title: Case T-352/06: Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2012 — Dura Vermeer Infra v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Netherlands market in road pavement bitumen — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Imputability of the unlawful conduct — Rights of the defence)

text:
               17.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2012 — Dura Vermeer Infra v Commission
   (Case T-352/06) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Netherlands market in road pavement bitumen - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Imputability of the unlawful conduct - Rights of the defence)
   2012/C 355/28
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Dura Vermeer Infra BV (Hoofddorp, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Slotboom, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by A. Bouquet and A. Nijenhuis, Agents, and by F. Wijckmans, F. Tuytschaever and L. Gyselen, lawyers, and subsequently by A. Bouquet, A. Nijenhuis and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, Agents, and by F. Wijckmans and F. Tuytschaever)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 4090 final of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.456 — Bitumen (Netherlands)), in so far as it concerns the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Dura Vermeer Infra BV to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 20, 27.1.2007.


title: Case T-231/99: Action brought on 12 October 1999 by Colin Joynson against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
8.1.2000              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 6/29
The Commission states, as sole reason for the rate of return it          — annul the decisions appointing two other persons to the
regards as usual in the market on the part of the Wfa assets                 posts of Head of the English Language Division and Legal
which is economically usable for the applicant, that in its                  Adviser;
Crédit Lyonnais decision of 1995 it likewise regarded a return
of 12 % after tax as reasonable. The Crédit Lyonnais decision            — order the Council to pay the costs.
is not applicable to the present case, however, because Crédit
Lyonnais was a case of restructuring.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
The Commission confuses return on equity from the point of
view of the undertaking with return on investment from the
point of view of the capital investor, and wrongly assumes               The applicant contests the appointing authority’s refusal to
that expectations as to returns are in principle to be understood        accept his applications for two grade LA 3 posts.
as net return.
                                                                         In support of his claims, he pleads infringement of:
The rate of return of 12 % after tax for capital investments
used by the Commission is not tenable. The Commission has
confused pre-tax and after-tax figures.                                  — Articles 29 and 45 of the Staff Regulations;
The transfer of Wfa to Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale              — the promotions procedure;
does not have any special features which could justify an
additional 1.5 % on top of the 12 % after tax.                           — the principles of equal treatment and career progression.
The Commission wrongly assumes that the applicant also has               Lastly, the applicant pleads misuse of powers in the present
to pay a consideration for the part of the Wfa assets which is           case.
not usable for it.
Finally, the Commission wrongly fails to take account of the
synergy effects created by the merger of the two credit
institutions in calculating the amount of the consideration to
be paid.
                                                                         Action brought on 12 October 1999 by Colin Joynson
                                                                           against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-231/99)
Action brought on 13 October 1999 by Hans Mc Auley
         against the Council of the European Union
                                                                                (2000/C 6/53)
                        (Case T-230/99)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                          (2000/C 6/52)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                   (Language of the case: French)                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 12 October 1999 by Colin Joyn-
                                                                         son, represented by Beeket Bedford, of the Middle Temple
An action against the Council of the European Union was                  and by Messrs Ferdinand Kelly, Solicitors, 21 Bennetts Hill,
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European               Birmingham, B2 5QP, United Kingdom.
Communities on 13 October 1999 by Hans Mc Auley, residing
at Wezembeek-Oppem (Belgium), represented by Jean-Noël
Louis, Greta-Françoise Parmentier and Véronique Peere, of the            The applicant claims that the Court should:
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange.                    — annul the decision of the Commission in Case
                                                                             IV/36.081/F3 — Bass dated 16 June 1999;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         — declare that the Commission is required under Article 233
— annul the Council’s decisions rejecting his applications for               of the Treaty establishing the European Community to
    the grade LA 3 posts of Head of the English Language                     take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment
    Division and Legal Adviser in that division;                             to be delivered;
 ---pagebreak--- C 6/30                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      8.1.2000
— order the Commission to pay the costs of this application.            Action brought on 12 October 1999 by Land Nordrhein-
                                                                        Westfalen against the Commission of the European Com-
                                                                                munities
                                                                                (Case T-233/99)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (2000/C 6/54)
The applicant states that on 3 February 1998, pursuant to
Article 19(3) of Regulation No 17/62 the Commission gave                                  (Language of the case: German)
notice (1) that it intended to take a favourable position in
respect of certain agreements notified to it by Bass, by granting
retroactive exemption pursuant to Article 81(3) EC. The                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
agreements in question were a standard form of lease, the               ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
subject of which is a fully fitted-out, on-licensed public house        European Communities on 12 October 1999 by Land Nor-
in England and Wales with a tie for beer, together with certain         drhein-Westfalen, represented by Dr Michael Schütte, of
related agreements, and the standard agreements for Scotland.           Bruckhaus Westrick Heller Löber, Berlin, with an address for
Before taking a final decision on this matter, the Commission           service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Bonn & Schmitt,
invited all interested parties to submit their observations.            7 Val Ste Croix.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
On 31 March 1999, the applicant submitted observations
together with an expert’s report to the Commission. In those            1. Annul Commission Decision C(1999) 2265 fin. of 8 July
observations objection was made to the proposal to grant Bass                1999;
an exemption.
                                                                        2. Order the Commission to pay the costs.
On 16 June 1999, the Commission took a Decision relating to
a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC (Case IV/36.081/F3 —             Pleas in law and main arguments
Bass) (the contested decision) (2). In its decision the Com-
mission, overriding the objections made in the said obser-
vations, it granted Bass retroactive exemption in respect               The subject-matter of the application is Commission Decision
the notified agreements with effect from 1 March 1991 to                C(1999) 2265 fin. (‘the Decision’) of 8 July 1999 concerning
31 December 2002.                                                       a measure taken by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour
                                                                        of Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale (‘WestLB’), notified
                                                                        to the Federal Republic of Germany on 4 August 1999 by
                                                                        letter of the Commission SG (99) D/6112 of 4 August 1999.
The applicant seeks relief from the Court of First Instance on
the grounds that in granting exemption to the notified                  The acting Commission had no jurisdiction to make the
agreements the Commission:
                                                                        Decision, since because of its extent and importance it was
                                                                        not current business of the Commission, nor would the
                                                                        non-adoption of the Decision have run counter to the interests
(a) failed properly to evaluate the facts and law which establish       of the Community or of individuals.
    that the notified agreements do not fulfil the conditions
    set out in Article 81(3);
                                                                        The Commission was irregularly composed as a result of the
                                                                        ’suspension’ of acting Commissioner Bangemann.
(b) failed to give adequate reasons for its decision that
    the notified agreements fulfil the conditions set out in
                                                                        The Commission omitted to make available to the applicant
    Article 81(3).                                                      essential documents which were material to the defence, in
                                                                        particular a report by consultants First Consulting, and thereby
                                                                        restricted the applicant’s ability to defend itself.
(1) OJ 1999 C 36, p. 5.
(2) OJ 1999 L 186, p. 1.                                                The facts were stated incompletely and manifestly incorrectly
                                                                        on essential points, such as the structure of WestLB’s business
                                                                        activity and its performance of public duties. WestLB is not a
                                                                        ’restructuring’ case but a profitably operating undertaking. For
                                                                        that reason the Commission wrongly applied to WestLB the
                                                                        criteria of assessment developed for capital injections in
                                                                        undertakings in economic difficulties.


