title: Case C-470/08: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 January 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Arnhem — Netherlands) — K. van Dijk v Gemeente Kampen (Common agricultural policy — Integrated administration and control system for certain aid schemes — Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 — Single payment scheme — Transfer of payment entitlements — Expiry of the lease — Obligations of the lessee and the lessor)

text:
               13.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/13

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 January 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Arnhem — Netherlands) — K. van Dijk v Gemeente Kampen
   (Case C-470/08) (1)

   (Common agricultural policy - Integrated administration and control system for certain aid schemes - Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 - Single payment scheme - Transfer of payment entitlements - Expiry of the lease - Obligations of the lessee and the lessor)
   2010/C 63/20
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Gerechtshof te Arnhem

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: K. van Dijk

      Defendant: Gemeente Kampen

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Gerechtshof te Arnhem — Interpretation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001 (OJ 2003 L 270, p. 1) and of Commission Regulation (EC) No 795/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of the single payment scheme provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers (OJ 2004 L 141, p. 1) — Integrated system for the management and supervision of certain aid schemes — Single payment scheme — Transfer of payment entitlements — Obligations on the lessor and lessee.

      Operative part of the judgment

   Community law does not require a lessee, on the expiry of the lease, to deliver to the lessor the leased land, including the payment entitlements accumulated thereon or relating thereto, or to pay him compensation.

      (1)  OJ C 6, 10.1.2009.


title: Case T-402/06: Action brought on 27 December 2006 — Spain v Commission

text:
               24.2.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/35

         Action brought on 27 December 2006 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-402/06)
   (2007/C 42/62)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: J.M. Rodríguez Cárcamo)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annulment of Commission decision C(2006) 5105 of 20 October 2006 reducing the assistance granted by the Cohesion Fund for eight projects under way in the territory of the Autonomous Community of Catalonia;

               —

               an order that the Commission should pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   This action challenges Commission decision C(2006) 5105 of 20 October 2006 reducing the assistance granted by the Cohesion Fund for the eight projects under way in the territory of the Autonomous Community of Catalonia (‘the contested decision’), viz:.

               —

               No 2001.ES.16.C.PE.058 (project for extension of biological treatment at the Besos treatment station)

               —

               No 2003.ES.16.C.PE.005 (project for waste-water disposal infrastructures in small towns in Catalonia)

               —

               No 2001.ES.16.C.PE.054 (project for treatment of sludge and reuse of urban waste water in Catalonia)

               —

               No 2000.ES.16.C.PE.112 (project for drainage and water treatment in the Ebro Basin: Monzón, Caspe and inland river basins of Catalonia)

               —

               No 2002.ES.16.C.PE.006 (project for a desalination [of sea-water] plant in the Tordera delta)

               —

               No 2001.ES.16.C.PE.055 (project for construction and improvement of the infrastructures for treating municipal solid waste in Catalonia)

               —

               No 2001.ES.16.C.PE.057 (project for municipal waste-treatment plants in the districts of Urgell, Pallars Jussa and Conca de Barberá)

               —

               No 2002.ES.16.C.PE.041 (project for the establishment and improvement of the network of infrastructures for the treatment of municipal waste in Catalonia).

         In the contested decision the defendant made a correction of 2 % of the Community assistance (85 %) granted for the project 2001.ES.16.C.PE.058, because the management company had charged ineligible expenditure.
   So far as concerns the other projects, the Commission, having regard to the use of the ‘average prices’ system and the ‘experience of previous works’ criterion, has decided to apply a financial correction to 100 % of the Community difference in terms of Community assistance between the tenders selected and those recalculated contract by contract.
   In support of its claims, the applicant State alleges, principally, misinterpretation of Article 30(1) of Directive 93/37/EEC (1) and of Article 36(1) and (2) of Directive 92/50/EEC (2), in so far as the contested decision concludes that application of the average prices system used in the analysis of ‘the most economically advantageous tender’ in the projects awarded infringes the principle of equal treatment, by discriminating against tenders which are too low compared with other more costly tenders.
   In the alternative, the applicant alleges infringement of Article H(2) of Annex II to Regulation (EC) 1164/94 (3), by reason of breach of the principles of proportionality and sound administration.
   With specific regard to the project for the Besos treatment station, the applicant also alleges infringement of Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1386/2002 (4), on the ground that there are no real irregularities or, alternatively, on the ground of the principle of subsidiarity laid down in that act.

      (1)  Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 115).

      (2)  Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1).

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 of 16 May 1994 establishing a Cohesion Fund (OJ 1994 L 130, p. 1).

      (4)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1386/2002 of 29 July 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 as regards the management and control systems for assistance granted from the Cohesion Fund and the procedure for making financial corrections (OJ 2002 L 201, p. 5).


title: Case C-330/09: Action brought on 17 August 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria

text:
               26.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 233/13

         Action brought on 17 August 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-330/09)
   2009/C 233/22
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Braun and M. Adam, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Austria

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failure to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts, amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC and repealing Council Directive 84/253/EEC (1) or by failing to notify the commission thereof, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period prescribed for implementation of the directive expired on 29 June 2008. At the time the present action was lodged, the defendant had not yet adopted the necessary measures for the implementation of this directive, or had in any case not notified the Commission thereof.

      (1)  OJ L 157, p. 87.


title: Case T-615/13: Action brought on 20 November 2013 — AIC v OHIM — ACV Manufacturing (Heat exchangers)

text:
               25.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/34

         Action brought on 20 November 2013 — AIC v OHIM — ACV Manufacturing (Heat exchangers)
   (Case T-615/13)
   2014/C 24/64
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: AIC S.A. (Gdynia, Poland) (represented by: J. Radłowski, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ACV Manufacturing (Seneffe, Belgium)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 September 2013 given in Case R 291/2012-3;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings and those incurred before the Board of Appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community design in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The design for a product described as ‘heat exchangers’ — Registered Community Design No 1 618 703-0001

      Proprietor of the Community design: The applicant

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community design: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: It was alleged that the design did not fulfil the requirements of Article 4(1) and (2), in conjunction with Articles 5 and 6 and in particular Article 8(1) and (2) CDR

