title: Case C-373/01: Action brought on 27 September 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom

text:
C 331/14              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      24.11.2001
     In so far as the Commission has sought to suggest that             Pleas in law and main arguments
     the Netherlands Government had failed to make clear at
     an earlier stage that the activities of tug boats were also
     intended to be covered by the two measures, which might            Under Article 249 of the EC Treaty, according to which a
     have constituted a reason enabling the Commission to               directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
     classify that application of the existing measures as ‘new         each Member State to which it is addressed, Member States are
     aid’, the Netherlands Government strenuously denies that           required to observe the time limits laid down in directives for
     assertion;                                                         their transposition. Those time limits expired on 30 Avril
                                                                        2000 and 30 June 2000 respectively without the Italian
—    Decision contrary to the principle of the protection of            Republic having brought into force the necessary provisions
     legitimate expectations and the principle of legal certainty;      in order to comply with the Directive referred to in the
                                                                        Commission’s application.
—    Decision contrary to the principle that reasons must
     always be given.                                                   (1) OJ 1999 L 91, p. 29.
                                                                        (2) OJ 1999 L 139, p. 29.
Action brought on 25 September 2001 by the Com-                         Action brought on 27 September 2001 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities against the Italian                 mission of the European Communities against the United
                            Republic                                                                   Kingdom
                        (Case C-370/01)                                                           (Case C-373/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 331/23)
                        (2001/C 331/22)
                                                                        An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the           Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 Septem-
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 25 Septem-              ber 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
ber 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,                 represented by Richard Wainwright, acting as agent, with an
represented by Antonio Aresu, acting as Agent.                          address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                        The Applicant requests that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        —     declare that by failing to adopt and publish before
—    Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force                   1 January 2000 the provisions necessary to comply with
     within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and                   Commission Directive 98/101/EC of 22 December 1998
     administrative provisions necessary to comply with:                      adapting to technical progress Commission Directive
                                                                              91/157/EEC on batteries and accumulators containing
     (a)    Commission Directive 1999/21/EC (1) of 25 March                   certain dangerous substances (1), or in any event by failing
            1999 on dietary foods for special medical purposes;               to inform the Commission thereof, the United Kingdom
            and                                                               has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive, and
     (b) Commission Directive 1999/50/EC (2) of 25 May                  —     order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.
            1999 amending Directive 91/321/EEC on infant
            formulae and follow-on formulae;
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
     or in any event by failing to communicate them to the
     Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
     obligations under those directives;
                                                                        Article 249 EC under which a directive shall be binding as to
                                                                        the result to be achieved, upon each Member State, carries by
—    Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                       implication an obligation on the Member States to observe the
 ---pagebreak--- 24.11.2001            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 331/15
period for compliance laid down in the Directive. That period          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Østre Landsret
expired on 1 January 2000 without the United Kingdom                   by order of 26 September 2001 in the case of De Danske
having enacted the provisions necessary to comply with the             Bilimportører v Skatteministeriet, Told- og Skattesty-
Directive referred to in the conclusions of the Commission.                                         relsen
                                                                                (Case C-383/01)
(1) OJ L 001, 5.1.1999, p. 1-2.
                                                                                (2001/C 331/25)
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by order of 26 September 2001 by
Action brought on 4 October 2001 by the Commission of                  the Østre Landsret (Eastern Regional Court), which was
the European Communities against the United Kingdom                    received at the Court Registry on 5 October 2001, for a
                                                                       preliminary ruling in the case of De Danske Bilimportører v
                                                                       Skatteministeriet, Told- og Skattestyrelsen (Duty and Taxation
                        (Case C-382/01)                                Authority of the Ministry of Fiscal Affairs), on the following
                                                                       questions:
                        (2001/C 331/24)
                                                                       1.   Can an indirect duty (registration duty) charged by a
                                                                            Member State, which in the case of new cars amounts to
                                                                            105 % of DKK 52 800 and 180 % of the remainder of
An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the                 the taxable value, be a measure having an effect equivalent
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 4 October                   to a quantitative restriction on imports and for that
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,                         reason prohibited under Article 28 EC (reference is made
represented by Christina Tufvesson, acting as agent, with an                in this connection to the Court’s judgment in Case
address for service in Luxembourg.                                          C-47/88 Commission v Denmark [1990] ECR I-4509,
                                                                            paragraph 13)?
The Applicant requests that the Court should:                          2.   If the answer to Question 1 is ‘yes’: can that registration
                                                                            duty be justified on the grounds that are mentioned in
—     declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or             Article 30 EC or follow from the Court’s case-law on
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with the                Article 28 EC (reference is made to Case 120/78 Rewe-
      European Parliament and Council Directive 98/78/EC of                 Zentral [1979] ECR 649)?
      27 October 1998 on the supplementary supervision of
      insurance undertakings in an insurance group (1), or, in
      any event, by failing to inform the Commission of
      those measures, the United Kingdom has failed fulfil its
      obligations under that Directive,
—     order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.
                                                                       Action brought on 9 October 2001 by the Commission
                                                                       of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                                                                Spain
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Case C-392/01)
Article 249 EC under which a directive shall be binding as to
the result to be achieved, upon each Member State, carries by                                  (2001/C 331/26)
implication an obligation on the Member States to observe the
period for compliance laid down in the directive. That period
expired on 5 June 2000 without the United Kingdom having
enacted the provisions necessary to comply with the directive
referred to in the conclusions of the Commission.                      An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
                                                                       the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 Octo-
                                                                       ber 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
(1) OJ L 330, 5.12.1998, p. 1-12.                                      represented by Isabel Martı́nez del Peral, of its Legal Service,
                                                                       acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                       the office of Luis Escobar Guerrero, also of the Commission’s
                                                                       Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.


               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/62

         Action brought on 12 February 2004 by S.A. Spa Monopole against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case T-67/04)
   (2004/C 94/157)
   Language of the case: to be determined pursuant to article 131(2) of the Rules of Procedure language in which the case was submitted: English
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 12 February 2004 by S.A. Spa Monopole, Spa, Belguim), represented by Mr L. de Brouwer, Mr E. Cornu, Mr E. De Gryse and Ms D. Moreau, lawyers.
   Spa-Finders Travel Arrangements Ltd., was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation of the Internal Market of 10 December 2003

               —

               order the OHIM to pay the costs

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               Spa-Finders Travel Arrangements Ltd.

               Community trade mark sought:

               Word mark ‘SPA-FINDERS’ application no. 354597 for goods and services in classes 16 (printed publications etc.) and 39 (travel agency services etc.)

