title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the House of Lords, by order of that court of 20 May 1998, in the case of Regina against the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte: S. P. Anastasiou (Pissouri) Ltd and others, Interveners: Cypfruvex (UK) Ltd and Cypfruvex Fruit and Vegetable (Cypfruvex) Enterprises Ltd (Case C-219/98)

text:
15.8.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 258/27
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the House of Lords,                   certificate which accompanied them to the
by order of that court of 20 May 1998, in the case of                       Community was issued in the sense that they were
Regina against the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and                   never unloaded from the ship in question and/or
Food, ex parte: S. P. Anastasiou (Pissouri) Ltd and others,                 never passed the customs barrier; and/or
Interveners: Cypfruvex (UK) Ltd and Cypfruvex Fruit and
           Vegetable (Cypfruvex) Enterprises Ltd
                                                                        (b) the special requirements that applied to the
                       (Case C-219/98)
                                                                            relevant plants had already been satisfied in the
                        (98/C 258/43)                                       country of origin?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the              5. Are the answers to Questions 1 and 2 different where
European Communities by an order of the House of Lords                  the relevant plants were submitted for the certification
of 20 May 1998, which was received at the Court                         in a non-Member Country other than that of origin,
Registry on 15 June 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the               not for any plant health reason, but so as not to
case of Regina against the Minister of Agriculture,                     have to obtain a phytosanitary certificate from the
Fisheries and Food, ex parte: S. P. Anastasiou (Pissouri)               authorities empowered to do so in the country of
Ltd and others, Interveners: Cypfruvex (UK) Ltd and                     origin?'
Cypfruvex Fruit and Vegetable (Cypfruvex) Enterprises
Ltd, on the following questions:
                                                                   (1) OJ L 26 of 31.1.1977, p. 20.
1. Under Article 12(1)(b) of Council Directive 77/93/
    EEC (1) of 21 December 1976 on protective measures
    against the introduction into the Member States of
    organisms harmful to plants or plant products as
    amended, (the Directive') is a Member State entitled
    to accept (and if so in what circumstances and subject         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht
    to what conditions) the introduction into its territories      Köln by order of that court of 15 May 1998 in the case of
    of plants as defined in the Directive (plants')               EsteÂe Lauder Cosmetics GmbH & Co oHG v Lancaster
    originating in non-Member countries and listed in                                      Group GmbH
    Annex V, Part B of the Directive where those plants
    are accompanied only by a phytosanitary certificate                                   (Case C-220/98)
    issued by a non-Member country from which the
                                                                                (98/C 258/44)
    plants have been transported to the Community and
    not by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the non-
    Member country of origin?
                                                                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                   European Communities by order of the Landgericht Köln
 2. Does the answer to Question 1 differ, and if so how, if        (Cologne Regional Court) of 15 May 1998, received at the
    the relevant plants are subject to special requirements        Court Registry on 15 June 1998, for a preliminary ruling
    laid down in Annex IV, Part A, Section 1 of the                in the case of EsteÂe Lauder Cosmetics GmbH & Co oHG
    Directive which can be fulfilled in non-Member                 v Lancaster Group GmbH on the following question:
    countries other than that of origin within the meaning
    of Article 9(1) of the Directive?
                                                                   Are Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty and/or Article 6(3)
 3. Is the Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-432/         of Council Directive 76/768/EEC (1) relating to cosmetic
    92 Anastasiou [1994] E.C.R. I-3087 to be interpreted           products to be interpreted as precluding the application of
    and applied so as to preclude the national authorities         national legislation on unfair competition which allows
    of a Member State from permitting the importation of           the importation and distribution of a cosmetic product
    citrus fruits originating in the part of Cyprus to the         lawfully manufactured or distributed in a Member State of
    north of the United Nations Buffer Zone when they              the European Union to be prohibited on the ground that
    are accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate which           consumers will be misled by the word lifting' in the
    has been issued by the authorities of another non-             name, indicating the effect of the product, into assuming
    Member country from which those citrus fruits have             that it is of lasting effect, if that product is being
    been transported to the Community?                             distributed with the same indication of its effect on the
                                                                   packaging lawfully and without challenge in other
                                                                   countries within the European Union?
 4. Are the answers to any of the above questions
    different where:                                               (1) OJ L 262 of 27.9.1976, p. 169.
    (a) the relevant plants were never imported into the
        non-Member country in which the phytosanitary


21.2.2004              EN                  Official Journal of the European Union                                     C 47/27
       Removal from the register of Case C-126/02 (1)              from the register of Case C-80/03: Commission of the
                                                                   European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands.
                         (2004/C 47/48)
                                                                   (1) OJ C 83, 5.4.2003.
By order of 23 October 2003 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-126/02: Commission of the
European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case C-108/03 (1)
(1) OJ C 144, 15.6.2002.
                                                                                (2004/C 47/52)
                                                                   By order of 10 September 2003 the President of the Court of
       Removal from the register of Case C-35/03 (1)               Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                   from the register of Case C-108/03: Commission of the
                         (2004/C 47/49)                            European Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 112, 10.5.2003.
By order of 6 November 2003 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-35/03: Commission of the
European Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 70, 22.3.2003.                                                   Removal from the register of Case C-142/03 (1)
                                                                                (2004/C 47/53)
       Removal from the register of Case C-57/03 (1)               By order of 11 November 2003 the President of the Court of
                                                                   Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                         (2004/C 47/50)                            from the register of Case C-142/03: Commission of the
                                                                   European Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
By order of 21 October 2003 the President of the Court of          (1) OJ C 146 of 21.6.2003.
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-57/03: Commission of the
European Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 83, 5.4.2003.
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case C-218/03 (1)
                                                                                (2004/C 47/54)
       Removal from the register of Case C-80/03 (1)
                                                                   By order of 10 September 2003 the President of the Court of
                         (2004/C 47/51)                            Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                   from the register of Case C-218/03: Commission of the
                                                                   European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
By order of 21 October 2003 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal            (1) OJ C 158, 5.7.2003.