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the contested RCD invalid

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 25(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 4(2) CDR.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 16 July 1998 in Case C-171/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Royal Court of Jersey): Rui Alberto Pereira Roque v. His Excellency the Lieutenant Governor of Jersey (Free movement of persons - Act of Accession of 1972 - Protocol 3 concerning the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man - Jersey)

text:
26.9.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 299/7
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                3. Protocol 3 cannot be interpreted in such a way that a
                       of 16 July 1998                                  deportation order made by the Jersey authorities
                                                                        against a national of a Member State other than the
in Case C-171/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from               United Kingdom would have the effect of prohibiting
the Royal Court of Jersey): Rui Alberto Pereira Roque v.                that person's entry to and residence in the territory of
    His Excellency the Lieutenant Governor of Jersey (1)                the United Kingdom for reasons and considerations
(Free movement of persons Ð Act of Accession of 1972                    other than those for which the United Kingdom
Ð Protocol 3 concerning the Channel Islands and the Isle                authorities might otherwise restrict the free movement
                     of Man Ð Jersey)                                   of persons under Community law.
                        (98/C 299/11)
                                                                   (1) OJ C 197, 6.7.1996.
               (Language of the case: English)                     (2) Official Journal, English Special Edition, 27.3.1972, p. 164.
                                                                   (3) Official Journal, English Special Edition, 27.3.1972, p. 14.
In Case C-171/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Royal Court of Jersey for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Rui Alberto Pereira Roque and His
Excellency the Lieutenant Governor of Jersey, on the
interpretation of Article 4 of Protocol 3 on the Channel                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Islands and the Isle of Man (2) annexed to the Act
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
concerning the Conditions of Accession of the Kingdom of
Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great                                            of 16 July 1998
Britain and Northern Ireland to the European Economic
                                                                   in Case C-210/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
Community and to the European Atomic Energy
                                                                   the Bundesverwaltungsgericht): Gut Springenheide GmbH,
Community and the adjustments to the Treaties (3) Ð the
                                                                   Rudolf Tusky v. Oberkreisdirektor des Kreises Steinfurt Ð
Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President,
                                                                   Amt für Lebensmittelüberwachung, Joined party:
C. Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet, Presidents
                                                                       Oberbundesanwalt beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht (1)
of Chambers, G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,
P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P.             (Marketing standards for eggs Ð Promotional descriptions
Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann and L. Sevón (Rapporteur),          or statements liable to mislead the purchaser Ð Reference
Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate General; H. von Holstein,                                       consumer)
Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 July 1998,
                                                                                (98/C 299/12)
in which it has ruled:
1. the rule on equal treatment set out in Article 4 of                             (Language of the case: German)
    Protocol 3 on the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man
    annexed to the Act concerning the Conditions of                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
    Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and                         published in the European Court Reports)
    the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
    Ireland to the European Economic Community and to
    the European Atomic Energy Community and the                   In Case C-210/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                   of the EC Treaty from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht
    adjustments to the Treaties does not have the effect of
                                                                   (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
    prohibiting the deportation from Jersey of nationals of
    a Member State other than the United Kingdom, even             pending before that court between Gut Springenheide
                                                                   GmbH, Rudolf Tusky and Oberkreisdirektor des Kreises
    though British citizens, including those who are not
    Channel Islanders within the meaning of Article 6 of           Steinfurt Ð Amt für Lebensmittelüberwachung, Joined
    Protocol 3, are not liable to be deported from Jersey;         party: Oberbundesanwalt beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht,
                                                                   on the interpretation of Article 10(2)(e) of Council
2. Article 4 of Protocol 3 is not to be interpreted as             Regulation (EEC) No 1907/90 of 26 June 1990 on certain
    limiting the reasons for which a national of a Member          marketing standards for eggs (2) Ð the Court (Fifth
    State other than the United Kingdom may be deported            Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of
    from Jersey to those justified on grounds of public            Chamber, M. Wathelet, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,
    policy, public security or public health, laid down by         D. A. O. Edward and J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur),
    Article 48(3) of the EC Treaty and set out in detail by        Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; H. A. Rühl,
    Council Directive 64/221/EEC of 25 February 1964               Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
    on the coordination of special measures concerning the         judgment on 16 July 1998, in which it has ruled:
    movement and residence of foreign nationals which
    are justified on grounds of public policy, public              in order to determine whether a statement intended to
    security or public health. Article 4 of Protocol 3 does,       promote sales of eggs is liable to mislead the purchaser, in
    however, prohibit the Jersey authorities from making a         breach of Article 10(2)(e) of Regulation (EEC) No 1907/
    deportation order against a national of another                90 of 26 June 1990 on certain marketing standards for
    Member State by reason of conduct which, when                  eggs, the national court must take into account the
    attributable to citizens of the United Kingdom, does           presumed expectations which it evokes in an average
    not give rise on the part of the Jersey authorities to         consumer who is reasonably well-informed and reasonably
    repressive measures or other genuine and effective             observant and circumspect. However, Community law
    measures intended to combat such conduct;                      does not preclude the possibility that, where the national


title: Case C-255/03: Action brought on 16 June 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

text:
23.8.2003             EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                             C 200/13
Action brought on 16 June 2002 by the Commission of the                                and criminal or administrative proceedings against
  European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium                                  those responsible for overfishing,
                         (Case C-255/03)                                         —     by failing to issue a provisional prohibition of fishing
                                                                                from fishing vessels flying the Danish flag or regis-
                         (2003/C 200/21)                                               tered in Denmark when the quota allocated was to
                                                                                be deemed to have been exhausted,
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before                      the Kingdom of Denmark has failed to fulfil its obliga-
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 16 June                      tions both under Article 5(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 170/
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,                              83 (1), subsequently replaced by Article 9(2) of Regulation
represented by C.-F. Durand and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents.                  (EEC) No 3760/92 (2), and under Article 1 of Regulation
                                                                                (EEC) No 2241/87 (3), subsequently replaced by Articles 2
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                      and 31 of Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 (4), and also
                                                                                under Article 11(1) and (2) of Regulation (EEC)
1.    Declare that, by maintaining in force a provision which                    No 2241/87, subsequently replaced by Article 21(1)
      accords the ‘walloon label of quality’ only to products of                 and (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93;
      a certain quality manufactured or processed in Wallonie,
      the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
      under Article 28 of the Treaty establishing the European            2)     order the Kingdom of Denmark to pay the costs.
      Community; and
2.    Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          —      Disregard of Article 5(2) of Council Regulation (EEC)
The legislation adopted by the Walloon Government under                          No 170/83 and Article 9(2) of Council Regulation (EEC)
which the denomination ‘walloon label of quality’ may be                         No 3760/92 and also of Article 1 of Council Regulation
granted only to products responding to certain quality criteria                  (EEC) No 2241/87 and Articles 2 and 31 of Council
and which are manufactured or processed in Wallonie is                           Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93.
contrary to Article 28 EC inasmuch as it constitutes a measure
having an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction on                     The Danish Government has acknowledged that for
importation. Although the Belgian Government has undertaken                      certain stocks the quotas allocated for the years 1990,
to amend that provision, it was still in force at the expiry of                  1991, 1992 and 1994 were substantially exceeded. The
the period prescribed by the reasoned opinion.                                   monitoring carried out of fishery activities and the
                                                                                measures taken concerning the management and control
                                                                                of those activities were in the Commission's opinion
                                                                                inadequate.
                                                                                The Danish authorities moreover in certain cases omitted
Action brought on 17 June 2003 by the Commission of                              to bring criminal proceedings agains the persons respon-
the European Communities against the Kingdom of                                  sible for non-compliance with the rules on control and
                            Denmark                                              conservation.
                         (Case C-259/03)                                  —      Disregard of Article 11(1) and (2) of the said Council
                                                                                Regulation No 2241/87 and Article 21(1) and (2) of the
                         (2003/C 200/22)                                         said Council Regulation No 2847/93.
                                                                                The exceeding of the quotas is due to a large extent, as is
An action against the Kingdom of Denmark was brought                             also accepted by the Danish Government, to the fact that
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                       the fishing ban was introduced too late.
17 June 2003 by the Commission of the European Commu-
nities, represented by H.P. Hartvig, acting as Agent, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.                                        (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 170/83 of 25 January 1983 estab-
                                                                              lishing a Community system for the conservation and management
                                                                              of fishery resources, OJ L 24 of 27.1.1983, p. 1.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               (2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 of 20 December 1992
                                                                              establishing a Community system for fisheries and aquaculture, OJ
1)    declare that,                                                           L 389 of 31.12.1992, p. 1.
                                                                          (3) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2241/87 of 23 July 1987 establishing
      —    by failing to adopt detailed rules for the utilisation of          certain control measures for fishing activities, OJ L 207 of
           the quotas allocated to Denmark,                                   29.7.1987, p. 1.
                                                                          (4) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 estab-
      —    by failing to ensure compliance with the EC provi-                 lishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy,
           sions on the conservation of fishery resources by                  OJ L 261 of 20.10.1993, p. 1.
           means of monitoring of fishing activity, appropriate
           inspections of landings and registration of catches,


