title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 8 February 1996 in Case C-212/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division): FMC plc and Others v. Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Common organization of the markets in sheepmeat and goatmeat - Clawback - Method of calculation - Validity - Proof - Reimbursement of undue payments)

text:
30 . 3 . 96         I EN I                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 95/3
     processing, as in force at the material time, allowed a          G. F. Mancini, F. A. Schockweiler ( Rapporteur ), J. L.
     Member State to provide that, in the case of release for         Murray and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; G. Tesauro,
     home use in the Community ofgoods previously subject             Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
     to inward processing arrangements, the agricultural levy         Registrar, has given a judgment in which it ruled that:
     payable is to bear default interest for the period between
     temporary importation and definitive importation.
                                                                      1 . Consideration of the questions raised has disclosed no
                                                                            factor of such a kind as to affect the validity either of
2 . Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the                              Article 4 (1 ) of Commission Regulation (EEC)
     harmonization ofthe laws ofthe Member States relating                  No 1633/84 of 8 June 1984 laying down detailed rules
     to turnover taxes — Common system of value added                       for applying the variable slaughter premium for sheep
     tax: uniform basis of assessment, precludes a Member                   and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2661 /80, as
     State from requiring default interest to be charged on the             amended by Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EEC)
     VAT payable in the event of declaration for home use in                No 1922/92 of 13 ]uly 1992 amending Regulation
     the Community of goods which were earlier subject to                   (EEC) No 1633/84, cited above, and determining the
     inward processing arrangements for the period between                  conditions for the reimbursement of the clawback
     temporary importation and definitive importation.                      following the judgment of the Court ofJustice in Joined
                                                                            Cases C-38/90 and C-151 /90, or of Article 2 of
(') OJ No C 218 , 6 . 8 . 1994 .                                            Regulation (EEC) No 1922/92 .
                                                                      2 . The requirement of proof laid down in Article 4 (1 ) of
                                                                            Regulation (EEC) No 1 633/84, cited above, as amended
                                                                            by Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 1 922/92, cited
                                                                            above, and in Article 2 of the latter Regulation, is to be
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                        interpreted as meaning that traders are required to
                         ( Sixth Chamber)                                   supply proof to the satisfaction of the competent United
                                                                            Kingdom authorities, in accordance with national law
                      of 8 February 1996                                    and within the period prescribed by Regulation (EEC)
in Case C-2 12/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                  No 1 922/92, of the amount of the premium actually
the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division ): FMC                    granted for products subject to clawback, provided that
pic and Others v. Intervention Board for Agricultural                       the applicable national rules do not affect the scope or
  Produce, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food ( 1 )                effectiveness of Community law.
(Common organization of the markets in sheepmeat and
goatmeat — Clawback — Method ofcalculation — Validity                 3 . As regards claims for repayment of clawback unduly
      — Proof — Reimbursement of undue payments)                            paid prior to 10 March 1992, paragraph 30 of the
                            ( 96/C 95/05 )                                  judgment in Lomas and Others (Joined Cases C-38/90
                                                                            and C-151 /90) is to be interpreted as meaning that
                                                                            traders or those entitled through them who prior to that
                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                            date initiated proceedings or made an equivalent
                                                                            complaint under the applicable national law may rely on
In Case C-2 12/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177                the invalidity of Article 4 (1 ) and (2) of Regulation No
of the EC Treaty by the High Court of Justice, Queen 's                     (EEC) No 1633/84, cited above, as from the date of its
Bench Division for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                  entry into force, subject to the application, within the
pending before that court between FMC pic, FMC ( Meat)                      limits set by Community law, of any national rules
Ltd, DT Duggins Ltd, Marshall ( Lamberhurst) Ltd,                           limiting the period prior to the submission of a claim in
Montelupo Ltd and North Devon Meat Ltd and                                  respect ofwhich repayment ofa sum unduly paid may be
Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce , Ministry of                   obtained.
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the validity and
interpretation of Article 4 ( 1 ) of Commission Regulation
( EEC ) No 1633/84 of 8 June 1984 laying down detailed                4 . With regard to matters not governed by Article 2 of
rules for applying the variable slaughter premium for sheep                 Regulation (EEC) No 1922/92, cited above, national
and repealing Regulation ( EEC ) No 2661 /80 ( OJ No L 154 ,                courts called upon to give judgment on a claim for
1984, p. 27 ), as amended by Article 1 of Commission                        reimbursement of clawback unduly charged must apply
Regulation ( EEC ) No 1922/92 of 13 July 1992 amending                      their national law, provided the detailed rules laid down
Regulation ( EEC ) No 1633/84, cited above, and                             therein are not less favourable than those governing
determining the conditions for the reimbursement of the                     similar domestic actions and are not so framed as to
clawback following the judgment of the Court of Justice in                  render virtually impossible or excessively difficult the
Joined Cases C-38/90 and C-151 /90 ( OJ No L 195 , 1992 ,                   exercise of rights conferred by the Community legal
p. 10 ), the validity and interpretation of Article 2 of                    system .
Regulation ( EEC ) No 1922/92, cited above, and the
interpretation of paragraph 30 of the judgment of the Court           f 1 ) OJ No C 275 , 1 . 10 . 1994 .
of Justice in Joined Cases C-38/90 and C-151/90 Lomas and
Others ( 1992 ) ECR 1-1781 , the Court ( Sixth Chamber ),
composed of C. N. Kakouris, President of the Chamber,


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) 8 January 2002 in Case C-409/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Metropol Treuhand WirtschaftstreuhandgmbH v Finanzlandesdirektion für Steiermark and between Michael Stadler and Finanzlandesdirektion für Vorarlberg (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 17(6) and (7) — Right to deduct input VAT — Exclusions provided for under national laws at the date of entry into force of the directive — Exclusions for cyclical economic reasons — Consultation of the Advisory Committee on value added tax)

text:
6.4.2002                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 84/11
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                            first consulting the committee provided for in Article 29 of the
                                                                                directive. That provision also does not authorise a Member
                                                                                State to adopt measures excluding goods from the system of
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                         deducting value added tax which contain no indication as to
                                                                                their limitation in time and/or which form part of a package of
                           8 January 2002                                          structural adjustment measures whose aim is to reduce the
                                                                                budget deficit and allow State debt to be repaid.
in Case C-409/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Metropol Treuhand                          (1) OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.
WirtschaftstreuhandgmbH v Finanzlandesdirektion für
Steiermark and between Michael Stadler and Finanz-
                landesdirektion für Vorarlberg (1)
(Sixth VAT Directive — Article 17(6) and (7) — Right to
deduct input VAT — Exclusions provided for under national
laws at the date of entry into force of the directive —
Exclusions for cyclical economic reasons — Consultation of                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
          the Advisory Committee on value added tax)
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                            (2002/C 84/18)
                                                                                of 27 November 2001
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                             in Case C-424/99: Commission of the European Communi-
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                          ties v Republic of Austria (1)
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
                                                                             89/105/EEC — ‘Positive list’ for the purposes of Article 6 of
In Case C-409/99: reference to the Court under Article 234                   Directive 89/105/EEC — Time-limit for examination of an
EC by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary                 application for inclusion of a medicinal product on the list
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                  — Obligation to provide for a judicial remedy in the event
Metropol Treuhand WirtschaftstreuhandgmbH and Finanz-                                                      of refusal)
landesdirektion für Steiermark and between Michael Stadler
and Finanzlandesdirektion für Vorarlberg, on the interpret-                                              (2002/C 84/19)
ation of Article 17(6) and (7) of Sixth Council Directive
77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the
laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —                                           (Language of the case: German)
Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assess-
ment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1),the Court (Fifth Chamber),
composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, A. La Pergola,               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
L. Sevón (Rapporteur), M. Wathelet and C.W.A. Timmermans,                                       in the European Court Reports)
Judges, Advocate General: L.A. Geelhoed, Registrar: D. Louter-
man-Hubeau, Head of Division, has given a judgment on
8 January 2002, in which it has ruled:
                                                                             In Case C-424/99: Commission of the European Communities
                                                                             (Agent: J.C. Schieferer) v Republic of Austria (Agent: C. Pesen-
1.    The second subparagraph of Article 17(6) of Sixth Council              dorfer) — application for a declaration that, by not adopting
      Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation               or by not communicating to the Commission within the
      of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —          prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative
      Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment          provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
      — precludes a Member State from excluding, after the entry             89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to the transparency
      into force of the Sixth Directive, expenditure relating to certain     of measures regulating the prices of medicinal products for
      motor vehicles from the right to deduct value added tax where,         human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health
      at the date of entry into force of that directive, that expenditure    insurance systems (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 8), the Republic of Austria
      gave rise to the right to deduct value added tax in accordance         has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty — the
      with a consistent practice of the public authorities of that State     Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: N. Colneric, President of
      on the basis of a ministerial circular.                                the Second Chamber, acting for the President of the Sixth
                                                                             Chamber, C. Gulmann, R. Schintgen, V. Skouris (Rapporteur)
2.    The first sentence of Article 17(7) of the Sixth Directive must        and J. N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate
      be interpreted as not authorising a Member State to exclude            General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
      goods from the system of deducting value added tax without             has given a judgment on 27 November 2001, in which it:


title: Case F-78/06: Action brought on 20 July 2006 — Simona Suhadolnik v Court of Justice of the European Communities

text:
               30.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 237/17

         Action brought on 20 July 2006 — Simona Suhadolnik v Court of Justice of the European Communities
   (Case F-78/06)
   (2006/C 237/29)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Simona Suhadolnik (Howald, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Rodrigues, A. Jaume and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the appointing authority of the Court of Justice refusing the applicant's complaint;

               —

               annul the decision to establish the applicant of 22 July 2005 insofar as it determines her grade pursuant to Article 12(3) of Annex XIII of the Staff Regulations, and determines her step in accordance with the new version of Article 32 of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               reclassify the applicant in grade C*3, or, at least, in grade C*2, as well as at the step corresponding to her qualifications and professional experience, which she would have been granted if she had been appointed before 1 May 2004, with retroactive effect from the date on which she took up her duties;

               —

               order the defendant to compensate the applicant for damage suffered (default interest, damage to her career, pension rights etc.);

               —

               order the defendant to pay default interest, from the date of the decision to be adopted;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the appointing authority's decision of 22 July 2005, the applicant, who was a successful candidate in open competition EPSO/C/9/03 held for the purpose of constituting a reserve list for the recruitment of Cypriot, Czech, Estonian, Hungarian, Lithuanian, Latvian, Maltese, Polish, Slovene and Slovak typists (C5/C4),1 was appointed as an official of the European Community and classified at grade C*1, step (1).
   In her application, the applicant takes issue with her classification and calls into question first, Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, on which the appointing authority relied in determining her grade, and, second, the new version of Article 32 of the Staff Regulations, on which the appointing authority relied to determine her step.
   As regards her classification in grade, the applicant pleads principally that Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, which governs the status of officials who have been included on a list of suitable candidates, does not apply to successful competition candidates, as they cannot be considered as officials.
   In the alternative, the applicant submits a plea of illegality in relation to Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations on the grounds, in particular, that this provision infringes: (i) the principle of non-discrimination, (ii) the principle of freedom of movement for workers, (iii) the principles of protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty, (iv) the principle of proportionality, (v) the principle of good administration and the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials, (vi) Article 31 of the Staff Regulations, and (vii) Article 10 of the Staff Regulations.
   As regards her classification in step, the applicant considers that the appointing authority breached its duty to protect her legitimate expectation that she would be granted a step bonus, as a result of her professional experience, under the version of Article 32 of the Staff Regulations in force before 1 May 2004.

      (1)  OJ C 120, 22.5.2003, p. 30.


title: Action brought on 10 January 1996 by Roland Haas and four others against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-3/96)

text:
 No C 64/24             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    2 . 3 . 96
 search for a successful means of privatization. By opening           The applicants claim that the Court should :
two sets of proceedings and not joining them in any way, the
 Commission artificially divided a subject-matter that was
 one and the same. The Decision should be set aside by                — order the Commission to pay the additional
reason of that unlawful division of the proceedings .                     remuneration resulting from applying the Berlin
                                                                          weighting for Germany to the part of the applicants '
                                                                          remuneration transferred in German marks during the
Article 2 of the Decision requires repayment of the alleged               period from 1 October 1990 to 31 December 1994,
aids by the undertakings concerned . As stated above, the
two sets of proceedings are inseparably related . In the event
of a court decision in favour of privatization in principle, the
loans granted would be set off and the second proceeding              — order the Commission to pay interest for delay on such
would become irrelevant. In this situation, the applicant is              additional remuneration at 10% per annum,
obliged to challenge the Commission Decision of
 18 October 1995 . In order to provide effective legal
protection for the applicant, either the investigation or the         — in so far as necessary, annul the Commission Decisions
repayment obligation in Article 2 should have been                        of 9 March 1995 and 4 October 1995 , rejecting the
suspended pending the court decision concerning                           applicants' claim and their complaint respectively,
privatization.
                                                                     — order the Commission to pay the costs.
The Commission did not give the applicant a proper hearing
before making its Decision, and did not send the views of
competitors to the applicant for comment.
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The loans granted did not constitute aid within the meaning
of Article 4 (c ) of the ECSC Treaty. That was apparent from
                                                                     The applicants, who are Commission officials employed in
the facts, the Commission having misunderstood the                    Luxembourg, state that, using their right under Annex VII
circumstances which led the Region of Bavaria to grant the
                                                                     to the Staff Regulations, they had part of their remuneration
loans . From the legal point of view, an aid can only exist if a     transferred to Germany. Under Article 17 ( 3 ) of Annex VII,
private investor in a similar position would not have made a
                                                                     the amounts transferred were adjusted by the coefficient
similar loan . That requirement was not satisfied in this
case .
                                                                     resulting from the ratio between the weighting for Germany
                                                                     and the weighting for Luxembourg. Until 1 July 1994, the
                                                                     date from which Council Regulation ( ECSC, EC, Euratom )
                                                                     No 3161 /94 of 19 December 1994 adjusting, with effect
                                                                     from 1 July 1 994, the remuneration and pensions of officials
                                                                     and other servants of the European Communities and the
                                                                     weightings applied thereto ( OJ No L 335 , 1994, p. 1 ) took
                                                                     effect, the weighting for Germany had remained fixed at the
                                                                     Bonn level, although Berlin had been proclaimed the capital
                                                                     of Germany on 3 October 1990 . The applicants consider
                                                                     that they are entitled to additional payments, reflecting the
                                                                     weighting for Germany calculated at the Berlin level, in
Action brought on 10 January 1996 by Roland Haas and                 respect of the part of their remuneration transferred to
four others against the Commission of the European                   Germany as from 1 October 1990 . Their claims to that
                           Communities                               effect have, however, been rejected by the Commission .
                          ( Case T-3/96 )
                            ( 96/C 64/47 )
                                                                     The applicants maintain that the rejection infringes
                                                                     Articles 63 and 65a of the Staff Regulations . Under those
                                                                     provisions, the weighting for each Member State is to be
                (Language of the case: French)                       fixed in relation to the cost of living in its capital; Berlin
                                                                     became the capital of Germany on 3 October 1990 . They
                                                                     argue that the Commission was not entitled to use a
An action against the Commission of the European                     Regulation which failed to provide for retrospective
Communities was brought before the Court of First                    calculation of the weighting at the Berlin level as from
Instance of the European Communities on 10 January 1996              1 October 1990, and is obliged to recalculate the coefficient
by Roland Haas, Hans-Werner Schmidt, Siegfried                       affecting the portions of salary transferred as from
Schweikle, Albert Veith and Horst Wohlfeil , resident in             3 October 1990 and to pay them the difference .
Luxembourg, 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, 1                They also argue that the Commission has disregarded the
Rue Glesener.                                                        effects of the judgments in Cases T-64/92 and T-536/93 , in
 ---pagebreak--- 2 . 3 . 96           1 EN 1                Official Journal of the European Communities                             No C 64/25
which the Court of First Instance held that amending                        Removal from the register of Case T-84/95 ( )
Regulations which, after 3 October 1990, fixed a weighting                                       ( 96/C 64/49 )
for Germany by reference to the cost of living in Bonn were
unlawful; the Commission applied Regulation ( ECSC, EC,                             (Language of the case: French)
Euratom ) No 3161 /94, thereby remedying the illegality
which had been established only as from 1 July 1994 .                 By order of 12 January 1996 the President of the First
The applicants also allege an infringement of the principle of        Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                      Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
equal treatment, since, as from 1 October 1990, they did not
enjoy a purchasing power equivalent to that of other                  T-84/95 : Rene Bebin v. Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities .
officials who did not transfer part of their remuneration to
Germany.                                                              0 ) OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
Finally, the Commission failed to ensure that the weighting
for Germany was fixed, in accordance with the Staff
Regulations, at the level of the capital, Berlin, thereby
infringing its duty to have due regard for the interests of
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case T-138/95 ( ] )
officials. Nor did it bring any action for the annulment of the
Regulation in question, even though it was clearly unlawful;                                     ( 96/C 64/50 )
it thereby failed in its task of ensuring the observance of
Community law, a task which also falls within the duty to                          (Language of the case: German)
have due regard for the interests of officials, when the
persons towards whom the unlawful provision and                       By order of 16 January 1996 the President of the First
secondary legislation is directed are officials and other             Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
servants .
                                                                      Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                      T-138/95 : Friedrich Engelking v. Council of the European
                                                                      Union and Commission of the European Communities .
                                                                      (!) OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
        Removal from the register of Case T-276/94 (')
                            ( 96/C 64/48 )
               (Language of the case: French)                               Removal from the register of Case T-2 13/95 R
                                                                                ( 96/C 64/51 )
By order of 23 January 1996 the President of the Third
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case                            (Language of the case: Dutch)
T-276/94 : Adam Buick v. Commission of the European
Communities .
                                                                      By order of 24 January 1996 the President of the First
                                                                      Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
( J ) OJ No C 304 , 29 . 10 . 1994 .                                  Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                      T-213/95 R: Stichting Certificatie Kraanverhuurbedrijf v.
                                                                      Commission of the European Communities.