title: Case T-12/04: Actionbrought on 9 January 2004 by ‘Almdudler-Limonade’ A. & S. Klein against the Office for Harmonisationin the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/66

         Action brought on 9 January 2004 by ‘Almdudler-Limonade’ A. & S. Klein against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case T-12/04)
   (2004/C 106/136)
   Language of the case: German
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 9 January 2004 by ‘Almdudler-Limonade’ A. & S. Klein, of Vienna, represented by G. Schönherr, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               give a decision in the case and amend Decision R 490/2003-2 of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 5 November 2003 so that its Community trade mark application No 2 193 753 is allowed;

               —

               alternatively, set aside Decision R 490/2003-2 of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 5 November 2003 and remit the case to the Office for a fresh hearing and decision;

               —

               order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the applicant's representative within 14 days the costs of these proceedings and those before the Board of Appeal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               Community trade mark sought:

               Three-dimensional mark in the shape of a lemonade bottle – Application No 2 193 753

               Goods or services:

               Goods in Class 32 (herbal lemonade)

               Decision challenged before the Board of Appeal:

               Registration rejected by the examiner

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Appeal dismissed

               Pleas in law:

                           —

                           The mark applied for displays more than the required minimum distinctiveness.

                           —

                           The relevant consumers are capable of distinguishing goods using this shape of packaging from goods of other commercial origin.

                           —

                           The distinctiveness is even greater if the contents of the bottle are taken into account.


title: Case T-70/01: Action brought on 26 March 2001 by Pier V. Amione against the Court of Justice of the European Communities

text:
19.5.2001               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 150/33
Action brought on 20 March 2001 by Imperial Chemical                      ICI claims that the Commission has now retaken the 1990
Industries plc against the Commission of the European                     Article 86 decision, albeit with a number of additions and
                           Communities                                    amendments to the text, and re-imposed the original fine of
                                                                          EUR 10 million. It further claims that no new administrative
                                                                          proceedings were initiated in relation to the decision. The
                          (Case T-66/01)
                                                                          Commission apparently chose to rely on the administrative
                                                                          proceedings which preceded the 1990 Article 85 and
                         (2001/C 150/64)                                  Article 86 decisions.
                                                                          In support of its claims, the applicant submits that:
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                          —      the fine in question has been imposed after the expiry of
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                        the time-limits laid down by Regulation No 2988/74 (3);
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 20 March 2001 by Imperial                         —      the Commission has violated the fundamental right to
Chemical Industries plc, represented by David Vaughan QC,                        proceedings within a reasonable time because of the
David Anderson QC, Sarah Lee, Shirley Turner, Sarah Berwick                      passage of time since the matters complained of and the
and Richard Coles                                                                commencement of the Commission’s investigation;
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               —      the defendant has disregarded the non bis in idem
                                                                                principle;
—      annul the Commission Decision dated 13 December
       2000 in Case No COMP/33.133-D: Soda Ash — ICI;                     —      there should have been a fresh administrative procedure
                                                                                and the failure to conduct one has resulted in infringe-
—      cancel or reduce the fine imposed on ICI by Article 2 of                  ment of essential procedural requirements; and
       the decision;
                                                                          —      the Commission incorrectly assessed the facts, as regards
—      order the Commission to pay ICI’s costs.                                  the applicant’s dominance and abuse, as well as the
                                                                                question relating to effect on trade between Member
                                                                                States.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          (1) Cases T-36/91 and T-37/91 ICI v Commission [1995] ECR
                                                                              II-1847, 1905.
The contested decision in the present case is based upon a
                                                                          (2) Case C-286/95 P Commission v ICI [2000] ECR I — 2341.
finding by the Commission that from about 1983 ‘at least up               (3) Regulation (EEC) No 2988/74 of the Council of 26 November
to the end of 1989’:                                                          1974 concerning limitation periods in proceedings and the
                                                                              enforcement of sanctions under the rules of the European
—      The applicant (ICI) held a dominant position in the                    Economic Community relating to transport and competition (OL
       market for soda ash in the United Kingdom;                             L 319 of 29.11.1974, p. 1).
—      ICI abused that dominant position by applying to its
       major customers a system of loyalty rebates, discounts by
       reference to marginal tonnage (top slice rebates), and
       contractual arrangements tending to ensure an effective
       exclusivity of supply for ICI, and other devices which had
       the object and effect of tying such customers to ICI and
       of excluding competitors; and
                                                                          Action brought on 26 March 2001 by Pier V. Amione
                                                                          against the Court of Justice of the European Communities
—      ICI’s conduct had an appreciable effect on trade between
       Member States.
                                                                                (Case T-70/01)
According to ICI, this decision is a retaking ten years on of an
annulled Commission decision first taken in 1990 against ICI                                        (2001/C 150/65)
itself under Article 86 of the EC Treaty (now Article 82 EC) in
relation to alleged infringements in the soda ash market. Also
in 1990 the Commission took a decision against ICI under                                      (Language of the case: Italian)
Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC) in relation to
alleged infringements of that article in the same market. Both
decisions were annulled in their entirety on 29 June 1995 (1).            An action against the Court of Justice of the European
The appeal lodged by the Commission, relating to Case                     Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
T-37/91, was dismissed by the Court of Justice (2). The                   of the European Communities on 26 March 2001 by Pier
judgment in Case T-36/91 was never appealed.                              V. Amione, represented by Riccardo Ventura, avvocato.
 ---pagebreak--- C 150/34               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       19.5.2001
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               —     that the Joint Committee took its decision without first
                                                                                hearing the applicant himself; and
—     annul the decision of the Registrar of the Court of Justice         —     that the defendant applied particularly strictly a provision,
      of the EC of 22 May 2000 although only to the extent                      Article 40 of the Staff Regulations, which allows the
      that by that decision the applicant was dismissed with                    appointing authority the possibility, without imposing an
      effect from 1 June 2000 but not that the applicant was                    obligation, of dismissal after two refusals of reinstate-
      not reinstated on 16 July 2000;                                           ment.
—     grant fair compensation, in an amount to be decided by
      the Court of First Instance itself on grounds of equity;
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                          Action brought on 23 March 2001 by Norman Pyres
                                                                              against Commission of the European Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Case T-72/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 150/66)
The present action is directed against the decision of the
appointing authority to deem terminated the employment
relationship between the applicant, a lawyer-linguist at the
Court of Justice, and that institution, a decision based on the                              (Language of the case: French)
fact that the applicant did not return to work after a period of
unpaid leave on personal grounds.
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 23 March 2001 by Norman Pyres
                                                                          of Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure
The applicant states in that respect that his unpaid leave                Levi, Avocats.
commenced on 1 June 1992. That leave was renewed on three
occasions and expired on 31 May 1995. Pursuant to Article 40
of the Staff Regulations he was offered reinstatement in the              The applicant claims that the Court should:
Court for 1 January 1999. The offer, dated 19 November
1998, did not come to the applicant’s notice until 23 Novem-
ber 1998. It therefore provided, in the applicant’s view, an              —     annul the decision of the Selection Board in competition
excessively short period in which to give a positive reply, and                 COM/TA/99 of 31 May 2000 excluding the applicant
so that offer was not accepted. However, the applicant put to                   from the oral tests in the competition;
the personnel division 16 July 1999 as a possible date for
reinstatement, provided the relevant offer was made to him
within a reasonable period (‘délai raisonnable’). His suggestion          —     annul all subsequent operations and acts in the compe-
was adopted, but by letter which did not reach him until May                    tition;
1999 and so the applicant suggested a reinstatement date of
July 2000.
                                                                          —     so far as necessary, annul the decision of the AHCC of
                                                                                15 December 2000 dismissing the applicant’s complaint;
In support of his arguments, the applicant claims:                        —     order the defendant to pay one Euro in compensation for
                                                                                the harm suffered by the applicant;
—     breach of the ‘délai raisonnable’ criterion by the defendant;       —     order the defendant to pay the costs.