title: Case C-204/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tatabányai Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 23 April 2014  — István Tivadar Szabó v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Közép-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága

text:
               28.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/4

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tatabányai Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 23 April 2014 — István Tivadar Szabó v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Közép-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága
   (Case C-204/14)
   2014/C 245/06
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Tatabányai Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: István Tivadar Szabó

      Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Közép-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága

      Questions referred

               1.

               In administrative-law proceedings the object of which is judicial review, in the context of an action brought by the individual concerned, of a decision adopted by an administrative authority of the Member State, is the national court obliged to consider whether the provisions of national law on which the administrative decision is founded are contrary to any provision of EU law which is directly applicable and which is also relevant in the case concerned?

               2.

               If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, does that mean that the national court is obliged to do so of its own motion or only in the event of one of the parties expressly pleading an infringement of EU law?

               3.

               May Articles 26(2) TFEU, 35 TFEU and 56 TFEU be interpreted as precluding rules of a Member State such as those in Paragraphs 24/C and 24/D of the General Tax Law where, under such rules, a Hungarian company which carries on business partly in other Member States of the European Union may not appoint as a senior executive a Hungarian citizen who has previously held a senior executive position in another Hungarian company which carries on business in the internal market, solely on the ground that other Hungarian company has accumulated a tax debt of a certain level, when the accumulation of that debt is not attributable to that Hungarian citizen in his capacity as a former senior executive?


title: Case T-267/03: Action brought on 24 July 2003 by Anna Maria Roccato (Mrs Pinson) against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
4.10.2003              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 239/23
the recitals to the contested decision is inadequate. The                  Pleas in law and main arguments
publication of the standards in the Official Journal is likewise
defective as no reference is made to the fact that the standards,
for the most part, and their annexes (with the exception of
Annex ZA) are not binding and that thermal installation                    In the context of an invitation to tender for the supply of
products only need to comply with Annex ZA in order to bear                artificial fertiliser to North Korea, the applicant was awarded
the EC mark. As regards the substance, the applicants are of               the contract by the Commission. Since the artificial fertiliser
the opinion that the standards in question are incomplete,                 supplied by the applicant was late in reaching its destination,
unclear, imprecise and contradictory and that the system of                the Commission withheld from the applicant a sum of
standards is incoherent. Moreover, the use of the EC mark is               EUR 346 221,20 and refused, finally by letter of 23 May 2003,
misleading since it does not prove that the product complies               to pay the sum concerned to the applicant.
with all European standards but rather only with Annex ZA to
those standards. The contested decision thus fails to meet the
requirements of Directive 89/106, the principle of pro-                    The applicant submits that the delay in delivering the fertiliser
portionality (third paragraph of Article 5 EC) and the require-            can be attributed to restrictions on the export of fertiliser from
ments of consumer protection (Article 95(3) EC).                           China, where it intended to procure the fertiliser for export.
                                                                           As those restrictions were wholly unforeseeable, they may be
                                                                           regarded as a case of force majeure and, consequently, in
( 1) OJ C 358 of 15 December 2001, p. 9.                                   accordance with Article 22(4) of Regulation No 2519/97 (1),
( 2) Council Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the               no sum may be retained. The applicant also submits that no
     approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions      loss was suffered as a result of the late delivery and that
     of the Member States relating to construction products (OJ L 40       retention of the amount is therefore disproportionate to the
     of 11 February 1989, p. 12) as amended by Directive 93/68/EEC         failure to observe the delivery period and is in breach of the
     (OJ L 220 of 30 August 1993, p. 1).
                                                                           Community-law principle of proportionality. The retention
                                                                           also infringes provisions of the Belgian Civil Code, since the
                                                                           Commission did not previously expressly call on the applicant
                                                                           to fulfil that contractual obligation.
                                                                           (1 ) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2519/97 of 16 December 1997
                                                                                laying down general rules for the mobilisation of products to be
                                                                                supplied under Council Regulation (EC) No 1292/96 as Com-
Action brought on 23 July 2003 by Helm Düngemittel                              munity food aid (OJ L 346 of 17.12.1997, p. 23).
GmbH against the Commission of the European Com-
                              munities
                         (Case T-265/03)
                         (2003/C 239/43)
                   (Language of the case: German)                          Action brought on 24 July 2003 by Anna Maria Roccato
                                                                           (Mrs Pinson) against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                                            (Case T-267/03)
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 23 July 2003 by Helm Düngemittel
GmbH, Hamburg (Germany), represented by Dr W.P. Wasch-                                               (2003/C 239/44)
mann, lawyer.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—      annul the Decision of the Commission of the European
       Communities of 23 May 2003 concerning retention of a                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
       sum of EUR 346 221,20;
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                           Communities on 24 July 2003 by Anna Maria Roccato,
—      order the Commission of the European Communities to                 residing in Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersanden and
       pay the costs.                                                      Laure Levi, lawyers.
 ---pagebreak--- C 239/24                EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                          4.10.2003
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             and subversion of the effectiveness of the agreement between
                                                                        the parties in the first case. Third, she alleges that the
                                                                        Commission breached the principle of good management
—     annul the decision of the selection board in competition          practice and sound administration and the duty to have regard
      COM/PB/99 of 24 January 2003 rejecting the applicant’s            for the welfare of officials. Finally, as her fourth plea in favour
      request of 26 June 2002 that the selection board recon-           of annulment, she relies on misuse of powers and alleged
      sider its decision of 8 March 2000 excluding the applicant        breaches of the principle of non-discrimination, of Article 27
      from the oral test in the competition pursuant to the             of the Staff Regulations and of the right to career advancement.
      agreement reached between the Commission and the
      applicant at the informal meeting held before the Fourth
      Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European            (1 ) Case T-34/01, notice published in OJ C 108, 7.4.2001, p. 28.
      Communities on 20 March 2002 in connection with the
      action brought against the decision of 8 March 2000
      (Case T-34/01);
—     annul, to the extent necessary, the decision of the
      appointing authority of 13 June 2003, served on 20 June
      2003, rejecting the applicant’s complaint;
                                                                        Action brought on 31 July 2003 by Ghiotto srl against the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
—     annul the decision of the selection board in competition
      COM/PB/99 of 8 March 2000 and admit the applicant to
      the oral test in competition COM/PB/99;                                                     (Case T-270/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 239/45)
—     award damages of EUR 8 150,10;
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
—     order the defendant to pay all the costs.
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 31 July 2003 by Ghiotto srl,
                                                                        represented by L. Lavitola and C. Reggio d’Aci.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant had brought an action before the Court of                 —      annul that part of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1065/
First Instance against the decision of the selection board in                  97 of 12 June 1997 which is prejudicial to the applicant’s
competition COM/PB/99 not to admit her to the oral test in                     interests, together with annexed documents and, specifi-
that competition (1). At the hearing in that case the parties                  cally, the rules governing the PGI ‘Prosciutto di Norcia’,
agreed on a settlement under which the applicant would be                      with reference to the unlawful provision (in Article 3)
sent corrected copies of her own answers and of the model                      that the pigs must come from Italian farms; make all
answers drawn up by selection board in the competition and                     consequential orders, and order the Commission to pay
the applicant would pass on any comments to that selection                     the costs.
board. Following that agreement, the applicant discontinued
her first action. Having examined the copies sent to her the
applicant asked the selection board to reconsider its previous
decision and admit her to the oral test. The present case arises
over the refusal of that request.                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        The applicant company operates in the food distribution
                                                                        sector. Through the company’s own supplier it purchased in
In support of her claims the applicant pleads breach of the rules       the European market from stock farms specialising in white
governing the work of a selection board, misinterpretation and          meat pork-meat intended for preparation and aging by com-
breach of the principle of non-discrimination. She also puts            panies authorised for that purpose with reference to the
forward a plea alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons       protected geographical indication (PGI) Prociutto di Norcia.