21.6.2003              EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 146/37
        Removal from the register of Case C-412/02 ( 1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-413/02 ( 1)
                          (2003/C 146/66)                                                        (2003/C 146/67)
By order of 11 March 2003 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                By order of 13 March 2003 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-412/02 (Reference for a preliminary        Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
ruling by the Hof van Cassatie): Belgian Refining Corporation          from the register of Case C-413/02 (Reference for a preliminary
and Others v Ministerie van Financiën.                                 ruling by the Hof van Cassatie): F. Sips v Ministerie van
                                                                       Financiën.
( 1) OJ C 55 of 8.3.2003.
                                                                       (1 ) OJ C 55 of 8.3.2003.


title: Case T-313/02: Action brought on 11 October 2002 by David Meca-Medina and Igor Majcen against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 305/30               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        7.12.2002
In support of his claims, the applicant alleges:                          They claim that the Commission manifestly erred in fact and
                                                                          in law in finding that, with respect to anti-doping rules, the
—     the retroactive application of the contested decision               IOC is not an undertaking for the purposes of Community
      infringes the principles underlying recovery of sums                law. It is clear that the IOC cannot be treated in the same way
      overpaid and, in particular, Article 85 of the Staff                as a public institution providing social security services and
      Regulations as well as the principles of legitimate expec-          that it does not exercise the prerogatives of a public authority.
      tations and sound administration;                                   Moreover, the rules in question affect the conduct of all
                                                                          athletes on the market for the sports which the applicants
                                                                          perform.
—     for the purpose of Article 67 of the Staff Regulations, the
      orphan’s pension is not of like nature to the dependent
      child allowance. Therefore, the payments made by the
      administration until February 2002 were not manifestly              In addition, the applicants claim that the Commission commit-
      irregular; rather, it is the deductions under the contested         ted a manifest error of assessment in finding that, in the
      decision which are in point of fact irregular.                      present case, the limitation on the freedom of athletes is not a
                                                                          restriction of competition within the meaning of Article 81
                                                                          EC, on the ground that such a limitation is inherent in the
                                                                          organisation and smooth running of competitive sport. The
                                                                          Commission’s findings constitute a manifest misapplication of
                                                                          the criteria laid down by the Court of Justice in paragraph 97
                                                                          of the judgment in Wouters ( 1) and the restrictive effects of the
                                                                          IOC rules in question are clearly not inherent in the pursuit of
                                                                          the praiseworthy aims of the campaign against doping.
Action brought on 11 October 2002 by David Meca-
                                                                          According to the applicants, it is for the Commission — in
Medina and Igor Majcen against the Commission of the                      accordance with the ‘necessity test’ and/or the ‘proportionality
                    European Communities
                                                                          test’ — to declare that a rule which has been proven to have
                                                                          no scientific basis can in no way satisfy the requirements of
                          (Case T-313/02)                                 such tests.
                         (2002/C 305/62)
                                                                          Finally, the Commission’s assessment is manifestly incorrect in
                                                                          so far as it fails to recognise Article 49 EC as having any direct
                   (Language of the case: French)                         horizontal effect. It must be found that, since they do not
                                                                          satisfy a ‘test of necessity’, the contested IOC rules also infringe
                                                                          Article 49 EC.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                (1 ) Case C-309/99 Wouters [2002] ECR I-1577.
European Communities on 11 October 2002 by David Meca-
Medina, residing in Barcelona (Spain), and Igor Majcen, residing
in Ljubljana (Slovenia), represented by J.-L. Dupont, lawyer.
The applicants claim that the Court should:
—     annul the Commission’s decision notified to the appli-
      cants on 5 August 2002 rejecting the complaint of                   Action brought on 15 October 2002 by Marie-Claude
      31 May 2001 against the International Olympic Com-                  Girardot against the Commission of the European Com-
      mittee;                                                                                munities
                                                                                (Case T-316/02)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (2002/C 305/63)
By the contested decision, the Commission rejected the
complaint lodged by the applicants, who are professional                                       (Language of the case: French)
swimmers, that certain practices and rules of the International
Olympic Committee (IOC) concerning the fight against doping
were contrary to European competition law. The applicants
objected, in particular, to the fact that, in connection with the
detection of the substance nandrolone, the IOC continues to               An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
apply a maximum level which has now been found to lack                    ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
scientific merit.                                                         European Communities on 15 October 2002 by Marie-Claude