title: References for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura Circondariale di Roma - Sezione distaccate di Tivoli e di Castelnuovo - by orders of those courts of February and March 1995 in criminal proceedings pending before them against Giuseppe Salmaggi, Savatore Pasquire and Massimo Zappone (Cases C-112/95, C-119/95 and C-123/95)

text:
No C 137/ 14           f EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        3 . 6 . 95
 1 . Is an oral agreement on the place of performance                   References for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura
     ( Brussels Convention, Article 5 ) to be recognized even if        Circondariale di Roma — Sezione distaccate di Tivoli e di
     it is not intended to fix the place at which the person            Castelnuovo — by orders of those courts of February and
     liable has to perform the obligations incumbent on him,            March 1995 in criminal proceedings pending before them
     but is intended solely to establish — informally — that            against Giuseppe Salmaggi, Savatore Pasquire and Massimo
     the courts for a particular place are to have jurisdiction                                         Zappone
     (a so-called 'abstract' agreement on the place of                          ( Cases C-112/95 , C-119/95 and C-123/95 )
     performance )?
                                                                                ( 95/C 137/30 )
2 . In the event that the Court of Justice should answer
     question 1 in the negative :                                       References have been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by orders of the Pretura
     ( a ) Can an agreement conferring jurisdiction in                  Circondariale di Roma — Sezione Distaccate di Tivoli e di
           international trade or commerce in accordance
                                                                        Castelnuovo ( Rome District Magistrates' Court — Tivoli
           with the third hypothesis mentioned in the second            and Castelnuovo Divisions ) which were received at the
           sentence of the first paragraph of Article 17 of the         Court Registry on 3 , 6 , 10 April 1995 respectively, for a
           1978 version of the Brussels Convention also be
                                                                        preliminary ruling in criminal proceedings against Giuseppe
           concluded by one party's not contradicting a                 Salmaggi, Savatore Pasquire and Massimo Zappone on the
           commercial letter of confirmation containing a               following questions :
           pre-printed reference to the courts of the
           consignors ' place of business having sole                   1 . What is the legal effect of the Italian Republic 's failure to
           jurisdiction or must there have been in every case               bring into force the necessary measures to implement
           prior consensus with regard to the content of the                Council Directive 91/156/EEC ( l ), amending Directive
           letter of confirmation ?                                         75/442/EEC within the prescribed time limit ?
     ( b ) Is it sufficient in order for there to be an agreement       2 . In particular, may the existence of criminal penalties,
           conferring jurisdiction within the meaning of the                and in particular those provided for in Articles 10 and
           aforesaid provision if the invoices sent by one party            25 ( Case C-75/95 ) and Article 25 et seq. ( Case C-58/95 )
           all contain a reference to the courts of the carrier 's
                                                                            of Presidential Decree No 915 /82 for failure to observe
           place of business having sole jurisdiction and to the            the Italian rules, be considered to conflict with
           conditions of the bill of lading used by the carrier             Community legislation where it seeks to ensure uniform
           which also stipulate the courts of the same place as             treatment, from the point of view of penalties as well, for
           having jurisdiction, and the other party invariably              operators in the Single Market.
           paid the invoices without objecting, or is prior
           consensus also required in this respect ?                    (') OJ No L 78 , 26 . 3 . 1991 , p . 32 .
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Polimeles
Protodikio, Athens , by judgment of that court of 29 March              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil Arbitral
          1990 in the case of Astir AE v. Greek State
                                                                        des Assurances Sociales by decision of that court of 5 April
                          ( Case C-109/95 )                             1995 in the case of Nicolas Decker v. Caisse de Maladie des
                            ( 95/C 137/29 )                                                      Employés Privés
                                                                                ( Case C-120/95 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                             ( 95/C 137/31 )
European Communities by a judgment of the Polimeles
Protodikio ( Court of First Instance , several judges ), Athens,
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
of 29 March 1990, which was received at the Court Registry
                                                                        European Communities by a decision of the Conseil Arbitral
on 3 April 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Astir
                                                                        des Assurances Sociales ( Arbitral Council of Social
AE v. Greek State pending before it on the following
                                                                        Insurance ) of 5 April 1995 , which was received at the Court
question :
                                                                        Registry on 7 April 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case
On a proper construction of Article 10 ( 4 ) of Commission              of Nicolas Decker v. Caisse de Maladie des Employes Prives
Regulation ( EEC ) No 2730/79 , in conjunction with the                 ( Health Insurance Fund for Employees in the Private Sector )
provisions of Articles 20 and 21 thereof, is an exporter of an          on the following question :
agricultural product, in this case wheat flour, entitled to a
refund when the exported product after leaving the                      Is Article 60 of the Luxembourg Social Insurance Code,
geographical territory of the Community has perished in                 under which a social security institution of Member State A
transit as a result of force majeure and where for that                refuses to refund to an insured person, who is a national of
product the same amount of refund was fixed for all                    Member State A, the cost of spectacles with corrective
non-member countries except the Soviet Union for which as               lenses, prescribed by a doctor established in Member State A
regards the product mentioned above no amount of refund                 but purchased from an optician established in Member State
was fixed ?                                                             B, on the ground that all medical treatment outside Member
                                                                        State A must be authorized in advance by the above social
                                                                        security institution, compatible with Articles 30 and 36 of


title: Case C-624/16 P: Appeal brought on 25 November 2016 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 September 2016 in Case T-219/13, Ferracci v Commission

text:
               6.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/17

         Appeal brought on 25 November 2016 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 September 2016 in Case T-219/13, Ferracci v Commission
   (Case C-624/16 P)
   (2017/C 038/23)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: P. Stancanelli, D. Grespan, F. Tomat, acting as agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Pietro Ferracci, Italian Republic

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment under appeal to the extent that it declares the proceedings at first instance admissible for the purpose of the final limb of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU;

               —

               declare the action at first instance inadmissible under the second and last limb of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU and consequently dismiss it in its entirety;

               —

               order Mr Ferracci to pay the costs incurred by the Commission in the proceedings before the General Court and in the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By a single plea in law, divided into three parts, the Commission claims that the last limb of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU was misinterpreted and misapplied in that the General Court ruled that the action of the applicant at first instance was admissible on the basis of that provision. In particular, the General Court erred in law by finding that the contested act amounted to a regulatory act which was of direct concern to the applicant at first instance and did not entail implementing measures in respect of the applicant himself.


title: Case C-298/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — Alain Laurent Brouillard v Jury du concours de recrutement de référendaires près la Cour de cassation, Belgian State (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of movement of persons — Articles 45 TFEU and 49 TFEU — Workers — Employment in the public service — Directive 2005/36/EC — Recognition of professional qualifications — Definition of ‘regulated profession’ — Admission to a competition to recruit legal secretaries at the Cour de cassation (Belgium))

text:
               23.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 389/8

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — Alain Laurent Brouillard v Jury du concours de recrutement de référendaires près la Cour de cassation, Belgian State
   (Case C-298/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of movement of persons - Articles 45 TFEU and 49 TFEU - Workers - Employment in the public service - Directive 2005/36/EC - Recognition of professional qualifications - Definition of ‘regulated profession’ - Admission to a competition to recruit legal secretaries at the Cour de cassation (Belgium)))
   (2015/C 389/09)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Alain Laurent Brouillard

      Defendant: Jury du concours de recrutement de référendaires près la Cour de cassation, Belgian State

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 45 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning, first, that it applies to a situation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in which a national of a Member State, residing and working in that State, holds a diploma obtained in another Member State, which he intends to use in order to register for a competition to recruit legal secretaries at the Cour de cassation of the first Member State, and, second, that such a situation does not fall within Article 45(4) TFEU.