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               S.A. Spa Monopole

               Mark or sign cited in opposition:

               Word trade mark ‘SPA’and ‘LES THERMES DE SPA’ for goods in Classes3, 32 and42

               Decision of the Opposition Division

               Opposition dismissed

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Appeal rejected

               Pleas in law:

               Infringement of article 8(5)15 of Regulation 40/94 (1)

      (1)   Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 11, p. 1)


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 January 2004 in Case T-195/02: Anselmo Briganti v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Open competition — Action for annulment — Pre-selection procedure — Conduct of the tests — Retroactive annulment of certain multiple-choice questions — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of legitimate expectations)

text:
3.4.2004               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 85/25
1.    Dismisses the application;                                                 ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                                of 25 November 2003
(1) OJ C 131 of 1.6.2002.
                                                                           in Case T-85/01: IAMA Consulting S.r.l. v Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
                                                                           (Esprit Programme — Actions in the field of research
                                                                           and technological development — Community financing —
                                                                           Eligible expenditure — Arbitration clause — Action for
                                                                           annulment — Admissibility — Counterclaim — Jurisdiction
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                 of the Court of First Instance)
                       of 20 January 2004
                                                                                (2004/C 85/49)
in Case T-195/02: Anselmo Briganti v Commission of the
                  European Communities (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
(Officials — Open competition — Action for annulment —
Pre-selection procedure — Conduct of the tests — Retro-
active annulment of certain multiple-choice questions —
Principle of equal treatment — Principle of legitimate
                            expectations)                                  In Case T-85/01: IAMA Consulting S.r.l., established in Milan,
                                                                           represented by V. Salvatore, lawyer, against Commission of
                                                                           the European Communities (Agents: E. de March and A. Dal
                           (2004/C 85/48)                                  Ferro) – application for annulment of the provisions adopted
                                                                           by the Commission on 12 and 21 February 2001 relating to
                                                                           expenditure eligible for Community financing in connection
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                         with the REGIS 22337 and REFIAG 23200 Projects, carried
                                                                           out under the European programme for research and develop-
                                                                           ment in information technologies (Esprit) — the Court of First
                                                                           Instance, composed, at the time of its deliberation, of V. Tiili,
                                                                           President, and P. Mengozzi, M. Vilaras, J. Pirrung and
In Case T-195/02: Anselmo Briganti, residing in Tarente (Italy),           A. W. H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
represented by G. Sciusco, lawyer, with an address for service             25 November 2003, the operative part of which is as follows:
in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Com-
munities (Agents: J. Currall and A. Dal Ferro) — application,
principally, for annulment of the decision of the selection
board in open competition Commission of the European                       (1) The forms of order sought as a main claim and in the alternative
Communities/A/11/01 not to admit the applicant to the tests                     by the applicant are dismissed as inadmissible.
subsequent to the pre-selection tests, the Court of First
Instance, composed of J. D. Cooke, Single Judge; H. Jung,
Registrar, gave a judgment on 20 January 2004, in which it:                (2) The counterclaim by the Commission is referred back to the
                                                                                Court.
1.    Dismisses the action;
                                                                           (3) The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.
2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 186, 30.6.2001.
(1) OJ C 191 of 10.8.2002.


title: Case C-189/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrĳfsleven, by judgment of that court of 26 April 2001 in the case of (1) H. Jippes, (2) Afdeling Groningen van de Nederlandse Vereniging tot Bescherming van Dieren and (3) Afdeling Assen en omstreken van de Nederlandse Vereniging tot Bescherming van Dieren against the Minister van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserĳ

text:
16.6.2001              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 173/31
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           —     Order the French Republic to pay the costs.
The provisions of the Grand-Ducal Regulation of 24 February
1988, put forward by the Grand Duchy as its disposal plan,                Pleas in law and main arguments
cannot be considered fully to meet the requirements of
Article 11(1) of the directive in so far as concerns the                  Decree No 2001/63 of 18 January 2001 which the French
equipment included in the inventory provided for by Article 4             authorities forwarded to the Commission provides for the
thereof. Member States are to determine, on the basis of the              drawing-up of a national inventory of equipment with a PCB
inventory provided for under Article 4(1) of the directive, the           volume of more than 5 dm3 which is to be the basis for a
dates on which it is possible, in view of the quantities of spent         national plan for decontamination or disposal of inventoried
PCB and of the number of contaminated pieces of equipment                 equipment which must subsequently be adopted in accordance
involved and of the available processing capacity, to require             with the procedure laid down in Article 7(5) et seq of the
that the elimination and decontamination required by the                  aforementioned decree. The Order of 13 February 2001 has as
directive be carried out; the Luxembourg authorities, however,            its sole purpose to request those who hold equipment contain-
have taken no steps to satisfy themselves that what they                  ing PCB to make a declaration before the Prefect. The
termed the ‘filière de décontamination ou d’élimination’ is able          Commission therefore remains of the view, first, that the
to process the equipment and PCB involved within the period               implementation of a procedure for drawing up a national
prescribed since, other than the laying down of a final deadline          inventory does not remedy the complaint regarding failure to
of 31 December 2010, no indication is given as to plans                   communicate to it a summary of inventories pursuant to
regarding the decontamination and elimination of spent                    Article 4(1) of the directive.
equipment and PCB in such a case.
                                                                          Secondly, the adoption of that decree is not sufficient to
                                                                          remedy the complaint that that Member State had not drawn
(1) OJ 1996 L 243, p. 31.                                                 up either a plan for decontamination and/or disposal of
                                                                          contaminated equipment or plans for the collection and
                                                                          subsequent disposal of equipment not subject to inventory.
                                                                          (1) OJ 1996 L 243, p. 31.
Action brought on 24 April 2001 by the Commission of
 the European Communities against the French Republic
                         (Case C-177/01)
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van
                         (2001/C 173/53)                                  Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven, by judgment of that court
                                                                          of 26 April 2001 in the case of (1) H. Jippes, (2)
                                                                          Afdeling Groningen van de Nederlandse Vereniging tot
An action against the French Republic was brought before the              Bescherming van Dieren and (3) Afdeling Assen en
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 April                  omstreken van de Nederlandse Vereniging tot Bescherm-
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,                       ing van Dieren against the Minister van Landbouw,
represented by H. Støvlbæk and J. Adda, acting as Agents, with                               Natuurbeheer en Visserij
an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                                (Case C-189/01)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (2001/C 173/54)
—     Declare that, by failing to send it a summary of inventories
      compiled of equipment with PCB volumes of more than
      5 dm3, plans for the decontamination and/or disposal of             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      inventoried equipment and the PCBs contained therein                European Communities by judgment of the College van Beroep
      and plans for the separate removal and collection of                voor het bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court for Trade and
      equipment containing PCBs which is not subject to                   Industry) of 26 April 2001, received at the Court Registry on
      inventory in accordance with Article 4(1) and as referred           27 April 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
      to in Article 6(3) of Council Directive 96/59/EC (1) of             (1) H. Jippes, (2) Afdeling Groningen van de Nederlandse
      16 September 1996 on the disposal of polychlorinated                Vereniging tot Bescherming van Dieren and (3) Afdeling Assen
      biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls (PCB/PCT), the             en omstreken van de Nederlandse Vereniging tot Bescherming
      French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under          van Dieren against the Minister van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer
      Articles 4 and 11 of the abovementioned directive;                  en Visserij on the following questions:
 ---pagebreak--- C 173/32              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                 16.6.2001
1.    Is the ban on vaccination imposed by Article 13 of                      Removal from the register of Case C-403/00 (1)
      Directive 85/511/EEC(1) invalid on the ground of incon-
      sistency with Community law, in particular the principle                                (2001/C 173/56)
      of proportionality?
                                                                       By order of 27 March 2001 the President of the Court of
2.    Is the way in which the Commission has applied the               Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
      aforesaid Article 13, in particular by the adoption of           from the register of Case C-403/00: Commission of the
      Decision 2001/246/EC (2), as amended by Decision                 European Communities v Republic of France.
      2001/279/EEC (3), invalid on the ground of inconsistency
      with Community law?                                              (1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.
(1) OJ 1985 L 315, p. 11.
(2) OJ 2001 L 88, p. 21.
(3) OJ 2001 L 96, p. 19.
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-264/98 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 173/57)
                                                                       By order of 2 April 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                       of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                       the register of Case C-264/98: (reference for a preliminary
                                                                       ruling from the Tribunal de Première Instance de Charleroi):
        Removal from the register of Case C-88/00 (1)                  Tibor Balog v Royal Charleroi Sporting Club ASBL (RCSC).
                         (2001/C 173/55)                               (1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.
By order of 9 March 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-88/00: (reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo): Directora-Geral                    Removal from the register of Case C-377/00 (1)
do Departamento para os Assuntos do Fundo Social Europeu
(DAFSE) v MOBILCROMO — Indústria de Mobiliário e                                            (2001/C 173/58)
Revestimentos Metálicos, Ltd.
                                                                       By order of 5 April 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                       of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
(1) OJ C 149 of 27.05.2000.                                            the register of Case C-377/00: Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.