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 9 September 1998 in Case T-269/97: Azienda Agricola Tre e Mezzo v. Commission of the European Communities (Agriculture - Action for annulment of a regulation having general application - Inadmissibility)

text:
7.11.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 340/21
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            of publication of the decision and for damages in respect
                      (Fourth Chamber)                               of the losses incurred as a result thereof, the Court
                                                                     (Second Chamber) composed of: A. Kalogeropoulos,
                        of 15 July 1998                              President, C. W. Bellamy and J. Pirrung, Judges; Registrar:
in Case T-115/94 (92): Opel Austria GmbH v. Council of               H. Jung, made an order on 15 September 1998, the
                   the European Union (1)                            operative part of which is as follows:
                      (Taxation of costs)                            1. the application is dismissed;
                         (98/C 340/39)
                                                                     2. the applicant is ordered to pay the costs.
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                     (1) OJ C 229 of 2.9.1995.
In Case T-115/94 (92): Opel Austria GmbH, formerly
General Motors Austria GmbH, whose registered office is
in Vienna, represented by Dirk Vandermeersch, of the
Brussels Bar, and Till Müller-Ibold, Rechtsanwalt,
Frankfurt am Main, with an address for service in                         ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt and Medernach,                                      of 21 September 1998
8Ð10 rue Mathias Hardt, against Council of the
                                                                     in Case T-237/97: Nicolaos Progoulis v. Commission of
European Union (Agents: Bjarne Hoff-Nielsen, Hans-
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
Jürgen Rabe and Georg M. Berrisch) Ð application for
taxation of costs made following the judgment of the                                    (Manifest inadmissibility)
Court of First Instance of 22 January 1997 in Case T-115/
                                                                                (98/C 340/41)
94 Opel Austria v. Council [1997] ECR II-39 Ð the Court
of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: P.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Lindh, President, K. Lenaerts and J. D. Cooke, Judges; H.
Jung, Registrar, made an order on 15 July 1998, the                  In Case T-237/97: Nicolaos Progoulis, an official of the
operative part of which is as follows:                               Commission of the European Communities, residing in
                                                                     Brussels, represented by Vassilis Akritidis and
The total amount of the costs to be paid by the Council to           Konstantinos Adamantopoulos, of the Athens Bar, with an
the applicant is fixed at BFR 4 000 000.                             address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                     ArseÁne Kronshagen, 12 Boulevard de la Foire, v.
(1) OJ C 132 of 14.5.1994.                                           Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
                                                                     Gianluigi Valsesia, Julian Currall and Florence Clotuche)
                                                                     Ð application for annulment of the Commission's
                                                                     decision of 13 May 1997 rejecting the applicant's
                                                                     complaint against the decision rejecting his request for a
                                                                     review of his classification Ð the Court of First Instance
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            (First Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President,
                    of 15 September 1998                             and J. Pirrung and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung,
                                                                     Registrar, made an order on 21 September 1998, the
in Case T-136/95, Industria del Frio Auxiliar Conservera
                                                                     operative part of which is as follows:
 SA against Commission of the European Communities (1)
(Health policy Ð Protective measures Ð Decision 95/119/              1. the application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible;
EC Ð Principle of legal certainty Ð Principle of the
protection of legitimate expectations Ð Principle of                 2. the applicant shall bear his own costs.
proportionality Ð Principle of equal treatment Ð
         Statement of reasons Ð Misuse of powers)                    (1) OJ C 7 of 10.1.1998.
                         (98/C 340/40)
              (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                          ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
In Case T-136/95, Industria del Frio Auxiliar Conservera
SA, established in Bermeo (Spain), represented by Ignacio                                 of 9 September 1998
SaÂenz-Cortabarría FernaÂndez and Marta Morales Isasi, of            in Case T-269/97: Azienda Agricola Tre e Mezzo v.
the Vizcaya Bar, with an address for service in                             Commission of the European Communities (1)
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Guy Harles, 8Ð10 rue
Mathias Hardt, against the Commission of the European                (Agriculture Ð Action for annulment of a regulation
Communities (Agents: JoseÂ Luis Iglesias Buhigues and                       having general application Ð Inadmissibility)
Blanca Vila Costa), relating to an application for                                            (98/C 340/42)
annulment of Commission Decision 95/119/EC of 7 April
1995 concerning certain protective measures with regard                              (Language of the case: Italian)
to fishery products originating in Japan (OJ L 80 of
8.4.1995, p. 56) to the extent that those measures relate            In Case T-269/97: Azienda Agricola Tre e Mezzo,
to fishery products en route to the Community at the time            established at Forlì (Italy), and Carlo Bazzocchi, residing
 ---pagebreak--- C 340/22             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   7.11.98
at Cesena (Italy), represented by Carlo Piccoli and                 1. the application is dismissed as inadmissible.
Fabrizio Fabbri, of the Forlì-Cesena Bar, and FrancËois
Turk, of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service            2. the applicant shall bear the whole of the costs.
in Luxembourg at the latter's Chambers, 13a Avenue
Guillaume, v. Commission of the European Communities                (1) OJ C 137 of 2.5.1998.
(Agent: Francesco P. Ruggeri Laderchi) Ð application for
partial annulment of Commission Regulation (EC)
No 1488/97 of 29 July 1997 amending Council
Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 on organic production of
agricultural products and indications referring thereto on
                                                                                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 202 of
                                                                              OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
30.7.1997, p. 12) Ð the Court of First Instance (First
Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, and                                      of 12 August 1998
R. M. Moura Ramos and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung,                 in Case T-42/98 R: Maria Paola Sabbatucci v. European
Registrar, made an order on 9 September 1998, the                                              Parliament
operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                    (Application for interim measures Ð Amicable settlement
                                                                    Ð Binding nature Ð Mandatory removal from the
1. the application is dismissed as inadmissible;
                                                                                register Ð Conditions)
                                                                                (98/C 340/44)
2. the applicants are to pay the costs.                                             (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                    In Case T-42/98 R: Maria Paola Sabbatucci, an official of
(1) OJ C 387 of 20.12.1997.                                         the European Parliament, residing in Luxembourg,
                                                                    represented by Alberto Dal Ferro and Andrea Cevese, of
                                                                    the Vicenza Bar, with an address for service at the
                                                                    Chambers of Mr Morresi, 67 Avenue des Nerviens,
                                                                    Brussels, v. European Parliament (Agents: Antonio Caiola
                                                                    and Evelyn Waldherr) Ð application for interim measures
                                                                    made pursuant to Article 91(4) of the Staff Regulations of
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                           officials of the European Communities and in accordance
                      (Fourth Chamber)                              with Articles 185 and 186 of the EC Treaty Ð the
                                                                    President of the Court of First Instance made an order on
                    of 17 September 1998                            12 August 1998, the operative part of which is as follows:
in Case T-40/98: Giuliano Pagliarani v. Commission of               1. Case T-42/98 R is removed from the register.
                the European Communities (1)
                                                                    2. The costs are reserved.
(Officials Ð Determination of grade Ð New facts Ð Not
                         permissible)
                        (98/C 340/43)
               (Language of the case: French)                       Action brought on 23 July 1998 by Dolores Rodriguez
                                                                    PeÂrez, Francisco Andrada Sanz, Pablo FernaÂndez Ruiz,
                                                                    Fabriciano Corchete Vicente, Antonio Oliva EspanÄol,
In Case T-40/98: Giuliano Pagliarani, member of the                 Miguel Alay Marcos, Geraldine O'Shea, Ana Luisa
temporary staff of the Commission of the European                   Muller, Alfonso Novoa Diz, Ernesto PeÂrez Carbonell,
Communities, residing in Brussels, represented by Mario             Alfredo Escribano Martínez, Soledad Blanco Mangudo,
Spandre and Claudio Mereu, of the Brussels Bar, with an             Enrique Rojas de Montis, Joan Antoni Salmurri Trintxet,
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Mr             Federica Burel Louberry, Elena Frutos Zamarrón, Rafael
Thielen, 21 rue de Nassau, against Commission of the                Aguirre Unceta, Manuel Parejo Pagador, Pablo Pardo
European Communities (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and                Ortiz, Santiago Vazquez Souto, Concepción Sanmartín
Christine Berardis-Kayser) Ð application for, first, the            Quintela, Saturnino DuraÂn Vidal, Luis Guembe Casi and
annulment of the decision of the appointing authority of            Alfonso Ruiz de AzuÂa CastanÄo against the Commission of
28 October 1993 classifying the applicant in Grade B 3                                the European Communities
step 3 and of the decision of the appointing authority of                                  (Case T-114/98)
8 December 1997 rejecting the applicant's complaint
                                                                                (98/C 340/45)
inasmuch as it does not take account of certified
professional experience and, secondly, a claim for                                 (Language of the case: Spanish)
compensation for material damage allegedly suffered by
the applicant as a result of those decisions Ð the Court of         An action against the Commission of the European
First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: P. Lindh,             Communities was brought before the Court of First
President, K. Lenaerts and J. D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung,            Instance of the European Communities on 23 July 1998
Registrar, made an order on 17 September 1998, the                  by Dolores Rodriguez PeÂrez, Francisco Andrada Sanz,
operative part of which is as follows:                              Pablo FernaÂndez Ruiz, Fabriciano Corchete Vicente,


