belliard,
Rue Goethe v. the Commission of the European                            Catherine de Salins and Jean-Marc Belorgey ) — application
                                                                        pursuant to Article 173 of the EEC Treaty for a declaration
Communities ( Agents : Catherine de Salins and Jean-Marc
                                                                        that the Commission 's decision of 1 8 January 1 993 rejecting
Belorgey ) — application for the annulment of the
Commission's decision of 18 May 1993 declaring certain                  the applicant's complaint ( IV/34.013 ) under Articles 92 and
                                                                        93 of the EEC Treaty is void, the Court of First Instance
aids ( NN 127/92 ) granted by the French Government to
                                                                        ( First Chamber, extended composition ), composed of J. L.
exporters of French-language books compatible with the
                                                                        Cruz Vilaça , President, B. Vesterdorf, A. Saggio, H.
common market ( OJ No C 174, 25 . 6 . 1993 , p. 6 ), the Court
of First Instance of the European Communities ( First                   Kirschner and A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges; J. Palacio
Chamber, extended composition ), composed of J. L. Cruz                 Gonzalez, Registrar, gave a judgment on 18 September
                                                                        1995 , the operative part of which is as follows :
Vilaça, President, D. P. M. Barrington, A. Saggio, A.
Kalogeropoulos and V. Tiili, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has
given a judgment on 18 September 1995 in which it:                      1 . the application is dismissed;
1 . annuls the Commission 's decision of 18 May 1993                    2 . the parties, including the intervener, are to bear their
                                                                             own costs .
       declaring certain aids (NN 127/92) granted by the
       French Government to exporters of French-language
       books to be compatible with the common market, in so             (') OJ No C 139 , 18 . 5 . 1993 .
       far as it concerns the subsidy granted exclusively to
       CELF to offset the extra cost involved in handling small
       orders for French-language books placed by booksellers
       established abroad;
2 . dismisses the rest of the application;                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 18 September 1995
3 . orders the Commission to pay two-thirds of the                      in Case T-548/93 : Ladbroke Racing Ltd v. Commission of
       applicant's costs in addition to its own costs;                                  the European Communities ( J )
                                                                         (Competition — Articles 85 and 86 ofthe Treaty — Taking
                                                                         of bets on horse-races — Exclusive rights of a national
4 . orders the applicant to pay one-third of its own                    grouping of undertakings — Agreements and concerted
       costs;                                                           practices — Abuse ofdominantposition -— Article 90 ofthe
                                                                         Treaty — Lack ofCommunity interest — Past infringements
                                                                                of the competition rules)
 5 . orders the French Republic, which has intervened in the                                       ( 95/C 286/30
       proceedings, to bear its own costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
 ( J ) OJ No C 272 , 8 . 10 . 1993 .
                                                                         In Case T-548/93 : Ladbroke Racing Limited, represented by
                                                                        Jeremy Lever QC and Christopher Vajda, of the Bar of
                                                                         England and Wales, and Stephen Kon, Solicitor, with an


title: Case T-490/10: Order of the General Court of 20 June 2011 — Endesa and Endesa Generación v Commission

text:
               13.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 238/36

         Order of the General Court of 20 June 2011 — Endesa and Endesa Generación v Commission
   (Case T-490/10) (1)

   2011/C 238/64
   Language of the case: Spanish
   The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.


title: Case C-236/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale, Lazio, by order of 18 April 2001 in the case of Monsanto Agricoltura Italia SpA, Monsanto Europe S.A., Novartis Seeds SpA, Novartis Seeds AG, Pioneer Hi Bred Italia SpA, Pioneer Overseas Corporation, Assobiotec — Associazione Nazionale per lo Svilupo delle Biotecnologie against Office of the President of the Council of Ministers, Ministry of Health, Council of Ministers, President of the Council of Ministers, Ministry for Community Policies, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Consiglio Superiore di Sanità

text:
15.9.2001             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 259/1
                                                                   I
                                                             (Information)
                                                COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                         COURT OF JUSTICE
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale                    of such values, as demonstrated by the ordinary procedure
Amministrativo Regionale, Lazio, by order of 18 April                  governed by Article 6 et seq. of the same regulation [and] that
2001 in the case of Monsanto Agricoltura Italia SpA,                   the said simplified procedure is capable of being applied,
Monsanto Europe S.A., Novartis Seeds SpA, Novartis                     merely because of the need to expedite and simplify adminis-
Seeds AG, Pioneer Hi Bred Italia SpA, Pioneer Overseas                 trative action, for the placing on the market of foods and food
Corporation, Assobiotec — Associazione Nazionale per                   ingredients in respect of which, since their composition
lo Svilupo delle Biotecnologie against Office of the                   includes transgenic proteins, information is not available
President of the Council of Ministers, Ministry of Health,             covering all the implications for the health of consumers, they
Council of Ministers, President of the Council of Minis-               not having hitherto been used for human consumption to a
ters, Ministry for Community Policies, Istituto Superiore              significant degree, and regarding interaction with the environ-
           di Sanità, Consiglio Superiore di Sanità                    ment, as may be inferred in general from the … Recommen-
                                                                       dation of [21 July] 1997?
                       (Case C-236/01)
                                                                       (1) OJ L 43 of 14.2.1997, p. 1.
                       (2001/C 259/01)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 18 April 2001 by
the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio (Regional             Action brought on 25 July 2001 by the Commission of
Administrative Court), Lazio, which was received at the Court           the European Communities against the French Republic
Registry on 19 June 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case
of Monsanto Agricoltura Italia SpA, Monsanto Europe S.A.,                                       (Case C-296/01)
Novartis Seeds SpA, Novartis Seeds AG, Pioneer Hi Bred
Italia SpA, Pioneer Overseas Corporation, Assobiotec —
Associazione Nazionale per lo Svilupo delle Biotecnologie                                       (2001/C 259/02)
against Office of the President of the Council of Ministers,
Ministry of Health, Council of Ministers, President of the
Council of Ministers, Ministry for Community Policies, Istituto        An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Superiore di Sanità, Consiglio Superiore di Sanità, on the             Court of Justice of the European Communities on 25 July
following questions:                                                   2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                       represented by G. zur Hausen, action as Agent, and M.H. van
                                                                       der Woude and V. Landes, avocats, with an address for service
                                                                       in Luxembourg.
Is Article 5 of Regulation [No 258/97/EC (1) valid in relation
to] Articles [153 and 174 EC] and the principles of pro-
portionality and reasonableness [despite the fact that] it does        The Commission of the European Communities claims that
not provide for complete assessment of the safety of foods and         the Court should:
food ingredients in relation to risks to human health and the
environment and does not guarantee the informed partici-               —     declare that, by failing the transpose correctly or com-
pation of the Member States and the appropriate scientific                   pletely Articles 5(1), (2), (3) and (4), 6(2) and (5), 9(3),
bodies whose involvement is conductive to the safeguarding                   11(1), (2), (3) and (6), 12(3) and (4) and 19(2), (3) and (4)


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 24 February 2000 in Case T-145/98: ADT Projekt Gesellschaft der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher Tierzüchter mbH v Commission of the European Communities (TACIS programme — Invitation to tender — Irregularities in the tendering procedure — Action for annulment — Action for damages — Admissibility)

text:
10.6.2000             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 163/25
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                       of 23 March 2000                                                        of 24 February 2000
in Case T-95/98, Christos Gogos v Commission of the                     in Case T-145/98: ADT Projekt Gesellschaft der Arbeitsge-
                  European Communities (1)                              meinschaft Deutscher Tierzüchter mbH v Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
(Officials — Internal competition — Failing the oral tests
  — Composition of the selection board — Equal treatment)               (TACIS programme — Invitation to tender — Irregularities
                                                                        in the tendering procedure — Action for annulment —
                                                                                Action for damages — Admissibility)
                         (2000/C 163/48)
                                                                                (2000/C 163/49)
                   (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
In Case T-95/98: Christos Gogos an official of the Commission
of the European Communities, represented by Charis N.
Tagaras of the Athens Bar, with an address for service in               In Case T-145/98: ADT Projekt Gesellschaft der Arbeitsgemein-
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Evelyn Korn, 21 Rue de                    schaft Deutscher Tierzüchter mbH, established in Bonn, rep-
Nassau v Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                resented by A. Hansen, Rechtsanwalt, Bienenbüttel, Uelzener
Gianluigi Valsesia, J. Currall and Paraskevas Anestis) —                Strasse 8, Bienenbüttel (Germany), against Commission of the
Application for, first, annulment of the decision by which the          European Communities (Agents: M.-J. Jonczy and B. Brandtner)
selection board in internal competition COM/A/17/96 refused             — application for, first, annulment of the decision by the
to place the applicant on the list of suitable candidates               Commission not to award the applicant the contract relating
and dismissed the applicant’s complaint and of all related              to Project FD RUS 9603 (‘The Russian Federation: Adapting
implementing acts of the Commission and, secondly, compen-              Russian Beef and Dairy Farming to Restructuring’) and, second,
sation for the non-material damage allegedly suffered — the             compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant
Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of                   as a result of the Commission’s conduct — the Court of First
J. Pirrung, President and A. Potocki and A. W. H. Meij, Judges;         Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts, President,
G. Herzig, Administrator on behalf of the Registrar, has given          J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a
a judgment on 23 March 2000, in which it:                               judgment on 24 February 2000, in which it:
1. Annuls the selection board’s decision not to place the applicant     1. Dismisses the claim for an order requiring the Commission to
     on the list of suitable candidates in internal competition              entrust implementation of Project FD RUS 9603 to the
     COM/A/17/96;                                                            applicant as inadmissible;
2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;                               2. Dismisses the remainder of the application as unfounded;
3. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.                              3. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 258 of 15.8.1998.                                              (1) OJ C 397 of 19.12.1998.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 27 October 1998 in Joined Cases C-31/97 and C-32/97 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Catalunya): Fuerzas Eléctricas de Catalunya SA (FECSA) and Autopistas Concesionaria Española SA v. Departament d'Economía i Finances de la Generalitat de Catalunya (Directive 69/335/EEC - Indirect taxes on the raising of capital - Duty on notarial deeds recording the repayment of debenture loans)