C 34/28                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                 5.2.2000
In support of their claims, the applicants allege:                              Removal from the register of Case T-307/97 (1)
— breach of the Staff Regulations, in particular Articles 9                                      (2000/C 34/53)
    and 24a, and Annex II concerning the composition and
    procedure of the bodies provided for in Article 9 of the
    Staff Regulations;                                                                     (Language of the case: English)
— breach of the rules of procedure for Staff Committee                   By order of 10 November 1999, the President of the Fourth
    elections, adopted by the General Assembly of officials on           Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
    19 January 1999;                                                     Communities has ordered the removal from the register
                                                                         of Case T-307/97, B.G.S. Rowlands and E.H.S. Rowlands v
                                                                         Council of the European Union and Commission of the
— breach of the rules concerning the establishment of a Staff            European Communities.
    Committee, adopted by the Commission on 9 April 1968
    and last amended on 22 October 1997;
                                                                         (1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.
— breach of general principles of law, such as the principle
    that all administrative acts or decisions must be based on
    sound and relevant grounds, not vitiated by errors in fact
    or law;
— conduct ultra vires.                                                          Removal from the register of Case T-308/97 (1)
The applicants maintain that the Commission, principally                                         (2000/C 34/54)
through the Director-General of DG IX, decided, in breach of
the above rules and principles, to implement the procedure for
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
renewal of the Brussels Staff Committee, on the view that the
elections of 9, 10 and 11 March 1999, annulled by decision
apparently dated 29 September 1999, could be resumed even                By order of 10 November 1999, the President of the Fourth
though the election results had been annulled. This was done             Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
in the belief that it was unnecessary — quod non — to hold a             Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
General Assembly of officials, not only to establish a new               Case T-308/97, J. Ward, B. Ward and Miss M. Lewis v Council
electoral office but also to fix the date for the new ballot.            of the European Union and Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 12 December 1996 in Case T-132/95: Peter Gammeltoft v. Commission of the European Communities (Members of the temporary staff - Former national expert on secondment - Former member of the auxiliary staff - Installation allowance - Reimbursement of removal expenses)