               2.

               Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications must be interpreted as meaning that the office of legal secretary at the Cour de cassation is not a ‘regulated profession’ within the meaning of that directive.

               3.

               Article 45 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the selection board for a competition for recruitment of legal secretaries at a court of a Member State, where it examines an application to participate in that competition submitted by a national of that Member State, from making that participation contingent on the possession of diplomas required by the legislation of that Member State or the recognition of academic equivalence of a master’s degree awarded by the university of another Member State, without taking into consideration all of the diplomas, certificates and other qualifications, and the relevant professional experience of the person concerned, by comparing the professional qualifications attested by those qualifications with those required by that legislation.

      (1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) of 18 December 1997 in Case C-309/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli): Daniele Annibaldi v. Sindaco del Comune di Guidonia, Presidente Regione Lazio (Agriculture - Nature and archaeological park - Economic activity - Protection of fundamental rights - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

text:
C 55/12              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      20.2.98
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                   State), Belgium, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
                        (First Chamber)                               pending before that court between Ballast Nedam Groep
                                                                      NV and Belgian State Ð on the interpretation of the
                    of 18 December 1997                               judgment of the Court of 14 April 1994 in Case C-389/92
in Case C-309/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from             Ballast Nedam Groep [1994] ECR I-1289 Ð the Court
the Pretura Circondariale di Roma, Sezione Distaccata di              (Third Chamber), composed of: J. C. Moitinho de
Tivoli): Daniele Annibaldi v. Sindaco del Comune di                   Almeida, acting for the President of the Chamber, J.-P.
           Guidonia, Presidente Regione Lazio (1)                     Puissochet (Rapporteur) and L. Sevón, Judges; A. La
                                                                      Pergola, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given
(Agriculture Ð Nature and archaeological park Ð                       a judgment on 18 December 1997, in which it has ruled:
Economic activity Ð Protection of fundamental rights Ð
              Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)
                          (98/C 55/21)                                Council Directive 71/304/EEC of 26 July 1971 concerning
                                                                      the abolition of restrictions on freedom to provide services
                (Language of the case: Italian)                       in respect of public works contracts and on the award of
                                                                      public works contracts to contractors acting through
                                                                      agencies or branches and Council Directive 71/305/EEC
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                      of 26 July 1971 concerning the coordination of procedures
         published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                      for the award of public works contracts are to be
                                                                      interpreted as meaning that the authority competent to
In Case C-309/96: reference to the Court under Article 177            decide on an application for registration submitted by a
of the EC Treaty from the Pretura Circondariale di Roma,              dominant legal person of a group is under an obligation,
Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli (Rome District Magistrates'              where it is established that that person actually has
Court, Tivoli Division), for a preliminary ruling in the              available to it the resources of the companies belonging to
proceedings pending before that court between Daniele                 the group that are necessary to carry out the contracts, to
Annibaldi and Sindaco del Comune di Guidonia,                         take account of the references of those companies in
Presidente Regione Lazio Ð on the interpretation of                   assessing the suitability of the legal person concerned, in
Article 40(3) of the EC Treaty and of the general                     accordance with the criteria mentioned in Articles 23 to
principles of Community law Ð the Court (First                        28 of Directive 71/305/EEC.
Chamber), composed of: D. A. O. Edward (Rapporteur),
acting for the President of the First Chamber, P. Jann and
L. Sevón, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate-General; R. Grass,              (1) OJ C 74, 8.3.1997.
Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 December 1997, in
which it has ruled:
The Court has no jurisdiction to answer the questions
referred by the Pretura Circondariale di Roma.
(1) OJ C 336, 9.11.1996.                                                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Second Chamber)
                                                                                of 15 January 1998
                                                                      in Case C-37/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                      the Belgian Hof van Cassatie): Belgian State v. Ghent Coal
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                           Terminal NV (1)
                       (Third Chamber)
                                                                      (Value added tax Ð Sixth VAT Directive Ð Article 17 Ð
                    of 18 December 1997                                      Right to deduct Ð Adjustment of deductions)
in Case C-5/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                                (98/C 55/23)
the Raad van State, Belgium): Ballast Nedam Groep NV
                      v. Belgian State (1)
(Freedom to provide services Ð Public-works contracts Ð                               (Language of the case: Dutch)
Registration of contractors Ð Entity to be taken into
                            account)
                          (98/C 55/22)
                                                                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
                (Language of the case: Dutch)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be        In Case C-37/95: reference to the Court under Article 177
         published in the European Court Reports)                     of the EC Treaty from the Belgian Hof van Cassatie
                                                                      (Court of Cassation), for a preliminary ruling in the
In Case C-5/97: reference to the Court under Article 177              proceedings pending before that court between Belgian
of the EC Treaty from the Raad van State (Council of                  State and Ghent Coal Terminal NV Ð on the


title: Judgement of the Court (Sixth Chamber) 19 March 2002 in Case C-426/98: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 69/335/EEC — Indirect taxes on the raising of capital — Special charges imposed on the formation of public and private limited liability companies, on the publication and alteration of their statutes and on the increase in their capital)