title: Case C-187/11: Order of the President of the Court of 6 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Treviso — Italy) — Procura della Repubblica v Elena Vermisheva

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/39

         Order of the President of the Court of 6 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Treviso — Italy) — Procura della Repubblica v Elena Vermisheva
   (Case C-187/11) (1)

   2011/C 269/85
   Language of the case: Italian
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 16.7.2011.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 November 2002 in Case C-352/01: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to transpose Directive 98/8/EC)

text:
21.12.2002                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 323/23
Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, acting for the President                  (Agents: G. de Bergues and D. Colas also by C. Isidoro):
of the Second Chamber, V. Skouris and N. Colneric (Rappor-                   Application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt all the
teur), Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; H. von Holstein,                laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 November 2002,                   comply with Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997
in which it has ruled:                                                       amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the
                                                                             effects of certain public and private projects on the environ-
1.    Articles 3 and 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 881/92 of              ment (OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5), alternatively by failing to inform
      26 March 1992 on access to the market in the carriage of               the Commission of those provisions, the French Republic has
      goods by road within the Community to or from the territory of         failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive, the Court
      a Member State or passing across the territory of one or more          (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of
      Member States, and Article 14 of Council Regulation (EEC)              the Chamber, R. Schintgen, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur),
      No 3821/85 of 20 December 1985 on recording equipment                  V. Skouris and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; A. Tizzano,
      in road transport, both in its original version and in that            Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Administrator, for the Regis-
      resulting from Council Regulation (EC) No 2135/98 of                   trar, has given a judgment on 7 November 2002, in which it:
      24 September 1998, do not permit a road haulage company
      established in one Member State, which hires out vehicles              1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed time-
      without drivers to a road haulage company established in                     limit all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
      another Member State, to transfer the benefit of its own                     necessary to comply with Article 1(7) and (11) of Council
      Community authorisation to the lessee or to retain the                       Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive
      management of the tachograph discs of the hired vehicles.                    85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public
                                                                                and private projects on the environment, the French Republic
2.    Article 2(1) of Council Directive 84/647/EEC of 19 December                  has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
      1984 on the use of vehicles hired without drivers for the
      carriage of goods by road, as amended by Council Directive 90/         2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
      398/EEC of 24 July 1990, should be interpreted as meaning
      that, subject to the possible application of Article 4 of that
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 331 of 24.11.2001.
      directive, vehicles hired without drivers must be registered in the
      Member State in which the lessee road haulage company is
      established.
( 1) OJ C 227 of 11.8.2001.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (First Chamber)
                                                                                of 7 November 2002
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                             in Case C-352/01: Commission of the European Communi-
                            (Sixth Chamber)                                                      ties v Kingdom of Spain (1)
                         of 7 November 2002                                  (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure
                                                                                to transpose Directive 98/8/EC)
in Case C-348/01: Commission of the European Communi-
                       ties v French Republic ( 1)                                                       (2002/C 323/32)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                                           (Language of the case: Spanish)
Directive 97/11/EC — Environmental impact assessment of
certain public and private projects — Incomplete transpo-                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                 sition)                                                         in the European Court Reports)
                            (2002/C 323/31)
                                                                             In Case C-352/01, Commission of the European Communities
                      (Language of the case: French)                         (Agent: G. Valero Jordana) v Kingdom of Spain (Agent:
                                                                             L. Fraguas Gadea): Application for a declaration that, by failing
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
                     in the European Court Reports)                          necessary to comply with Directive 98/8/EC of the European
                                                                             Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning
                                                                             the placing of biocidal products on the market (OJ 1998
                                                                             L 123, p. 1) or, in any event, by failing to communicate them
In Case C-348/01, Commission of the European Communities                     to the Commission, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil
(Agents: G. zur Hausen and J. Adda) v French Republic                        its obligations under that directive, the Court, composed of:
 ---pagebreak--- C 323/24                   EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         21.12.2002
M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, P. Jann                   A directive may not, of itself, impose obligations on a private
and A. Rosas, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass,                  individual and may not therefore be relied on as such against such a
Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 November 2002, in                        person.
which it:
1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,       (1 ) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.
      the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary to
      comply with Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament
      and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing
      of biocidal products on the market, the Kingdom of Spain has
      failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;
2.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
( 1) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 3 October 2002
                      ORDER OF THE COURT
                            (Third Chamber)                                   in Case C-273/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                              the Tribunale di Bari): Walter Ferro v Giovanni Santoro (1)
                          of 24 October 2002
in Case C-233/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                     (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Council
the Giudice di pace di Palermo): Riunione Adriatica di                        Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordi-
             Securtà SpA (RAS) v Dario Lo Bue (1)                             nation of the laws of the Member States relating to self-
                                                                                employed commercial agents — Applicability to brokers)
(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Directives 73/
239/EEC and 92/49/EEC — Freedom to set premium rates                                                    (2002/C 323/34)
— Possibility of relying on a directive against an individual)
                             (2002/C 323/33)                                                      (Language of the case: Italian)
                      (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                           in the European Court Reports)
                     in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-233/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234                    In Case C-273/01: reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Giudice di pace di Palermo (Italy) for a preliminary                EC from the Triunale di Bari (Italy) for a preliminary ruling in
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                   the proceedings pending before that court between Walter
Riunione Adriatica di Securtà SpA (RAS) and Dario Lo Bue, on                  Ferro and Giovanni Santoro — on the interpretation of
the interpretation of Article 8(3) of the First Council Directive             Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the
73/239/EEC of 24 July 1973 on the coordination of laws,                       coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-
regulations and administrative provisions relating to the                     employed commercial agents (OJ 1986 L 382, p. 17) — the
taking-up and pursuit of the business of direct insurance other               Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur),
than life assurance (OJ 1973 L 228, p. 3), in its version                     President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola,
resulting from Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992                    M. Wathelet and A. Rosas, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate
on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative                   General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order in which it has
provisions relating to direct insurance other than life assurance             ruled:
and amending Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (third
non-life insurance Directive) (OJ 1992 L 228, p. 1), and of
Articles 29 and 39 of Directive 92/49, the Court (Third                       The provisions of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December
Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the                     1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating
Chamber, F. Macken and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur),                     to self-employed commercial agents must be interpreted as meaning
Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, after                that they do not apply to national legislation which makes the
informing the national court that the Court proposes to give                  entitlement of brokers to remuneration conditional upon the name of
its decision by reasoned order pursuant to Article 104(3) of its              the broker being entered in a register established for that purpose.
Rules of Procedure, after inviting the interested parties referred
to in Article 20 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice to
                                                                              (1 ) OJ C 289 of 13.10.2001.
submit any observations they might have in that regard, has
made an order on 24 October 2002, the operative part of
which is as follows:


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 30 September 1998 in Case T-164/97: Silvio Busacca and Others v. Court of Auditors of the European Communities (Officials - Termination of service as a result of the accession of new Member States - Act adversely affecting an official - Objection of illegality - Legality of Regulation (EC, Euratom, ECSC) No 2688/95 - Equal treatment - Infringement of essential procedural requirements - Prior consultation of the institutions and of the Staff Regulations Committee)

text:
21.11.98              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 358/15
3. Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     Council of the European Union to bear their own
     costs.                                                                            of 30 September 1998
                                                                   in Case T-164/97: Silvio Busacca and Others v. Court of
( ) OJ C 74, 8.3.1997.
 1                                                                          Auditors of the European Communities (1)
                                                                   (Officials Ð Termination of service as a result of the
                                                                   accession of new Member States Ð Act adversely affecting
                                                                   an official Ð Objection of illegality Ð Legality of
                                                                   Regulation (EC, Euratom, ECSC) No 2688/95 Ð Equal
                                                                   treatment Ð Infringement of essential procedural
                                                                   requirements Ð Prior consultation of the institutions and
                                                                               of the Staff Regulations Committee)
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (98/C 358/30)
                      of 1 October 1998
in Case T-155/97: Natural van Dam AG and Danser
Container Line BV v. Commission of the European                                   (Language of the case: French)
                       Communities (1)
(Inland waterway transport Ð Structural improvements Ð
Conditions for bringing new vessels into service Ð                 In Case T-164/97: Silvio Busacca and Others, officials of
                           Exclusion)                              the Court of Auditors of the European Communities,
                         (98/C 358/29)                             represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of
                                                                   the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                   Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30
                                                                   Rue de Cessange, v. Court of Auditors of the European
                (Language of the case: Dutch)                      Communities (Agents: Jean-Marie Stenier, Jan Inghelram,
                                                                   Paolo Giusta and Christina Friedrich) Ð application for
                                                                   annulment of the decisions of the Court of Auditors of
                                                                   16 September 1996 rejecting the applicants' requests that
In Case T-155/97: Natural van Dam AG, established in               their names be entered on the list of persons having
Basle (Switzerland) and Danser Container Line BV,                  manifested their interest in being the subject of a decision
established in Sliedrecht (Netherlands), represented by            terminating their service as a result of the accession of
Marius J. van Dam, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an address           Austria, Finland and Sweden Ð the Court of First
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Fernand               Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J. Azizi, President,
Entringer, 34A rue Philippe II, against Commission of the          and R. García-Valdecasas and M. Jaeger, Judges; B. Pastor,
European Communities (Agents: initially Berend-Jan                 Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
Drijber, and subsequently Laura Pignataro and Maurits              judgment on 30 September 1998, in which it:
Lugard) Ð application for annulment of Commission
Decision SG(97) D/1862 of 7 March 1997 refusing to
grant the applicants, in respect of three vessels which they
planned to build, the exemption applied for under                  1. Annuls the decisions of the Court of Auditors of
Article 8(3)(c) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1101/89                 16 September 1996 addressed to Silvio Busacca, Carlo
of 27 April 1989 on structural improvements in inland                  Degli Abbati, Pamela Rattigan, Gisela Tremont and
waterway transport (OJ L 116, 28.4.1989, p. 25) Ð the                  CeÂcile Vandam, rejecting their requests that their
Court of Justice (Fourth Chamber), composed of: P.                     names be entered on the list of persons having
Lindh, President, K. Lenaerts and J. D. Cooke, Judges; A.              manifested their interest in being the subject of a
Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on             decision terminating their service, as provided for by
1 October 1998, the operative part of which reads as                   Council Regulation (EC, Euratom, ECSC) No 2688/
follows:                                                               95 of 17 November 1995 introducing special measures
                                                                       to terminate the service of officials of the European
                                                                       Communities as a result of the accession of Austria,
                                                                       Finland and Sweden;
1. The application is dismissed.
                                                                   2. Orders the Court of Auditors to bear its own costs
2. The applicants are ordered to pay the costs.                        and to pay the costs of the applicants.
(1) OJ C 212, 12.7.1997.                                           (1) OJ C 212, 12.7.1997.


title: Case T-215/02: Action brought on 15 July 2002 by Santiago Gómez-Reino against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
12.10.2002             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 247/13
                                                        COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Action brought on 2 July 2002 by the Congrès National                     is composed. Moreover, the contested decision, which is
 du Kurdistan against the Council of the European Union                   tantamount to a penalty, was enacted without the slightest
                                                                          statement of reasons, thereby infringing essential procedural
                                                                          requirements.
                         (Case T-206/02)
                         (2002/C 247/22)                                  Furthermore, the applicant contends that the contested
                                                                          decision is founded on a substantive factual error in so far as
                                                                          the PKK dissolved itself before the contested decision was
                   (Language of the case: French)                         adopted and since 1999 at least has been advocating non-
                                                                          violent action. The decision is also vitiated by a manifest error
                                                                          of assessment inasmuch as it seriously prejudices the freedom
                                                                          of expression guaranteed by the European Convention for
An action against the Council of the European Union was                   Human Rights.
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 2 July 2002 by the Congrès National
du Kurdistan (Kurdistan National Congress), established in                (1 ) Council Decision 2002/334/EC of 2 May 2002 implementing
Brussels, represented by Jérôme Boisseau, Lawyer.                              Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific
                                                                               restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities
                                                                               with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2001/
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    927/EC (OJ 2002 L 116, p. 33).
                                                                          (2 ) OJ 2002 L 344, p. 70.
—     hold that Council Decision 2002/334/EC of 2 May
      2002 ( 1) adversely affects the applicant’s reputation, name
      and credibility;
—     find that the contested decision proceeds from a substan-
      tive error in that it refers to the PKK in the list of legal
      persons covered by the Community measures to combat
                                                                          Action brought on 15 July 2002 by Santiago Gómez-
      terrorism;
                                                                          Reino against the Commission of the European Com-
                                                                                munities
—     declare that the contested decision is manifestly vitiated
      by an error of assessment in that it denies a political party
      the means of expressing itself freely;                                                         (Case T-215/02)
—     for all those reasons, partially annul the contested                                           (2002/C 247/23)
      decision;
—     order the Council to pay a sum of EUR 10 000 in respect                                  (Language of the case: French)
      of irrecoverable expenditure incurred by the applicant.
                                                                          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 15 July 2002 by Santiago Gómez-
                                                                          Reino, resident in Brussels, represented by Marc-Albert Lucas,
The applicant seeks the annulment of Council Decision 2002/               Lawyer.
334/EC of 2 May 2002. That decision refers to the PKK (the
Kurdistan Workers’ Party) in the updated list of persons,
groups and entities to which Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/             The applicant claims that the Court should:
2001 of 27 December 2001 on specific restrictive measures
directed against certain persons and entities with a view to              —      find that the European Anti-Fraud Office acted unlawfully
combating terrorism (2) is applicable.                                           by not notifying him of a decision to open investigations
                                                                                concerning him individually, not informing him of
                                                                                investigations liable to implicate him and not enabling
The applicant contends that that reference adversely affects the                 him to express his views on all the facts concerning him
reputation and credibility of the action engaged in by it and                    before conclusions referring to him personally were
numerous independent associations and persons of which it                        drawn from the investigations;
 ---pagebreak--- C 247/14              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     12.10.2002
—   annul the decisions of the Director of the European Anti-           —     annul the express decision of the Commission of 8 April
    Fraud Office and of the Commission disclosed by the                       2002 rejecting the applicants’ complaints against the
    Commission press release of 26 February 2002 to open                      decisions and failures to take measures imposed by the
    or reopen, in September 2001, investigations concerning                   Staff Regulations which he asks to be annulled or found
    the ECHO case or the procedure to which that case gave                    unlawful, or rejecting his requests for the measures
    rise, or as to the existence of new evidence in that case;                required by the Staff Regulations to be taken in relation
                                                                              to him;
                                                                        —     order the Commission to pay him EUR 1 000 000 in
                                                                              compensation for non-material damage and harm to his
—   annul the decision of the Director of the European Anti-
                                                                              career, assessed provisionally, together with interest at
    Fraud Office disclosed by the Commission press release                    8 % per annum from 1 March 2002 until full payment;
    of 28 February 2002 to open a formal investigation
    against former officials of the Unit for the Coordination
    of Fraud Prevention;                                                —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
—   annul the unnotified and unpublished decision of the
    Director of the European Anti-Fraud Office, which is                Pleas in law and main arguments
    apparent from the document presented by the Vice-
    President of the Commission to COCOBU (the Committee
    on Budgetary Control) at its meeting on 11 March and
    from his letters of 12 and 15 April to the chairman of              By the present action the applicant seeks, in particular,
    that committee, to open an investigation into alleged               annulment of: (i) the decisions to reopen investigations
    procedural manipulations in the ECHO case attributable              concerning the European Community Humanitarian Office
    to a ‘cartel of senior officials’ supposedly including the          (ECHO) case because allegedly new facts had arisen and
    applicant;                                                          subsequently to open a formal investigation against former
                                                                        officials of the Unit for the Coordination of Fraud Prevention
                                                                        (UCLAF) and the applicant; and (ii) of the Commission decision
                                                                        refusing the applicant’s request for assistance with regard to
                                                                        statements published in the press which in the applicant’s view
—   annul the unpublished and unnotified decision of the                are defamatory because they call his professional probity into
    Director of the European Anti-Fraud Office, which is                question.
    apparent from the same documents, to reopen an investi-
    gation against the applicant in the ECHO case on the
    basis of supposedly new evidence in that case, capable of
    justifying the reopening or the resumption of disciplinary          In support of his claims, the applicant pleads:
    proceedings against him;
                                                                        —     infringement of the second paragraph of Article 25 of the
                                                                              Staff Regulations, of rights of the defence and of Article 4
                                                                              of Commission Decision 1999/396/EC, ECSC, Eura-
                                                                              tom ( 1), in that he was not notified of a decision to open
—   annul the decision of the Commission which was notified
    to him by a letter from its Vice-President of 8 April 2002,               an investigation concerning him individually, was not
    in so far as it rejects his requests for assistance made on               informed of the possibility of his implication in past or
                                                                              current investigations, was not informed of the allegations
    8 March 2002 or earlier or does not meet its obligation
    to supply that assistance automatically by appropriate                    made against him and was not invited to express his
                                                                              views on all the facts concerning him before conclusions
    means;
                                                                              referring to him by name were drawn from the investi-
                                                                              gations;
                                                                        —     infringement of the principles of certainty and of the
—   annul the implied decision of the Director of the European                protection of legitimate expectations, in that the European
    Anti-Fraud Office of 7 July 2002 rejecting the applicant’s                Anti-Fraud Office, with the agreement of the Com-
    complaints of 8 March against the decisions and failures                  mission, regarded as new matters capable of justifying the
    to take measures imposed by the rules of law applicable                   reopening of formal investigations or fresh disciplinary
    to the Office which he asks to be annulled or found                       measures against the applicant matters which the Com-
    unlawful, or rejecting his requests for the measures                      mission had precluded from being such in previous
    required by the rules of law applicable to the Office to be               decisions, specifically in the decisions following Case
    taken in relation to him;                                                 T-108/00 R Gómez-Reino v Commission (2);
 ---pagebreak--- 12.10.2002                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 247/15
—      infringement of the principle of legality of administrative            Pleas in law and main arguments
       action and of the first subparagraph of Article 4(1) of
       Regulation No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament
       and of the Council ( 3), in that the investigations of the
       European Anti-Fraud Office were opened or reopened on                  The applicant was involved as a shareholder in three companies
       the basis of information obtained in breach of the secrecy             under the name Verlipack. When it became a shareholder in
       of the proceedings of the Disciplinary Board which is to               those companies it assumed responsibility for repurchasing a
       be observed under the second paragraph of Article 6 of                 specified number of shares from the public authorities. In
       Annex II to the Staff Regulations, in conjunction with a               1991 the authorities concerned insisted on compliance with
       breach of the obligation of discretion laid down for                   this obligation of repurchase and the applicant accordingly
       officials by the second paragraph of Article 17 of the                 found itself obliged to buy back the shares. Repurchase was
       Staff Regulations and for members of the Commission by                 spread over several years.
       Article 287 of the EC Treaty.
                                                                              In 1996 the Regional Authority for Wallonia pressed for
( 1) Decision of 2 June 1999 concerning the terms and conditions for          accelerated repurchase of those shares by the applicant. The
     internal investigations in relation to the prevention of fraud,          latter thereupon took over the shares from the Regional
     corruption and any illegal activity detrimental to the Communities’      Authority for Wallonia, which thereby obtained an outstand-
     interests (OJ 1999 L 149, p. 57).                                        ing claim against the applicant. According to the applicant,
( 2) That case was brought to a close by an order of removal from the         the purchase had no economic significance for it and the
     register of 3 July 2000 (OJ 2000 C 259, p. 31).                          shares were of no value to it. The shares, however, had to be
( 3) Regulation of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted            bought for a fixed price. The applicant also derived no
     by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) (OJ 1999 L 136, p. 1).
                                                                              advantage whatever from the shares as they were shortly
                                                                              afterwards brought into a separate company over which the
                                                                              applicant had no control.
                                                                              In 1998 the Regional Authority for Wallonia reached agree-
                                                                              ment with the applicant that it would transfer its shares in
                                                                              Verlipack Holding II to that Authority. In exchange, the claim
                                                                              which that Authority held against the applicant would lapse.
Action brought on 22 July 2002 by Ter Lembeek Inter-
national N.V. against the Commission of the European
                              Communities
                                                                              The decision under challenge treats this latter agreement as
                                                                              constituting State aid and as being incompatible with the
                                                                              Common Market. That decision states that the shares given in
                            (Case T-217/02)
                                                                              payment were at that moment in fact worthless. The Regional
                                                                              Authority for Wallonia thus permitted its claim against the
                                                                              applicant to lapse without receiving any consideration. The
                            (2002/C 247/24)
                                                                              decision accordingly also takes the view that the applicant
                                                                              obtained free of cost the shares which it was required to
                                                                              purchase from the Regional Authority for Wallonia in 1996.
                       (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                              According to the applicant, the decision under challenge
                                                                              breaches Article 87(1) EC and Articles 7 and 13 of Regulation
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                     No 659/1999. (1) It argues that no benefit was obtained. In its
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                    view, the economic value of the shares when they were
European Communities on 22 July 2002 by Ter Lembeek                           repurchased in 1996 was nil, or even negative, and it also
International N.V., having its registered office in Wielsbeke                 derived no advantage from those shares. Moreover, according
(Belgium), represented by Jean-Pierre Vande Maele, Frank                      to the applicant, it was not the beneficiary of any aid measure,
Wijckmans and Filip Tuytschaever.                                             as it held the shares only for a very short period of time. It
                                                                              goes on to submit that there was no distortion of competition.
                                                                              According to the decision under challenge, competition was
                                                                              distorted within the textiles sector, whereas the alleged aid
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   measure was granted within the glass sector.
1.     Annul Articles 1 and 2 of the Commission decision of
       24 April 2002 concerning State aid granted by Belgium
                                                                              The applicant pleads, second, an infringement of the pro-
       to the Beaulieu Group (Ter Lembeek International);
                                                                              portionality principle and Article 14 of Regulation No 659/
                                                                              1999. In its opinion, the requested repayment of the aid bears
2.     Order the defendant to pay the costs.                                  no relation to the advantage allegedly enjoyed.