text:
 22 . 2 . 97    •     HEN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 54/ 19
 to appoint him as a member of the Commission 's                             his removal expenses as provided for by Article 9 (1 )
 temporary staff, and for reparation of the damage suffered                  of that Annex.
 as a result of that decision — the Court of First Instance
 ( Second Chamber ), composed of H. Kirschner, President,               3 . Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
 C. W. Bellamy and A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges; B. Pastor,
 Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment            (') OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
 on 12 December 1996 , in which it:
 1.   Annuls the Commission 's decision not to recruit the
      applicant to a post on the temporary staff of the
      Community under Article 8.5 of the JET Statutes,
      communicated to him by letter of the Director of JET                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 12 December 1996
      dated 13 June 1994, and the Commission 's decision of
      28 December 1994 rejecting the applicant 's complaint            in Case T-137/95 : Paolo Mozzaglia v. Commission of the
      against the decision first mentioned.                                               European Communities (')
                                                                        (Officials — Former national expert on secondment —
 2 . Dismisses the remainder of the application.
                                                                       Daily subsistence allowance — Installation allowance —
                                                                       Place of recruitment — Reimbursement of travel expenses
 3 . Orders the defendant to bear its own costs and to pay
                                                                                on taking up an appointment)
      those of the applicant.
                                                                                ( 97/C 54/30 )
 (') OJ No C 286 , 28 . 10 . 1995 .
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                       In Case T-137/95 : Paolo Mozzaglia, an official of the
                                                                       Commission of the European Communities, residing in
                                                                       Brussels, represented by Giuseppe Marchesini , advocate
                                                                       with a right of audience before the Italian Court of
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             Cassation, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                      of 12 December 1996                              the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8— 10 rue Mathias Hardt,
in Case T-132/95 : Peter Gammeltoft v. Commission of the               v. Commission of the European Communities ( Agents :
                    European Communities (')                          Julian Currall , Ana Maria Alves Vieira and Alberto Dal
                                                                       Ferro and, in the oral procedure , Denis Waelbroeck ) —
 (Members of the temporary staff — Former national                     application for annulment of the decision of the
expert on secondment — Former member of the auxiliary                  Commission of 1 September 1994 refusing to grant the
staff — Installation          allowance — Reimbursement of
                                                                       applicant the installation allowance , to reimburse his
                        removal expenses)                              travel expenses on his taking up his appointment and to
                             ( 97/C 54/29 )                            pay the daily subsistence allowance — the Court of First
                                                                       Instance ( Second Chamber ), composed of: H. Kirschner,
                  (Language of the case: French)                       President, and C. W. Bellamy and A. Kalogeropoulos,
                                                                      Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the
In Case T-132/95 : Peter Gammeltoft, a member of the                   Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 December 1996, in
temporary staff of the Commission of the European                     which it :
Communities, residing in Brussels, represented by Jean
Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the                1 . Annuls the Commission 's decision of 1 September
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                  1994, inasmuch as it refuses to grant the applicant the
the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 1 rue Glesener, v.                   installation allowance provided for by the first
Commission of the European Communities ( Agents: Julian                     subparagraph of Article 5 (1 ) of Annex VII to the
Currall and Denis Waelbroeck ) — application, in                            Staff Regulations, to reimburse his travel expenses on
particular, for annulment of the decision of the                            his taking up his appointment, as provided for by
Commission of 15 September 1994 refusing to grant the                       Article 7 (1 ) (a) of that Annex, and to pay the daily
applicant the installation allowance and to reimburse his                   subsistence allowance provided for by Article 10 ( 1 )
removal expenses — the Court of First Instance ( Second                     thereof.
Chamber ), composed of: H. Kirschner, President, and
C. W. Bellamy and A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges; B. Pastor,               2 . Orders the Commission to pay the applicant the
                                                                            installation allowance, the travel expenses incurred on
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 12 December 1996, in which it :                                 his taking up his appointment and the daily
                                                                            subsistence allowance, together with interest at 8%
1 . Dismisses the action as inadmissible, inasmuch as it
                                                                            per annum from the dates when those sums became
                                                                            respectively payable, in accordance with Annex VII to
     seeks payment of the daily subsistence allowance and
                                                                            the Staff Regulations.
     reimbursement of travel costs.
                                                                      3 . Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
2 . Annuls the Commission 's decision of IS September
     1994 inasmuch as it refuses to grant the applicant the           (') OJ No C 229 , 2 . 9 . 1995 .
     installation allowance provided for by Article 5 (1 ) of
     Annex VII to the Staff Regulations and to reimburse


title: Case C-508/03: Action brought on 1 December 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

text:
C 47/16                EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                        21.2.2004
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Action brought on 1 December 2003 by the Commission
                                                                         of the European Communities against the United
                                                                               Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
1.    annul the decision of the Commission to set payment of
      the balance of the Community subsidy for carrying out
      the NELS Eurofix study (EU/D/99/170), granted under
      Commission Decision C(1999) 1834 final/5 of 2 July                                         (Case C-508/03)
      1999, at EUR 80 450,71 in so far as it declares the
      expenditure connected with the IPR contract between
      NODECA NELS CAO and GAUSS Research Foundation
      (NODECA/2000/040) not eligible for subsidy;                                                 (2004/C 47/27)
2.    order the Commission to pay the costs of the case.
                                                                         An action against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
                                                                         Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         the European Communities on 1 December 2003 by the
                                                                         Commission of the European Communities, represented by
                                                                         X. Lewis and F. Simonetti, acting as agents, with an address for
1. As the first ground for its action, the applicant alleges             service in Luxembourg.
substantive breach of secondary Community law and general
principles of law. The decision not to recognise the acquisition
of Eurofix as expenditure qualifying for subsidy and to fix the
amount of the balance of the aid at a correspondingly lower              The Applicant claims that the Court should:
figure is not only in breach of Council Regulation (EC)
No 2236/95 of 18 September 1995 laying down general rules
for the granting of Community financial aid in the field of              1)   declare that by failing to apply correctly Articles 2(1) and
trans-European networks (1) in conjunction with Commission                    4(2) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985
Decision C(1999) 1834 final/5 of 2 July 1999 on the grant of                  on the assessment of the effects of certain public and
a Community subsidy of up to EUR 0,7 million for study                        private projects on the environment (1) in relation to the
No EU/D/99/170. By its decision the Commission has also                       proposed urban development project at White City as a
clearly erred in its assessment and at the same time has                      project listed in Annex II, paragraph 10 (b) of the
thwarted the applicant’s legitimate expectation that Com-                     Directive, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
mission legal measures will continue to apply, has infringed                  Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under
the principle of legal certainty and has not acted in accordance              that Directive;
with the principle of proper administration.
                                                                         2)   declare that by failing to apply correctly Articles 2(1) and
2. As the second ground for its action, the applicant points                  4(2) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985
to formal breaches of Community law, since no clear basis for                 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and
the contested decision can be seen, even on an overview of the                private projects on the environment in relation to the
events, which is capable of justifying the decision. If, by its               proposed urban development project at Crystal Palace as
decision, the Commission intended a change to the eligible                    a project listed in Annex II, paragraph 10 (b) of the
expenses underlying the approval, the contested decision                      Directive, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
would moreover be formally unlawful, because it should not                    Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under
have been taken by way of delegation. The applicant raises this               that Directive;
as the third ground for its action.
                                                                         3)   declare that by failing to ensure the correct application of
                                                                              Articles 2(1), 4(2), 5(2) and 8 of Council Directive 85/
3. The fourth ground for the action concerns the breach of                    337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects
the principle of cooperation in good faith between the                        of certain public and private projects on the environment
Commission and Member States in accordance with Article 10                    as amended by Directive 97/11/EC (2) when development
EC.                                                                           consent is granted for projects in a multi-stage consent
                                                                              procedure, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
                                                                              Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                              that Directive;
(1) OJ 1995 L 228 p. 1.
                                                                         4)   order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
                                                                              Ireland to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 21.2.2004               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                               C 47/17
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            Even if an environmental impact assessment is carried out at
                                                                           the outline planning stage, it may be inadequate because it is
                                                                           based on the information provided in the outline planning
                                                                           application which may be insufficient to evaluate the effects of
                                                                           the development as a whole on the environment. Thus, the
The White City Development                                                 impact assessment will be carried out on an incomplete basis.
                                                                           (1) OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40.
The Commission submits that the competent authority could                  (2) OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5.
not reasonably have reached the conclusion that an impact
assessment was unnecessary when it based such a conclusion
principally or solely on the fact that the land in question had
been previously developed. That criterion for excluding the
need of an impact assessment is an innovation of Government
Circular 15/68. Directive 85/337/EEC contains no such test
and it is submitted that, by relying on a ground for excluding an
impact assessment which is not found in the aforementioned
                                                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechthof
Directive, the United Kingdom has failed to apply Articles 2(1)
                                                                           Herzogenbusch by order of that Court of 4 December
and 4(2) of that Directive correctly in the case of the proposed
                                                                           2003 in the case of J.E.J. Blanckaert against Inspecteur van
urban development project at White City.
                                                                           de Belastingdienst/Particulieren/Ondernemingen Buiten-
                                                                                land te Heerlen
                                                                                (Case C-512/03)
The Crystal Palace Development
                                                                                (2004/C 47/28)
The Commission maintains that, by not requiring an impact
assessment for the Crystal Palace development, the United
Kingdom has exceeded its margin of discretion under Directive              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
85/377/EEC. The Commission submits that the margin of                      European Communities by order of the Gerechthof Herzogen-
discretion afforded a Member State under Article 4(2) of the               busch of 4 December 2003, received at the Court Registry on
Directive is not unlimited. The limits of that discretion are              8 December 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
circumscribed by Article 2(1) of the Directive — i.e. an impact            J.E.J. Blanckaert against Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/
assessment is required where a project, by virtue of its size,             Particulieren/Ondernemingen Buitenland te Heerlen on the
nature or location, is likely to have significant environmental            following questions:
effects. The Commission submits that, according to those
criteria, the project is likely to have such effects.                      1.     Is a foreign taxpayer, who is a resident of a Member State
                                                                                and does not receive any income from employment in
                                                                                the Netherlands, but only from savings and investments,
                                                                                and who is therefore not obliged to pay, and does not
                                                                                pay, any social security contributions to the Netherlands
Multi-stage procedure governing applications for planning                         national insurance schemes, entitled under EC law to
permission                                                                        Netherlands tax credits for national insurance schemes
                                                                                (general old-age insurance, general insurance for depend-
                                                                                ants and general insurance against special medical
                                                                                expenses) in the calculation of his taxable income from
The Commission does not question the legality of dividing the                     savings and investments, in the case where resident
planning process into two stages per se, but submits that the                     taxpayers are entitled to those tax credits in the calculation
manner in which planning authorisation is actually divided                        of their taxable income from savings and investments
into two stages in the United Kingdom leads to results which                      because they are regarded as insured and as obliged to
are incompatible with Directive 85/337/EEC.                                       pay social security contributions to the Netherlands
                                                                                national insurance schemes, even if they do not receive
                                                                                any income in the Netherlands from employment, but
A large urban development project may escape assessment at                        only from savings and investments, and for that reason
the outline planning stage and no impact assessment is                            do not pay any social security contributions in the
possible (under English law) at the second, reserved matters                      Netherlands either?
stage. Consequently, a large urban development project which
is likely to have significant effects on the environment is not            2.     In answering the first question, is it relevant that the
considered as a whole but in separate parts. The practical result                 foreign taxpayer in question earns in excess of or less
is that the likely effects on the environment are not considered                  than 90 % of his family income in the Netherlands? In
in the light of the project as a whole.                                           particular:


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 March 2003 in Case C-211/02: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to transpose Directive 97/66/EC within the prescribed periods)

text:
C 101/10                 EN                            Official Journal of the European Union                                                26.4.2003
the consequences of such non-registration do not adversely affect in                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
any other way the protection which that directive confers on
commercial agents in their relations with their principals.
                                                                                (Fourth Chamber)
( 1) OJ C 44 of 16.2.2002.
                                                                                of 6 March 2003
                                                                               in Case C-211/02: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg ( 1)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                               (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to
                           (Third Chamber)                                     transpose Directive 97/66/EC within the prescribed periods)
                            of 6 March 2003
                                                                                (2003/C 101/18)
in Case C-6/02: Commission of the European Communi-
                      ties v French Republic ( 1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Free
movement of goods — Measures having equivalent effect —
          Indication of provenance — Regional labels)                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                            (2003/C 101/17)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                               In Case C-211/02, Commission of the European Communities
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published         (Agent: C. Schmidt) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agent:
                    in the European Court Reports)                             N. Mackel): Application for a declaration that, by failing to
                                                                               adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
                                                                               necessary to comply with Directive 97/66/EC of the European
                                                                               Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 concern-
In Case C-6/02, Commission of the European Communities                         ing the processing of personal data and the protection of
(Agents: H. van Lier and J. Adda) v French Republic (Agents:                   privacy in the telecommunications sector (OJ 1998 L 24, p. 1),
G. de Bergues and A. Colomb): Application for a declaration                    the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
that, by maintaining the national legal protection afforded to                 obligations under that directive, the Court (Fourth Chamber),
the name ‘Salaisons d’Auvergne’ and to the regional labels                     composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber,
‘Savoie’, ‘Franche-Comté’, ‘Corse’, ‘Midi-Pyrénées’, ‘Normandie’,              D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur) and A. La Pergola, Judges;
‘Nord-Pas-de-Calais’, ‘Ardennes de France’, ‘Limousin’, ‘Langue-               S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
doc-Roussillon’ and ‘Lorraine’, the French Republic has failed                 judgment on 6 March 2003, in which it:
to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC, the Court (Third
Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the
Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur) and F. Macken, Judges;
J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a                  1.    Declares that, by failing, within the prescribed periods, to adopt
judgment on 6 March 2003, in which it:                                               the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
                                                                                comply with Directive 97/66/EC of the European Parliament
                                                                                and of the Council of 15 December 1997 concerning the
1.    Declares that, by maintaining the national legal protection                    processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the
      afforded to the name ‘Salaisons d’Auvergne’ and to the regional                telecommunications sector, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
      labels ‘Savoie’, ‘Franche-Comté’, ‘Corse’, ‘Midi-Pyrénées’, ‘Nor-              has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
      mandie’, ‘Nord-Pas-de-Calais’, ‘Ardennes de France’, ‘Limou-
      sin’, ‘Languedoc-Roussillon’ and ‘Lorraine’, the French Republic
      has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC;                2.    Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                               (1 ) OJ C 180 of 27.7.2002.
( 1) OJ C 56 of 2.3.2002.


title: Case C-250/01 P: Appeal brought on 2 July 2001 by Mario Costacurta against the order delivered on 7 June 2001 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-202/00 between Mr Costacurta and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
1.9.2001              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 245/9
Question 1:                                                            The appellant claims that the Court should:
Is Article 1(3) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 Decem-           —     find the present appeal admissible;
ber 1989 (1) on the coordination of the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions relating to the application of review
procedures to the award of public supply and public works              —     find the appeal well founded as to the substance;
contracts to be interpreted as meaning that any person seeking
the award of a specific pending public contract is entitled to
institute a review procedure?                                          —     order, if the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice
                                                                             allow it, the present appeal to be joined to the appeal
                                                                             against the order of the Court of First Instance (Second
                                                                             Chamber) of 7 June 2001 in Case T-328/00 concerning
                                                                             the same dispute and lodged this day;
Question 2:
                                                                       —     set aside the order delivered by the Court of First Instance
                                                                             (Second Chamber) of 7 June 2001 in Case T-202/00
In the event that the answer given to Question 1 is no:
                                                                             Costacurta v Commission;
Is the abovementioned provision to be understood as meaning            —     make a decision as to how Case T-202/00 Costacurta v
that, if a tenderer’s bid is not eliminated by the contracting               Commission is to proceed in accordance with Article 54
authority, but the review body finds in the course of the review             of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice;
procedure that the contracting authority would have been
bound to eliminate it, the tenderer has been or risks being
harmed by the infringement alleged by him — in this case the           —     order the Commission of the European Communities
finding by the contracting authority that a rival tenderer                   already to pay the costs of the interlocutory proceedings
submitted the best bid — and that he must therefore have the                 and of the present appeal;
right to bring a review procedure?
                                                                       —     reserve the costs as to the substance; find, none the less,
( 1) OJ L 395, p. 33.                                                        that Article 88, rather than Article 87(2), of the Rules of
                                                                             Procedure of the Court of First Instance are applicable;
                                                                       —     reserve to the appellant all other rights, dues, pleas and
                                                                             actions.
Appeal brought on 2 July 2001 by Mario Costacurta
against the order delivered on 7 June 2001 by the Second               Pleas and main arguments
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities in Case T-202/00 between Mr Costacurta
     and the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                       —     Lack of jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance and
                                                                             breach of Community law.
                       (Case C-250/01 P)
                                                                       —     Prejudice to the appellant’s interests, misuse of powers.
                        (2001/C 245/17)
                                                                       —     Error in law inasmuch as the Court of First Instance ruled
An appeal against the order delivered on 7 June 2001 by the                  that retirement meant that the appellant no longer had
Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                any right to seek annulment of the contested act: the
Communities in Case T-202/00 between Mr Costacurta and                       appellant claims the right to have his administrative
the Commission of the European Communities was brought                       status regularised a posteriori.
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
2 July 2001 by Mario Costacurta, represented by Mr Petit,
of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 14 June 2002 in Case T-173/01: Asahi Vet SA v Commission of the European Communities (Authorisation of an additive in animal feedingstuffs — No need to rule)

text:
C 233/22                 EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                       28.9.2002
                                                            COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 9 July 2002
                             of 9 July 2002
                                                                              in Case T-233/01: Daniel Caillebout v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
in Case T-70/01: Pier V. Aimone v Court of Justice of the                     (Officials — Promotion — Absence of definitive staff report
                    European Communities ( 1)                                            — Consideration of the comparative merits)
                                                                                (2002/C 233/41)
(Officials — Leave on personal grounds — Refusal to
reintegrate — Automatic dismissal — Articles 40(4)(d)                                             (Language of the case: French)
      and 49, second paragraph, of the Staff Regulations)
                                                                              In Case T-233/01: Daniel Caillebout, an official of the Com-
                                                                              mission of the European Communities, residing in Mondorf-
                            (2002/C 233/40)                                   les-Bains (Luxembourg), represented by J.-N. Louis and
                                                                              V. Peere, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
                                                                              against Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
                     (Language of the case: Italian)                          C. Berardis-Kayser) — application for annulment of the
                                                                              decision of the Commission of 14 August 2000 not to
                                                                              promote the applicant to Grade B 2 in the 2000 promotions
                                                                              procedure — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber),
                                                                              composed of M. Jaeger, President, K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi,
                                                                              Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a
                                                                              judgment on 9 July 2002, in which it:
In Case T-70/01: Pier V. Aimone, a former official at the Court
of Justice of the European Communities, residing in Fribourg                  1.     annuls the decision of the Commission of 14 August 2000 not
(Switzerland), represented by R. Ventura, lawyer, against Court                      to promote the applicant to Grade B 2 in the 2000 promotions
of Justice of the European Communities (Agents: M. Schauss                           procedure;
et A. Dal Ferro) — application for, first, annulment of the
decision of the Court of Justice of 22 May 2000 automatically                 2.     orders the Commission to pay the costs.
removing the official from his post with effect from 1 June
2000 and, secondly, compensation to make good the non-
material and psycho-physiological damage allegedly suffered                   (1 ) OJ C 331 of 24.11.2001.
as a result of that decision — the Court of First Instance (Fifth
Chamber) composed of J.D. Cooke, President, R. García-
Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges; J. Palacio González, Adminis-
trator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 9 July 2002, in
which it:
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 14 June 2002
1.     dismisses the application for annulment;
                                                                              in Case T-173/01: Asahi Vet SA v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
2.     dismisses the claim for compensation;
                                                                              (Authorisation of an additive in animal feedingstuffs — No
3.     orders the parties to bear their own costs.                                                         need to rule)
                                                                                (2002/C 233/42)
( 1) OJ C 150 of 19.5.2001.                                                                      (Language of the Case: German)
                                                                              In Case T-173/01: Asahi Vet SA, established in Barcelona
                                                                              (Spain), represented by C. Bittner, Lawyer, against Commission
 ---pagebreak--- 28.9.2002               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 233/23
of the European Communities (Agents: N. Niejahr, K. Fitch                   Action brought on 10 June 2002 by Malagutti-Vezinhet
and B. Wägenbaur) — application for partial annulment of                    SA against the Commission of the European Communities
Commission Regulation (EC) No 937/2001 of 11 May 2001
concerning the authorisation of new additive uses, new
additive preparations, the prolongation of provisional author-                                        (Case T-177/02)
isations and the ten year authorisation of an additive in
feedingstuffs (OJ 2001 L 130, p. 25) — the Court of First
                                                                                (2002/C 233/44)
Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras, President,
V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 14 June 2002, the operative part of which                                            (Language of the case: French)
provides as follows:
1.    There is no need to rule in the present action.
2.    Each party is to bear its own costs.                                  An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                            ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                            European Communities on 10 June 2002 by Malagutti-
( 1) OJ 2001 C 289 of 13.10.2001.                                           Vezinhet SA, established in Cavaillon (France), represented by
                                                                            Béatrice Favarel-Veidig, lawyer, with an address for service in
                                                                            Luxembourg.
                                                                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                            —     order the Commission to pay the following amounts to
                          of 19 June 2002                                         Malagutti-Vezinhet:
in Case T-197/01: Groupement d’intérêt de produits                                —     the sum of FRF 222 540,00 (EUR 33 926,00) as
agricoles de la Martinique (GIPAM) v Commission of the                                  compensation for loss incurred by that company;
                   European Communities ( 1)
                                                                                —     the sum of FRF 1 943 413,56 (EUR 296 271,48) as
(Actions for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 896/2001                                    compensation for loss of profits in the British
— Time-limit for commencing proceedings — Manifest                                      market; if the Court of First Instance considers the
                           inadmissibility)                                             claim for loss of profits to be insufficiently proven,
                                                                                it is requested to award the applicant the aforemen-
                          (2002/C 233/43)                                               tioned sum in respect of the loss of a chance to
                                                                                retain its previously established levels of business;
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                —     the sum of FRF 2 013 455,16 (EUR 306 949,26) as
                                                                                compensation for harm caused to the company’s
In Case T-197/01: Groupement d’intérêt de produits agricoles                            reputation with European and, in particular, British
de la Martinique (GIPAM), whose registered office is at Ducos                           distributors.
(France), represented by A. Lorang, P. Leroyer Gravet and
H. Mazingue, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg, against Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: A. Bordes and L. Visaggio) — application for annul-                Pleas in law and main arguments
ment of Council Regulation (EC) No 896/2001 of 7 May 2001
laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation
(EEC) No 404/93 as regards the arrangements for importing                   The applicant exports fruit and vegetables into, inter alia, the
bananas into the Community (OJ 2001 L 126, p. 6) — the                      English market. In September 2001, the Icelandic health
Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of                        authorities informed the Commission of the existence of
J.D. Cooke, President, and R. García-Valdecasas and P. Lindh,               pesticide residues in excess of the prescribed maximum level.
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 19 June 2002,
                                                                            On the basis of that information, the Commission sent a
in which it:                                                                notification, in the framework of the rapid alert system,
                                                                            concerning dicofol residues in apples from France via the
1.    dismisses the application as manifestly inadmissible;                 Netherlands. In a second notification, and subsequent notifi-
                                                                            cations, the applicant was expressly named as the exporter.
2.    orders the applicant to pay the costs.
( 1) OJ C 303 of 27.10.2001.                                                The applicant claims that, by taking that action, the Com-
                                                                            mission acted wrongfully, thereby causing the applicant to
                                                                            suffer damage.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 June 2000 in Case C-396/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof): Grundstückgemeinschaft Schloßstraße GbR v Finanzamt Paderborn (Turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax — Article 17 of the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC — Deduction of input tax — Deduction precluded by an amendment to national legislation removing the possibility of opting for taxation of the letting of immovable property)

text:
C 273/2                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          23.9.2000
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                                            (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 8 June 2000
                            of 8 June 2000
                                                                           in Case C-396/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
in Case C-375/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling                       the Bundesfinanzhof): Grundstückgemeinschaft Schloß-
from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo): Ministério                                  straße GbR v Finanzamt Paderborn (1)
    Público and Fazenda Pública v Epson Europe BV (1)
                                                                           (Turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax —
(Harmonisation of tax laws — Parent companies and                          Article 17 of the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC — Deduction
subsidiaries — Exemption, in the Member State of the                       of input tax — Deduction precluded by an amendment to
subsidiary, from withholding tax on profits distributed by                 national legislation removing the possibility of opting for
              the subsidiary to the parent company)                                 taxation of the letting of immovable property)
                           (2000/C 273/02)                                                             (2000/C 273/03)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: German)
                  (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                          in the European Court Reports)
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           In Case C-396/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
In Case C-375/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of              the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Bundesfinanzhof
                                                                           (Germany), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Supremo Tribunal
                                                                           before that court between Grundstückgemeinschaft Schloß-
Administrativo, Portugal, for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings pending before that court between Ministério                   straße GbR and Finanzamt Paderborn — on the interpretation
                                                                           of Article 17 of the Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of
Público, Fazenda Pública and Epson Europe BV — on the
                                                                           17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member
interpretation of Article 5(4) of Council Directive 90/435/EEC
of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable                States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value
                                                                           added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1)
in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different
                                                                           — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J. C. Moitinho de
Member States (OJ 1990 L 225, p. 6) — the Court (Fifth
Chamber), composed of: D. A. O. Edward, President of the                   Almeida (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, R Schintgen,
                                                                           G. Hirsch, V. Skouris and F. Macken, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo
Chamber, L. Sevón, P. J. G. Kapteyn, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and
M. Wathelet, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General; H. A. Rühl,              Colomer, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment           for the Registrar, has given a judgement on 8 June 2000 in
                                                                           which it has ruled:
on 8 June 2000, in which it has ruled:
                                                                           Article 17 of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May
Article 5(4) of Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on            1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States
the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent             relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax:
companies and subsidiaries of different Member States, in so far as it     uniform basis of assessment must be interpreted as meaning that a
limits to 15 % and 10 % the amount of the withholding tax on               taxable person’s right to deduct VAT paid in respect of goods or
profits distributed by subsidiaries established in Portugal to their       services supplied to him with a view to his carrying out certain letting
parent companies in other Member States, must be interpreted as            operations is retained where a legislative amendment post-dating the
meaning that that derogation relates not only to corporation tax but       supply of those goods or services but pre-dating the commencement
also to any taxation, of whatever nature or however described, which       of such operations deprives the taxable person concerned of the right
takes the form of a withholding tax on dividends distributed by such       to waive exemption thereof, even if the VAT was assessed subject to
subsidiaries.                                                              subsequent review.
(1) OJ C 378 of 5.12.1998.                                                 (1) OJ C 1 of 4.1.1999.


C 312/8               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                10.10.98
context of the selection of employees for dismissal on                     Removal from the register of Case C-359/96 (1)
social criteria if substantially more women than men are                                     (98/C 312/15)
employed part-time in a sector?
(1) OJ L 39, 14.2.1976, p. 40.                                       By order of 28 May 1998 the President of the Court of
                                                                     Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                     removal from the register of Case C-359/96 (reference for
                                                                     a preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
                                                                     Pavia): Criminal proceedings against Luigi Bazzan,
                                                                     Agostino Traverso and Adriano Calvini.
Action brought on 1 September 1998 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the French Republic              (1) OJ C 9, 11.1.1997.
                       (Case C-326/98)
                         (98/C 312/14)
An action against the French Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                        Removal from the register of Case C-335/96 (1)
1 September 1998 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Richard Wainwright,                                              (98/C 312/16)
Principal Legal Adviser, and Olivier Court-Castera, a
national civil servant on secondment to its Legal Service,
acting as Agents, with an address for service in                     By order of 9 June 1998 the President of the Court of
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,                 Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                            removal from the register of Case C-335/96: Commission
                                                                     of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                     (1) OJ C 388, 21.12.1996.
Ð declare that, by requiring the words cotisation seÂcuriteÂ
     sociale' (social security levy') to appear on the
     labelling of alcoholic beverages from other Member
     States, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
     obligations under Article 30 of the Treaty,
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case C-318/97 (1)
Ð order the French Republic to pay the costs.                                                (98/C 312/17)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                     By order of 15 June 1998 the President of the Court of
Under French law, a contribution to the national sickness            Justice of the European Communities (Fifth Chamber) has
insurance fund is levied on alcoholic beverages having an            ordered the removal from the register of Case C-318/97:
alcohol content in excess of 25 % by volume. The                     Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of
contribution is paid by wholesalers and by producers                 Spain.
selling such beverages direct to retailers or consumers, and
the words cotisation seÂcuriteÂ sociale' must appear in the         (1) OJ C 318, 18.10.1997.
form of a circle on the labelling of those beverages.
As regards products coming from other Member States,
the labelling obligation referred to above, failure to
comply with which may lead to a criminal prosecution,
constitutes a restriction on the free movement of goods                    Removal from the register of Case C-398/97 (1)
and thus falls, as a measure having equivalent effect,
within the scope of Article 30 of the Treaty.                                                (98/C 312/18)
A labelling obligation intended to inform consumers by
                                                                     By order of 17 June 1998 the President of the Court of
pointing out the risks of alcohol abuse and the total cost
                                                                     Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
borne by the social security system may be regarded as
                                                                     removal from the register of Case C-398/97: Commission
legitimate, provided however that the measure in question
                                                                     of the European Communities v. Italian Republic.
is appropriate to the achievement of that objective. In the
Commission's view, that criterion is not fulfilled by the
words cotisation seÂcuriteÂ sociale'.                               (1) OJ C 26, 24.1.1998.


title: Case T-451/13: Action brought on 14 August 2013 — Syngenta Crop Protection and Others v Commission

text:
               9.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 325/40

         Action brought on 14 August 2013 — Syngenta Crop Protection and Others v Commission
   (Case T-451/13)
   2013/C 325/68
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Syngenta Crop Protection AG (Basel, Switzerland); Syngenta Crop Protection (Brussels, Belgium); Syngenta Bulgaria (Sofia, Bulgaria); Syngenta Czech s.r.o. (Prague, Czech Republic); Syngenta Crop Protection A/S (Copenhagen, Denmark); Syngenta France SAS (Saint-Sauveur, France); Syngenta Agro GmbH (Maintal, Germany); Syngenta Hellas AEBE — Proïonta Fytoprostasias & Sporoi (Anthoussa Attica, Greece); Syngenta Növényvédelmi kft (Budapest, Hungary), Syngenta Crop Protection SpA (Milan, Italy); Syngenta Crop Protection BV (Roosendaal, Netherlands); Syngenta Polska sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland); Syngenta Agro Srl (Bucharest, Romania); Syngenta Slovakia s.r.o. (Bratislava, Slovakia); Syngenta Agro, SA (Madrid, Spain); Syngenta UK Ltd (Cambridge, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Waelbroeck, lawyer, D. Slater, Solicitor, and I. Antypas, lawyer)

      Defendants: European Commission and European Union, as represented by the European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 485/13 (‘Contested Regulation’) in its entirety or, in the alternative, to annul the Contested Regulation to the extent it imposes restrictions on thiamethoxam (‘TMX’), seeds treated with TMX and products containing TMX;

               —

               Condemn the EU as represented by the Commission to repair any damage suffered by the applicants as a result of the Commission's breach of its legal obligations, including interest;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay all costs and expenses of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Contested Regulation imposed restrictions on TMX that were not based on sound science and failed to respect due process, in violation of Articles 4,12(2), 21, 49 and Annex II of Regulation 1107/2009 (1) and the principles of legal certainty and rights of the defence. In particular, the European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA) review and the subsequent restrictions imposed were not based on any new scientific evidence indicating risk, ignored significant amounts of relevant science, contained material errors in key parameters and were not based on any agreed methodology for conducting a risk assessment. Moreover, EFSA did not find any risk for bee colony survival or of sublethal effects and presented no negative conclusions at all based on actual field studies. The process of review and adoption of the restrictive measures was rushed to the extent that the scientific review could not be thoroughly carried out and stakeholders were not given adequate opportunities to give input.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the the Contested Regulation imposed disproportionate and discriminatory restrictions on TMX, based on purely hypothetical risk, without conducting a thorough scientific assessment or any impact assessment at all, in violation of the precautionary principle and the principle of proportionality.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging the Contested Regulation was adopted in violation of the principle of good administration and the duty of care, following an unreasonable mandate given to EFSA, a rushed procedure that failed to allow proper input from stakeholders, failed to take relevant science into account and without any impact assessment.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (OJ 2009 L 309, p. 1)