title: Case C-260/02 P: Appeal brought on 15 July 2002 by Michael Becker against the judgment delivered on 12 June 2002 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-9/01 between Michael Becker and the Court of Auditors of the European Communities

text:
C 202/16                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      24.8.2002
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties                    (3) Of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports
Tribunals, London Tribunal Centre, by decision of that                          from countries not members of the European Community (OJ
court dated 5 July 2002, in the case of Fast Forward                            L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1).
Resources plc against Commissioners of Customs and
                                 Excise
                            (Case C-254/02)
                                                                            Appeal brought on 15 July 2002 by Michael Becker
                                                                            against the judgment delivered on 12 June 2002 by the
                           (2002/C 202/23)                                  Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                            European Communities in Case T-9/01 between Michael
                                                                            Becker and the Court of Auditors of the European
                                                                                Communities
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                              (Case C-260/02 P)
European Communities by a decision of the VAT and Duties
Tribunals, London Tribunal Centre, dated 5 July 2002, which                                           (2002/C 202/24)
was received at the Court Registry on 11 July 2002, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Fast Forward Resources plc
and Commissioners of Customs and Excise on the following                    An appeal against the judgment delivered on 12 June 2002 by
questions:                                                                  the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                            European Communities in Case T-9/01 between Michael
                                                                            Becker and the Court of Auditors of the European Communi-
(i)     In Commission Regulation (EC) 152/1999 (1) what is the              ties (1), brought on 15 July 2002 by Michael Becker, represent-
        proper meaning and legal effect of the term ‘registration           ed by Prof. Dr Ernst Fricke, Rechtsanwalt, of Kanzlei
        shall expire’ used in Article 3?                                    Prof. Dr. Fricke & Coll, Landshut (and Nuremberg, New
                                                                            Brandenburg and Luxembourg), and Roy Nathan, Rechtsan-
(ii) If Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) 152/1999                    walt, Luxembourg.
        means that the whole process of registration envisaged
        by the Regulation fails: (a) does this render Council               The appellant claims that the Court should: set aside in full the
        Regulation (EC) 175/2000 (2) ineffective in relation to the         judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 June 2002 and
        imports of leather handbags into the European Union                 grant in full the forms of order sought at first instance.
        before midnight on 23 October 1999; and (b) in relation
        to what products, if any, is Article 1.4 of Commission
        Regulation (EC) 175/2000 effective in imposing duty?
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
(iii) Is Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) 175/2000 consist-             The judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 June 2002
        ent with Article 11.4 and 14.5 of Council Regulation                infringes fundamental Community law.
        (EC) 384/96 (3) and, if not, what is the effect of this
        inconsistency on the collection of anti-dumping duties
        registered under Commission Regulation (EC) 152/1999?               —      Breach of the duty to have regard for the
                                                                                welfare of officials
(iv) Is Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) 175/2000 consist-
                                                                            It is for the Invalidity Committee to examine, on the basis of
        ent with Council Regulation (EC) 384/96 in so far as the
                                                                            the expert medical reports, whether the conditions set out in
        adoption of the measure occurred after the 12 month
                                                                            Article 78 of the Staff Regulations have been met. It is of no
        period indicated in Article 11.5 of Council Regulation
                                                                            relevance that the appellant was on leave on personal grounds.
        (EC) 384/96?
                                                                            The grounds on which the respondent rejected his complaint
                                                                            contravene the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials
                                                                            and are neither covered by the express terms, nor reflect the
(1) Of 22 January 1999 initiating a ‘new exporter’ review of Council        spirit and the purpose, of the Staff Regulations.
     Regulation (EC) No 1567/97 imposing a definitive anti-dumping
     duty on imports of leather handbags originating in the People’s
     Republic of China, repealing the duty with regard to imports from      —      Failure to appraise decisive information
     five exporting producers and making these imports subject to
     registration (OJ L 18, 23.1.1999, p. 10).
(2) Of 24 January 2000 reimposing a definitive anti-dumping duty            The European Commission replied to a request from the Court
     on imports of leather handbags originating in the People’s Repubic     for information and, in its reply, fully supported the appellant’s
     of China and sold for export to the Community by certain               legal position. In the grounds for its judgment, the Court of
     exporting producers and amending Regulation (EC) No 1567/97            First Instance did not refer to the Commission’s opinion,
     (OJ L 22, 27.1.2000, p. 25).                                           thereby failing to make a proper legal appraisal of that opinion.
 ---pagebreak--- 24.8.2002              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 202/17
—     Failure to comply with statutory pro-                              b.     Order the French Republic to pay into the account ‘own
      visions                                                                   resources of the EC’ of the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities a penalty payment of EUR 242 650 in
                                                                                respect of each day’s delay in implementing the measures
The Court of First Instance incorrectly held that, pursuant to                  necessary to comply with the judgment in Case C-239/
Article 40(4)(d) of the Staff Regulations, on expiry of his leave               98 Commission v France;
on personal grounds, the appellant must be ‘reinstated in the
first post corresponding to his grade which falls vacant in his
category or service provided that he satisfies the requirements
                                                                         c.     Order the French Republic to pay the costs.
for that post’. An official who is seriously ill clearly does not
satisfy the requirements for reinstatement.
(1) Not yet published in the European Court Reports.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Although Article 228 EC does not specify the period available
                                                                         to the Member State to comply with its obligations, it is none
                                                                         the less the case that implementation of the judgment must be
Action brought on 15 July 2002 by the Commission of                      initiated immediately and be completed as quickly as possible.
 the European Communities against the French Republic                    In the present case, all the provisions and measures necessary
                                                                         for the French Republic to bring its legislation into conformity
                                                                         with the judgment of the Court should long since have been
                          (Case C-261/02)                                adopted and have entered into force; at the time of the
                                                                         Commission’s reasoned opinion, almost a year had already
                                                                         passed since the Court’s judgment. The texts communicated
                         (2002/C 202/25)                                 by the French authorities subsequent to the reply to the
                                                                         reasoned opinion still represent merely a very fragmented and
                                                                         unsatisfactory implementation of the judgment of 16 Decem-
                                                                         ber 1999.
An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 15 July
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by C. Tufvesson and H. van Lier, acting as Agents,           The Commission considers that a penalty payment of
with an address for service in Luxembourg.                               EUR 242 650 per day is appropriate, given the seriousness
                                                                         and duration of the infringement, as well as the need to apply
                                                                         an effective penalty. It calculated the amount of the penalty to
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                   be proposed to the Court by using the method of calculation
the Court should:                                                        defined in its information notice of 8 January 1997 (4). It
                                                                         attributed to the seriousness of the infringement the coefficient
                                                                         10/20 and to the duration of the infringement a coefficient of
a.    Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and        2.3. In order to ensure the effectiveness of the penalty, it
      administrative provisions necessary to comply fully with           applied the factor 21.1 to the result obtained by multiplying
      Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the                 the uniform flat-rate amount of EUR 500 by the coefficient of
      coordination of laws, regulations and administrative               seriousness and of duration.
      provisions relating to direct insurance other than life
      assurance and amending Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/
      357/EEC (third non-life insurance Directive) (1) and with
      Council Directive 92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992 on
      the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative           ( 1) OJ L 228 of 11.8.1992, p. 1.
      provisions relating to direct life assurance and amending          ( 2) OJ L 360 of 9.12.1992, p. 1.
                                                                         ( 3) [1999] ECR I-8935.
      Directives 79/267/EEC and 90/619/EEC (third life assur-            ( 4) OJ C 63 of 28.2.1997, p. 2.
      ance Directive) (2) and, in particular, by not transposing
      those directives with regard to mutual societies governed
      by the Code de la Mutualité, the French Republic has
      failed to implement all the measures necessary to comply
      with the judgment of 16 December 1999 in Case C-239/
      98 Commission v France (3) and has failed to fulfil its
      obligations under Article 228 EC;