title: Case C-394/05: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 May 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2000/53/EC — End-of-life vehicles — Articles 3(5), 5(1), 7(2) and 8(3) and (4) — Defective transposition)

text:
               7.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/4

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 May 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-394/05) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 2000/53/EC - End-of-life vehicles - Articles 3(5), 5(1), 7(2) and 8(3) and (4) - Defective transposition)
   (2007/C 155/05)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Recchia and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: I.M. Braguglia and P. Gentili, Agents)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 12 of Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of-life vehicles (OJ 2000 L 269, p. 34)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by adopting Legislative Decree No 209 of 24 June 2003 transposing into national law the provisions of Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of-life vehicles in a manner contrary to that directive, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(5), Article 5(1), the second subparagraph of Article 7(2)(a) and Article 8(3) and (4) of that Directive;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 22, 28.1.2006.


title: Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 135, 7.6.2003

text:
21.6.2003        EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                         C 146/47
                                                            III
                                                         (Notices)
                                                     (2003/C 146/83)
                 Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union
          OJ C 135, 7.6.2003
          Past publications
          OJ C 124, 24.5.2003
          OJ C 112, 10.5.2003
          OJ C 101, 26.4.2003
          OJ C 83, 5.4.2003
          OJ C 70, 22.3.2003
          OJ C 55, 8.3.2003
                                               These texts are available on:
                                          EUR-Lex: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex
                                           CELEX: http://europa.eu.int/celex


title: Case F-17/14: Action brought on 4 March 2014  — ZZ v Parliament

text:
               16.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/41

         Action brought on 4 March 2014 — ZZ v Parliament
   (Case F-17/14)
   2014/C 184/67
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision not to award the applicant three merit points in the 2012 promotion year.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the appointing authority’s decision of 3 July 2013 on determining merit points for 2012;

               —

               Annul, so far as is necessary, the decision of 6 December 2013 rejecting the applicant’s complaint;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs in their entirety.


title: Case C-245/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the korkein oikeus by order of that Court of 3 July 2002 in the case of Anheuser-Busch, Incorporated against Budéjovický Budvar, národní podnik

text:
C 219/4                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     14.9.2002
2.    Is it of importance as regards the acceptability of discon-              (b) If the answer to Question 3(a) is affirmative:
      tinuing the procedure that the content of the invitation
      to tender is defective because of the incorrectness of the                   How is the said reference in the third sentence of
      assessment previously made by the contracting authority?                     Article 16(1) of the TRIPS Agreement to existing
                                                                                prior rights to be interpreted in the case of a trade
                                                                                name which is not registered or established in the
( 1) OJ L 199, p. 1.                                                               State in which the trade mark is registered and in
                                                                                which protection is sought for the trade mark
                                                                                against the trade name in question, having regard to
                                                                                the obligation under Article 8 of the Paris Conven-
                                                                                tion to afford protection to a trade name regardless
                                                                                of whether it is registered and to the fact that the
                                                                                permanent appellate body of the WTO has regarded
                                                                                the reference in Article 2(1) of the TRIPS Agreement
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the korkein oikeus                           to Article 8 of the Paris Convention as meaning
by order of that Court of 3 July 2002 in the case                                  that WTO members are obliged under the TRIPS
of Anheuser-Busch, Incorporated against Budéjovický                               Agreement to protect trade names in accordance
                     Budvar, národní podnik                                        with the latter article? When assessing, in such a
                                                                                case, whether a trade name has a legal basis prior to
                                                                                a trade mark for the purposes of the third sentence
                          (Case C-245/02)                                          of Article 16(1) of the TRIPS Agreement, may it thus
                                                                                be considered as decisive:
                          (2002/C 219/07)                                          (i)   whether the trade name was well-known at
                                                                                least to some extent among the relevant trade
                                                                                circles, in the State in which the trade mark is
                                                                                registered and in which protection is sought
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                   for it, before the point in time at which
European Communities by order of the korkein oikeus                                      registration of the trade mark was applied for
(Supreme Court) of 3 July 2002, received at the Court Registry                           in the State in question; or
on 5 July 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Anheuser-Busch, Incorporated against Budéjovický Budvar,                          (ii)  whether the trade name was used in commerce
národní podnik on the following questions:                                               directed to the State in which the trade mark is
                                                                                registered and in which protection is sought
1.    If the collision of a trade mark and a sign alleged to                             for it before the point in time at which
      infringe it is situated at a point in time before the entry                        registration of the trade mark was applied for
      into force of the TRIPS Agreement, do the provisions of                            in the State in question; or
      the TRIPS Agreement apply to the question of which
      right has the earlier legal basis, when the alleged infringe-                (iii) what other factor may decide whether the trade
      ment of the trade mark is said to continue after the date                          name is to be regarded as an existing prior
      on which the TRIPS Agreement entered into force in the                             right within the meaning of the third sentence
      Community and the Member States?                                                   of Article 16(1) of the TRIPS Agreement?
2.    If the answer to Question 1 is affirmative:
      (a)   Can the trade name of an undertaking also act as a
            sign for goods or services within the meaning of
            the first sentence of Article 16(1) of the TRIPS
            Agreement?
                                                                         Action brought on 9 July 2002 by Portuguese Republic
                                                                             against Commission of the European Communities
      (b) If the answer to Question 2(a) is affirmative, on
            what conditions may a trade name be regarded as a
            sign for goods or services within the meaning of                                     (Case C-249/02)
            the first sentence of Article 16(1) of the TRIPS
            Agreement?                                                                           (2002/C 219/08)
3.    If the answer to Question 2(a) is affirmative:
      (a)   How is the reference in the third sentence of Article        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
            16(1) of the TRIPS Agreement to existing prior               ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
            rights to be interpreted? May the right to a trade           Communities on 9 July 2002 by the Portuguese Republic,
            name also be regarded as an existing prior right             represented by Luis Fernandes, acting as Agent, and Carlos
            within the meaning of the third sentence of Article          Botelho Moniz and Eduardo Maia Cadete, lawyers, with an
            16(1) of the TRIPS Agreement?                                address for service in Luxembourg.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 3 October 2002 in Case T-6/02: Michael Gerhard Franz Platte v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Appointment — Classification in grade — Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations)

text:
C 323/34                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         21.12.2002
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 3 October 2002
                         of 9 October 2002
                                                                            in Case T-6/02: Michael Gerhard Franz Platte v Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities (1)
in Case T-134/01: Hans Fuchs Versandschlachterei KG v
        Commission of the European Communities ( 1)                         (Officials — Appointment — Classification in grade —
                                                                                Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations)
(Regulation (EC) No 111/1999 — Regulation (EC) No 1135/                                               (2002/C 323/55)
1999 — Food-aid to Russia — Invitation to tender for
mobilisation — Invitation to tender for transport — Contrac-                                    (Language of the case: French)
tual relationship — Arbitration clause — Claim for perform-
ance of a contract — Admissibility — Provision of certifi-
     cates for each means of transport — Default interest)
                                                                            In Case T-6/02: Michael Gerhard Franz Platte, an official of the
                                                                            Commission of the European Communities, residing in Tielt-
                                                                            Winge, Belgium, represented by X. De Kesel and S. Peeters,
                           (2002/C 323/54)
                                                                            lawyers, against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                            (Agent: V. Joris and C. Berardis-Kayser) — application for
                                                                            annulment of the Commission’s decision of 31 January 2001
                     (Language of the case: German)                         definitively classifying the applicant in grade C 5, step 3 — the
                                                                            Court of First Instance (Single Judge); B. Pastor, Deputy
                                                                            Registrar, gave a judgment on 3 October 2002, in which it:
                                                                            1.     Dismissed the application;
In Case T-134/01, Hans Fuchs Versandschlachterei KG, estab-                 2.     Ordered each of the parties to bear its own costs.
lished in Duisburg (Germany), represented by U. Schrömbges,
L. Harings and C. Hütter, lawyers, v Commission of the
European Communities (Agent: M. Niejahr): Application for                   (1 ) OJ C 84 of 6.4.02.
an order that, primarily, the Commission or, alternatively, the
Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung, pay a sum of
DEM 13 130,04 (EUR 6 713,28), plus interest at an annual
rate of 8 % from 1 March 2000, the Court of First Instance
(Second Chamber), composed of: R. M. Moura Ramos, Presi-
dent, J. Pirrung and A. W. H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
has given a judgment on 9 October 2002, in which it:
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 30 September 2002
1.     Orders the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of
       EUR 6 713,28, together with default interest thereon from
       2 May 2000 until full payment. The rate of default interest to       in Case T-25/01: Francisco Miguel França v Commission
       be applied is to be calculated on the basis of the European                          of the European Communities ( 1)
       Central Bank’s rate for its main refinancing operations, in force
       during the period concerned, plus two percentage points;             (Officials — Special leave for voting — Travelling time —
                                                                            Supporting evidence — Lack of jurisdiction — Duty of
                                                                            cooperation and fairness — Principle of proportionality —
2.     For the rest, dismisses the application;                                       Action manifestly devoid of any basis in law)
3.     Orders the Commission to pay the costs.                                                        (2002/C 323/56)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
( 1) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.
                                                                            In Case T-25/01: Franciso Miguel Viana França, an official of
                                                                            the Commission of the European Communities, residing in
                                                                            Brussels, represented by G. Gentil Anastácio, lawyer, against