text:
C 118/2                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           18.5.2002
                JUDGEMENT OF THE COURT                                                         JUDGEMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                            14 March 2002
                                                                                19 March 2002
in Case C-340/98: Italian Republic v Council of the
                         European Union (1)
                                                                            in Case C-426/98: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Hellenic Republic (1)
(Sugar — Price regime — Marketing year 1998/1999 —
Regionalisation — Non-deficit areas — Classification of
Italy — Validity of Regulations (EC) Nos 1360/98 and
                                                                            (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                               1361/98)
                                                                            Directive 69/335/EEC — Indirect taxes on the raising of
                                                                            capital — Special charges imposed on the formation of
                           (2002/C 118/02)                                  public and private limited liability companies, on the publi-
                                                                            cation and alteration of their statutes and on the increase in
                                                                                their capital)
                     (Language of the case: Italian)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                                  (2002/C 118/03)
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
In Case C-340/98, Italian Republic (Agent: U. Leanza, assisted
by I. M. Braguglia) v Council of the European Union (Agents:                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
J. Carbery, I. Dı́ez Parra and A. Tanca), supported by Com-                                      in the European Court Reports)
mission of the European Communities (Agent: F. P. Ruggeri):
Application for annulment of Article 1 of Council Regulation
(EC) No 1361/98 of 26 June 1998 fixing, for the 1998/1999
marketing year, the derived intervention prices for white sugar,
the intervention price for raw sugar, the minimum prices for
A and B beet, and the amount of compensation for storage                    In Case C-426/98, Commission of the European Communities
costs (OJ 1998 L 185, p. 3), in so far as it omits to fix the               (Agent: D. Gouloussis) v Hellenic Republic (Agent: P. Mylono-
derived intervention price for white sugar for all areas of Italy           poulos): Application for a declaration that, by imposing, in
and thus renders applicable in Italy the intervention price for             addition to capital duty, other special charges on the capital of
white sugar fixed by Article 1(2) of Council Regulation (EC)                public and private limited liability companies on their forma-
No 1360/98 of 26 June 1998 fixing, for the 1998/1999                        tion, on the publication and alteration of their statutes and on
marketing year, certain sugar prices and the standard quality               the increase in their capital, the Hellenic Republic has failed to
of beet (OJ 1998 L 185, p. 1), and, if necessary, annulment of              fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and, more specifically,
Article 1(2) of Regulation No 1360/98, in so far as it also fixes           under Articles 7 and 10 of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of
the intervention price for white sugar for Italy, the Court (Sixth          17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital
Chamber), composed of: F. Macken, President of the Chamber,                 (OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412), as amended by
N. Colneric (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet and                  Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985 (OJ 1985
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General;                  L 156, p. 23), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on                  N. Colneric, President of the Second Chamber, acting for the
14 March 2002, in which it:                                                 President of the Sixth Chamber, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet,
                                                                            R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and V. Skouris, Judges; C. Stix-
                                                                            Hackl, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
1.    Dismisses the application;                                            Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 March 2002, in which
                                                                            it:
2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs;
3.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear             1.     Declares that, by imposing, in addition to capital duty, other
      its own costs.                                                               special charges on the capital of public and private limited
                                                                                liability companies on their formation, on the publication and
                                                                                alteration of their statutes and on the increase in their capital,
(1) OJ C 340 of 7.11.1998.                                                         the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                                Articles 7 and 10 of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July
                                                                                1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as
                                                                                amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985;
 ---pagebreak--- 18.5.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 118/3
2.    Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                       2.    Annuls Commission Decision 1999/187/EC of 3 February
                                                                                1999 on the clearance of the accounts presented by the Member
                                                                                States in respect of the expenditure for 1995 of the Guarantee
(1) OJ C 20 of 23.1.1999.                                                        Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee
                                                                                Fund in so far as it excludes from Community financing
                                                                                ESP 1 355 544 657, representing the interest payable in the
                                                                                context of the additional levy on milk and milk-related products;
                                                                           3.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;
                                                                           4.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                           (1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.
                         (Sixth Chamber)
                           21 March 2002
in Case C-130/99: Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the
                   European Communities (1)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Financial years
                          1995 and 1996)                                                              (Fifth Chamber)
                          (2002/C 118/04)                                                              14 March 2002
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                         in Case C-132/99: Kingdom of the Netherlands v Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities (1)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                          (EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — 1995 financial year
                                                                                — Aid to hemp production)
                                                                                (2002/C 118/05)
In Case C-130/99, Kingdom of Spain (Agent: M. López-Monı́s
Gallego) v Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
J. Guerra Fernández): Application for partial annulment of                                     (Language of the case: Dutch)
Commission Decision 1999/186/EC of 3 February 1999
excluding from Community financing certain expenditure
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund
(EAGGF) (OJ 1999 L 61, p. 34) and Commission Decision
1999/187/EC of 3 February 1999 on the clearance of the
accounts presented by the Member States in respect of the
expenditure for 1995 of the Guarantee Section of the European              In Case C-132/99, Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents: M. A.
Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 1999                  Fierstra and J. van Bakel), supported by Kingdom of Spain
L 61, p. 37), in so far as it concerns the Kingdom of Spain, the           (Agent: M. López-Monı́s Gallego) v Commission of the Euro-
Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: F. Macken (Rapporteur),                pean Communities (Agents: T. van Rijn and C. van der
President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, R. Schintgen, V. Skou-               Hauwaert): Application for partial annulment of Commission
ris and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate                Decision 1999/187/EC of 3 February 1999 on the clearance
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 March             of the accounts presented by the Member States in respect of
2002, in which it:                                                         the expenditure for 1995 of the Guarantee Section of the
                                                                           European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (OJ 1999
                                                                           L 61, p. 37), in so far as it requires a correction of 50 % of the
1.    Annuls Commission Decision 1999/186/EC of 3 February                 expenditure declared by the Kingdom of the Netherlands in
      1999 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure          respect of hemp production aid, namely a correction of
      incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of         NLG 117 277, the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann
      the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund                (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward,
      (EAGGF) in so far as it excludes from Community financing            A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges;
      the expenditure incurred by the Kingdom of Spain before              D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,
      12 March 1996 in respect of production aid for olive oil;            has given a judgment on 14 March 2002, in which it:


title: Action brought on 30 December 1996 by the Kingdom of Spain against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-415/96)