title: Case T-250/01: Action brought on 10 October 2001 by Dresdner Bank AG against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 3/36                    EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     5.1.2002
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           —     annul the decision of the Selection Board not to admit
The applicant, a company incorporated in the United Kingdom,                     him to Competition PE/90/A
is the only importer of the PlayStation®2 Computer Entertain-
ment System, models number SCPH-30003 and SCPH-30004.
The applicant was also the holder of Binding Tariff Information
GB 105 614 503 classifying the product under CN Code
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
8471 49 90, until it was revoked as a result of the adoption of
the contested Regulation.
                                                                           The applicant, who is a qualified Ingeniero Técnico (technical
                                                                           engineer) in Spain, applied for general competition PE/90/A,
The applicant submits that the contested act is not a true
                                                                           for the drawing up of a reserve list for the recruitment of
regulation but a decision addressed to it. No other product
                                                                           assistant administrators of Spanish mother tongue at Grade
than that imported by the applicant will precisely meet the
                                                                           A 8 (1). By letter of 27 June 2001, the chairperson of the
specifications in the contested decision.
                                                                           selection board informed him that he had not been admitted
                                                                           to the competition because he did not have sufficient know-
                                                                           ledge of two European Union languages and because he had
The applicant alleges that the PlayStation®2 should be classified          not completed a course of University studies evidenced by a
under Heading 8471. The product satisfies the four criteria as             degree. The applicant contests that decision and challenges the
defined by Notes 5(A) to Chapter 84 of the Common Customs                  lawfulness both of the competition notice and of the guide for
Tariff. By classifying the product under CN code 9504 10 00,               candidates taking part in interinstitutional competitions (2),
the contested act violates Council Regulation (EEC)                        inasmuch as the requirement is for possession of a Spanish
No. 2658/87 (2) and the wording of the Harmonised System                   honours degree (‘licenciado’), whereas a qualification which is
Explanatory Note (b) to Heading 9504. Furthermore, it incor-               equivalent to a three year degree, such as Ingenierı́a Técnica
rectly applies General Rule 3 (b) of the General rules for the             (technical engineering), is not accepted.
interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature by determining
the essential character solely on the basis of the functions of
the PlayStation®2 rather than on the basis of the materials or
                                                                           The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
components in which these functions must be inherent.
                                                                           relied upon in Case T-208/00 (3).
Finally, the contested Regulation violates Article 253 of the EC
Treaty.
(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1400/2001 of 10 July 2001
    concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined
    Nomenclature (OJ L 189, p. 5).                                         (1) OJ 2000 C 162, p. 10.
(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the             (2) OJ 2000 C 162, p. 1.
    tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs          (3) OJ 2000 C 316, p. 26.
    Tariff (OJ L 256, p. 1).
                                                                           Action brought on 10 October 2001 by Dresdner Bank
Action brought on 9 October 2001 by Marc Boixader                            AG against Commission of the European Communities
               Rivas against European Parliament
                                                                                (Case T-250/01)
                            (Case T-249/01)
                                                                                (2002/C 3/63)
                             (2002/C 3/62)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                     (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
An action against the European Parliament was brought before               ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                 European Communities on 10 October 2001 by Dresdner
9 October 2001 by Marc Boixader Rivas, residing in Fuenlabra-              Bank AG, whose registered office is at Frankfurt am Main,
da (Madrid), represented by Diego López Garrido, lawyer.                  represented by M. Hirsch and W. Bosch, lawyers.
 ---pagebreak--- 5.1.2002              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 3/37
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               In support of his claim, he relies on the following pleas:
—     annul the decision of the Commission of 16 August
      2001 refusing to grant the applicant access to certain              —    the vacancy notice was drawn up in vague terms,
      documents concerning a proceeding pursuant to                            inasmuch as it does not make it possible to discern with
      Article 81 of the EC Treaty (COMP/E-1/37.919) relating                   any certainty the conditions for taking part in the
      to bank charges for currency exchange within the Euro                    appointment procedure.
      zone: Germany (Dresdner Bank AG) — on the wider
      application of access to files under Article 8 of Com-              —    the candidate who was finally appointed does not meet,
      mission Decision 2001/462/EC, ECSC of 23 May 2001                        according to his curriculum vitae published on the
      on the terms of reference of hearing officers in certain                 internet, the minimum requirements for selection and for
      competition proceedings;                                                 being considered a suitable candidate.
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                          —    the defendant, according to its own interpretation of the
                                                                               rules of the Court adopted by Decision No 18/97,
                                                                               refused him access to certain document regarding the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                appointment procedure.
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put
forward in T-216/01 Reisebank AG v Commission.
                                                                          Action brought on 11 October 2001 by Changzhou
                                                                          Hailong Electronics & Light Fixtures Co., Ltd. & Zhejiang
Action brought on 9 October 2001 by Giuseppe Di Pietro
                                                                          Yankon Group Co., Ltd. against the Council of the
 against Court of Auditors of the European Communities
                                                                                European Union
                        (Case T-254/01)
                                                                                (Case T-255/01)
                         (2002/C 3/64)
                                                                                (2002/C 3/65)
                   (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Court of Auditors of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities on 9 October 2001 by Giuseppe
Di Pietro, represented by Giovanni Monforte, lawyer.                      An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                          brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                          Communities on 11 October 2001 by Changzhou Hailong
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               Electronics & Light Fixtures Co., Ltd. & Zhejiang Yankon
                                                                          Group Co., Ltd., represented by Mr Philip Bentley QC and
—     annul the decision of the Court of Auditors of the                  Mr Filip Ragolle of Stanbrook Hooper, Brussels (Belgium).
      European Communities of 22 February 2001 whereby it
      decided to ‘appoint’ Michel Hervé to the post of Secretary
      General of the Court;
                                                                          The applicants claim that the Court should:
—     order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the
      applicant and to make good the damage suffered by him.              —    annul Council Regulation (EC) No 1470/2001 of 16 July
                                                                               2001 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and
                                                                               collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on
                                                                               imports of integrated electronic compact fluorescent
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                lamps (CFL-i) originating in the People’s Republic of
                                                                               China in so far as it applies to the applicants;
The applicant opposes the appointment of a Secretary General
of the Court of Auditors.                                                 —    order the Council to pay the costs.