text:
19.12.98               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 397/7
     period of maternity leave referred to by Article 8 of                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
     that directive to the period during which the woman
     receives the pay provided for by that contract or                                      (Sixth Chamber)
     national legislation.
                                                                                of 27 October 1998
(1) OJ C 54, 22.2.1997.                                              in Joined Cases C-31/97 and C-32/97 (references for a
                                                                     preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia
                                                                     de Catalunya): Fuerzas EleÂctricas de Catalunya SA
                                                                     (FECSA) and Autopistas Concesionaria EspanÄola SA v.
                                                                     Departament d'Economía i Finances de la Generalitat de
                                                                                Catalunya (1)
                                                                     (Directive 69/335/EEC Ð Indirect taxes on the raising of
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                 capital Ð Duty on notarial deeds recording the repayment
                        (Sixth Chamber)                                                   of debenture loans)
                      of 27 October 1998                                                     (98/C 397/11)
in Case C-4/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Firenze):
Manifattura Italiana Nonwoven SpA v. Direzione
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
           Regionale delle Entrate per la Toscana (1)
(Directive 69/335/EEC Ð Taxes on the raising of capital
               Ð Tax on companies' net assets)
                         (98/C 397/10)                                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                              published in the European Court Reports)
                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                     In Joined Cases C-31/97 anbd C-32/97: references to the
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the
          published in the European Court Reports)                   Tribunal de Justicia de Catalunya, Spain, for a preliminary
                                                                     ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
                                                                     between Fuerzas EleÂctricas de Catalunya SA (FECSA)
                                                                     (C-31/97), Autopistas Concesionaria EspanÄola SA (C-32/
In Case C-4/97: reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                     97) and Departament d'Economía i Finances de la
of the EC Treaty from the Commissione Tributaria
                                                                     Generalitat de Catalunya Ð on the interpretation of
Provinciale di Firenze (Provincial Tax Court, Florence)
                                                                     Articles 11(b) and 12 of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of
(Italy), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
                                                                     17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of
before that court between Manifattura Italiana Nonwoven
                                                                     capital (OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412) Ð
SpA and Direzione Regionale delle Entrate per la Toscana
                                                                     the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: G. Hirsch,
Ð on the interpretation of Council Directive 69/335/EEC
                                                                     President of the Second Chamber, acting as President of
of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of
                                                                     the Sixth Chamber, G. F. Mancini, H. Ragnemalm
capital (OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412), as
                                                                     (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen and K. M. Ioannou, Judges; N.
amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June
                                                                     Fennelly, Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy
1985 (OJ L 156, 15.6.1985, p. 23) Ð the Court (Sixth
                                                                     Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
Chamber), composed of: P. J. G. Kapteyn, President of the
                                                                     27 October 1998, in which it has ruled:
Chamber, G. F. Mancini, J. L. Murray, H. Ragnemalm
(Rapporteur) and K. M. Ioannou, Judges; N. Fennelly,
Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 27 October
1998, in which it has ruled:                                         Article 11(b) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July
                                                                     1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital
                                                                     must be interpreted as meaning that the prohibition of
                                                                     taxation on debenture loans applies to the duty on
Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning
                                                                     notarial deeds recording the repayment of loans. Such a
indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by
                                                                     duty cannot come within the derogation provided for in
Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985, does not
                                                                     Article 12(1)(d) of the said directive.
preclude the levying on capital companies of a tax such as
the tax on companies' net assets.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 94, 22.3.1997.
( ) OJ C 94, 22.3.1997.
 1