text:
22 . 3 . 97            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 94/3
      92/42/EEC of 21 May 1992 on efficiency requirements              Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht
     for new hot-water boilers fired with liquid or gaseous            Hamburg by order of that court of 31 July 1996 in the
     fuels, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its            case of Mechthild Kehrl v. Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse
      obligations under Article 9 (1 ) of that Directive;              Hamburg (interested third party: Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit)
                                                                                Case C-414/96)
2 . orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                                                ( 97/C 94/06 )
(') OJ No C 247, 24 . 8 . 1996 .
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by an order of the 22nd Chamber
                                                                       of the Sozialgericht ( Social Court) Hamburg of 31 July
                                                                       1996, which was received at the Court Registry on
                                                                       30 December 1996, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                       Mechthild Kehrl v. Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse Ham
                   ORDER OF THE COURT                                  burg (interested third party: Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit) on
                         (First Chamber)
                                                                       the following questions :
                      of 21 January 1997                               ( a ) Does the exclusion of male and female workers
in Case C-156/96 P: Calvin Williams v. Court of Auditors                     employed for less than 18 hours a week from the
               of the European Communities (')                               compulsory statutory unemployment insurance scheme
                                                                             constitute indirect discrimination contrary to Article 4
(Appeal — Officials — Obligations — Acts incompatible                        of Directive 79/7/EEC ( J ), if disproportionately more
with the dignity of the official's office — Duty of loyalty                  women than men are affected by that exclusion;
     — Disciplinary proceedings — Removal from post)
                           ( 97/C 94/05 )                              ( b ) Does the exclusion of male and female workers
                                                                             employed for less than 18 hours a week from the
                 (Language of the case: French)                              compulsory statutory unemployment insurance scheme
                                                                             constitute indirect discrimination contrary to Article 4
                                                                             of Directive 79/7/EEC, if a worker has several
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be               employment contracts which together amount to
           published in the European Court Reports)                          more than 90 % of full-time employment, and if
                                                                             disproportionately more women than men are affected
                                                                             by that exclusion ?
In Case C-156/96 P: Calvin Williams, a former official of
the Court of Auditors of the European Communities,                     (') OJ No L 6 , 10 . 1 . 1979 , p. 24 .
residing in Luxembourg, represented by Eric Boigelot, of
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 rue du
Fort Rheinsheim — appeal against the judgment of the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities
( Fifth Chamber ) of 7 March 1996 in Case T-146/94
Calvin Williams v. Court of Auditors [ 1996] ECR-SC II                Action brought on 30 December 1996 by the Kingdom
329, seeking to have that judgment set aside — the other               of Spain against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
party to the proceedings being: Court of Auditors of the
European Communities, represented by Jean-Marie                                                   Case C-415/96 )
Stenier, Jan Inghelram and Paolo Giusta, of the Legal                                              ( 97/C 94/07)
Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the seat of the Court of Auditors, 12 rue
Alcide de Gasperi, Kirchberg — the Court ( First                       An action against the Commission of the European
Chamber), composed of: L. Sevon, President of the                      Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
Chamber, P. Jann ( Rapporteur) and M. Wathelet, Judges;                the European Communities on 30 December 1996 by the
A. La Pergola, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar,                  Kingdom of Spain, represented by Luis Perez de Ayala Be
made an order on 21 January 1997, the operative part of                cerril, Abogado del Estado, of the State Legal Department
which is as follows :
                                                                       dealing with matters before the Court of Justice, acting as
                                                                       Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
1 . the appeal is dismissed;                                           Spanish Embassy, 4—6 Boulevard E. Servais.
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
2 . the appellant is ordered to pay the costs.
W OJ No C 180 , 22 . 6 . 1996 .
                                                                       1 . declare null and void the decision adopted by the
                                                                             Commission of the European Communities on
                                                                             18 September 1996 amending Decision 317/92/EEC (*)
                                                                             of 25 March 1992;
 ---pagebreak--- No C 94/4              1 EN 1                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        22. 3 . 97
2. order the Commission to pay the costs.                                 Court), Genoa — Sesta Sezione Civile ( Civil Division VI)
                                                                          — of 14 December 1996, received at the Court Registry
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       on 3 January 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                          Italiana Petroli SpA against Borsana Sri on the following
— Infringement of Articles 93 and 174 of the EC Treaty                    questions :
So far as concerns the State aid of Pta 4 200 million which
the Directorate-General of the Patrimonio del Estado                      ( a ) On a proper construction of Articles 3 , 4 and 5 of
provided by way of a capital injection (Article 2 of                            Directive 90/394/EEC ( J ) of 28 June 1990 on the
Decision 92/317/EEC), the only thing which remains in                           protection of workers from the risks related to
force after the judgment delivered by the Court on                              exposure to carcinogens at work ( Sixth individual
14 September 1994 (2) is the characterization of that aid                       Directive ), is the obligation to adopt measures to
as unlawful, such unlawfulness deriving from the fact that                      reduce and replace the risk, and to avoid or reduce
it was not notified to the Commission. That aspect cannot                       exposure to carcinogens, contingent on the outcome of
be interpreted as indicating that Decision 92/317/EEC was                       the ' assessment of risks ' referred to in Article 3 ?
not annulled. The essential content of that Decision,
namely the fact that it declares the aid to be incompatible
with Community law with all the consequences resulting                          If so, does Directive 90/394/EEC preclude a national
therefrom, was annulled by the judgment. Accordingly, the                       implementing provision which provides that the
present case does not concern a 'partial' annulment of                          employer is under a duty to take action to replace or
Decision 92/317/EEC with regard to that aid; that                               reduce, in so far as is 'technically possible', the use of
annulment can, on the contrary, be described as total . The                     carcinogens and/or to reduce the level of exposure of
annulment        is  'communicated '      to  the   whole   of   the
                                                                                workers 'to as low a level as is technically possible',
preparatory acts taken by the Commission, so that it                            whether or not a definite risk has first been found to
should have initiated a fresh procedure under Article 93                        exist and duly assessed under Article 3 of the
(2 ) of the EC Treaty, rather than sought, because it was to                    Directive, and which imposes, in the event of failure to
its advantage, to correct a posteriori certain acts affected                    fulfil those obligations, criminal penalties — including
by the annulment.                                                               custodial sentences — which, as worded, do not differ
                                                                                from those provided for cases where, despite the fact
— Breach of the rights of the defence and of the principle                      that a definite risk has been found to exist and duly
       of legal certainty                                                       quantified, the employer fails to adopt the measures
                                                                                prescribed by law ?
By preventing the Kingdom of Spain from submitting new
observations as to the compatibility of the aid it had
granted to Hytasa with the common market, the                             ( b) Does Community law as laid down by Article 4 of
Commission breached the principle of audi alteram                               Directive 89/655/EEC (2 ) (in so far as it distinguishes,
partem and breached the rights of the defence to which all                      in terms of the periods allowed for adapting work
Member States are entitled whose conduct is called in
                                                                                equipment, between equipment already provided to
question. Since it considered that in its judgment of                           workers by 31 December 1992 and that provided after
14 September 1994 the Court had merely annulled in part                         that date) preclude a national implementing provision
Decision 92/317/EEC and that it was sufficient to replace                       which, arguably in contravention of the principles of
it with another one in order to bring the procedure to an                       reasonableness and proportionality, makes no such
end, the Commission sent a letter on 13 October 1995 to                         distinction and sets a uniform period of three months
the Spanish authorities to inform them, essentially, that                       for its entry into force for all intents and purposes
the effect of the new decision was practically decided                           ( even where the employer is subject to harsh criminal
already and that nothing they could say or do would be of                       penalties )?
any effect.
f 1 ) OJ No L 171 , 26 . 6 . 1992 .
(2 ) Joined Cases C-278 , C-279 and            C-280/92,   Spain   v.     ( c ) On a proper construction of Articles 3 , 4 and 5 of
      Commission [ 1994] ECR I, p. 4103 .                                       Directive 90/394/EEC ( and of the corresponding
                                                                                article in Legislative Decree 626/94 implementing that
                                                                                measure ), are employers — and, respectively, the other
                                                                                persons referred to in Article 6 of Legislative Decree
                                                                                626/94 — subject to obligations and responsibilities
                                                                                regarding the reduction of the benzene content in
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di                          petrol to levels lower than those set by Directive 85/
Genova — Sesta Sezione Civile, by order of that court of                        210/EEC ( 3 ) and to the even lower levels set by Decree
                                                                                Law No 294/96 ?
14 December 1996 in the case of Italiana Petroli (IP) SpA
                         against Borsana Sri
                             ( Case C-2/97)                               C ) OJ No L 196, 26 . 7 . 1990, p. 1 .
                                                                          (2 ) OJ No L 393 , 30. 12 . 1989, p . 13 .
                               ( 97/C 94/08 )                             ( 3 ) OJ No L 96, 3.4 . 1985 , p. 25 .
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Tribunale ( District


title: Case C-391/06: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 3 May 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2003/4/EC — Freedom of access to information — Environmental information — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               23.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 140/5

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 3 May 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland
   (Case C-391/06) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2003/4/EC - Freedom of access to information - Environmental information - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2007/C 140/08)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Lawunmi and U. Wölker, Agents),

      Defendant: Ireland (represented by: D. O'Hagan, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC (OJ 2003 L 41, p. 26)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt within the period prescribed the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive;

               2.