title: Case T-332/02: Action brought on 30 October 2002 by Nordspedizionieri Danielis Livio & Co., a partnership between Livio Danielis and Domenico D'Alessandro, in liquidation, against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 7/22                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                    11.1.2003
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the Registrar of the Court of Justice         —     annul the decision of 30 January 2002 of the Director
      to award the applicant 0.58 promotion points in respect                   General of Directorate General A of the Council to
      of 1998 and to award only one promotion point per year                    terminate the procedure under Article 29(1)(a) of the
      in respect of 1999 and 2000;                                              Staff Regulations to fill the post of Language Adviser in
                                                                                the English and Irish Language Division and to proceed
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                                     to the next stage, namely the organisation of an internal
                                                                                competition under Article 29(1)(b);
                                                                          —     order the Council to pay to the applicant the sum of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 EUR 10 000 000 by way of compensation for material
                                                                                and non-material damage;
The applicant is challenging the decision of the appointing
authority to award her 0.58 promotion points in respect of                —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
1998 and to award her only one promotion point per year in
respect of 1999 and 2000.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant claims that no staff report has been drawn up
for her throughout the period in which she worked for the
defendant as a member of the temporary staff, that is to say              By judgment of 14 June 2001 in Case T-230/99, the Court
from 1 June to 30 November 1998. Nor was any report                       of First Instance annulled the decisions of the Council of
drawn up in her respect during her probation period (from                 15 December 1998 appointing Ms K to the post of language
1 December 1998 to 31 August 1999). Consequently, only                    adviser in the English Language Division and rejecting the
the analytical assessments in the staff report for the period             candidature of the applicant for the said post. The Council
from 1 September 1999 to 31 December 2000 were taken                      appealed that judgment. The appeal was held manifestly
into consideration, which prevented the appointing authority              inadmissible by order of the Court of Justice of
from taking account of the applicant’s ‘merits’ as set out in the         13 December 2001.
general assessment and in the reporting officer’s observations.
                                                                          The applicant claims that, in consequence of that judgment,
In support of her claims, the applicant alleges:                          the Council was obliged to re-examine his application for the
                                                                          post in question. By failing to carry out such re-examination,
—     infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations;                the Council has, in the applicant’s view, infringed Article 233
                                                                          of the EC Treaty. The applicant further alleges manifest error
—     infringement of paragraph 5 of the ‘Instructions relatives          of assessment and misuse of powers.
      aux promotions’ appended to the decision of the Court
      of 18 October 2000;
—     manifest error of assessment in the present case.
                                                                          Action brought on 30 October 2002 by Nordspedizionieri
                                                                          Danielis Livio & Co., a partnership between Livio Danielis
                                                                          and Domenico D’Alessandro, in liquidation, against Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities
Action brought on 18 October 2002 by Hans Mc Auley
            against Council of the European Union
                                                                                (Case T-332/02)
                        (Case T-324/02)
                                                                                (2003/C 7/45)
                         (2003/C 7/44)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
An action against the Council of the European Union was                   ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European                European Communities on 30 October 2002 by Nordspedi-
Communities on 18 October 2002 by Hans Mc Auley, residing                 zionieri Danielis Livio & Co., a partnership between Livio
in Wezembeek-Oppem (Belgium), represented by Albert Cool-                 Danielis and Domenico D’Alessandro, in liquidation, represent-
en, Jean-Noël Louis and Étienne Marchal, avocats.                         ed by Gregorio Leone, lawyer.
 ---pagebreak--- 11.1.2003              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 7/23
The applicants claim that the Court should:                             The applicants further request, in the alternative, the appli-
                                                                        cation of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2144/
—     annul the decision of the Commission REM 14/01 of                 87 of 13 July 1987 on customs debt (2), which precludes
      28 June 2002, notified on 2 September 2002, finding no            payment of customs duty in respect of those goods which
      ground for remission of import duties in respect of               have been confiscated.
      imported goods valued at EUR 256 983,63;
                                                                        (1 ) OJ 1979 L 175, p. 1.
—     in the alternative, and subject to all manner of reser-           (2 ) OJ 1987 L 201, p. 15.
      vations, declare none the less, pursuant to Article 8(19)(b)
      of Regulation EEC No 2144/87, that in the present case a
      remission of import duties is due to the applicants in
      respect of the 8 010 kilograms confiscated from all the
      accused in the criminal proceedings;
—     order the Commission of the European Communities to
      pay the costs.
                                                                        Action brought on 6 November 2002 by Susan Christen-
                                                                           sen against Commission of the European Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                   (Case T-336/02)
                                                                                (2003/C 7/46)
The applicants in the present case are contesting the defend-
ant’s decision finding that there is no ground for the remission
of import duties amounting to EUR 256 983 requested by the                                  (Language of the case: French)
Italian Republic on 4 June 2001 (DOSSIER REM 14/01,
notified in EEC C(2002) 2384 final).
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
The applicants were asked to pay customs duty on two                    ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
consignments of cigarettes amounting to more than LIT                   European Communities on 6 November 2002 by Susan
2.5 billion, as they then were, dating from as far back as 1992.        Christensen, residing in Ispra (Italy), represented by Georges
They challenged the order for payment before the Italian                Vandersanden and Laure Levi, avocats.
courts and sought a remission from the Commission, which
refused it.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
The present application has been brought under Article 13 of            —     annul the decision of the Selection Board for Competition
Council Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 of 2 July 1979 on the                     COM/R/A/2000 of 3 December 2001 refusing to include
repayment or remission of import or export duties (1). The                    the applicant on the reserve list on the ground that she
applicants claim that they could not be required to pay                       failed to obtain, during the oral tests, the minimum
customs duty in that there are in the present case ‘special                   number of points to be included and, in so far as
situations’ such as to preclude such a requirement of payment,                necessary, the decision of the authority empowered to
since they had placed legitimate reliance on commercial and                   conclude contracts of employment (AECE) of 23 July
transport documents submitted to them when the goods were                     2002 rejecting the applicant’s complaint, notified on
declared at customs which gave to understand that the goods                   30 July 2002;
were packaging.
                                                                        —     annul all the operations and acts relating to the compe-
                                                                              tition subsequent to the irregularities contained in the
The special situation giving entitlement to remission arises                  decision of 3 December 2001 and, in particular, the
from the fact that the customs declarant has no way of being                  reserve list and the appointment decisions taken on the
able to check the content of the lorry crossing the border and                basis of that list;
furthermore that the documents appeared to be in order, while
the consignment cleared customs under the ‘conformity’
procedure by the customs authority.                                     —     order the defendant, in any event, to adopt any measure
                                                                              necessary to ensure that the applicant’s rights are restored;
Furthermore, in the present case, there was no ‘negligence’ or          —     otherwise, order the defendant to pay damages assessed
‘deception’, as required under Article 13, inasmuch as the                    at EUR 22 088,34, subject to increase;
applicants properly declared the goods, in accordance with the
commercial and transport documents.                                     —     order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case C-96/13: Action brought on 26 February 2013 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

text:
               4.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/8

         Action brought on 26 February 2013 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-96/13)
   2013/C 129/15
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Patakia and A. Tokár)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by inserting terms in the open invitation to tender for the provision of services to support the production operation of OPS-IKA (the integrated information system of the Idrima Kinonikon Asfalision (Social Security Institution; ‘the IKA’)) and of the IKA’s website and to expand the databases, for a period of 30 months (invitation to tender No L30/POY/9/5-6-2009 — published in the Official Journal of the European Union under No 2009/S110-159234), under which, first, the tenderers had to have experience in the performance of similar contracts for a Greek insurance body and, second, experience of the subcontractors could not establish experience of the tenderers, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2, and Articles 44(2) and 48 in conjunction with Article 2, of Directive 2004/18/EC; (1)

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               The pleaded infringement of Articles 44(2) and 48 of Directive 2004/18, in conjunction with Article 2, concerns the tender procedure of the IKA, as contracting authority, relating to the provision of services to support the production operation of OPS-IKA (the integrated information system of the IKA) and of the IKA’s website and to expand the databases.