title: Case C-271/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Consiglio di Stato, Sixth Section, by order of that court of 8 May 2001, in the case of Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali against CO.P.P.I., Società Concentrati Bevibili Sicilia (CBS) and Impianti Brevetti Servizi (IBIESSE)

text:
C 275/6               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      29.9.2001
      Lawyers who are nationals of other EC Member States              No 729/70 (2) and Article 23 of Regulation No 4523/88 (3),
      and who work in Italy are also required under Article 13         under which the Member State can and must take the measures
      of the Law of 9 February 1982 to comply with the tariff          necessary to prevent and take action against irregularities and
      for legal fees and thus also with the rule prohibiting           recover amounts lost as a result of an irregularity or negligence,
      differentiation of amounts below a specified minimum             applicable in this context as well?
      level.
(2) Are Articles 633(1)(2) and 636(1) of the Italian Code of           (1) OJ 1997 L 53 p. 30.
      Civil Procedure, under which a lawyer is authorised to           (2) OJ 1970 L 94 p. 13.
      have his fees determined by the Council of the order to          (3) OJ 1988 L 374 p. 1.
      which he belongs through the adoption of an opinion
      binding on his client and on the court (in enforcement
      proceedings), allowing him to obtain entitlement based
      on that unilateral determination of the professional
      fee pursuant to the abovementioned minimum tariffs,
      contrary to free competition on the ground that they
      prevent the free fixing of fees for a lawyer’s services, as
      provided for under Article 81(1)(a) EC, by reserving such
      determination to a body consisting exclusively of lawyers?
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Amtsgericht
                                                                       Schleswig by order of 5 July 2001 in proceedings involv-
                                                                       ing the imposition of a fine on Joachim Christian Kurt
                                                                                Steffensen
                                                                                (Case C-276/01)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Consiglio di                                           (2001/C 275/12)
Stato, Sixth Section, by order of that court of 8 May 2001,
in the case of Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
against CO.P.P.I., Società Concentrati Bevibili Sicilia (CBS)          European Communities by order of 5 July 2001 by the
           and Impianti Brevetti Servizi (IBIESSE)                     Amtsgericht Schleswig (Local Court, Schleswig), which was
                                                                       received at the Court Registry on 13 July 2001, for a
                                                                       preliminary ruling, in proceedings involving the imposition of
                        (Case C-271/01)                                a fine on Joachim Christian Kurt Steffensen, on the following
                                                                       questions:
                        (2001/C 275/11)
                                                                       1.    Is Article 7(1) of Council Directive 89/397/EEC of 14 June
                                                                             1989 on the official control of foodstuffs (1) to be
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       construed as conferring on the manufacturer of a product
European Communities by order of the Consiglio di Stato                      a directly applicable right to apply for a second opinion
(Council of State), Sixth Section, of 8 May 2001, received at                in the case where public authorities have taken from a
the Court Registry on 9 July 2001, for a preliminary ruling in               retail outlet a sample of the manufacturer’s product for
the case of Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali                   purposes of analysis and that sample has failed to satisfy
(Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry) against CO.P.P.I., Società            certain criteria imposed by the legislation on foodstuffs?
Concentrati Bevibili Sicilia (CBS) and Impianti Brevetti Servizi
(IBIESSE) on the following question:                                   2.    If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:
                                                                             is Article 7(1) of that directive to be construed as giving
Does Article 19 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 355/77 (1) of                 rise to a Community-law prohibition on the use of
15 February 1977 — which provides that the Commission,                       findings based on samples removed by public authorities
after consulting the Fund Committee on the financial aspects,                where it has not been made possible for the manufacturer
may decide, in accordance with the procedure laid down in                    of the product which is the subject of criticism in those
Article 22, to suspend, reduce or discontinue aid from the                   findings to apply for a second opinion?
Fund, and to recover sums paid, if, inter alia, prior to expiry of
the period laid down therein, the beneficiary sells equipment
or buildings having received aid from the Fund without prior
authorization from the Commission — constitute a standard              (1) OJ 1989 L 186, p. 23.
procedure which excludes the Member State’s competence to
adopt such measures to discontinue aid and recover sums
paid, or are the principles laid down in Article 8 of Regulation


               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/33

         Removal from the register of Case C-373/01 (1)

   (2004/C 94/78)
   By order of 28 January 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case C-373/01: Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

      (1)  OJ C 331 of 24.11.2001.


title: Case T-97/99: Action brought on 20 April 1999 by Michael Chamier against the European Parliament

text:
28.8.1999              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 246/33
first, suspension of the acts preventing the transfer of part of         three posts of Director-General (grade A1) were declared
the applicant’s remuneration to the home-purchase savings                vacant on 25 June 1998: that of Director-General of the
account opened in her name with a financial institution                  Directorate-General for Finance and Financial Control (the
established in France and, second, authorisation to transfer             new DG VIII), that of Director-General of the Directorate-
immediately the sums which should have been or should                    General for Administration (DG VI) and that of Director-
shortly be transferred — the President of the Court of First             General of the Directorate-General for Personnel (DG V).
Instance made an order on 1 June 1999, the operative part of
which is as follows:                                                     The applicant, a grade A2 official of the Parliament, applied
                                                                         for the first post. Apart from that application, the Secretary-
1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.                    General received three other admissible applications and two
                                                                         further applications which were inadmissible under Article
2. Costs are reserved.                                                   29(1)(a) of the Staff Regulations — including, in particular,
                                                                         that of Mr L.V. (Chef de cabinet of the President of the
                                                                         Parliament and an official of the Commission).
                                                                         Mr L.V. was appointed on 16 July 1998. The applicant was
                                                                         never officially informed of that decision, nor, a fortiori, of the
                                                                         reasons on which it was based. By letter of 16 September
Action brought on 20 April 1999 by Michael Chamier                       1998 he was informed by the Head of the Personnel Division
               against the European Parliament                           that his application for the post had been rejected.
                          (Case T-97/99)                                 The applicant maintains that:
                         (1999/C 246/68)                                 — the procedure was solely designed to formalise a decision
                                                                             — namely, to appoint Mr L.V. to the vacant post — which
                                                                             had already been adopted before the commencement of
                   (Language of the case: French)                            the procedure. The choice of Mr L.V. was the result of a
                                                                             political agreement and did not result from any proper
An action against the European Parliament was brought before                 exercise of the powers conferred on the appointing
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                   authority in accordance with Article 29 of the Staff
20 April 1999 by Michael Chamier, residing in Luxembourg,                    Regulations;
represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of the
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the           — the conditions in which the appointing authority decided
offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL 30 Rue de Cessange.                         to open the exceptional recruitment procedure and to
                                                                             choose Mr L.V. are vitiated by various infringements of
                                                                             procedural rules and of Article 29 of the Staff Regulations;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the decision taken by the appointing authority                   — Mr L.V. does not satisfy the conditions laid clown in the
     on 16 July 1998 appointing Mr L.V. to the post of                       vacancy notice, since his qualifications and abilities are not
     Director-General of the Directorate-General for Finance                 those which are required and demanded for such an
     and Financial Control, the decision of the same date                    important position in the field of finance and financial
     rejecting the application for that post submitted by the                control;
     applicant and, in so far as may be necessary, the decision
     dated 21 January 1999 rejecting the applicant’s complaint;          — the applicant’s curriculum vitae, on the other hand, fully
                                                                             satisfies the requirements of the post. Consequently, the
— request the defendant to produce the notes sent by the                     appointing authority has committed a manifest error of
     Secretary-General to the Bureau on 22 December 1997                     assessment and has infringed Articles 7 and 27 of the Staff
     and 13 and 16 July 1998 (documents PE 265.377/BUR,                      Regulations;
     PE 271.309/BUR and PE 271.309/BUR/ADD), together
     with the file relating to Mr L.V.’s application for the post        — the appointing authority has violated the principles of
     of Director-General of the Directorate-General for Finance              sound management and of good administration; and
     and Financial Control;
                                                                         — there has been a breach of the general obligation to provide
— order the defendant to pay damages provisionally quanti-                   a statement of reasons.
     fied, on an equitable basis, in the sum of 100 000 euros;
                                                                         As to the claim for damages, the applicant maintains that the
— order the defendant to pay the costs.                                  alleged loss is non-material and that it results from violation
                                                                         of general principles of law and of the rules governing the
                                                                         recruitment procedure and from disregard of the interests of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          the service. His legitimate expectation, if not that he would be
                                                                         appointed to the post, at least that proper consideration would
Following the decision to split up the Parliament’s Directorate-         be given to his application for it, has been seriously prejudiced.
General V (Personnel, the Budget and Finance) and to create
two new directorates-general (the Directorate-General for the
Budget and Finance and the Directorate-General for Personnel),


title: Case T-192/01: Action brought on 14 August 2001 by the Groupement européen d'intérêt économique Lior against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
27.10.2001              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 303/21
—     consequently annul the 1999 A 4 promotions procedure                     —     Managium, relating to the Biogaz, Solaire Bioclima-
      with regard to the applicant;                                                  tique and Biogaz contracts is unlawful, since those
                                                                                invoices cover the services actually provided by the
—     order the defendant to pay all the costs of the action.                        applicant’s Managing Director in accordance with
                                                                                the work programme;
                                                                               and consequently declare that the fees charged by Deira
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                and Managium must be accepted;
In support of his action, the applicant puts forward the same            —     declare that the decision terminating the Photovoltaic
pleas in law as in Case T-188/01. In addition the applicant                    SME/1883/98-EU contract is unlawful;
alleges non-compliance with the promotions procedure.
                                                                               and consequently declare that the Commission has no
                                                                               legal right to claim repayment of the advance of
                                                                               36 000 Euros paid by way of financial contribution;
                                                                         —     declare that the Commission’s decision retroactively
                                                                               terminating the Transport DIS/1178/1997-BE Agreement
Action brought on 14 August 2001 by the Groupement                             is unlawful;
européen d’intérêt économique Lior against the Com-
            mission of the European Communities                                and consequently declare that the Commission has no
                                                                               legal right to claim repayment of the initial advance of
                          (Case T-192/01)                                      36 000 Euros paid by way of financial contribution, and
                                                                               that the contract should run its term;
                          (2001/C 303/35)
                                                                         As regards the Altener                      Agores       XVII/
                                                                         41030/Z/99-085 contract
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         —     order the Commission to pay the sum of 68 070 Euros,
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                      representing the final instalment of its financial contri-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                     bution, together with interest at the statutory rate from
European Communities on 14 August 2001 by the Groupe-                          the date of the letter of 23 July 2001 giving formal notice
ment européen d’intérêt économique Lior, established in                        to pay;
Brussels, represented by Véronique Marien and Joëlle Chou-
croun, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.               As regards the Thermie and Altener con-
                                                                         tracts
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         —     order the Commission to compensate the applicant for
In the context of performance of Thermie                                       the damage suffered in the context of the performance of
contracts                                                                      all of the Thermie and Altener contracts, initially esti-
                                                                               mated, on a fair and equitable basis, to amount to the
—     order the European Commission to pay the final instal-                   sum of 1 million Euros, subject to increase or decrease in
      ment of its financial contribution, namely:                              the course of proceedings;
      —     for the Biomasse           SME/1539/97        contract:      —     order the Commission to pay all the costs.
            40 500 Euros
      —     for the Windenergy           SME/792/96       contract:
            36 000 Euros,
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
      together with interest at the statutory rate from the date
      of the letter of 6 July 2001 giving formal notice to pay
      until payment in full;                                             The applicant in the present case, a European economic
                                                                         interest grouping with 10 members representing 4 countries
—     declare that the Commission’s decision rejecting the               of the European Union, concluded several contracts with the
      invoices of its members                                            Commission under the Thermie Programme, Section B, with
                                                                         the aim of creating CD-ROMs concerning:
      —     Deira, relating to all of the Thermie contracts, is
            unlawful, in that it is based on a non-contractual           —     the management of biogas obtained from waste and
            audit of its accounts;                                             waste-water treatment (Biogaz SME/003/95-BE contract);
 ---pagebreak--- C 303/22               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     27.10.2001
—     bioclimatic      architecture     (Solaire     Bioclimatique       European Communities on 11 August 2001 by Alain-Pierre
      DIS/0161/95-BE contract);                                          Allo, resident in Brussels, represented by Nicolas Lhoëst,
                                                                         lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
—     Biomasse combustion (Biomasse SME/1539/97-BE con-
      tract);
—     wind energy technology (Windenergy SME-0792-96/BE
      contract);                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     energy saving in respect of road transport (Transport
      DIS/1178/97-BE contract); and                                      —     annul the Commission decision of 26 October 2000 in
                                                                               that it deprived the applicant of a middle-management
—     photovoltaic        solar     technology       (Photovoltaic             post and reassigned him to the post of Adviser ad
      SME/1883/198-EU contract).                                               personam in the RELEX G1 ‘Horizontal matters’ unit;
Furthermore, in the context of the Altener II Programme for              —     annul the Commission decision of 31 January 2001 and
the dissemination of information on renewable energy, the                      any similar decision refusing to transfer the applicant to
Commission entrusted to the applicant the task of creating                     another service or another DG in accordance with
an Agores Internet site containing information about, and                      Article 7 of the Staff Regulations;
promoting the use of renewable forms of energy, and a ‘link’
to all sites providing information concerning renewable forms
of energy.                                                               —     in so far as necessary, annul the Commission decision of
                                                                               3 May 2001, expressly rejecting the complaint submitted
The present application is founded on:                                         by the applicant on 23 January 2001, and the Com-
                                                                               mission decision of 19 June 2001, expressly rejecting the
—     the suspension of the final payments under the Biomasse                  complaint submitted by the applicant on 30 April 2001;
      and Windenergy contracts, following an audit carried out
      by the Commission;
                                                                         —     order the defendant to pay a sum of 25 000 Euros as
—     the unilateral termination of the Photovoltic contract,                  compensation for the damage suffered;
      after two years and five months’ performance of the
      contract and the demand for reimbursement of the
      advance of 36 000 Euros;                                           —     order the defendant to pay all the costs of the action.
—     the termination of the Transport contract and the demand
      for reimbursement of the advance of 36 000 Euros;
—     the suspension of payment of the balance of 68 070 Euros
      allegedly owed in respect of the Agores contract.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of its claims, the applicant submits that the
Commission’s decisions giving rise to the present action have
no legislative, legal or contractual basis.
                                                                         In the course of reorganizing the Commission’s directorates-
                                                                         general, the unit of which the applicant was, until then, head
                                                                         of unit was abolished, and the applicant was reassigned as
                                                                         Adviser ad personam in another unit. That reassignment,
                                                                         resulted inter alia in putting the applicant in a situation where
                                                                         he was subordinate to an official in a lower grade than his.
Action brought on 11 August 2001 by Alain-Pierre Allo
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                         The applicant submits that the Commission should have
                         (Case T-193/01)
                                                                         examined the comparative merits of each of the three heads of
                                                                         unit affected by the reorganisation. The Commission’s decision
                         (2001/C 303/36)                                 concerning the reassignment of the applicant did not contain
                                                                         any explanation of the reasons behind the Commission’s
                   (Language of the case: French)                        choice to bring to an end his duties as head of unit. The
                                                                         Commission therefore infringed Article 25(2) of the Staff
                                                                         Regulations. The applicant also submits that, in breach of
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                Article 7 of the Staff Regulations, the decision clearly failed to
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               have regard to the needs of the service.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 1 December 1998 in Case C-326/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Employment Appeal Tribunal, London: B. S. Levez v. T. H. Jennings (Harlow Pools) Ltd (Social policy - Men and women - Equal pay - Article 119 of the EC Treaty - Directive 75/117/EEC - Remedies for breach of the prohibition on discrimination - Pay arrears - Domestic legislation placing a two-year limit on awards for the period prior to the institution of proceedings - Similar domestic actions)

text:
23.1.1999             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 20/9
3.8.1979, p. 1), Articles 3 and 5 of Council Regulation                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(EEC) No 1854/89 of 14 June 1989 on the entry in the
accounts and terms of payment of the amounts of the                                    of 1 December 1998
import duties or export duties resulting from a customs
debt (OJ L 186, 30.6.1989, p. 1), and of Commission
Regulation (EEC) No 1591/92 of 22 June 1992                        in Case C-326/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
introducing a countervailing charge on cherries originating        the Employment Appeal Tribunal, London: B. S. Levez v.
in Bulgaria (OJ L 168, 23.6.1992, p. 18) Ð the Court                          T. H. Jennings (Harlow Pools) Ltd (1)
(Second Chamber), composed of: G. Hirsch (Rapporteur),
President of Chamber, G. F. Mancini and R. Schintgen,              (Social policy Ð Men and women Ð Equal pay Ð
Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett,                 Article 119 of the EC Treaty Ð Directive 75/117/EEC Ð
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on          Remedies for breach of the prohibition on discrimination
26 November 1998 in which it has ruled:                            Ð Pay arrears Ð Domestic legislation placing a two-year
                                                                   limit on awards for the period prior to the institution of
                                                                            proceedings Ð Similar domestic actions)
1. The countervailing charge imposed by Commission                                        (1999/C 20/14)
    Regulation (EEC) No 1591/92 of 22 June 1992
    introducing a countervailing charge on cherries
    originating in Bulgaria also applies to cherries
    intended for industrial processing.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
2. A trader who has accumulated some experience of
    import and export transactions and who is aware, in
    particular, of the imminent risk of a countervailing
    charge being introduced cannot, if that charge is
    actually introduced, benefit from the provisions of
    Article 5(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79            In Case C-326/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
    of 24 July 1979 on the post-clearance recovery of              of the EC Treaty by the Employment Appeal Tribunal,
    import duties or export duties which have not been             London, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
    required of the person liable for payment on goods             pending before that court between B. S. Levez and T. H.
    entered for a customs procedure involving the                  Jennings (Harlow Pools) Ltd Ð on the interpretation of
    obligation to pay such duties or of Article 13 of              Article 119 of the EC Treaty, and Articles 2 and 6 of
    Council Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 of 2 July 1979             Council Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the
    on the repayment or remission of import or export              approximation of the laws of the Member States relating
    duties if he could have informed himself as to the             to the application of the principle of equal pay for men
    actual introduction of the charge by consulting the            and women (OJ L 45, 19.2.1975, p. 19) Ð the Court,
    Official Journal of the European Communities and               composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, J.-P.
    failed to do so.                                               Puissochet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann, Presidents of
                                                                   Chambers, G. F. Mancini (Rapporteur), J. C. Moitinho de
                                                                   Almeida, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward, H. Ragnemalm,
                                                                   R. Schintgen and K. M. Ioannou, Judges; P. LeÂger,
                                                                   Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator,
3. Failure to observe the time-limits laid down in                 for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 1 December
    Articles 3 and 5 of Council Regulation (EEC)                   1998 in which it has ruled:
    No 1854/89 of 14 June 1989 on the entry in the
    accounts and terms of payment of the amounts of the
    import duties or export duties resulting from a
    customs debt does not nullify the right of competent
    customs authorities to proceed with the post-clearance
    recovery of customs duties, provided that it is carried
    out within the time-limit laid down in Article 2(1) of         1. Community law precludes the application of a rule of
    Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79.                                       national law which limits an employee's entitlement to
                                                                       arrears of remuneration or damages for breach of the
                                                                       principle of equal pay to a period of two years prior
(1) OJ C 74, 8.3.1997.                                                 to the date on which the proceedings were instituted,
                                                                       there being no possibility of extending that period,
                                                                       where the delay in bringing a claim is attributable to
                                                                       the fact that the employer deliberately misrepresented
                                                                       to the employee the level of remuneration received by
                                                                       persons of the opposite sex performing like work.
 ---pagebreak--- C 20/10               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    23.1.1999
2. Community law precludes the application of a rule of              Schintgen and K. M. Ioannou, Judges; J. Mischo,
     national law which limits an employee's entitlement to          Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
     arrears of remuneration or damages for breach of the            Registrar, has given a judgment on 1 December 1998 in
     principle of equal pay to a period of two years prior           which it has ruled:
     to the date on which the proceedings were instituted,
     even when another remedy is available, if the latter is
     likely to entail procedural rules or other conditions
     which are less favourable than those applicable to              It is contrary to Article 59 of the EC Treaty and to
     similar domestic actions. It is for the national court to       Second Council Directive 89/646/EEC of 15 December
     determine whether that is the case.                             1989 on th coordination of laws, regulations and
                                                                     administrative provisions relating to the taking up and
                                                                     pursuit of the business of credit institutions and amending
(1) OJ C 354, 23.11.1996.                                            Directive 77/780/EEC and Council Directive 92/49/EEC
                                                                     of 18 June 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations
                                                                     and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance
                                                                     other than life assurance and amending Directives
                                                                     73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (third non-life insurance
                                                                     Directive) for national rules to require, with a view to
                                                                     implementing Article 7 of Council Directive 90/314/EEC
                                                                     of 13 June 1990 on package travel, package holidays and
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                 package tours, that, where financial security is provided
                                                                     by a credit institution or insurance company situated in
                     of 1 December 1998                              another Member State, the guarantor must conclude an
                                                                     agreement with a credit institution or insurance company
in Case C-410/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from            situated in France.
the Tribunal de Grande Instance, Metz): Criminal
             proceedings against AndreÂ Ambry (1)
                                                                     (1) OJ C 74, 8.3.1997.
(Freedom to provide services Ð Free movement of capital
Ð Provision of financial security Ð Travel agency
arranging the security required to carry on its activities
with a credit institution or insurance company established
                  in another Member State)
                        (1999/C 20/15)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                of 1 December 1998
                                                                     in Case C-200/97: (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                     Corte Suprema di Cassazione): Ecotrade Srl v. Altiforni e
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                      Ferriere di Servola SpA (AFS) (1)
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                     (State aid Ð Definition Ð Advantage conferred without
                                                                     any transfer of public funds Ð Insolvent undertakings Ð
                                                                     Article 92 of the EC Treaty Ð Article 4(c) of the ECSC
In Case C-410/96: reference to the Court under Article 177                                       Treaty)
of the EC Treaty by the Tribunal de Grande Instance,
Metz (France) for a preliminary ruling in the criminal                                       (1999/C 20/16)
proceedings pending before that court against AndreÂ
Ambry Ð on the interpretation of Articles 59 and 73(b) of
the EC Treaty, of Council Directive 73/183/EEC of 28 June
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
1973 on the abolition of restrictions on freedom of
establishment and freedom to provide services in respect
of self-employed activities of banks and other financial
institutions (OJ L 194, 16.7.1973, p. 1) and of Second
Council Directive 89/646/EEC of 15 December 1989 on                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative                       published in the European Court Reports)
provisions relating to the taking up and pursuit of the
business of credit institutions and amending Directive
77/780/EEC (OJ L 386, 30.12.1989, p. 1) Ð the Court,
composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, P. J. G.           In Case C-200/97: reference to the Court under Article 177
Kapteyn, J.-P. Puissochet and G. Hirsch, Presidents of               of the EC Treaty by the Corte Suprema di Cassazione
Chambers, G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, C.               (Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur), M. Wathelet, R.                  before that court between Ecotrade Srl and Altiforni e


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 2 October 2003 in Case C-322/00: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 91/676/EEC — Protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources — Article 5(4) and (5), paragraphs A(1), (2), (4) and (6) of Annex II and paragraph 1(2) and (3) and paragraph 2 of Annex III — Capacity of storage vessels for livestock manure — Limitation of the land application of fertilisers based on a balance between the foreseeable nitrogen requirements of crops and the nitrogen supply to crops from the soil and from fertilisation — Ensuring that the amount of livestock manure applied to land each year does not exceed a specified amount per hectare — Provisions contained in a code of good agricultural practice and covering periods, conditions and procedures for the land application of fertilisers — Obligation to adopt any additional measures or reinforced actions necessary)

text:
15.11.2003              EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                C 275/5
4.   Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.           1.    Declares that by failing to adopt the necessary laws, regulations
                                                                                and administrative provisions laid down in:
(1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.
                                                                                —    Article 5(4)(a) of Council Directive 91/676/EEC of
                                                                                12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters
                                                                                against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural
                                                                                sources, in conjunction with paragraph 1(2) and (3) and
                                                                                paragraph 2 of Annex III thereto;
                                                                                —    Article 5(4)(b) of the Directive, in conjunction with
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                  Article 4(1)(a) thereof and paragraphs A(1), (2), (4)
                                                                                and (6) of Annex II thereto; and
                         (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                —    Article 5(5) of the Directive,
                        of 2 October 2003
                                                                                the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its
                                                                                obligations under the Directive;
in Case C-322/00: Commission of the European Communi-
             ties v Kingdom of the Netherlands (1)
                                                                             2.    Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Directive 91/676/EEC — Protection of waters against pol-                     (1) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2002.
lution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources —
Article 5(4) and (5), paragraphs A(1), (2), (4) and (6) of
Annex II and paragraph 1(2) and (3) and paragraph 2 of
Annex III — Capacity of storage vessels for livestock manure
— Limitation of the land application of fertilisers based on
a balance between the foreseeable nitrogen requirements of
crops and the nitrogen supply to crops from the soil and
from fertilisation — Ensuring that the amount of livestock
manure applied to land each year does not exceed a specified                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
amount per hectare — Provisions contained in a code of good
agricultural practice and covering periods, conditions and                                        of 23 September 2003
procedures for the land application of fertilisers — Obli-
gation to adopt any additional measures or reinforced actions
                             necessary)                                      in Case C-30/01: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                             ties v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
                                                                                Ireland (1)
                         (2003/C 275/10)
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                            (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure
                                                                             to implement, in respect of Gibraltar, Directives 67/548/EEC
                                                                             and 87/18/EEC (concerning dangerous chemical substances);
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       93/12/EEC (concerning liquid fuels); 79/113/EEC, 84/533/
                   in the European Court Reports)                            EEC, 84/534/EEC, 84/535/EEC, 84/536/EEC, 84/537/EEC,
                                                                             84/538/EEC, 86/594/EEC and 86/662/EEC (concerning
                                                                             noise emission); 94/62/EC (concerning packaging waste)
                                                                             and 97/35/EC (concerning the deliberate release into the
In Case C-322/00, Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                environment of genetically modified organisms))
(Agents: G. Valero Jordana and C. van Hauwaert) v Kingdom
of the Netherlands (Agent: J. G. M. van Bakel): Application for
a declaration that, by failing to adopt the necessary legislative                                      (2003/C 275/11)
and administrative provisions laid down in Article 4 and
Article 5(4) and (5) of Council Directive 91/676/EEC of
12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters                                            (Language of the case: English)
against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources
(OJ 1991 L 375, p. 1) and in paragraphs A(1), (2), (4) and (6)
of Annex II and paragraph 1(2) and (3) and paragraph 2 of
Annex III thereto, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed                 In Case C-30/01, Commission of the European Communities
to fulfil its obligations under that directive, the Court (Sixth             (Agent: R.B. Wainwright) supported by Kingdom of Spain
Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the                    (Agent: R. Silva de Lapuerta) v United Kingdom of Great
Chamber, C. Gulmann, V. Skouris, F. Macken (Rapporteur)                      Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: R. Magrill, assisted by
and N. Colneric, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,              D. Wyatt QC): Application for a declaration that by failing,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment             in respect of Gibraltar, to adopt the laws, regulations or
on 2 October 2003, in which it:                                              administrative provisions necessary to comply with


title: Action brought on 6 April 1998 by Danagro Adviser A/S, Plunkett Foundation and Irish Agri-Food Development Ltd; having formed a joint venture under Danish law entitled Ecord Consortium for Russian Cooperation, against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-60/98)

text:
4.7.98                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 209/39
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                           Currall and Rosemary Caudwell), supported by National
                       of 14 May 1998                               Association of Licensed Opencast Operators, having its
                                                                    registered office in Swindon (United Kingdom),
in Case T-21/97: Sofia Goycoolea v. Commission of the               represented by Nicholas Green and Mark Hoskins,
                  European Communities (1)                          Barristers, instructed by David Wilson, Alexander Dowie
(Temporary staff Ð False information given in the                   and Christopher Jobson, Solicitors, with an address for
application for appointment Ð Article 50(1) of the                  service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Victor Gillen,
Conditions of Employment of Other Servants Ð Third                  13 Rue Aldringen Ð application for the annulment of the
subparagraph of Article 5(1) of the Staff Regulations Ð             Commission's implied decision refusing to reject the
Conditions governing the form in which complaints are to            complaint against the applicant lodged by the National
                           be made)                                 Association of Licensed Opencast Operators on 15 June
                                                                    1994 Ð the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber),
                        (98/C 209/82)                               composed of: V. Tiili, President, C. P. BrieÈt and A.
                                                                    Potocki, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on
               (Language of the case: French)                       29 April 1998, the operative part of which is as follows:
In Case T-21/97: Sofia Goycoolea, a former member of                1. The application is dismissed.
the temporary staff of the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis, Thierry
Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an           2. The applicant shall pay the costs in their entirety,
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of                     including those of the intervener.
Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange, v.
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Julian              (1) OJ C 386, 31.12.1994.
Currall and Florence Duvieusart-Clotuche) Ð application
for annulment of the decision of the authority empowered
to conclude contracts of employment within the
Commission of 7 May 1996 terminating the applicant's
contract as a member of the temporary staff Ð the Court
of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J. Azizi,
President, and R. García-Valdecasas and M. Jaeger,                  Action brought on 6 April 1998 by Danagro Adviser A/S,
Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, has              Plunkett Foundation and Irish Agri-Food Development
given a judgment on 14 May 1998, in which it:                       Ltd; having formed a joint venture under Danish law
                                                                    entitled Ecord Consortium for Russian Cooperation,
                                                                       against the Commission of the European Communities
1. Dismisses the application.
                                                                                (Case T-60/98)
2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.                                               (98/C 209/84)
(1) OJ C 108, 5.4.1997.                                                             (Language of the case: French)
                                                                    An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                    Instance of the European Communities on 6 April 1998
                                                                    by Danagro Adviser A/S, established at Glostrup
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                           (Denmark), Plunkett Foundation, established at Long
                       of 29 April 1998                             Hanborough (United Kingdom) and Irish Agri-Food
                                                                    Development Ltd; established at Dublin (Ireland), having
in   Case T-367/94: British Coal Corporation                v.
                                                                    formed a joint venture under Danish law entitled Ecord
       Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                    Consortium for Russian Cooperation, represented by Mia
(ECSC Treaty Ð Action for annulment of an implied                   Declercq and Kurt Haegeman, of the Brussels Bar, with an
decision of refusal Ð Action manifestly lacking any                 address for service in Luxembourg at the chambers of
                      foundation in law)                            Marc Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe.
                        (98/C 209/83)
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                    Ð annul the Commission's decision of 17 March 1998
In Case T-367/94: British Coal Corporation, having its                  rejecting the applicants' tender, submitted in response
registered office in London, represented by David Vaughan               to an invitation to tender by the European
QC, David Lloyd Jones, Barrister, and Cyrus Mehta,                      Commission for a project financed by the TACIS fund
Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the             entitled: Russia': Promoting Co-operative Ventures by
Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe, against                     Independent Farmers', brief title: Independent
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Julian                  Farmers' Co-ops (Project No FDRUS 9701),
 ---pagebreak--- C 209/40             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     4.7.98
Ð declare that the applicants are to be admitted to the             Action brought on 8 April 1998 by Compagnie
     tendering procedure in response to an invitation to            Continentale (France) against the Commission of the
     tender by the European Commission for a project                                   European Communities
     financed by the TACIS fund entitled: Russia':                                         (Case T-61/98)
     Promoting Co-operative Ventures by Independent
     Farmers', brief title: Independent Farmers' Co-ops                                     (98/C 209/85)
     (Project No FDRUS 9701).
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                    An action against the Commission of the European
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                    Instance of the European Communities on 8 April 1998
                                                                    by Compagnie Continentale (France), established at
The applicants are participants in a joint venture under            LabeÁge (France), represented by Patrick Chabrier, of the
Danish law entitled Ecord Consortium for Russian Co-                Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
operation, formed to provide a framework for the                    the Chambers of Ernst Arendt, 8Ð10 Rue Mathias Hardt.
preparation of a tender in response to an invitation to
tender by the European Commission, and, in the event of
a successful tender, to procure technical assistance and            The applicant claims that the Court should:
administration for the project, including certain financial
arrangements.
                                                                    Ð declare that Compagnie Continentale has the requisite
                                                                        legal capacity to bring its action for non-contractual
On 13 March 1998 the applicant Danagro Adviser sent                     liability against the Commission of the European
Ecord's tender by DHL courier to the address given in the               Communities,
Commission's invitation to tender Tacis Procurement
Unit, Rue de la Loi 99, 1040 Brussels'. The tender arrived
                                                                    Ð order the Commission to pay to                  Compagnie
in Brussels on 16 March 1998; the staff of the
                                                                        Continentale the sum of ECU 1 858 987,
Commission signed to acknowledge receipt of it at 8.30
a. m. The deadline for the submission of tenders was
16 March 1998 at 11.00 a. m.                                        Ð order the Commission to pay to Compagnie
                                                                        Continentale interest on those sums at the legal rate,
According to the applicants, by letter of 15 November
1991 DHL had received instructions from the Commission              Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
to deliver all mail addressed to the Commission to the
central mail office of the European Communities at 1140
Evere, 12 Rue de GeneÁve. The mail office informed DHL              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
on 16 March after 11.00 a. m. that the consignment from
Danagro had to be delivered directly to Tacis Procurement
Unit. DHL then took the consignment and delivered it                The applicant states that on 27 November 1992 it
directly to Tacis Procurement Unit on 17 March 1998. By             concluded two contracts for the sale of wheat with Vao
letter of 17 March 1998 (contested decision), the                   Exportkhleb, a Russian importer, within the framework of
applicants' tender was rejected on the ground that it was           a medium-term loan granted by the Community to the
submitted late.                                                     Soviet Union and its Republics with a view to financing
                                                                    purchases of supplies of agricultural products. On
                                                                    23 February 1993 the applicant agreed with Exportkhleb
The applicants submit that the contested decision should            new prices for quantities of wheat to be delivered from
be annulled on the grounds of breach of the principles of           28 February 1993. Those agreements, which took the
the protection of legitimate expectations, sound                    form of amendments to the initial contracts, were sent for
administration and the duty of diligence. They argue that           approval to the Commission by the VneshEconomBank of
the Commission acted in breach of the principles of                 Moscow. By letter of 1 April 1993 Mr Steichen, a
natural justice in rejecting their tender. The rules                Member        of    the     Commission,      informed    the
governing the tendering procedure are intended to exclude           VneshEconomBank of the Commission's refusal to
the possibility of collusion between those awarding the             approve the amendments.
contracts and to ensure fair treatment of all candidates.
The rules are not intended to rule out genuine and valid
tenders on the pretext of technical errors which are                The applicant, which has already contested that refusal by
beyond the control of the tenderers. Both the applicants            the Commission in proceedings before the Community
and DHL followed the instructions given to them by the              judicature (1), considers, on the basis of arguments very
Commission. The fact that those instructions did not                similar to those advanced in support of the application for
achieve the desired result is entirely beyond their control.        annulment, that there has been misconduct on the part of
                                                                    the defendant institution. It therefore claims compensation
                                                                    for the damage suffered as a result of the refusal by the
                                                                    Community's financial agent to pay for the supplies of


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 May 1999 in Case T-176/95: Accinauto SA v Commission of the European Communities (Competition - Article 81(1) EC (ex-Article 85(1)) - Exclusive distribution agreement - Parallel imports)

text:
28.8.1999             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 246/23
                                                       COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                        Loesch and Wolters, 11 Rue Goethe v Commission of the
                        of 19 May 1999                                  European Communities (Agents: initially Bernd Langeheine
                                                                        and Heinz-Joachim Freund, and subsequently Wouter Wils
                                                                        and Heinz-Joachim Freund) — application for the annulment
in Case T-175/95: BASF Coatings AG v Commission of                      of Commission Decision 95/477/EC of 12 July 1995 relating
                the European Communities (1)                            to a proceeding pursuant to Article 85 of the EC Treaty (Case
                                                                        IV/33.802 — BASF Lacke + Farben AG, and Accinauto SA)
(Competition — Article 81(1) EC (ex Article 85(1)) —                    (OJ 1995 L 272, p. 16) — the Court (First Chamber), composed
     Exclusive distribution agreement — Parallel imports)               of: B. Vesterdorf, President, R.M. Moura Ramos and P. Mengoz-
                                                                        zi, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar,
                        (1999/C 246/45)                                 has given a judgment on 19 May 1999, in which it:
                                                                        1. Dismisses the application;
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                        2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
In Case T-175/95: BASF Coatings AG (formerly BASF Lack
und Farben AG), with its registered office in Münster-Hiltrup
(Germany), represented by Ferdinand Hermanns, Rechtsan-                 (1) OJ C 315 of 25.11.1995.
walt, Düsseldorf, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the Chambers of Loesch and Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe, against
the Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
initially Bernd Langeheine and Heinz-Joachim Freund and
subsequently by Wouter Wils and Hans-Joachim Freund)
— application for the annulment of Commission Decision
95/477/EC of 12 July 1995 relating to a proceeding pursuant
to Article 85 of the EC Treaty (Case IV/33.802 — BASF Lacke
                                                                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
+ Farben AG, and Accinauto SA) (OJ 1995 L 272, p. 16) —
the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of B.
Vesterdorf, President, R.M. Moura Ramos, and P. Mengozzi,                                        of 19 May 1999
Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar,
has given a judgment on 19 May 1999, in which it:
                                                                        in Case T-203/95: Bernard Connolly v Commission of the
1. Dismisses the application;                                                               European Communities (1)
2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.                               (Officials — Article 88 of the Staff Regulations — Suspen-
                                                                        sion — Admissibility — Statement of reasons — Alleged
                                                                        fault — Infringement of Articles 11, 12 and 17 of the Staff
(1) OJ C 315 of 25.11.1995.
                                                                                Regulations — Equal treatment)
                                                                                (1999/C 246/47)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                        In Case T-203/95: Bernard Connolly, a former official of
                        of 19 May 1999                                  the Commission of the European Communities, residing in
                                                                        Everberg (Belgium), represented by Jacques Sambon and
in Case T-176/95: Accinauto SA v Commission of the                      Pierre-Paul Van Gehuchten, of the Brussels Bar, with an address
                  European Communities (1)                              for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2
                                                                        Rue du Fort Rheinsheim, against Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and Julian Currall) —
(Competition — Article 81(1) EC (ex-Article 85(1)) —                    application for annulment of the decision of 27 September
     Exclusive distribution agreement — Parallel imports)               1995 by which the appointing authority decided to suspend
                                                                        the applicant from his duties and to withhold half of his basic
                        (1999/C 246/46)                                 salary with effect from 3 October 1995 — the Court of First
                                                                        Instance (First Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President,
                                                                        J. Pirrung and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given
                  (Language of the case: German)                        a judgment on 19 May 1999, the operative part of which is as
                                                                        follows:
In Case T-176/95: Accinauto SA, established in Brussels,
represented by Helmut Glassen, Rechtsanwalt, Leimen, with               1. The application is dismissed;