               Orders Ireland to pay the costs

      (1)  OJ C 249, 02.12.2006.


title: Action brought on 10 July 1996 by the United Kingdom against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-239/96)

text:
14 . 9 . 96            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      No C 269/ 13
     9 613 206,00 from expenditure declared by Ireland for                     Article 8 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 729/70 in each of the
     public storage of beef for 1991 being 2% of such                          said years constitutes an infringement of the Treaty
     expenditure,                                                              and/or an infringement of rule of law relating to the
                                                                               application of the Treaty;
— declare , pursuant to Article 173 of the Treaty
     establishing the European Community, that                          4 . in so far as the amount of the corrections determined by
     Commission Decision 96/31 1 /EC of 10 April 1996 on                       the Commission for the years 1990 and 1991 exceed the
     the clearance of accounts presented by Member States in                   amount of the probable losses to the EAGGF in each of
     respect of expenditure for 1992 of the Guarantee Section                  the said years as a consequence of irregularities
     of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee                       attributable to the alleged failure by the Irish authorities
     Fund and in respect of certain expenditure for 1993 is                    to fulfil their obligations under Article 8 of Regulation
     void in so far as it purports to disallow a sum of £ Irl                  ( EEC ) No 729/70 , they constitute a penalty and as such
     8 862 144,00 from the expenditure declared by Ireland                     infringe the Treaty and/or rules of law relating to the
     for the public storage of beef for 1992 being 2 % of such                 application of the Treaty;
     expenditure ,
                                                                        5 . the failure by the Commission to adhere to the published
— make such further or other order as may be necessary                         guidelines on the calculation of financial consequences
     and appropriate for the purpose of the relief which                       when preparing the decision regarding the clearance of
     Ireland seeks in these proceedings,                                       accounts of the EAGGF Guarantee ( DOC.VI/2 16/93 of
                                                                               3 June 1993 — the Belle Group Report ) constitutes an
                                                                               infringement of an essential procedural requirement
— order the Commission of the European Communities to
                                                                               and/or an infringement of the Treaty and/or of a rule of
     pay the costs of these proceedings .                                      law in relation to the application of the Treaty .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     Breach of Regulation ( EEC ) No 859/89 ( 3 )
Breach of Article 8 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 729/70 ( 2 )               Ireland submits that in 1991 and 1992 there was no
                                                                        Community rule within the meaning of Article 3 of
Ireland submits that the Decision is invalid in so far as it            Regulation ( EEC ) No 729/70 of which Ireland was in breach
disallows £ Irl 26 222 656,62 ( being 10% of the                        in accepting separate tenders from companies within the
expenditure declared and already cleared for Ireland in                 same group of companies and, accordingly , the Commission
respect of the year 1990 ) and £ Irl 24 020 455,64 ( being 5 %          Decision refusing to charge 2 % of public storage costs in
of the expenditure declared and already cleared for Ireland             Ireland in 1991 and 1992 is invalid .
for the year 1991 ) from the expenditure declared by Ireland
for 1992 on one or more of the following grounds :                      If the Court determines that any such Community rule
                                                                        existed in 1991 and 1992 then the Commission is precluded
1 . the failure by the Commission to state any or any valid             by the principles of legal certainty, legitimate expectation
      reasons for the quantum of the financial corrections              and proportionality and by the criteria in the Belle Group
      determined following its conclusion that during the               Report from refusing to charge the said 2 % of the public
      years 1990 and 1991 the Irish authorities did not fulfil          storage costs in Ireland to the EAGGF and accordingly the
                                                                        Decision is invalid .
      their obligations under Article 8 of Regulation ( FTC )
      No 729/70 constitutes a lack of essential procedural
      requirements and/or an infringement of the Treaty                  (>) OJ No L 117, 14 . 5 . 1996 , p . 19 .
      and/or a rule of law relating to the application of the            ( 2 ) Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 729/70 of 21 April 1970 on the
      Treaty;                                                                  financing of the common agricultural policy ( OJ No L 94 , 28 . 4 .
                                                                               1970 , p. 13 ).
                                                                         (') Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 859/89 of 29 March 1989
2 . the failure by the Commission to state any or any valid                    laying down detailed rules for the application of intervention
      reasons for its conclusion that very large amounts had                   measures in the beef and veal sector ( OJ No L 91 , 4 . 4 . 1989 ,
      been wrongly charged to EAGGF in each of the years                       p. 5 ).
      1990 and 1991 by reason of the alleged failure of the
      Irish authorities to fulfil their obligations under Article 8
      of Regulation ( EEC ) No 729/70 in each of the said years
      constitutes an infringement of an essential procedural
      requirement and/or an infringement of the Treaty
      and/or a rule of law relating to the application of the
      Treaty;                                                            Action brought on 10 July 1996 by the United Kingdom
                                                                             against the Commission of the European Communities
 3 . the failure by the Commission to make any or any                                              ( Case C-239/96 )
      proper assessment of the probable loss to EAGFF, the                                           ( 96/C 269/28 )
      risk to which Community funds were put by reason of
      irregularities which may have occurred in each of the
      years 1990 and 1991 by reasons of the alleged failure of            An action against the Commission of the European
      the Irish authorities to fulfil their obligations under             Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
 ---pagebreak--- No C 269/ 14        1 EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                      14 . 9 . 96
European Communities on 10 July 1996 by the United                 Action brought on 10 July 1996 by the United Kingdom
Kingdom, represented by John E. Collins, Assistant                   against the Commission of the European Communities
Treasury Solicitor, acting as agent, assisted by Mr Derrick                               ( Case C-240/96 )
Wyatt, QC, of the English Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the British Embassy, 14 boulevard                                             ( 96/C 269/29 )
Roosevelt .
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                   Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
                                                                   European Communities on 10 July 1996 by the United
— annul the decision or act comprised in or referred to by         Kingdom, represented by John E. Collins, Assistant
    implication in the memorandum of 2 May 1996 ,                  Treasury Solicitor, acting as agent, assisted by Mr Derrick
                                                                   Wyatt, QC, of the English Bar, with an address for service in
— award costs against the Commission pursuant to                   Luxembourg at the British Embassy, 14 boulevard
    Article 69 of the Rules of Procedure .                         Roosevelt .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
All Community expenditure must be based on both a
budgetary appropriation and a basic measure . It is accepted
that the power of initiative of the Commission authorizes          — annul the decision comprised in or referred to by
pilot studies and preparatory action designed to assess the            implication in the memorandum of 15 May 1996 ,
policy pros and cons of making a proposal for a basic
measure , but the power of initiative cannot justify the
initiation of a substantive programme for a basic measure .        — award costs against the Commission pursuant to
Nor can the power of initiative justify expenditure in                 Article 69 of the Rules of Procedure .
connection with a proposal for a basic measure where it is
clear that the basic measure will not be adopted . In any
event, expenditure which purports to be derived from the
Commission 's power of initiative must be authorized by a          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
properly reasoned Commission decision which indicates the
legal basis , establishes the framework and criteria for the
expenditure in question, and is notified to the Member             All Community expenditure must be based on both a
States .                                                           budgetary appropriation and a basic measure . It is accepted
                                                                   that the power of initiative of the Commission authorizes
                                                                   pilot studies and preparatory action designed to assess the
In the present case the Commission, in a memorandum                policy pros and cons of making a proposal for a basic
circulated to national authorities and to the public ,             measure, but the power of initiative cannot justify the
published an invitation to organizations to apply for grants       initiation of a substantive programme for a basic measure .
to assist the elderly. The proposed expenditure in question        Nor can the power of initiative justify expenditure in
would if incurred comprise expenditure indistinguishable           connection with a proposal for a basic measure where it is
from that authorized under a previous Council decision on          clear that the basic measure will not be adopted. In any
Community actions for the elderly and from that which              event, expenditure which purports to be derived from the
would have been authorized if a Commission proposal                Commission 's power of initiative must be authorized by a
under Article 235 of the EC Treaty had been adopted ( but          properly reasoned Commission decision which indicates the
the proposal was not adopted), and it was unlawful for the         legal basis , establishes the framework and criteria for the
Commission to invite applications for such expenditure             expenditure in question , and is notified to the Member
without a basic measure and on the basis of a budget line          States .
alone . Furthermore, the invitation could not be justified on
the basis that the grants would support pilot studies or
preparatory action because it amounted to the initiation of
substantive action, and exceeded the powers of initiative of       In the present case the Commission, in a memorandum
the Commission . The invitation was also unsupported by            circulated to national authorities and to the public,
adequate reasoning.                                                published an invitation to organizations to apply for grants
                                                                   in respect of poverty and social exclusion . The proposed
                                                                   expenditure in question would if incurred comprise
It follows that the decision to seek applications for grants       expenditure indistinguishable from that covered by
comprised in or referred to by implication in the                  ( expired ) Poverty 3 and ( draft ) Poverty 4 . Such expenditure
Commission 's memorandum should be annulled for lack of            ( Poverty 3 and 4 ) required authorization by a Council
competence, infringement of an essential procedural                decision under Article 235 of the EC Treaty and it was
requirement, and infringement of the Treaty .                      unlawful for the Commission to invite applications for such
                                                                   expenditure without a basic measure and on the basis of
                                                                   budgetary remarks alone . Furthermore, the invitation could
                                                                   not be justified on the basis that the grants would support


