title: Case C-394/02: Action brought on 8 November 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
C 19/12                   EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      25.1.2003
5.     Must those directives and, in particular, Article 44(3)(g)           2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
       of the EC Treaty, Articles 2(1)(f) and 6 of the first directive      represented by Michel Nolin and Minas Konstantinidis, of its
       (Directive 68/151/EEC) and Article 2(2), (3) and (4) of the          Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
       fourth directive (Directive 78/660/EEC), as consolidated
       by Directive 83/349 and Directive 90/605), be interpreted
       as meaning that that legislation precludes a law of a
       Member State which, in response to an infringement by                The Commission claims that the Court should:
       companies of those obligations concerning disclosure
       and the provision of accurate information imposed on
       them in order to safeguard ‘the interests of both members            a)    declare that, as a result of the award by the Dimosia
       and third parties’, allows only members and creditors to                   Epikhirisi Ilektrismou (DEI) of work for the construction
       seek imposition of a penalty, thereby excluding third                      of a conveyor system at the steam-generated electricity
       parties from any general and effective protection?                         station at Megalopolis by a procedure of negotiation
                                                                                without a competition first being called, the Hellenic
6.     Must those directives and, in particular, Article 44(3)(g)                 Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council
       of the EC Treaty, Articles 2(1)(f) and 6 of the first directive            Directive 93/38/EEC ( 1) of 14 June 1993 coordinating
       (Directive 68/151/EEC) and Article 2(2), (3) and (4) of the                the procurement procedures of entities operating in the
       fourth directive (Directive 78/660/EEC), as consolidated                   water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors
       by Directive 83/349 and Directive 90/605), be interpreted                  and, in particular, under Article 20 et seq. of the
       as meaning that that legislation precludes a law of a                      directive;
       Member State which, in response to the infringement by
       companies of those obligations concerning disclosure
       and the provision of accurate information imposed on                 b)    order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
       them in order to safeguard ‘the interests of both members
       and third parties’, provides for prosecution machinery and
       a sanctionative system which are markedly differentiated,
       whereby the possibility of the imposition of a punishment
       upon complaint being made, together with more serious
       and effective penalties, is reserved solely for infringements        Pleas in law and main arguments
       occasioning loss to members and creditors?
( 1) First Council Directive 68/151/EEC of 9 March 1968 on co-
     ordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests    Directive 93/38 governs the choice of procurement procedures
     of members and others, are required by Member States of                in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors
     companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of                and applies to contracts whose estimated value is not less than
     Article 58 of the Treaty, with a view to making such safeguards        EUR 5 000 000.
     equivalent throughout the Community (English special edition...:
     Series-I I Chapter 1968(I), p. 41).
( 2) Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 based on
     Article 54 (3) (g) of the Treaty on the annual accounts of certain
     types of companies (OJ L 222, 14.08.1978, p. 11).                      According to the Commission, the contract at issue, by reason
( 3) Seventh Council Directive 83/349/EEC of 13 June 1983 based on          of its value and type, is covered by the directive. Consequently,
     the Article 54 (3) (g) of the Treaty on consolidated accounts (OJ      the contracting entity (Dimosia Epikhirisi Ilektrismou (DEI);
     L 193, 18.07.1983, p. 1).                                              the State Electricity Undertaking) had to follow the procedures
( 4) Council Directive 90/605/EEC of 8 November 1990 amending               under Article 20(1) of the directive and call a competition in
     Directive 78/660/EEC on annual accounts and Directive 83/349/          accordance with Article 21 of the directive. However, the
     EEC on consolidated accounts as regards the scope of those
                                                                            contract was not put out to tender but was awarded following
     Directives (OJ L 317, 16.11.1990, p. 60).
                                                                            private negotiation.
                                                                            The Commission maintains that in the present case neither
                                                                            Article 20(2)(c) of the directive (technical or artistic reasons
Action brought on 8 November 2002 by the Commission                         rendering it absolutely essential to place the contract with a
of the European Communities against the Hellenic Repub-                     particular contractor) nor Article 20(2)(d) (extreme urgency
                                    lic                                     brought about by events unforeseeable by the contracting
                                                                            entity) is applicable.
                            (Case C-394/02)
                             (2003/C 19/22)
                                                                            (1 ) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 84.
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 November


title: Appeal brought on 23 July 1998 by Cascades SA against the judgment delivered on 14 May 1998 by the Third Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-308/94 between Cascades SA and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-279/98 P)

text:
26.9.98               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 299/13
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 Ð Infringement of the principle of equal treatment:
                                                                         by departing in the contested decision from the
Ð Infringement of Article 5(2)(c) of Council Regulation
                                                                         Commission's guidelines (3) without stating the reasons
    (EEC) No 729/70 of 21 April 1970 on the financing of
                                                                         for such a departure, the Commission infringed the
    the common agricultural policy (2):
                                                                         principle of equal treatment even though these
                                                                         guidelines are not, as such, binding,
    The verifications for the 1992 and 1993 financial
    years cannot lead to the corrections of the expenditure         Ð Infringement of the requirement to state reasons.
    in the 1994 financial year. As regards the verifications
    in 1994, the Commission cannot, on the basis of the
                                                                    (1) OJ L 163, 6.6.1998, p. 28.
    small number of checks carried out by the                       (2) Official Journal, English Special Edition 1970 (I), p. 218.
    Commission and the small number of irregularities               (3) Communication to the EAGGF Committee, VI/216/93, of
    thereby found, take the view that the Netherlands                   3 June 1993, Calculation of the financial consequence when
    control scheme as a whole displays material defects                 preparing decisions on the clearance of accounts in the context
    which justify a flat-rate reduction of 10 % for the                 of the EAGGF Guarantee' section.
    cereals sector and 5 % for the beef and veal sector,
Ð Infringement of Article 5(2)(c) of Regulation (EEC)
    No 729/70, the principle of good faith cooperation
    and the principle of audi alteram partem:
                                                                    Appeal brought on 23 July 1998 by Cascades SA against
                                                                    the judgment delivered on 14 May 1998 by the Third
                                                                    Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First
    The Commission did not carry out a dialogue in good
                                                                    Instance of the European Communities in Case T-308/94
    faith with the Netherlands' authorities concerning the
                                                                    between Cascades SA and the Commission of the
    procedure leading up to the clearance of the accounts
                                                                                European Communities
    for 1994. In its report of 13 February 1997 the
    mediation body states that the Commission objected                                      (Case C-279/98 P)
    to every adjustment to its position. The Commission's                                      (98/C 299/23)
    refusal seriously to have regard to the arguments
    which were submitted by the Netherlands' authorities
    in support of their position is also clear from the
                                                                    An appeal against the judgment delivered on 14 May
    official notification of 28 June 1996. The Commission
                                                                    1998 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance
    confines itself to repeating the arguments which it had
                                                                    of the European Communities in Case T-308/94 between
    previously submitted. It refers briefly to the
                                                                    Cascades SA and the Commission of the European
    improvements which have taken place in the
                                                                    Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
    Netherlands but does not in any way deal with the
                                                                    the European Communities on 23 July 1998 by Cascades
    arguments on which the Netherlands' authorities have
                                                                    SA, represented by Jean-Yves Art, of the Brussels Bar, with
    requested the Commission to submit a view. The
                                                                    an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
    Commission does not allege that the arguments are
                                                                    Arendt & Medernach, 8Ð10 rue Mathias Hardt.
    incorrect or irrelevant, let alone give reasons for such
    a view, but merely ignores those arguments,
                                                                    The appellant claims that the Court should:
Ð Errors in the summary report:
                                                                    Ð set aside the judgment delivered by the Court of First
                                                                         Instance on 14 May 1998 in Case T-308/94 Cascades
                                                                         SA v. Commission (1),
    the Netherlands control system was in accordance
    with the Community rules then in force; there is no
    reason to apply Commission Regulation (EC) No 2221/             Ð grant the form of order sought before the Court of
    95 by anticipation,                                                  First Instance of the European Communities by
                                                                         Cascades SA (2),
Ð Infringement of the principle of legal certainty:
                                                                    Ð order the Commission to pay the whole of the costs,
                                                                         both of the proceedings before the Court of First
    contrary to the express undertaking that financial                   Instance and of those before the Court of Justice,
    consequences would follow from defects in national
    control systems only from 1 July 1994, the                      in the alternative:
    Commission made considerable flat-rate corrections
    over the 1994 financial year. Furthermore, when
    making the flat-rate corrections, the Commission                Ð if the Court takes the view that the state of the
    failed to take mitigating circumstances into account,                proceedings does not allow final judgment to be given,
 ---pagebreak--- C 299/14             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    26.9.98
    refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for          Appeal brought on 23 July 1998 by Moritz J. Weig
    judgment,                                                       GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment delivered on
                                                                    14 May 1998 by the Third Chamber (Extended
                                                                    Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the
Ð order the costs to be reserved.                                   European Communities in Case T-317/94 Moritz J. Weig
                                                                    GmbH & Co. KG and Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                (Case C-280/98 P)
                                                                                (98/C 299/24)
Ð Contradictory reasoning: the Court of First Instance
    has not drawn the appropriate conclusions from its
    own findings of the inadequacy of the statement of              An appeal against the judgment delivered on 14 May
    reasons for the Commission's decision as regards the            1998 by the Third Chamber (Extended Composition) of
    determination of the general level of fines. In finding         the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
    that the Commission's decision did not satisfy the              in Case T-317/94 between Moritz J. Weig GmbH & Co.
    requirements of Article 190 of the Treaty, the Court            KG and Commission of the European Communities was
    was under an obligation to draw all the appropriate             brought before the Court of Justice of the European
    conclusions from that finding and therefore to annul            Communities on 23 July 1998 by Moritz J. Weig GmbH
    the measure at issue. The fact that the Commission              & Co. KG, represented by Thomas Jestaedt and Verena
    was unaware of the precise extent of its duty to state          von Bomhard, Rechtsanwälte, Boesebeck Droste, 9 Avenue
    reasons cannot constitute a ground for refusing to              des Gaulois/Gallierslaan, B-1040 Brussels, with an address
    annul the Decision.                                             for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Philippe
                                                                    Dupont, Arendt & Medernach, 8Ð10 rue Mathias Hardt,
                                                                    L-2010 Luxembourg.
    To accept generally that the reasons for a decision may
    validly be furnished in proceedings before the                  The appellant claims that the Court should:
    Community judicature renders the obligation to state
    reasons meaningless. Furthermore, the Commission                1. set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
    cannot, without infringing the principle of collegiality,           14 May 1998 (1) and declare void Article 3 of
    give the reasons for its decision in the course of the              Commission Decision 94/601/EC (2) of 13 July 1994
    proceedings before the Court,                                       relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC
                                                                        Treaty (IV/C/33.833 Ð Cartonboard);
Ð Erroneous interpretation of the concept of effects of
    the infringement on the market'; infringement of the            2. order the Commission to pay the appellant's costs
    principle of proportionality: for the purpose of                    before the Court of First Instance and the Court of
    determining the gravity of the infringement, regard                 Justice.
    should be had only to the effect on actual prices (in
    comparison with those which might have occurred in              Alternatively: that the Court should:
    the absence of collusion). The restrictive impact on
    competition relates only to the implementation of the           1. set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
    agreement by the undertaking; although its existence is             14 May 1998 and fix at ECU 1 million the fine
    a necessary condition for the appearance of an actual               imposed in Article 3 of Commission Decision 94/601/
    effect of the infringement on the market, it does not               EC of 13 July 1994 relating to a proceeding under
    necessarily follow that the agreement had an actual                 Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/C/33.833 Ð
    impact on prices or on the other competitive                        Cartonboard);
    conditions of the market. The Court of First Instance
    infringed the principle of proportionality in upholding         2. order the Commission to pay two thirds of the
    the level of the fine while finding that the Commission             appellant's costs before the Court of First Instance and
    had not proved that the infringement had affected                   the whole of the appellant's costs before the Court of
    cartonboard prices,                                                 Justice.
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Ð Infringement of the principle of equal treatment: the
    Court of First Instance held Cascades responsible for
    the conduct of two subsidiaries prior to their                  Ð The contested judgment wrongly failed to annul the
    acquisition. On the other hand, Mayr-Melnhof (Case                  fine on the ground that the statement of reasons for it
    T-347/94) was not held responsible for the conduct of               was inadequate. The fact that the Commission was
    its subsidiary Eerbeek in respect of the period prior to            prepared, during the proceedings before the Court, to
    its acquisition.                                                    provide all information concerning the method of
                                                                        calculating the fines should not have been taken into
                                                                        account when considering the adequacy of the
(1) OJ C 209, 4.7.1998, p. 30.                                          statement of reasons.
(2) OJ C 351, 10.12.1994, p. 16.
                                                                    Ð Infringement of the principle of equal treatment and
                                                                        Article 15(2) of Council Regulation No 17 and


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) 7 March 2002 in Case C-169/00: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Sixth VAT Directive, Articles 2 and 28(3)(b) and point 2 of Annex F — Act of Accession of the Republic of Finland — Exemption for the services supplied by authors, artists and performers of works of art — Derogating provisions)

text:
C 109/10                  EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                           4.5.2002
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                    2.    Orders the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.
                            (Fifth Chamber)
                             7 March 2002
in Case C-169/00: Commission of the European Communi-                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                   ties v Republic of Finland (1)
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Sixth
                                                                                21 February 2002
VAT Directive, Articles 2 and 28(3)(b) and point 2 of
Annex F — Act of Accession of the Republic of Finland —
Exemption for the services supplied by authors, artists and                in Case C-215/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
    performers of works of art — Derogating provisions)                    the Regeringsrätten): Arbetsmarknadsstyrelsen v Petra
                                                                                Rydergård (1)
                            (2002/C 109/14)                                (Social security — Unemployment benefit — Conditions
                                                                           governing the retention of entitlement to benefits for an
                                                                              unemployed person travelling to another Member State)
                     (Language of the case: Finnish)
                                                                                (2002/C 109/15)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                         (Language of the case: Swedish)
                     in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-169/00, Commission of the European Communities                   In Case C-215/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
(Agents: E. Paasivirta and E. Traversa) v Republic of Finland              EC by the Regeringsrätten (Sweden) for a preliminary ruling in
(Agent: E. Bygglin): Application for a declaration that, by                the proceedings pending before that court between Arbetsmar-
maintaining in force legislation under which supplies of works             knadsstyrelsen and Petra Rydergård, on the interpretation of
of art by artists or their agents and imports of works of art              Article 69(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of
bought directly from artists are exempted from value added                 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to
tax, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations          employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members
under Article 2 of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of               of their families moving within the Community, as amended
17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member                 and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of
States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value                 2 December 1996 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1), the Court (Fifth
added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1),              Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the
the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of              Chamber, S. von Bahr, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola and
the Chamber, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur) and A. La Pergola,                   C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate Gen-
Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,              eral; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 February
has given a judgment on 7 March 2002, in which it:                         2002, in which it has ruled:
                                                                           1.    The question as to the conditions under which a person may be
1.    Declares that, by maintaining in force legislation exempting               regarded as having remained available to the employment
      from value added tax the sale of a work of art by the artist,              services of the competent State within the meaning of
      either directly or through an agent, and the importation of a              Article 69(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of
      work of art by the owner-artist, the Republic of Finland has               14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to
      failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of the Sixth              employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of
      Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the                         their families moving within the Community, as amended and
      harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to                 updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December
      turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform                 1996, must be examined on the basis of the rules of national
      basis of assessment.                                                       law of that State.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 December 2003 in Case T-323/02: Monique Breton v Court of Justice of the European Communities (Officials — Promotion — Award of promotion points — Admissibility)

text:
C 71/26                  EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                            20.3.2004
1.     Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
       for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
       Designs) of 12 July 2002 (Case R 719/2000-4);
                                                                                of 17 December 2003
2.     Orders the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                            in Case T-324/02: Hans McAuley v Council of the Euro-
(1 ) OJ C 305 of 7.12.2002.                                                                            pean Union (1)
                                                                            (Compliance with a judgment of the Court of First Instance
                                                                            — Appointment of a Language Adviser in the English and
                                                                            Irish Language — Division of the Council Termination of
                                                                            the procedure for filling the post under Article 29(1)(a) of
                                                                            the Staff Regulations — Misuse of powers — Action for
                                                                                compensation)
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (2004/C 71/48)
                        of 11 December 2003
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
in Case T-323/02: Monique Breton v Court of Justice of
                  the European Communities (1)
(Officials — Promotion — Award of promotion points —
                             Admissibility)                                 In Case T-324/02: Hans McAuley, an official of the Council of
                                                                            the European Union, residing in Brussels (Belgium), represent-
                                                                            ed by J.-N. Louis and S. Orlandi, lawyers, with an address for
                            (2004/C 71/47)                                  service in Luxembourg, against the Council of the European
                                                                            Union (Agent: F. Anton) — application for, first, annulment of
                                                                            the decision contained in the letter of 30 January 2002 of the
                     (Language of the case: French)                         Director General of Directorate General A of the Council to
                                                                            terminate the procedure under Article 29(1)(a) of the Staff
                                                                            Regulations for filling the post of Language Adviser in the
                                                                            English and Irish Language Division and to proceed to the next
In Case T-323/02: Monique Breton, an official of the Court of               stage, namely the organisation of an internal competition
Justice of the European Communities, residing at Howald                     under Article 29(1)(b) of the Staff Regulations, and, second,
(Luxembourg), represented by A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Mar-                for compensation — the Court of First Instance (Fourth
chal and S. Orlandi, lawyers, with an address for service                   Chamber), composed of V. Tiili, President, P. Mengozzi and
in Luxembourg, against Court of Justice of the European                     M. Vilaras, Judges; I. Natsinas, Administrator, for the Registrar,
Communities (Agent: M. Schauss) — application for annul-                    gave a judgment on 17 December 2003, in which it:
ment of the decision of the Court of Justice concerning the
award to the applicant of promotion points for the years
1998, 1999 and 2000 pursuant to the Court’s decision of                     1.    Annuls the decision contained in the letter of 30 January 2002
18 October 2000 on promotions and the decision of the                             of the Director General of Directorate General A of the Council
Registrar of the Court of 3 December 2001 establishing a                          to terminate the procedure under Article 29(1)(a) of the Staff
transitional system for promotions — the Court of First                           Regulations for filling the post of Language Adviser in the
Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: J. Azizi, President,                       English and Irish Language Division and to proceed to the next
and M. Jaeger and F. Dehousse, Judges; J. Plingers, Adminis-                      stage, namely the organisation of an internal competition under
trator, acting for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                         Article 29(1)(b) of the Staff Regulations.
11 December 2003, in which it:
                                                                            2.    Dismisses the applicant’s application for compensation.
1.     dismisses the application;
                                                                            3.    Orders the Council to pay the costs.
2.     orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                            (1) OJ No C 7 of 11.1.2003.
(1) OJ C 7 of 11.1.2003.


title: Case C-293/16: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 8 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Sharda Europe BVBA v Administración del Estado, Syngenta Agro SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Agriculture — Placing of plant protection products on the market — Directive 2008/69/EC — Article 3(2) — Procedure for re-evaluation, by the Member States, of authorised plant protection products — Time limit — Divergence between the different language versions)

text:
               31.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/10

         Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 8 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Sharda Europe BVBA v Administración del Estado, Syngenta Agro SA
   (Case C-293/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Agriculture - Placing of plant protection products on the market - Directive 2008/69/EC - Article 3(2) - Procedure for re-evaluation, by the Member States, of authorised plant protection products - Time limit - Divergence between the different language versions))
   (2017/C 249/13)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sharda Europe BVBA

      Defendants: Administración del Estado, Syngenta Agro SA

      Operative part of the judgment

   The first subparagraph of Article 3(2) of Commission Directive 2008/69/EC of 1 July 2008 amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include clofentezine, dicamba, difenoconazole, diflubenzuron, imazaquin, lenacil, oxadiazon, picloram and pyriproxyfen as active substances, must be interpreted as meaning that the date of 31 December 2008 to which it refers corresponds, for an already authorised plant protection product containing one of the active substances listed in the Annex to that directive, to the deadline by which all the active substances contained in that plant protection product, other than those listed in the Annex to Directive 2008/69, must have been included on the list in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, in order for an obligation to carry out the re-evaluation of that product, provided for in the first subparagraph of Article 3(2), to arise.

      (1)  OJ C 305, 22.8.2016.


title: Case C-495/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling of 26 November 2004, from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden in the case of A.C. Smits-Koolhoven against Staatssecretaris van Financiën

text:
               5.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling of 26 November 2004, from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden in the case of A.C. Smits-Koolhoven against Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-495/04)
   (2005/C 31/23)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of 26 November 2004, received at the Court Registry on 1 December 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of A.C. Smits-Koolhoven against Staatssecretaris van Financiën on the following question:
   Do herbal cigarettes of the type in issue in the present case, which it is established do not contain any substances having a medicinal effect, but which, with the approval of the Netherlands Council for the Monitoring of Medicinal Product Advertising/Council for the Monitoring of Health Product Advertising, are sold as ‘Medicinal herbal cigarettes’ as an aid in giving up smoking, come under the exemption which Article 7(2) of Council Directive 95/59/EC (1) of 27 November 1995 provides for products which are used exclusively for medical purposes?

      (1)  OJ L 291, 6.12.1995, p. 40.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 31 January 2001 in Joined Cases T-197/97 and T-198/97: Weyl Beef Products BV and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) — Action for annulment — Rejection of a complaint — Community interest — Relationship between Article 85 and Article 92 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87 EC))

text:
C 134/16                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        5.5.2001
2.     Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and pay those of the         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
       Commission and of the intervener Péchiney Électrométallurgie.
                                                                                of 31 January 2001
( 1) OJ C 74 of 8.3.97.
                                                                           in Joined Cases T-197/97 and T-198/97: Weyl Beef Prod-
                                                                           ucts BV and Others v Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities (1)
                                                                           (Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) —
                                                                           Action for annulment — Rejection of a complaint —
                                                                           Community interest — Relationship between Article 85 and
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               Article 92 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
                                                                                Article 87 EC))
                        of 31 January 2001
                                                                                (2001/C 134/34)
in Case T-143/97: Gerhardus van den Berg v Council of
the European Union and Commission of the European
                          Communities (1)                                                      (Language of the case: Dutch)
(Action for damages — Non-contractual liability — Milk —                   In Joined Cases T-197/99 and T-198/97: Weyl Beef Products
Additional levy — Reference quantity — Producer having                     BV, established at Enschede, Netherlands, represented by
entered into a non-marketing undertaking — Transfer of                     E.H. Pijnacker Hordijk, of the Amsterdam Bar, and S.B. Noë,
                   the quota to another holding)                           of the Rotterdam Bar, applicant in Case T-197/97, Exportslach-
                                                                           terij Chris Hogeslag BV, established at Holten, Netherlands,
                          (2001/C 134/33)                                  represented by A.P.J.M. de Bruyn, of the Zutphen Bar, Gronin-
                                                                           ger Vleeshandel BV, established at Groningen, Netherlands, in
                                                                           liquidation, represented by J.J. van der Molen, liquidator
                                                                           appointed by the courts, represented initially by A.P.J.M. de
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                           Bruyn, of the Zutphen Bar, and subsequently by P.E. Mazel, of
                                                                           the Leeuwarden Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
In Case T-143/97: Gerhardus van den Berg, residing in Dalfsen              at the Chambers of Bonn and Schmitt, 7 Val Sainte-Croix,
(Netherlands), represented by E.H. Pijnacker Hordijk, of the               applicants in Case T-198/97, against Commission of the
Amsterdam Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                European Communities (Agents: W. Wils and G. van der Wal)
the Chambers of L. Frieden, 62 Avenue Guillaume, v Council                 supported by Produktschap voor Vee en Vlees and Stichting
of the European Union (Agents: A.-M. Colaert and J.-P. Hix)                Saneringsfonds Runderslachterijen, both established at
and Commission of the European Communities (Agent: T. van                  Rijswijk, Netherlands, represented by I.W. VerLoren van
Rijn) — application for compensation under Article 178 and                 Themaat, of the Amsterdam Bar, with an address for service in
the second paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty (now                  Luxembourg at the Chambers of C. Medernach, 8-10 Rue
Article 235 EC and the second paragraph of Article 288 EC)                 Mathias Hardt — application in Case T-197/97, for annulment
for damage suffered by the applicant as a result of his having             of the Commission’s decision of 23 April 1997 (case
been prevented from marketing milk by virtue of Council                    No IV/35.591/F-3 — Weyl/PVV+SSR) rejecting an application
Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting                       made by the applicant on 14 June 1995 and, in Case
general rules for the application of the levy referred to in               T-198/97, for annulment of the Commission’s decision of
Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk              23 April 1997 (case No IV/35.634/F-3 — Hogeslag-Gronin-
products sector (OJ 1984 L 90, p. 13), as supplemented by                  ger/PVV+SSR) rejecting an application made by the applicants
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1371/84 of 16 May 1984                      on 30 June 1995 — the Court of First Instance (Fourth
laying down detailed rules for the application of the additional           Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili, President, R.M. Moura Ramos
levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68               and P. Mengozzi, Judges; G. Herzig, Administrator, for the
(OJ 1984 L 132, p. 11) — the Court of First Instance (Fourth               Registrar, has given a judgment on 31 January 2001, in which
Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili, President, R.M. Moura Ramos               it:
and P. Mengozzi, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 31 January 2001,                1.    Dismisses the actions;
in which it:
                                                                           2.    Orders the applicants to bear their own costs as well as those
1.     Dismisses the application as inadmissible;                                incurred by the Commission;
2.     Orders the applicant to pay the costs.                              3.    Orders the interveners to bear their own costs.
(1) OJ C 199 of 28.6.1997.                                                 (1) OJ C 252 of 16.8.97.


21.4.2001              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 118/23
        Removal from the register of Case C-367/99 (1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-463/99 (1)
                        (2001/C 118/40)                                                      (2001/C 118/43)
By order of 13 September 2000 the President of the Court of           By order of 26 September 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-367/99: [reference for a preliminary      from the register of Case C-463/99: Commission of the
ruling from Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria)]: Hugo BOSS            European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
AG v Coalle FA-93.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.
( 1) OJ C 352 of 4.12.1999.
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-467/99 (1)
        Removal from the register of Case C-246/97 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/44)
                        (2001/C 118/41)
                                                                      By order of 26 September 2000 the President of the Court of
By order of 19 September 2000 the President of the Court of           Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           from the register of Case C-467/99: Commission of the
from the register of Case C-246/97: Portuguese Republic v             European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.
(1) OJ C 271 of 6.9.1997.
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-47/00 (1)
        Removal from the register of Case    C-330/97 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/45)
                        (2001/C 118/42)
                                                                      By order of 26 September 2000 the President of the Court of
By order of 19 September 2000 the President of the Court of           Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           from the register of Case C-47/00: (reference for a preliminary
from the register of Case C-330/97: Portuguese Republic v             ruling from the Bundessozialgericht): Hasan Gevin v Bundesan-
Commission of the European Communities.                               stalt für Arbeit — Kindergeldkasse.
(1) OJ C 357 of 22.11.1997.                                           (1) OJ C 122 of 29.4.2000.


title: Case C-68/02: Action brought on 28 February 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

text:
C 109/34                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          4.5.2002
—     order Ireland to pay the costs.                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           (1) declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
                                                                                administrative provisions necessary in order to comply
                                                                                with Council Directive 96/48/EC of 23 July 1996 on the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                  interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail
                                                                                system (1), or at any rate to communicate the same to the
                                                                                Commission, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil
The adoption by Ireland of the Quality of Shellfish Waters                       its obligations under that directive;
(Amendment) Regulations 2001 brought its legislation into
conformity with Article 5 of Directive 79/923/EEC by requir-               (2) order the defendant to pay the costs.
ing programmes in respect of all designated waters. The
Commission is not, however, in possession of any information
indicating that Ireland has similarly rectified its position with
regard to its failure to adopt all the programmes required by              Pleas in law and main arguments
Article 5 of the directive. It is not sufficient merely to introduce
the requirement into national law — the programmes must be                 The third paragraph of Article 249 EC provides that a directive
established in practice in accordance with Article 5.                      is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved, on each
                                                                           Member State to which it is addressed. According to the first
                                                                           paragraph of Article 10 EC, Member States are to take all
The Commission is in possession of official confirmation by                appropriate measures, whether general or specific, to ensure
the Irish authorities that no pollution prevention programme               fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty or
for designated shellfish waters had been adopted as of                     resulting from actions taken by the institutions of the Com-
14 December 2000. Subsequently, the Commission has not                     munity.
been informed of any change to this position, whereas,
pursuant to Article 5 of the directive, programmes should
                                                                           The Member States are obliged to transpose the directive into
have been in place for all designated waters within six years of
                                                                           national law by the due date, in such a way that the
the designation.
                                                                           transposition process is completed before the expiry of the
                                                                           time-limit fixed for transposition. That time-limit expired on
                                                                           8 April 1999, but Austria has not adopted the necessary
The Commission is, therefore, of the opinion that Ireland has              measures.
failed to fulfill its obligations under the directive.
                                                                           (1) OJ 1996 L 235, p. 6.
(1) OJ L 281, 10.11.1979, p. 47.
                                                                           Action brought on 1 March 2002 by the Commission of
                                                                             the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                                                                                (Case C-70/02)
Action brought on 28 February 2002 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Republic of                                                   (2002/C 109/59)
                                Austria
                            (Case C-68/02)                                 An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
                                                                           Court of Justice of the European Communities on 1 March
                           (2002/C 109/58)                                 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                           represented by A. Aresu and M. Shotter, acting as Agents.
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                 —     Declare that, by not having adopted all the measures
28 February 2002 by the Commission of the European                               necessary to implement Articles 8(6) and 9(b) of Directive
Communities, represented by Claudia Schmidt, of the Com-                         97/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the
mission’s Legal Service, and Marie Wolfcarius, Legal Adviser,                    Council (1) of 15 December 1997 concerning the pro-
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Luis                  cessing of personal data and the protection of privacy in
Escobar Guerrero, Legal Adviser, Wagner Centre C 254,                            the telecommunications sector, the Italian Republic has
Kirchberg.                                                                       failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 June 1999 in Case C-198/97: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 76/160/EEC - Quality of bathing water - Admissibility of an action brought pursuant to Article 226 EC (ex Article 169) - Reasoned opinion - Observance of the principle of the collegiality of the Commission - Failure to comply with Articles 4(1) and 6(1) of Directive 76/160/EEC)

text:
C 204/20                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          17.7.1999
     Council Directive 93/22/EEC of 10 May 1993 on investment               1. Declared that, by failing to take, in the old Länder, the steps
     services in the securities field, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg            necessary to ensure that the quality of bathing water conforms to
     has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 31 of that              the limit values set under Article 3 of Council Directive
     directive.                                                                 76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975 concerning the quality of
                                                                                bathing water within a period of ten years following its
2. Ordered the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.                      notification on 10 December 1975, and by not adhering to the
                                                                                minimum sampling frequency prescribed in the annex, the Federal
                                                                                Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                                Articles 4(1) and 6(1) of that directive:
(1) OJ C 41 of 7.2.1998.
                                                                            2. Ordered the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 212 of 12.7.1997.
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (Fifth Chamber)                                                      ORDER OF THE COURT
                             of 8 June 1999                                                          (Second Chamber)
                                                                                of 3 March 1999
in Case C-198/97: Commission of the European Communi-
              ties v Federal Republic of Germany(1)
                                                                            in Case C-315/97 P: Diego Echauz Brigaldi and Others v
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities (1)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Directive 76/160/EEC — Quality of bathing water —
Admissibility of an action brought pursuant to Article 226                  (Appeal — Officials — Decisions of the Commission
EC (ex Article 169) — Reasoned opinion — Observance of                      refusing to grant special leave for elections and travelling
the principle of the collegiality of the Commission —                       time — Appeal manifestly inadmissible and manifestly
                                                                                unfounded)
Failure to comply with Articles 4(1) and 6(1) of Directive
                              76/160/EEC)
                                                                                (1999/C 204/39)
                            (1999/C 204/38)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)                         In Case C-315/97 P: Diego Echauz Brigaldi, César Montoliu
                                                                            Garcı́a, Marı́a Jesús Ruı́z Monroy, Carmen Ochoa de Michelena,
                                                                            Marı́a Carmen Labrador Rubio and Leopoldo Fabra Utray,
In Case C-198/97, Commission of the European Communities                    officials of the Commission of the European Communities,
(Agent: Claudia Schmidt, assisted by Alexander Böhlke) v                    represented by Ramón Garcı́a-Gallardo Gil-Fournier, of the
Federal Republic of Germany (Agents: Ernst Röder and Claus-                 Burgos and Madrid Bars, with an address for service in Brussels
Dieter Quassowski) — application for a declaration that, by                 at the Chambers of J. and B. Cremades and Associates, 391
failing to take, in the old Länder, the steps necessary to ensure           Avenue Louise — appeal against the judgment of the Court of
that the quality of bathing water conforms to the limit values              First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth Chamber)
set under Article 3 of Council Directive 76/160/EEC of 8                    of 9 July 1997 in Case T-156/95 Echauz Brigaldi and Others v
December 1975 concerning the quality of bathing water (OJ                   Commission [1997] ECR-SC II-509, seeking to have that
1976 L 31, p. 1) within a period of 10 years following its                  judgment set aside, the other parties to the proceedings being
notification on 10 December 1975, and by not adhering to                    the Commission of the European Communities (Agent: Julian
the minimum sampling frequency prescribed in the annex, the                 Currall, assisted by José Rivas Andrés), defendant in the
Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations            proceedings at first instance, and José Luis Buendı́a Sierra,
under Articles 4(1) and 6(1) of that directive — the Court                  Victoria Pagadigorria Wicke, Miguel Abellán López, Inmacula-
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the            da Gil Tardón, Antonio Garcı́a Velázquez, Carmen Casado
Chamber, P. Jann, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida (Rapporteur),                    Salinas, Diego González Marı́n, Eva Marı́a Rasines Martı́n and
C. Gulmann and D.A.O. Edward, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate                 Julio Vizcarra Soriano, officials of the Commission of the
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 June                European Communities, applicants in the proceedings at first
1999, in which it:                                                          instance — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of:


title: Case T-318/99: Action brought on 8 November 1999 by Avia Nederland Coöperatie U.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
4.3.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 63/23
The applicants claim that the Court should:                             Pleas in law and main arguments
(a) annul the Commission’s decision [C(1999) 2539 final] (1)            The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Cases
    of 20 July 1999 concerning State aid granted by the                 T-273/99 to T-278/99. The applicant additionally claims that
    Netherlands to 633 service stations in the region bordering         the decision was prepared without due care, inasmuch as it is
    Germany;                                                            based on clearly incorrect facts, including inter alia the
                                                                        assumption that the applicant sells and supplies motor fuels
(b) order the Commission to pay the costs.                              and that it consequently forms part of the category of persons
                                                                        actually in receipt of aid.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         (1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Cases
T-273/99 to T-278/99. The applicants additionally claim that
the decision was prepared without due care, inasmuch as it is
based on clearly incorrect facts, including inter alia the premiss
that each service station is a party to an exclusive purchasing
agreement.
                                                                        Action brought on 15 November 1999 by W.F. Milder
(1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.                                        against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-320/99)
                                                                                (2000/C 63/46)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch )
Action brought on 8 November 1999 by Avia Nederland                     An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Coöperatie U.A. against the Commission of the European                  ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                          Communities                                   European Communities on 15 November 1999 by W.F. Milder,
                                                                        of Gendt (Netherlands), represented by M.J.C. Deriks, of the
                                                                        Rotterdam Bar.
                        (Case T-318/99)
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                         (2000/C 63/45)
                                                                        (a) annul the Commission’s decision [C(1999) 2539 final] (1)
                                                                            of 20 July 1999 concerning State aid granted by the
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)                            Netherlands to 633 service stations in the region bordering
                                                                            Germany;
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               (b) order the Commission to pay the costs.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 8 November 1999 by Avia Neder-
land Coöperatie U.A., of Soest (Netherlands), represented by
M.J.C. Deriks, of the Rotterdam Bar.                                    Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Cases
                                                                        T-273/99 to T-278/99.
(a) annul the Commission’s decision [C(1999) 2539 final] (1)
    of 20 July 1999 concerning State aid granted by the
    Netherlands to 633 service stations in the region bordering         (1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.
    Germany;
(b) order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 17 December 1997 in Case T-216/95: Ana María Moles García Ortúzar v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Internal competition for advancement from category C to category B - Decision of the selection board failing candidates at the oral test - Scope of the obligation to state reasons - Assessment by the selection board)

text:
C 41/18               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   7.2.98
the definitive anti-dumping measures applying to imports           of: K. Lenaerts, President, and P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke,
into the Community of urea originating in the former               Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
USSR and terminating the anti-dumping measures                     given a judgment on 17 December 1997, in which it:
applying to imports into the Community of urea
originating in the former Czechoslovakia (OJ L 49,
4.3.1995, p. 1) Ð the Court of First Instance of the               1. dismisses the action;
European Communities (Fourth Chamber, Extended
Composition), composed of K. Lenaerts, President, P.
Lindh, J. Azizi, J. D. Cooke and M. Jaeger, Judges; B.
Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given      2. orders the parties to bear their own costs.
a judgment on 17 December 1997 in which it:
                                                                   (1) OJ C 268, 14.10.1995.
1. dismisses the application;
2. orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay
     the costs of the Council;                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 17 December 1997
3. orders the Commission to bear its own costs.                    in Case T-216/95: Ana María Moles García OrtuÂzar v.
                                                                          Commission of the European Communities (1)
(1) OJ C 189, 22.7.1995.                                           (Officials Ð Internal competition for advancement from
                                                                   category C to category B Ð Decision of the selection
                                                                   board failing candidates at the oral test Ð Scope of the
                                                                   obligation to state reasons Ð Assessment by the selection
                                                                                board)
                                                                                (98/C 41/37)
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                     of 17 December 1997
in Case T-166/95: Mary Karagiozopoulou v. Commission
                                                                   In Case T-216/95: Ana María Moles García OrtuÂzar, an
               of the European Communities (1)
                                                                   official of the Commission of the European Communities,
(Officials Ð Internal competition for appointing category          residing in Brussels, represented by Marc-Albert Lucas, of
C staff to category B Ð Decision of the selection board            the LieÁge Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
listing candidates who failed the oral test Ð Principle of         at the Chambers of Evelyne Korn, 21 Rue de Nassau, v.
equality of treatment Ð Assessment by the selection                Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
                            board)                                 Gianluigi Valsesia and Ana Maria Alves Vieira) Ð
                                                                   application, first, for annulment of the decision of the
                         (98/C 41/36)                              selection board in internal competition COM/B/9/93 not
                                                                   to enter the applicant's name on the list of suitable
                                                                   candidates and, second, for annulment of the notice of
                                                                   that competition Ð the Court of First Instance (Fourth
                (Language of the case: French)                     Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts, President, and P.
                                                                   Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator,
                                                                   for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 December
                                                                   1997, in which it:
In Case T-166/95: Mary Karagiozopoulou, an official of
the Commission of the European Communities, residing in
Brussels, represented by Ariane Tornel and Thierry
Demaseure, and, in the oral procedure, by Jean-NoeÈl               1. dismisses the action;
Louis, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30
Rue de Cessange, v. Commission of the European                     2. orders the parties to bear their own costs.
Communities (Agent: Gianluigi Valsesia) Ð application
for annulment of the decision of the selection board in
internal competition COM/B/9/93 awarding the applicant             (1) OJ C 16, 20.1.1996.
a lower mark for the oral test than the minimum required
and excluding her from the list of successful candidates Ð
the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed


24.10.98              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                               C 327/17
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      Removal from the register of Case C-334/96 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 327/28)
Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive shall
be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each
Member State, carries by implication an obligation on the          By order of 23 July 1998 the President of the Court of
Member States to observe the period for compliance laid            Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
down in the directive. That period expired on 1 September          removal from the register of Case C-334/96 (reference
1995 without Ireland having enacted the provisions                 for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht,
necessary to comply with the directive referred to in the          Düsseldorf): Stadt Dormagen v Bezirksregierung
conclusions of the Commission.                                     Düsseldorf.
(1) OJ L 100, 19.4.1994, p. 1.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 370, 7.12.1996.
      Removal from the register of Case C-123/97 (1)
                         (98/C 327/27)                                   Removal from the register of Case C-357/97 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 327/29)
By order of 17 July 1998 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-123/97 (reference for          By order of 24 August 1998 the President of the Court of
a preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di             Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Padova): Tommaso Nalon v Ente Poste Italiane.                      removal from the register of Case C-357/97: Commission
                                                                   of the European Communities v Ireland.
(1) OJ C 166, 31.5.1997.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 370, 6.12.1997.
                                                  COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
   Election of the President of the Court of First Instance            Ð Mr Cooke,
                         (98/C 327/30)
                                                                       Ð Mr Jaeger.
At their meeting on 17 September 1998 the Judges of the
Court of First Instance elected, pursuant to Article 7 of
the Rules of Procedure, Judge Bo Vesterdorf as President           B. to assign the Members of the Court of First Instance
of the Court of First Instance for the period from                     to the Chambers as follows:
17 September 1998 to 31 August 2001.
                                                                       to the First Chamber:
                                                                       Mr Vesterdorf (President), Mr Pirrung and Mr Vilaras,
Designation of the Presidents of Chamber, and the                      Judges;
                composition of the Chambers
                         (98/C 327/31)
                                                                       to the First Chamber, Extended Composition:
At its meeting on 21 September 1998, the Court of First
Instance decided, pursuant to Article 2(4) of the Council
Decision of 24 October 1988 and Articles 10 and 15 of                  Mr Vesterdorf (President), Mr Bellamy, Mr Pirrung,
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, in              Mr Meij and Mr Vilaras, Judges;
respect of the period between 21 September 1998 and
30 September 1999:
                                                                       to the Second Chamber:
A. to designate as Presidents of Chamber:
    Ð Mr Potocki,
                                                                       Mr Potocki (President of Chamber), Mr Bellamy and
    Ð Mr Moura Ramos,                                                  Mr Meij, Judges;


title: Case T-349/99: Action brought on 8 December 1999 by Miroslav Miskovic against the Council of the European Union

text:
18.3.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 79/35
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Pleas in law and main arguments
— annul the Commission’s decision of 14 July 1999 in so far              The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
    as it regards the reduction of the corporation tax applicable        put forward in Case T-346/99 Diputación Foral de Alava v
    to newly created undertakings, provided for in Article 26            Commission.
    of Provincial Law of Gipuzkoa No 7/1996, as State aid
    within the meaning of Article 87 EC;
— order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Action brought on 8 December 1999 by Miroslav Misko-
                                                                                vic against the Council of the European Union
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
put forward in Case T-346/99 Diputación Foral de Alava v
Commission.                                                                                (Case T-349/99)
                                                                                (2000/C 79/75)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                         An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                         brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                         Communities on 8 December 1999 by Miroslav Miskovic,
Action brought on 6 December 1999 by the Territorio
                                                                         represented by Nicolas Rollason and Tim Eicke with an address
Histórico de Bizkaia, Bizkaiko Foru Aldundia — Diputa-
                                                                         for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger, Hoss
ción Foral de Bizkaia against the Commission of the
                                                                         & Prussen, 2 place Winston Churchill.
                     European Communities
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                         (Case T-348/99)
                                                                         — declare void the Council Decision 1999/612/CFSP;
                          (2000/C 79/74)
                                                                         — order the Council to pay the applicant’s costs.
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                       Pleas in law and main arguments
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                The contested Council decision, which implements Common
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               Position 1999/318/CFSP concerning additional restrictive
European Communities on 6 December 1999 by the Territorio                measures against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, includes,
Histórico de Bizkaia, Bizkaiko Foru Aldundia — Diputación              inter alia, the applicant on a list of persons being subject to an
Foral de Bizkaia, Bizkaia (Spain) represented by Antonio Creus           obligation of non-admission in the territories of the Member
Carreras and Begoña Uriarte Valiente, of the Barcelona and              States.
Madrid Bars respectively, with an address for service in Brussels
at the Chambers of Cuatrecasas Abogados, 60 Avenue de
                                                                         The applicant challenges the choice of legal base by the
Cortenbergh.
                                                                         Council. Since the entry into force of the Amsterdam Treaty
                                                                         measures concerning immigration and asylum policy fell
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              within the exclusive competence under Title IV EC. By basing
                                                                         the contested decision on Title V EU the Council had therefore
                                                                         based its actions on the wrong legal base. Furthermore, by
— annul the Commission’s decision of 14 July 1999 in so far              imposing the obligation of non-admission in the legislative
    as it regards the reduction of the corporation tax applicable        form of a decision, the Council chose an legal instrument
    to newly created undertakings, provided for in Article 26            which in the present context was neither provided for in
    of Provincial Law of Bizkaia No 3/1996, as State aid within          Title V EU nor in Title IV EC.
    the meaning of Article 87 EC;
— order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-139/03: Action brought on 28 April 2003 by Nuova Agricast S.r.l. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
21.6.2003             EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 146/43
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Action brought on 28 April 2003 by Nuova Agricast S.r.l.
                                                                            against the Commission of the European Communities
In support of her action, the applicant pleads failure to state
reasons, breach of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and                                          (Case T-139/03)
infringement of the principle of non-discrimination, manifest
errors of assessment, breach of the duty of care and infringe-
ment of the principle of sound administration, infringement                                         (2003/C 146/78)
of the principle of equality of opportunity and, finally, misuse
of powers.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Action brought on 22 April 2003 by Robert Charles                         European Communities on 28 April 2003 by Nuova Agricast
  Schochaert against the Council of the European Union                    S.r.l., represented by Michele Arcangelo Calabrese, avvocato.
                         (Case T-136/03)
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                        (2003/C 146/77)
                                                                          —      Annul the contested measures;
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          —      Order the European Commission to pay the costs.
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 22 April 2003 by Robert Charles Schochaert,                Pleas in law and main arguments
residing in Brussels, represented by Jean A. Martin, avocat.
                                                                          By its action, the applicant company is challenging:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—      order the Council to pay to the applicant EUR 225 702,94           1.     the Commission’s letter *D/50721, COMP/G1 D(03)142/
       by way of compensation, and order it to pay the costs.                    PI/cpb dated 3 February 2003 (concerning consultations
                                                                                with the authorities of the Member State which had
                                                                                drawn up the documents);
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           2.     Commission document SG.B.2/MM D(2003) sent by fax
                                                                                on 14 March 2003;
The applicant, a former Council official, seeks by way of the
present action to recover compensation in respect of the                  3.     the Commission’s letter *D/51652, COMP/G1/PI/
damage which he claims to have suffered through the defend-                      cpb D(03) dated 12 March 2003.
ant’s refusal to promote him to Grade B 1 during the course of
promotions from 1978 to 2000.
                                                                          In support of its claims, the applicant submits as follows:
The applicant contends that the defendant has refused, since
1978, to promote him on the ground that his duties did not                —      by consulting the authorities of the Member State which
involve the exercise of responsibilities justifying promotion                    had drawn up the documents requested, and in so doing
vis-à-vis other candidates for such promotion, this being a                      even though it was already clear to it that the documents
ground which, in the applicant’s view, is unlawful and amounts                   in issue were excluded from the right of access as being
to a misuse of power for which the Council must incur                            ‘covered’ by the exception ‘inspections and investigations’,
liability.                                                                       the Commission breached the procedural guarantees
                                                                                conferred on individuals by Article 4(4) of Regulation
                                                                                (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of
The applicant further alleges that he has been the victim of                     the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to
exclusion and non-physical harassment by a number of his                         European Parliament, Council and Commission docu-
hierarchical superiors.                                                          ments (OJ 2001 L 145 of 31 May 2001, p. 43) and the
                                                                                similarly-worded Article 5(2) of the relevant updating
                                                                                provisions. The Commission thus infringed its own
 ---pagebreak--- C 146/44               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                           21.6.2003
     ‘Code of Good Administrative Behaviour’, specifically the             2.     Order the Commission to pay the costs.
     section on ‘Consistency’ under the heading of ‘General
     Principles of Good Administration’. The illegality of the
     consultation also gives rise, in the applicant’s view, to the
     illegality of the partial refusal of access, which is specifi-        Pleas in law and main arguments
     cally based on the reply by which the Italian authorities
     refused disclosure;
                                                                           The applicant seeks annulment of Commission Decision
—    the applicant further alleges discriminatory treatment vis-           2003/82/EC of 29 January 2003 ( 1). The contested decision
     à-vis a separate request (made by another individual) for             authorises Belgium to impose within its territory higher
     access to documents coming within the same category as                recycling and recovery targets than those laid down in Directive
     those to which the applicant is seeking access;                       94/62/EC (2).
—    the applicant also submits that, in particular by treating
     as adequate the ostensible reasoning of the senior official           The applicant is a non-profit-making association which is the
                                                                           only organisation recognised in Belgium for the purpose of
     who signed the documents, who refers to a measure of a
     national court applying national legislation which is                 collecting, recycling and valorising domestic packaging waste.
     generally recognised as being less transparent than the               It assumes responsibility for accepting domestic packaging
                                                                           waste from those who are affiliated to it. Members of the
     provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, the Com-
     mission committed a manifest error of assessment and                  applicant represent the producers and importers of packaging,
     breached at the same time Article 4(5) of Regulation (EC)             packaged products or packaging materials, distribution com-
     No 1049/2001, the principle of sound administration                   panies and trade federations.
     and the obligation to ensure that decisions taken by the
     institutions are adequately reasoned;
                                                                           The applicant first of all alleges that there has been a breach of
                                                                           Article 253 EC and of Article 6(6) of Directive 94/62/EC. The
—    finally, the applicant submits that there has been a breach           applicant claims that the Commission, when adopting the
     of its rights of defence in so far as access to the documents         contested decision, based itself on inaccurate or incomplete
     in question is the only avenue open to it to assess the               facts. By so doing, it argues, the Commission committed errors
     legality of the decision authorising a State aid scheme.              of fact in its assessment of the criteria set out in Article 6(6) of
                                                                           Directive 94/62/EC.
                                                                           The applicant also claims that there has been a breach of
                                                                           Article 253 EC. The Commission has, in its view, failed to set
                                                                           out sufficient reasons as to why Belgium has, within its
                                                                           territory, adequate recycling capacity for metal packaging,
                                                                           non-ferrous metals, and the mechanical recycling of plastics,
                                                                           paper and cardboard. The applicant further contends that the
Action brought on 28 April 2003 by Fost Plus VZW
                                                                           Commission fails in its decision to examine the effect which
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           an increase in the minimum recycling targets may have for
                                                                           each type of packaging material.
                         (Case T-142/03)
                                                                           The applicant concludes by submitting that there has been an
                         (2003/C 146/79)                                   infringement of the general duty of care and a breach of
                                                                           Directive 94/62/EC inasmuch as the Commission assumed
                                                                           certain matters, such as incineration with energy recovery and
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                          available capacity, to be factually valid without examining
                                                                           whether this was possible or in accordance with Directive 94/
                                                                           62/EC.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  (1 ) Decision 2003/82/EC: Commission Decision of 29 January 2003
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                      confirming measures notified by Belgium pursuant to Article 6(6)
European Communities on 28 April 2003 by Fost Plus VZW,                         of Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and the Council
having its registered office in Brussels, represented by Peter                  on packaging and packaging waste (Text with EEA relevance)
Wytinck, Jan Bouckaert and Hendrik Viane, advocaten.                            (notified under document number C(2003) 361) (OJ 2003 L 31,
                                                                                p. 32).
                                                                           (2 ) Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and the Council
                                                                                of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste (OJ
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                     1994 L 365, p. 10).
1.   Annul Article 1 of the Decision;


C 118/28              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     21.4.2001
       Removal from the register of Case C-506/99 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-479/98 (1)
                         (2001/C 118/70)                                                   (2001/C 118/73)
By order of 22 November 2000 the President of the Court of          By order of 4 December 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal         Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-506/99: Commission of the               from the register of Case C-479/98: Kingdom of Spain v
European Communities v Portugal.                                    Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.                                           (1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-189/99 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-209/99 (1)
                         (2001/C 118/71)                                                   (2001/C 118/74)
By order of 28 November 2000 the President of the Court of          By order of 6 December 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal         Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-189/99: Commission of the               from the register of Case C-209/99: (reference for a preliminary
European Communities v Spain.                                       ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Bonn): Birgit Frings v Blenderm-
                                                                    ann GmbH.
(1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-468/99 (1)
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case C-312/99 (1)
                         (2001/C 118/72)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/75)
By order of 28 November 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal         By order of 6 December 2000 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-468/99: Commission of the               Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain              from the register of Case C-312/99: Commission of the
and Northern Ireland.                                               European Communities v Italy.
(1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.                                            (1) OJ C 299 of 16.10.1999.