               2.

               The Commission considers that the term of the invitation to tender requiring experience in achieving an integrated information system for a social security institution in Greece constitutes a geographical condition that infringes the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination as laid down in Articles 2, 44(2) and 48 of Directive 2004/18.

               3.

               It is noted that, in their responses to the Commission’s reasoned opinion, the Greek authorities assumed the obligation to make all the changes in accordance with the Commission’s complaint, accepting in essence the alleged infringement.

               4.

               Also, the Commission considers that the term of the invitation to tender which provides that experience of the tenderer’s subcontractors does not establish experience of the tenderer infringes Article 48 of Directive 2004/18 since, as a result of that term, tenderers cannot rely on third parties’ experience in order to demonstrate that they have the required technical ability to perform the contract concerned.

               5.

               In their response, the Greek authorities gave the commitment that the tender documentation for the new procurement procedure would expressly provide for the possibility for economic operators submitting tenders to rely on the relevant experience of third-party entities such as subcontractors, accepting in essence also the abovementioned second complaint of the Commission.

               6.

               Nevertheless, the Greek authorities failed to set a specific date for a new invitation to tender and instead decided to extend the duration of the previous contract, invoking grounds relating to the internal legal order.

               7.

               The Commission therefore established that the pleaded infringement of the aforesaid provisions of Directive 2004/18 is continuing, without the grounds invoked being capable of justifying the infringement, and brought an action for declaration of that infringement before the Court of Justice.

      (1)  OJ L 134, 30.4.2004, p. 114.


title: Action brought on 3 March 1995 by Heinz-Josef Keimes against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-76/95)

text:
 13 . 5 . 95        [ EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                        No C 119/27
Action brought on 24 February 1995 by Estabelecimentos              Action brought on 3 March 1995 by Heinz-Josef Keimes
Isidoro M. Oliveira, SA, Sociedade Comercial, against the           against the Council of the European Union and the
          Commission of the European Communities                             Commission of the European Communities
                         Case T-73/95 )                                                      (Case T-76/95 )
                          95/C 119/51 )                                                        ( 95/C 119/52 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
             (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                                                                    An action against the Council of the European Union and
                                                                    the Commission of the European Communities was brought
An action against the Commission of the European                    before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                   Communities on 3 March 1995 by Heinz-Josef Keimes,
Instance of the European Communities on 24 February                 Heinsberg-Dremmen ( Federal Republik of Germany),
 1995 by Estabelecimentos Isidoro M. Oliveira, SA,                  represented by Dr Lukanow, Rechtsanwalt, Euskirchen,
Sociedade Comercial, whose registered office is in Avenida          with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
de Olivença, Montijo, Portugal, represented by Dr Joaquim           of Dupong & Associés, 14a , Rue des Bains .
Marques de Ascensâo, of the Lisbon Bar, whose Chambers
are in Av. Eng. Duarte Pacheco — Amoreiras, Torre 2 ,               The applicant claims that the Court should :
 1 0-S 1,1000 Lisbon, with an address for service at the Uniâo
de Bancos Portugueses SA, c/o Sr Alberto de Sousa, 12, rue          order the defendants to pay to the applicant compensation
de la Grève, 1643 Luxembourg.                                       for the period of five milk years from 1 April 1988 in the
                                                                    amount of DM 58 937,01 , together with 8% interest
                                                                    thereon from 17 December 1983 .
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
annul in part the Decision of the Commission relating to file       The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
No 870708/P1 , notified on 28 December 1994 .                       Case T-20/94 .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant, a Portuguese commercial company, which
had organized and conducted, on the basis of a project              Action brought on 6 March 1995 by NMB France Sàrl,
                                                                    NMB-Minebea-GmbH, NMB (UK) Ltd and NMB Italia Sri
submitted in 1986 , a professional training programme,
                                                                       against the Commission of the European Communities
challenges the Commission's refusal to declare eligible for
the purposes of the European Social Fund certain                                             ( Case T-78/95 )
expenditure relating to that programme .                                                        95/C 119/53
It points out that, by Decision of 27 June 1989 , the                               (Language of the case: English)
defendant institution had already held to be ineligible part
of the amount designated for financing the programme and            An action against the Commission of the European
that that Decision was annulled by judgment of the Court of         Communities was brought before the Court of First
Justice of 7 May 1991 in Case C-304/89 .                            Instance of the European Communities on 6 March 1 995 by
                                                                   NMB France Sàrl, NMB-Minebea-GmbH, NMB (UK) Ltd
                                                                    and NMB Italia Sri, represented by Ian S. Forrester and
However, eight years after the submission of the project,          Aristotelis Kaplanidis, with an address for service in
seven years after the execution of the training programme          Luxembourg at the Chambers of Maître Marc Loesch,
and four years after the judgment of the Court of Justice           8 Rue Goethe, 1011 Luxembourg.
annulling the Commission's Decision of 27 June 1989, the
Commission has now adopted a new Decision, even more
severe for the financial point of view, than that annulled by      The appliclants claim that the Court should:
the Court of Justice.                                               1 , annul Commission Decision 94/95 1 /EC in so far as it
                                                                         denies to the applicants partial refunds of anti-dumping
In so doing, the defendant has infringed the principle which             duties collected in 1992 on imports of ball bearings from
prohibits a reformatio in peius. Similarly, it has infringed the         Thailand, on the basis that the said anti-dumping duties
principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate           should be treated as a cost to be deducted in determining
expectation, and also the criterion of a 'reasonable                     export price, declaring Article 2 ( 8 ) ( b ) (ii ) of Regulation
period'.                                                                 (EEC ) No 2423/88 inapplicable under Article 184 of the
                                                                         EC Treaty to the extent necessary for the purpose;
                                                                   2 , take such further or other steps as justice may
                                                                         require;


title: Case C-350/15: Request a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Santa Maria Capua Vetere (Italy) of 10 July 2015 — Criminal proceedings against Luciano Baldetti

text:
               21.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/34

         Request a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Santa Maria Capua Vetere (Italy) of 10 July 2015 — Criminal proceedings against Luciano Baldetti
   (Case C-350/15)
   (2015/C 311/39)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Santa Maria Capua Vetere

      Party to the main proceedings

   Luciano Baldetti

      Question referred for a preliminary ruling

   On a proper construction of Article 4 of [Protocol No 7 to the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms] and Article 50 [of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union], is the provision made under Article 10b of Legislative Decree No 74/00 consistent with Community law, in so far as it permits the criminal liability of a person to whom a final assessment by the tax authorities of the State has already been issued imposing an administrative penalty in the sum of 30 % of the unpaid amount to be assessed in respect of the same act or omission (non-payment of VAT)?