title: Case T-313/03: Action brought on 11 September 2003 by Annelies Keyman against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
15.11.2003             EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 275/49
The applicant claims that there was a procedural defect in the            The applicant claims that the Court should:
adoption of the directive. The version of the directive adopted
by the Council differs on several points from the version                 —     Annul the decisions of 11 December 2002 and 11 June
adopted by the European Parliament. That constitutes a breach                   2003 approving the applicant’s staff report for 1999-
of Article 251 EC. Furthermore, it submits that Article 95 EC                   2001;
does not constitute a sufficient legal basis. Despite its apparent
limitation to cross-border sponsorship, Article 5(1) entails a
general prohibition on sponsoring for tobacco products.                   —     Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings,
However, according to the judgment of the Court of Justice in                   pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the
Case C-376/98 (1) Article 95 EC does not justify a general ban                  Court of First Instance, together with the expenses
on sponsoring.                                                                  necessarily incurred for the purpose of the proceedings
                                                                                and, in particular, the expenses relating to the address
                                                                                for service, travel and subsistence expenses and the
                                                                                remuneration of lawyers, pursuant to Article 91(b) of
The applicant argues further that the selection of Article 95 EC                those rules.
as the legal basis allowed the prohibition on harmonisation in
Article 152(4) to be circumvented. The applicant also claims
that the vague wording of the sponsorship ban breaches the
requirement of clarity which is the expression of the principle
of legal certainty fundamental to Community law.                          Pleas in law and main arguments
Finally, the applicant points out that Article 5(1) of the                In support of her application the applicant alleges breach of
directive is a disproportionate measure, in view both of                  Article 43 of the Staff Regulations and a manifest error of
the purported internal market objectives of the Community                 assessment. The applicant further alleges abuse of power.
legislature and of the health protection aims actually pursued
and thus breaches a founding principle of the European Union.
Moreover, the ban infringes the fundamental property rights
of the applicant.
(1) Case C-376/98 Germany v Parliament and Council [2000] ECR
    I-8419.
                                                                          Action brought on 15 September 2003 by Société Musée
                                                                          Grévin against the Commission of the European Com-
                                                                                munities
                                                                                (Case T-314/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 275/83)
Action brought on 11 September 2003 by Annelies
Keyman against the Commission of the European Com-                                           (Language of the Case: French)
                            munities
                        (Case T-313/03)
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                        (2003/C 275/82)                                   European Communities on 15 September 2003 by Société
                                                                          Musée Grévin, having its registered office in Paris, represented
                                                                          by Bernard Geneste and Olivia Davidson, avocats.
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          —     annul the Commission’s decision of 8 July 2003 requiring
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                      Société Musée Grévin to reimburse the amounts allegedly
European Communities on 11 September 2003 by Annelies                           overpaid to it;
Keyman, residing in Overijse (Belgium), represented by Carlos
Mourato, avocat.                                                          —     order the Commission to pay all of the costs.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 7 November 1995 in the case of Techex Computer + Grafik Vertriebs GmbH v. Hauptzollamt München (Case C-382/95)

text:
No C 31 / 14              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        3 . 2 . 96
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    graphics     cards         for   automatic data-processing
                                                                               machines ?
1 . declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
      within the prescribed period the laws, regulations or              3 . If the answer to Question 2 is in the negative:
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      Council Directive 92/109/EEC ( 1 ), of 14 December                       Under which other customs tariff heading should
                                                                               products such as 'vista boards' ( 1 .) be classified ?
      1992 on the manufacture and the placing on the market
      of certain substances used in the illicit manufacture of
      narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, the
      Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations
      under the provisions of that Directive and Article 5 of
      the EC Treaty;                                                     Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der
                                                                         Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 1 December 1995
2 . order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs .                        in the case of Petrus Wilhelmus Rutten v. Cross Medical
                                                                                Limited
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                                  Case C-383 /95 )
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those                                             ( 96/C 31 /28 )
in Case C-360/95 ( 2 ); the timelimit for transposition expired
on 1 July 1993 .                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad der
(') OJ No L 370, 19 . 12 . 1992 , p . 76 .                               Nederlanden ( Supreme Court of the Netherlands ) of
( 2 ) OJ No C 16 , 20 . 1 . 1996 , p . 7.                                1 December 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry
                                                                         on 7 December 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                         Petrus Wilhelmus Rutten v. Cross Medical Limited on the
                                                                         following questions :
                                                                         ( a ) Where, in the performance of an employment contract,
                                                                                an employee carries out his work in more than one
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                                     country, what are the criteria according to which he
Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 7 November                            should be regarded as habitually carrying out his work
1995 in the case of Techex Computer + Grafik Vertriebs                          in one of those countries, within the meaning of
                  GmbH v. Hauptzollamt Miinchen                                 Article 5 ( 1 ) of the Brussels Convention ?
                           ( Case C-382/95 )
                              ( 96/C 31 /27 )                            ( b ) Is the fact that he spends most of his working time in
                                                                                one of those countries, or the fact that he spends more
                                                                                of his working time in another country or countries,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                          decisive or significant in that regard ?
European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzof
(Federal Finance Court) of 7 November 1995 , which was                   (c ) Is the fact that the employee resides or maintains in one
received at the Court Registry on 7 December 1995 , for a                       of those countries an office from which he prepares or
preliminary ruling in the case of Techex Computer + Grafik                      administers his work outside that country, and to
Vertriebs GmbH v. Hauptzollamt Miinchen on the                                  which he returns after every trip which he makes in
following questions:                                                            connection with his work, of significance in that
                                                                                regard ?
1 . Must Note 5 ( B ) to Chapter 84 of the Common Customs
      Tariff ( combined nomenclature 1988 to 1991 ) be
      interpreted as meaning that image processing, which the
      'vista boards' more particularly described in the grounds
      of the order can perform, is to be regarded as a 'specific
      function' within the meaning of that provision, that is to         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
      say as a function other than data processing, so that such         des Landes Brandenburg by order of that court of
      goods are not classifiable under heading No 8471 ?                 8 November 1995 in the case of Landboden-Agrardienste
                                                                                GmbH & Co . KG v. Finanzamt Calau
2 . If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative :                                             ( Case C-3 84/95 )
      Must heading No 8543 ( in this instance : subheading                                              ( 96/C 31 /29 )
      No 8543 80 80 of the combined nomenclature 1991 ,
      subheading        No      8543 80 90    of   the   combined        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      nomenclature 1988 to 1990 ) be interpreted as meaning              European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht des
      that the term '( other) electrical machines . . . having            Landes Brandenburg (Finance Court, Land of Brandenburg)
      individual functions, not specified or included elsewhere           of 8 November 1995 , which was received at the Court
      in this Chapter' covers products such as 'vista boards'             Registry on 8 December 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the
       ( 1 .) even if such boards are by their nature capable of         case of Landboden-Agrardienste GmbH & Co . KG v.
       being used not only for image processing but also as               Finanzamt Calau on the following questions:


title: Removal from the register of C-126/96

text:
No C 166/ 12           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    31 . 5 . 97
Article 23 ( 2 ) ( relating to fire protection equipment) —                       Removal from the register of C-205/90 ( ] )
technical regulations within the meaning of Article 1 ( 5 )                                        ( 97/C 166/24 )
of Directive 83/ 189/EEC .
                                                                       By order of 20 February 1997 the President of the Court
(') OJ No L 109 , 1983 , p . 8 .                                       of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                       removal from the register of Case C-205/90 ( reference for
                                                                       a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Koophandel
                                                                       te Kortrijk ): Les Assurances du Credit Namur SA v.
                                                                       1 . PVBA 'Bowy' and 2 . G. Decoopman .
                                                                       ( 1 ) OJ No C 212, 25 . 8 . 1990 .
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties
Tribunal, London, by direction of that court of 7 April
1997, in the case of The Institute of the Motor Industry
      against the Commissioners of Customs and Excise
                          Case C-149/97 )
                                                                                Removal from the register of C- 126/96 (')
                          ( 97/C 166/23 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 166/25
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 By order of 25 February 1997 the President of the Court
European Communities by direction of the VAT and                       of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Duties Tribunal of 7 April 1997, which was received at                 removal from the register of Case C-126/96 ( reference for
the Court Registry on 17 April 1997, for a preliminary                 a preliminary ruling from Her Majesty's Court of Session
ruling in the case of The Institute of the Motor Industry              in Scotland, Edinburgh ): Marie Brizard and Roger
against the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, on the                International SA v. William Grant & Sons ( International )
                                                                       Ltd and William Grant & Sons Ltd .
following question :
                                                                       (!) OJ No C 180 , 22 . 6 . 1996 .
'In the light of the findings of fact in paragraph 3—19 and
21 of the Decision of the Tribunal and in circumstances of
the sort found in paragraph 21 (which is summarized
below ), are the services supplied by such an association,
being a non-profit-making organization, exempt from VAT
as falling within the scope of Article 13A.1 ( 1 ) of the                         Removal from the register of C-133/96 ( ')
Sixth Directive ( J ) by virtue of the following words:                                            ( 97/C 166/26 )
                                                                       By order of 25 February 1997 the President of the Court
"(...) organizations with aims of a (...) trade-union (...)            of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
nature (...)"?                                                         removal from the register of Case C-133/96 ( reference for
                                                                       a preliminary ruling from the Corte di Appello di Anco
                                                                       na ): Ministero delle Finanze dello Stato v. Foods Import
Paragraph 21 , in summary, states that the association is a            Sri dei Flli Monti .
voluntary association of individuals comprising of
employees in the retail motor industry. The primary                    (') OJ No C 180 , 22 . 6 . 1996 .
purposes of the association are the improvement of the
standards of its members at work, the improvement of
career structures within the         different   sectors    of the
industry and the consequent enhancement of the public
perception of the industry and the people working within
it. The association seeks to achieve these ends by                                Removal from the register of C-186/95 (')
responding to the requirements of the industry for skills at                                       ( 97/C 166/27 )
all levels, by validating courses ( run by other institutions )
that teach those skills, by making awards on completion
of those courses and by grading its members, by                        By order of 27 February 1997 the President of the Court
disseminating information designed to keep its members                 of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
up to date with developments in the industry and in their              removal from the register of Case C-186/95 (reference
skills and by keeping a job placement register.'                       for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale
                                                                       di Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Castelnuovo di Porto ):
 O Directive 77/388/EEC of the Council of 17 May 1977 on the
                                                                       criminal proceedings against Luciano Iommi, Giovanni
    harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to          Carnovale, Franco De Bonis, Giorgio Iommi and Antonio
    turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax :                Iommi .
    uniform basis of assessment ( OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p. 1 ).
                                                                        (') OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .