title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 9 February 1995 in Case C-412/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Commerce de Paris): Société d'Importation Édouard Leclerc-Siplec v. TF1 Publicité SA and M6 Publicité SA (Televised advertising - Free movement of goods and services)

text:
25 . 3 . 95           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 74/1
                                                                    I
                                                             (Information)
                                                COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                          COURT OF JUSTICE
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  distribution sector by television broadcasters established on
                       ( Sixth Chamber)                                their territory.
                      of 9 February 1995                               f 1 ) OJ No C 293 , 29 . 10 . 1993 .
in Case C-412/93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from             (2 ) OJ No L 298, 17. 10 . 1989, p. 23 .
the Tribunal de Commerce de Paris ): Société d'Importation
Édouard Leclerc-Siplec v. TF1 Publicité SA and M6
                         Publicité SA ( 1 )
(Televised advertising — Free movement of goods and
                             services)                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          ( 95/C 74/01 )                                                     of 14 February 1995
                                                                       in Case C-279/93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
                 (Language of the case: French)                        the Bundesfinanzhof): Finanzamt Köln-Altstadt v. Roland
                                                                                Schumacker ( x )
(Provisional- translation; the definitive translation will be           (Article 48 ofthe EEC Treaty — Principle ofequal treatment
          published in the European Court Reports)                              — Taxation of the income of non-residents)
                                                                                95/C 74/02   '
In Case C-4 12/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EEC Treaty from the Tribunal de Commerce de Paris
( Commercial Court, Paris) for a preliminary ruling in the                             (Language of the case: German)
proceedings pending before that court between Societe
d'Importation Edouard Leclerc-Siplec and ( 1 ) TF1 Publicité           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
SA (2 ) M6 Publicité SA — on the interpretation of                               published in the European Court Reports)
Articles 30, 85, 86, 5 and 3 ( f) of the EEC Treaty and
Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the                  In Case C-279/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
coordination of certain provisions laid down by law,                   of the EEC Treaty from the Bundesfinanzhof ( Federal
regulation or administrative action in Member States                   Finance Court) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting                      pending before that court between Finanzamt Köln-Altstadt
activities (2 ) — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of:            and Roland Schumacker — on the interpretation of
F. A. Schockweiler, President of the Chamber, P. J. G.                 Article 48 of the EEC Treaty — the Court, composed of:
Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ), G. F. Mancini, C. N. Kakouris and              G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, F. A. Schockweiler
J. L. Murray, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H.               ( Rapporteur ), P. J. G. Kapteyn and C. Gulmann (Presidents
von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, gave a judgment on                     of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, C. N. Kakouris, J. C.
9 February 1995 , the operative part of which is as                    Moitinho de Almeida, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P.
follows :                                                              Puissochet and G. Hirsch, Judges; P. Leger, Advocate
                                                                       General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the
on a proper construction Articles 30, 85, 86, 5 and 3 (f) of           Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 February 1995 , in
the Treaty and Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October               which it rules :
 1989 on the coordination ofcertain provisions laid down by
law, regulation or administrative action in Member States               1 . Article 48 of the EEC Treaty must be interpreted as
concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities                 being capable of limiting the right of a Member State to
do not preclude Member States from prohibiting, by statute                   lay down conditions concerning the liability to taxation
or by regulation, the broadcasting of advertisements for the                 ofa national ofanother Member State and the manner in


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 4 February 1999 in Case C-103/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tiroler Landesvergabeamt): Josef Köllensperger GmbH & Co. KG, Atzwanger AG v. Gemeindeverband Bezirkskrankenhaus Schwaz (National 'court or tribunal' within the meaning of Article 177 of the EC Treaty - Procedures for the award of public supply contracts and public works contracts - Body responsible for review procedures)

text:
C 86/6               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    27.3.1999
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       (Fifth Chamber)                                                      (Sixth Chamber)
                     of 28 January 1999                                                   of 4 February 1999
in Case C-303/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                     in Case C-103/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Bundesgerichtshof): Verbraucherschutzverein eV v.
                                                                     the Tiroler Landesvergabeamt): Josef Köllensperger GmbH
        Sektkellerei G. C. Kessler GmbH und Co. (1)
                                                                     & Co. KG, Atzwanger AG v. Gemeindeverband Bezirks-
(Brand name Ð Sparkling wine Ð Article 13(2)(b) of                                      krankenhaus Schwaz (1)
Regulation (EEC) No 2333/92 Ð Description of product
       Ð Consumer protection Ð Risk of confusion)                    (National court or tribunal' within the meaning of
                                                                     Article 177 of the EC Treaty Ð Procedures for the award
                        (1999/C 86/10)                               of public supply contracts and public works contracts Ð
                                                                               Body responsible for review procedures)
                                                                                (1999/C 86/11)
               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
         published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-303/97: reference to the Court under Article 177             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
of the EC Treaty from the Bundesgerichtshof for a                             published in the European Court Reports)
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Verbraucherschutzverein eV and Sektkellerei
G. C. Kessler GmbH und Co. Ð on the interpretation of
Article 13(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2333/92              In Case C-103/97: reference to the Court under Article 177
of 13 July 1992 laying down general rules for the                    of the EC Treaty from the Tiroler Landesvergabeamt
description and presentation of sparkling wines and                  (Austria) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
aerated sparkling wines (OJ L 231, 13.8.1992, p. 9) Ð the            pending before that tribunal between Josef Köllensperger
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J. P. Puissochet,                GmbH & Co.KG, Atzwanger AG and Gemeindeverband
President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, C.              Bezirkskrankenhaus Schwaz Ð on the interpretation of
Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward and M. Wathelet                             Article 2(8) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of
(Rapporteur) Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate-General; D.               21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws,
Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the                   regulations and administrative provisions relating to the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 January 1999, in               application of review procedures to the award of public
which it has ruled:                                                  supply and public works contracts (OJ L 395, 30.12.1988,
                                                                     p. 33) Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: P. J. G.
                                                                     Kapteyn (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, G.
On a proper construction of Article 13(2)(b) of Council              Hirsch, G. F. Mancini, H. Ragnemalm and R. Schintgen,
Regulation (EEC) No 2333/92 of 13 July 1992 laying                   Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl,
down general rules for the description and presentation of           Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
sparkling wines and aerated sparkling wines, it is not               judgment on 4 February 1999, in which it has ruled:
sufficient for the prohibition laid down by that provision
to be applied to find that a brand name which includes a
word appearing in the description of one of the products
there mentioned is, as such, likely to be confused with              The conditions set out in Article 2(8) of Council Directive
that description. It is also necessary to establish that use         89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of
of the brand name is in fact likely to mislead the                   the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
consumers concerned and thus affect their economic                   relating to the application of review procedures to the
behaviour. In that respect, it is for the national court to          award of public supply and public works contracts do not
have regard to the presumed expectations, in regard to               apply to provisions such as those governing the
that information, of an average consumer who is                      composition and functioning of the Tiroler Landesvergabe-
reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and                amt.
circumspect.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 142, 10.5.1997.
(1) OJ C 318, 18.10.1997.


title: Case T-431/03: Action brought on 22 December 2003 by Liam O'Bradaigh against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 47/38                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                       21.2.2004
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          —     Annul the decision of the selection board in competition
The applicant, who was classified in Grade A7, Step 3, upon                     COM/TB/99 to award the applicant an insufficient mark
entering the service of the Commission in September 1986,                       in the oral test to allow him to be entered on the reserve
challenges the decision of the appointing authority, adopted                    list;
following a reconsideration of that classification following the
judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-389/98 P Gevaert v             —     Order the defendant to pay the costs.
Commission, to reclassify him in Step 1 of Grade A6, instead
of Step 3 of that grade, and revising and setting at new dates
his subsequent classification in Grade A5, Step 2, and A4,
Step 2, and limiting the pecuniary effects of that reclassification
to 5 October 1995.                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          Following the judgment of the Court of First Instance on
In support of his claims, action, the applicant claims that the
                                                                          13 March 2002 in Case T-364/00 Van Weyenbergh, the
Commission has breached:
                                                                          applicant in the present case, as in Case T-161/01, objects to
                                                                          the decision of the selection board in competition COM/TB/
—     the decisions of 6 June 1973 and 1 September 1983 in                99 constituting a reserve list of administrative assistants,
      so far as it omitted to grant the applicant the slightest           senior administrative assistants and principal administrative
      seniority in step, and also Article 5(3) of the Staff               assistants, in Grades B5/B4, B3/B2 and B1 respectively, not to
      Regulations in so far as the Commission applied to the              enter him on the reserve list in that competition on the ground
      applicant a different outcome from that of officials in the         that he was awarded an insufficient mark in the oral test.
      same category;
—     Articles 5(3) and 45 of the Staff Regulations by refusing           In support of his claims, he alleges that there has been a
      to reconstruct his career in grade following his reclassifi-        breach of the principles of non-discrimination and proper
      cation in Grade A6, and breach of the duty to have regard           administration and also a manifest error of assessment.
      to the welfare of officials;
—     Article 62 of the Staff Regulations by limiting in time the         The applicant criticises the method used by the selection board
      pecuniary effects of his reclassification.                          to assess his knowledge of languages and claims, in particular,
                                                                          that he was unable to ascertain whether the questions put
                                                                          during the oral test correspond to the level of the competition
                                                                          B5/B4, B3/B2 or B1.
Action brought on 22 December 2003 by Liam O’Bra-
daigh against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                ties                                      Action brought on 22 December 2003 by Jean Dehon
                                                                                against the European Parliament
                         (Case T-431/03)
                                                                                (Case T-432/03)
                          (2004/C 47/71)
                                                                                (2004/C 47/72)
                   (Language of the case: French)                                            (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 An action against the European Parliament was brought before
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
European Communities on 22 December 2003 by Liam                          on 22 December 2003 by Jean Dehon, residing in Hagen
O’Bradaigh, residing in Mechelen (Belgium), represented by                (Luxembourg), represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Albert
Sébastien Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Étienne             Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Étienne Marchal, lawyers, with an
Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.              address for service in Luxembourg.


title: Action brought on 19 January 1998 by Peter Reichert against the European Parliament (Case T-18/98)

text:
C 94/34               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    28.3.98
Third, the Commission made incorrect observations on                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
market transparency. An independent expert report
annexed to the application for negative certification,                 Ð annul, or at least declare void, the decision contained
which showed that competition is promoted by increased                     in the defendant's letter of 14 October 1997 refusing
transparency, was ignored by the Commission. That                          the applicant's request for repayment of the
constitutes a serious defect in the determination of the                   Community tax paid by the applicant in respect of the
facts, which affected the outcome of the decision.                         period from 1 January 1989 to 31 September 1995
                                                                           inclusive,
Fourth, in the applicants' submission, Article 60 of the
ECSC Treaty pursues a system of complete transparency in               Ð in so far as may be necessary, declare void the decision
the field of prices and conditions of sale. If, according to               of the European Parliament to subject freelance
the Court of Justice, that applies to market transparency                  interpreters working for it to Community tax,
in the field of prices, then market transparency must all                  alternatively rule that that decision may not be relied
the more be permitted with respect to quantities delivered.                upon against the applicant for the purposes of
                                                                           deducting, in respect of the period from 1 January
Fifth, the fact that the Commission did not investigate the                1989 to 31 September 1995 inclusive, Community tax
market shares with the means usually available to it, as                   from the income earned by her from her activities as a
described in its Notice on the definition of relevant                     freelance interpreter working for the defendant,
market' (2), constitutes a serious defect in the
determination of the facts.                                            Ð in so far as may be necessary, declare void Article 8 of
                                                                           the agreement with the AIIC, alternatively rule that
Sixth, the applicants submit that the Commission                           that article may not be relied upon against the
infringed the second paragraph of Article 47 of the ECSC                   applicant for the purposes of deducting, in respect of
Treaty by informing the Government of the United States                    the period from 1 January 1989 to 31 September 1995
of America that it had no objections to the exchange of                    inclusive, Community tax from the income earned by
ECSC questionnaire 2Ð72. The applicants had not made                       her from her activities as a freelance interpreter
exchange of that questionnaire the subject of their                        working for the defendant,
notification, and according to the case-law business secrets
of the undertakings concerned must, on the basis of the                Ð order the defendant to repay the Community tax paid
general principle of which the procedural rules of                         by the applicant during the period from 1 January
competition law are an expression, receive especially                      1989 to 31 September 1995 inclusive, currently
extensive protection, which also means that the                            estimated by the applicant as amounting to ECU
undertakings concerned must be informed beforehand in                      17 309, together with interest at the annual rate of
an adequately reasoned decision, in order thus to be given                 8 % or at the legal rate applicable,
the opportunity to seek judicial protection before the
                                                                       Ð by way of subsidiary relief:
information is passed on.
                                                                           order the defendant to compensate the applicant for
Finally, the contested decision infringes the obligation to
                                                                           the damage, currently estimated to amount to BEF
state reasons under Article 15 of the ECSC Treaty, since it
                                                                           642 199, together with such further damage as may be
lacks a convincing statement of reasons on a number of
                                                                           specified, arising from additional claims by the Belgian
points.
                                                                           tax and/or social security authorities in relation to the
                                                                           period from 1 January 1989 to 31 September 1995
(1) OJ L 1, 3.1.1998, p. 10.
                                                                           inclusive during which the defendant retained
(2) OJ C 372, 9.12.1997, p. 5, at point 33 et seq.
                                                                           Community tax deducted from the applicant's income,
                                                                       Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Action brought on 14 January 1998 by F against the                     The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
                     European Parliament                               Case T-2/98.
                         (Case T-17/98)
                          (98/C 94/81)
                 (Language of the case: Dutch)
An action against the European Parliament was brought                  Action brought on 19 January 1998 by Peter Reichert
before the Court of First Instance of the European                                    against the European Parliament
Communities on 14 January 1998 by F, residing in                                               (Case T-18/98)
Brussels, represented by G. van der Wal, Advocaat with a                                        (98/C 94/82)
right of audience before the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
(Supreme Court of the Netherlands), The Hague, and                                    (Language of the case: German)
L. Y. J. M. Parret, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May,                   An action against the European Parliament was brought
31 Grand-Rue.                                                          before the Court of First Instance of the European
 ---pagebreak--- 28.3.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 94/35
Communities on 19 January 1998 by Peter Reichert, of                 Action brought on 20 January 1998 by Colette Jemaa
Overijse (Belgium), represented by Dr Dieter Rogalla,                           against Council of the European Union
Rechtsanwalt, Sprockhövel (Germany), with an address                                        (Case T-20/98)
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Decker,
Braun & Wagner, 16 Avenue Marie-TheÂreÁse.                                                   (98/C 94/83)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                     An action against Council of the European Union was
Ð annul Decision No 029945 of 21 October 1997                        brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
    rejecting     his   complaint,     together     with   the       Communities on 20 January 1998 by Colette Jemaa,
    determinations of salary in the individual monthly               residing at PreÂvessin-Moens (France), represented by Jean-
    statements from 1 June 1996, in so far as they do not            NoeÈl Louis, Ariane Tornel and FrancËoise Parmentier, of
    contain any expatriation allowance,                              the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                     Luxembourg at Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de
                                                                     Cessange.
Ð order the European Parliament or its competent
    appointing authority to pay the applicant the                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
    expatriation allowance in accordance with the relevant
    provisions from his entering the service of the
                                                                     Ð annul the decision of the Council of 12 March 1997
    European Parliament, with interest at the usual rate,
                                                                          ordering the applicant to repay the sum of CHF
    from 1 June 1996,
                                                                          274 350 and that of 13 June 1997 withholding during
                                                                          59 months CHF 4 650 per month from the applicant's
Ð order the Parliament to pay the costs.                                  remuneration,
                                                                     Ð order the Council to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant, a German national, has worked since June
1996 in the press office of the Socialist Group in the               The applicant, an official in Grade B 3, was assigned from
European Parliament in Brussels.                                     September 1976 to the Council's Bureau de Liaison in
                                                                     Geneva. She claimed to be renting from 1 April 1992 a
                                                                     flat in Geneva at a monthly rent of CHF 4 450 plus CHF
By the contested decision the applicant's complaint against          200 for the right to a reserved parking space for her car.
the refusal to pay an expatriation allowance under the               Pursuant to Annex X to the Staff Regulations, she was
second indent of Article 4 (1) (a) of Annex VII to the Staff         reimbursed the expense incurred by way of rent as
Regulations was rejected. The rejection was founded                  declared from 1 April 1992 to 28 February 1997.
essentially on the fact that in the applicant's case there
were already permanent links with the country of service
                                                                     The applicant's statements in respect of her rent are false
when he entered the service, and he was thus at that time
                                                                     inasmuch as she had acquired ownership of the flat in
not in a situation which could establish that there was an
                                                                     question.
actual change of residence and/or transfer abroad within
the meaning of the Staff Regulations'.
                                                                     By decision of 12 March 1997 the appointing authority
                                                                     ordered the applicant to reimburse, as soon as possible,
The applicant submits that before the transfer of his                the rent overpaid amounting to CHF 274 350. By decision
present family residence to Belgium in July 1993 he lived            of 13 June 1997 it proceeded to implement the
in various places in the Federal Republic of Germany.                aforementioned decision by withholding, with effect from
Contrary to the view taken by the defendant, however, in             June 1997, CHF 4 650 per month from the applicant's
the period material for the grant of the expatriation                remuneration.
allowance he consistently neither carried on his main
occupation nor habitually resided in Belgium. He did                 In support of her action, the applicant relies on a single
indeed work for the German media inter alia in Brussels              ground of action of infringement of the provisions of
and was registered with the local authority as resident              Annex X to the Staff Regulations, unlawfulness of the
there, but his activity as a journalist frequently required          Council internal directives of 19 December 1988, adopted
on-the-spot work in places other than Brussels. His clear            pursuant to Annex X to the Staff Regulations, and breach
ties to the sending State, Germany, until July 1993 are              of the general principle of equal treatment and non-
manifested inter alia by the transfer of his salary in               discrimination.
German currency to a German account, by the German
social insurance he then had, and on the basis of the clear
centre of life of his family until that date.                        According to the applicant, the contested decisions are
                                                                     unlawful inasmuch as they require the repayment of cost
                                                                     of accommodation which, pursuant to the provisions of
                                                                     Annex X to the Staff Regulations and the case-law of the


title: Case T-260/02: Action brought on 2 September 2002 by Bank Austria Creditanstalt AG against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 274/28               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      9.11.2002
—     breach of Articles 8, 12 and 14 of the European                    The applicant submits first of all that the defendant wrongly
      Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and                  assumed that the arrangements in the present case could affect
      Fundamental Freedoms;                                              trade between States. The Austrian banks’ arrangements were
                                                                         restricted exclusively to Austria. Nor were they liable, given
—     Disregard of general principles of law, such as non-               the nature of the service in question, to partition the Austrian
      discrimination and equal treatment, equal pay for men              market. There is therefore no infringement of Article 81
      and women, respect for private and family life, the                EC. Furthermore, there is no basis for the Commission’s
      principle that the civil status of Community nationals is          requirement to cease the infringement in the future. The
      to be governed by the legislation of their Member                  Commission itself found that the applicant had brought the
      State, proper administration, the protection of legitimate         arrangements to an end on 24 June 1998.
      expectations.
                                                                         The applicant also contests the classification of the infringe-
                                                                         ment as ‘very serious’ for the purposes of the guidelines on
                                                                         the calculation of fines. When assessing the gravity of the
                                                                         infringement, the Commission disregarded in particular the
                                                                         fact that the Bankenrunden were not established by the banks
                                                                         expressly to interfere with competition but, on the contrary,
Action brought on 30 August 2002 by Raiffeisen Zentral-                  took place over 50 years in accordance with Austrian law and
bank Österreich Aktiengesellschaft against the Com-                      — to the end — with the cooperation of State authorities.
            mission of the European Communities
                         (Case T-259/02)                                 Furthermore, the applicant contests the calculation of the fine
                                                                         imposed on it. In disregard of the links in the rural cooperative
                        (2002/C 274/50)                                  sector and inconsistently with settled case-law, the Com-
                                                                         mission attributed to the applicant market shares of undertak-
                                                                         ings in which it had no stake and whose market conduct it
                  (Language of the Case: German)                         could not determine. In addition, the Commission rejected all
                                                                         mitigating grounds put forward without considering them
                                                                         sufficiently. Finally, the Commission misapplied the Leniency
                                                                         Notice ( 1).
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 30 August 2002 by Raiffeisen
                                                                         (1 ) Commission Notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines
Zentralbank Österreich Aktiengesellschaft, established in Vien-               in cartel cases (OJ C 207 of 18.7.1996, p. 4).
na, represented by S. Völcker, Lawyer.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the Commission decision of 11 June 2002
      (C(2002)2091 final) in so far as it relates to the applicant;
—     in     the    alternative,     reduce     the      fine    of
      EUR 30 380 000 imposed on the applicant in the                     Action brought on 2 September 2002 by Bank Austria
      defendant’s decision;                                              Creditanstalt AG against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Case T-260/02)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                      (2002/C 274/51)
The proceeding conducted by the defendant was directed                                        (Language of the Case: German)
against regular meetings of banks in Austria (‘Bankenrunden’).
By the contested decision the Commission found that the
applicant — together with seven other Austrian banking
institutions — had infringed Article 81 EC by participating in
agreements and concerted practices concerning prices, charges            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
and advertising measures, designed to restrict competition on            ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
the Austrian banking market from 1 January 1995 until                    European Communities on 2 September 2002 by Bank
24 June 1998. The Commission imposed fines on the banks                  Austria Creditanstalt AG, established in Vienna, represented
concerned.                                                               by C. Zschocke and J. Beninca, Lawyers.
 ---pagebreak--- 9.11.2002              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 274/29
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Finally, the applicant submits that the Commission has
                                                                         infringed essential procedural rights held by the applicant and
                                                                         that it unlawfully passed the statement of objections to the
—     annul the Commission decision of 11 June 2002 (COMP/               FPÖ (Austrian Freedom Party).
      36.571 — Austrian Banks) in so far as it relates to the
      applicant;
—     in     the    alternative,    reduce      the      fine    of
      EUR 30 380 000 imposed on the applicant in the
      defendant’s decision;
                                                                         Action brought on 30 August 2002 by Bank für Arbeit
                                                                         und Wirtschaft Aktiengesellschaft against the Com-
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                                          mission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-261/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 274/52)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Language of the Case: German)
The proceeding conducted by the defendant was directed
against regular meetings of banks in Austria (‘Bankenrunden’).           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
By the contested decision the Commission found that the                  ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
applicant — together with seven other Austrian banking                   European Communities on 30 August 2002 by Bank für
institutions — had infringed Article 81 EC by participating in           Arbeit und Wirtschaft Aktiengesellschaft, established in Vien-
agreements and concerted practices concerning prices, charges            na, represented by H.-J. Niemeyer and M. von Hinden, Lawyers,
and advertising measures, designed to restrict competition on            with an address for service in Luxembourg.
the Austrian banking market from 1 January 1995 until
24 June 1998. The Commission imposed fines on the banks
concerned.                                                               The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         —     annul Articles 1 and 2 of the Commission decision of
                                                                               11 June 2002 in Case COMP/36.571 — Austrian banks,
The applicant submits first of all that Article 81 EC cannot be                in so far as it is found therein that the applicant has
applicable since the banks’ meetings, which the applicant                      infringed Article 81 EC and must cease that infringement;
admits, could not affect trade between Member States because
of their regional and local focus.                                       —     annul Article 3 of the decision in so far as it imposes a
                                                                               fine of EUR 7 590 000 upon the applicant;
                                                                         —     in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the
The applicant further contends that the defendant, when                        applicant in Article 3 of the decision to an appropriate
setting the basic amount, assumed that those meetings had                      amount;
adverse economic effects although the applicant, together with
the other banks concerned, had proved by means of an                     —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
economist’s expert report that there were no such effects. In
addition, the defendant exercised its discretion improperly
when setting the basic amount because it failed to take account
of the transitional situation pertaining in legal terms in Austria       Pleas in law and main arguments
after entry into the European Economic Area, the statutorily
privileged status of the Bankenrunden under Austrian cartel
law, the participation of State authorities and the fact that the        The proceeding conducted by the defendant was directed
Bankenrunden were public knowledge.                                      against regular meetings of banks in Austria (‘Bankenrunden’).
                                                                         By the contested decision the Commission found that the
                                                                         applicant — together with seven other Austrian banking
                                                                         institutions — had infringed Article 81 EC by participating in
Furthermore, the applicant worked with the defendant in                  agreements and concerted practices concerning prices, charges
establishing the facts. The defendant granted no reduction for           and advertising measures, designed to restrict competition on
that wide-ranging cooperation and therefore exercised its                the Austrian banking market from 1 January 1995 until
discretion incorrectly and to the applicant’s detriment when             24 June 1998. The Commission imposed fines on the banks
applying the Leniency Notice.                                            concerned.


title: Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-107/93 and others

text:
12 . 8 . 95             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 208/37
Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-107/93 and                         Removal from the register of Case T-l 97/93 (*)
                                others (M                                                           ( 95 /C 208/ 80 )
                           ( 95/C 208/77 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                 (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         By order of 29 June 1995 the President of the First Chamber,
By order of 29 June 1 995 the President of the First Chamber,            Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the
Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the              European Communities ordered the removal from the
European Communities ordered the removal from the                        register of Case T-l 97/93 : Friedrich Bethke v. Council of the
register of Joined Cases T-107/93 : Christian Hansen,                    European Union and Commission of the European
T-109/93 : Liesa Thomsen, T-136/93 : Herbert Sonnenberg,                 Communities .
T-153/93 : F. Steensen-Feddersen, T-178/93 : H.-P . Fock,
T-180/93 : E. Ebsen, T-182/93 : R.-D . Tetens, T-192/93 : M.             (') OJ No C 270 , 19 . 10 . 1992 .
Hansen, T-193/93 : H. Ketelsen, T-194/93 : Ch . Jessen,
T-212/93 : H. Thomsen, T-219/93 : H. Johannsen,
T-226/93 : J. Nielsen, T-227/93 : T. Petersen, T-228/93 : J. H.
Sell, T-229/93 : K. Friedrichsen, T-230/93 : K. Ingwersen,
T-232/93 : J. Johannsen, T-236/93 : P. Carstensen,
T-239/93 : P. A. Petersen and T-240/93 : U. Dethlefsen v.                Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-198/93 ,
Council of the European Union and Commission of the                                 T-199/93 , T-200/93 and T-204/93 (')
European Communities .
                                                                                ( 95/C 208/81 )
(M OJ No C 222 , 6 . 9 . 1990 ; OJ No C 34, 9 . 2 . 1991 ; OJ No C 109 ,
     29 . 4 . 1992 and OJ No C 270 , 19 . 10 . 1992 .                                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         By order of 29 June 1 995 the President of the First Chamber,
                                                                         Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities ordered the removal from the
                                                                         register of Joined Cases T-198/93 , T-199/93 , T-200/93 and
       Removal from the register of Case T-122/93 ( )                    T-204/93 : Detlef Maack and Others v. Commission of the
                            ( 95/C 208/78 )                              European Communities .
                  (Language of the case: German)                         m OJ No C 270 , 19 . 10 . 1992 .
By order of 29 June 1995 the President of the First Chamber,
Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case T-122/93 : Franz-Joseph Kliemann v.
Council of the European Union and Commission of the                             Removal from the register of Case T-17/94 (')
European Communities .                                                                               ( 95/C 208/ 82 )
 (') OJ No C 34, 9 . 2 . 1991 .                                                           (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         By order of 22 June 1995 the President of the Fourth
                                                                          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                          Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
 Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-144/93 and                  T-17/94 : Dimitrios Benecos v. Commission of the European
                              T-145/93 (')                                Communities .
                             ( 95 /C 208/79 )
                                                                          (') OJ No C 76 , 12 . 3 . 1994 .
                  (Language of the case: German)
 By order of 29 June 1 995 the President of the First Chamber,
 Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the
 European Communities ordered the removal from the                             Removal from the register of Case T-228/94 (')
 register of Joined Cases T-144/93 and T-145/93 : Ernst Theis
 and Karl Leonhauser v. Council of the European Union and                                             ( 95/C 208/83 )
 Commission of the European Communities .
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
 (') OJ No C 50 , 26 . 2 . 1991 and OJ No C 146 , 5 . 6 . 1991 .
                                                                          By order of 29 June 1995 the President of the First Chamber,
                                                                          Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 8 August 2002 in Case T-155/02 R: VVG International Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Commission of the European Communities (Application for interim measures — Regulation (EC) No 560/2002 — Admissibility of main action)

text:
C 261/14                 EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                       26.10.2002
1.     The application for interim measures is dismissed.                     with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Com-
                                                                              mission of the European Communities (Agents: W. Mölls and
2.     Costs are reserved.                                                    A. Whelan) — application for annulment of Commission
                                                                              Decision C(2001) 2931 final of 2 October 2001 relating to a
                                                                              proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53
                                                                              of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/36.756 — Sodium
                                                                              gluconate) or, alternatively, for the reduction of the fine
                                                                              imposed on the applicant by Article 3 of that decision —
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of
                                                                              M. Jaeger, President, K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi, Judges; H. Jung,
                            of 9 July 2002                                    Registrar, made an order on 9 July 2002, the operative part of
                                                                              which is as follows:
in Case T-127/01: Carlo Ripa di Meana v European
                             Parliament (1)                                   1.    There is no need to adjudicate on this action.
(Members of the European Parliament — Provisional retire-                     2.    The Commission shall pay the costs.
ment pension scheme — Suspension of payment — Con-
                  firmatory act — Admissibility)
                                                                              (1 ) OJ 2002 C 68.
                           (2002/C 261/24)
                      (Language of the case: Italian)
In Case T-127/01: Carlo Ripa di Meana, former Member of the                   ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
European Parliament, residing in Montecastello di Vibio (Italy),                                            INSTANCE
represented by W Viscardini Donà and G. Donà, lawyers,
against European Parliament (Agents: A. Caiola and G. Ricci)                                           of 8 August 2002
— application for annulment of the decision of the European
Parliament of 26 March 2001 suspending payment of the
pension of the applicant following his election to the Regional               in Case T-155/02 R: VVG International Handelsgesell-
Council for the Region of Umbria (Italy) — the Court of First                  schaft mbH v Commission of the European Communities
Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras, President,
V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an                 (Application for interim measures — Regulation (EC)
order on 9 July 2002, the operative part of which is as follows:                       No 560/2002 — Admissibility of main action)
1.     The application is dismissed as inadmissible.                                                    (2002/C 261/26)
2.     The applicant shall pay the costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
( 1) OJ 2001 C 245.
                                                                              In Case T-155/02 R: VVG International Handelsgesellschaft
                                                                              mbH, established in Salzburg (Austria), VVG (International)
                                                                              Ltd, established in Europort Gibraltar (Gibraltar), Metalsivas
                                                                              Metallwarenhandelsgesellschaft mbH, established in Vienna
                                                                              (Austria), represented by W. Schuler, lawyer, against Com-
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                              mission of the European Communities (Agents: G. zur Hausen
                                                                              and B. Eggers,) — application for suspension of the operation
                            of 9 July 2002                                    of Commission Regulation (EC) No 560/2002 of 27 March
                                                                              2002 imposing provisional safeguard measures against
in Case T-312/01: Jungbunzlauer AG v Commission of the                        imports of certain steel products (OJ 2002 L 85, p. 1) or of
                     European Communities ( 1)                                any other provisional measure likely to permit the applicants
                                                                              to import into the Community, in addition to the tariff quota
(Action for annulment — Action which has become devoid                        and free of additional duties, 95 129 tonnes of alloy hot rolled
    of purpose — No need to adjudicate — Order for costs)                     flat products covered by reference 4 of the said Regulation —
                                                                              the President of the Court of First Instance, has made an order
                           (2002/C 261/25)                                    on 8 August 2002, the operative part of which is as follows:
                     (Language of the case: German)                           1.    The application for interim measures is dismissed.
                                                                              2.    The costs are reserved.
In Case T-312/01: Jungbunzlauer AG, established in Basel
(Switzerland), represented by R. Bechtold and M. Karl, lawyers,


title: Case T-114/01: Action brought on 23 May 2001 by Stefano Cocchi and Evi Hainz against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
11.8.2001                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 227/27
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Action brought on 22 May 2001 by Verónica Sabbag
                                                                           against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-113/01)
In 1995 the Federal Republic of Germany gave notice of aid
for the privatisation of eight subsidiaries of the holding
                                                                                (2001/C 227/52)
company EFBE Verwaltungs GmbH, now Lintra Beteiligungs-
holding GmbH. By decision of 13 March 1996, communicated
by letter of 23 April 1996 (1), the Commission informed                                      (Language of the case: French)
Germany of its approval of aid for restructuring measures in
connection with the privatisation of Lintra Beteiligungsholding
GmbH.                                                                    An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 22 May 2001 by Verónica Sabbag,
                                                                         residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël Louis and
By the contested decision of 28 March 2001, the defendant                Véronique Peere, avocats, with an address for service in
has required Germany to reclaim aid totalling                            Luxembourg.
DEM 34 978 000 from Lintra Beteiligungsholding GmbH and
the Lintra subsidiaries. Aid amounting to DEM 3 195 559 is               The applicant claims that the Court should:
to be reclaimed from the applicant. The defendant asserts that           —     annul the decision of the Selection Committee in compe-
that aid has been used improperly and in breach of the                         tition COM/R/A/01/1999 to award the applicant a mark
statements in the approved restructuring plan. According to                    insufficient for her to be included on the reserve list;
the defendant, the aid granted has reportedly been used to pay
for services provided by Lintra Beteiligungsholding GmbH.                —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant submits that the contested decision is unlawful
and void in relation to it if only because it was not granted any        The applicant took part in competition COM/R/A/01/1999.
aid whatsoever in breach of the decision of 13 March 1996.               She is contesting her non-inclusion in the reserve list for the
                                                                         selection of temporary agents responsible for the management
                                                                         of technological research and development programmes.
According to the applicant, it is significant that the defendant         In support of her claim, the applicant alleges:
has not asserted that the applicant misused the restructuring
                                                                         —     infringement of the selection notice, of essential pro-
aid. The defendant has relied solely on presumptions in its
                                                                               cedural requirements and of the rules governing the
request for recovery. The applicant states that all the aid which
                                                                               functioning of selection boards, as well as a manifest
was received by it was used exclusively for restructuring
                                                                               error of assessment;
measures. Moreover, the amount to be reclaimed from it was
set totally arbitrarily.                                                 —     breach of the obligation to provide a statement of reasons;
                                                                         —     infringement of the principle of equal treatment;
                                                                         —     non-compliance with the obligation to have regard to the
Furthermore, all aid from the defendant or from Germany                        interests and welfare of officials and violation of the
went to Lintra Beteiligungsholding GmbH and was passed on                      principle of sound administration.
to its subsidiaries only indirectly. For that reason a notice for
recovery can be issued solely to the parent company.
The applicant is also of the view that no basis is apparent for
claiming that there is joint and several liability between Lintra
Beteiligungsholding GmbH and the subsidiaries. Such liability            Action brought on 23 May 2001 by Stefano Cocchi and
is presumably asserted by the defendant solely because the               Evi Hainz against the Commission of the European
parent company itself is insolvent.                                                                Communities
                                                                                (Case T-114/01)
(1) A summary was published at OJ No C 168, 12.6.1996, p. 10.                                     (2001/C 227/53)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
 ---pagebreak--- C 227/28               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    11.8.2001
European Communities on 23 May 2001 by Stefano Cocchi,                   The applicants claim that the Court should:
residing at Varano Borghi (Italy), and Evi Hainz, residing
at Besozzo (Italy), represented by Laure Levi and Georges                —     annul the decision of the Authority Empowered to
Vandersanden, avocats.                                                         Conclude Contracts (AECC) to cancel the recruitment
                                                                               procedures initiated by the publication of the following
The applicants claim that the Court should:                                    vacancy notices: COM/R/5638/00 and COM/R/5639/00
                                                                               (in the case of Francesca Bertolo), COM/R/5526/00 (in
—     annul the decisions of the Authority Empowered to                        the case of Laurence Bories), COM/R/5645/00 (in the
      Conclude Contracts (AECC), of unknown date, appointing                   case of Lionello Brovelli), COM/R/5889/99 (in the case of
      persons to fill the posts declared vacant by, respectively,              Philippe Chemin), COM/R/5520/00 (in the case of Laura
      vacancy notices COM/R/5530/00 of 24 February 2000                        Copes), COM/R/5646/00 (in the case of Maria Gabriella
      (in the case of Mr Cocchi) and COM/R/5500/00 of                          D’Elia), COM/R/5863/99 (in the case of Emanuele Mondi-
      24 February 2000 (in the case of Ms Hainz) and, in so far                ni) and COM/R/5521/00 (in the case of Helen Preissler);
      as may be necessary, annul the implicit decision rejecting
      the applicants’ complaints;                                        —     in the case of Philippe Chemin and Emanuele Mondini,
                                                                               annul, respectively, vacancy notices COM/R/5734/00
—     order the defendant to pay one euro by way of damages                    (Philippe Chemin) and COM/R/5735/00 (Emanuele Mon-
      for the prejudice suffered as a result of that decision, that            dini), published on 23 June 2000, and annul the decisions
      sum being fixed on an equitable and provisional basis;                   taken in the context of those new recruitment procedures;
—     order the defendant to pay all the costs.                          —     order the defendant to pay one euro by way of damages
                                                                               for the prejudice suffered as a result of the contested
                                                                               decisions, that sum being fixed on an equitable and
                                                                               provisional basis;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
The pleas in law and main arguments advanced in this
application are analogous to those put forward in Case
T-330/00 (1).                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         The present action reproduces the facts and legal arguments
(1) OJ 2000 C 372, p. 15.
                                                                         put forward in support of the application of certain applicants
                                                                         in Case T-331/00 Bories and Others v Commission (1).
                                                                         (1) OJ C 372 of 23.12.2000, p. 16.
Action brought on 29 May 2001 by Francesca Bertolo
and Others against the Commission of the European
                          Communities
                         (Case T-115/01)                                 Action brought on 28 May 2001 by Marcos Roman Parra
                                                                           against the Commission of the European Communities
                        (2001/C 227/54)
                                                                                (Case T-117/01)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (2001/C 227/55)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                                  (Language of the case: French)
European Communities on 29 May 2001 by Francesca Bertolo,
residing at Varese (Italy), Laurence Bories, residing at Vallon
Pont d’Arc (France), Lionello Brovelli, residing at Angera (Italy),      An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Philippe Chemin, residing at Gif sur Yvette (France), Laura              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Copes, residing at Ispra (Italy), Maria Gabriella d’Elia, residing       European Communities on 28 May 2001 by Marcos Roman
at Taino (Italy), Emanuele Mondini, residing at Gavirate                 Parra, residing at Zaventem (Belgium), represented by Jean-
(Italy) and Helen Preissler, residing at Siegsdorf (Germany),            Noël Louis and Véronique Peere, avocats, with an address for
represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, avocats.             service in Luxembourg.


title: Case C-228/02: Action brought on 18 June 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
C 180/18                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      27.7.2002
—     Order the French Republic to pay the costs.                         Action brought on 18 June 2002 by the Commission of
                                                                          the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
                                                                                Luxembourg
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Case C-228/02)
The period prescribed for transposition expired on 21 August                                        (2002/C 180/31)
2001.
(1) OJ L 101, 1.4.1998, p. 17.
                                                                          An action against The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                                                          brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties on 18 June 2002 by the Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities, represented by Denis Martin and Miguel França,
                                                                          acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
Action brought on 18 June 2002 by the Commission of                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
                             Luxembourg                                   —     Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force the
                                                                                laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary
                           (Case C-227/02)                                      to comply with Directive 97/7/EC of the European
                                                                                Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 1997 on
                                                                                the protection of consumers in respect of distance
                           (2002/C 180/30)                                      contracts (1), or, in any event, by failing to communicate
                                                                                to the Commission the adoption of such provisions, the
                                                                                Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
                                                                                obligations under that directive;
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-              —     Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
ties on 18 June 2002 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Denis Martin and Miguel França,
of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service
in Luxembourg.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          The period prescribed for transposition expired on 4 June
1.    Declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws,              2000.
      regulations and administrative provisions needed in order
      to comply with Directive 97/55/EC (1) of the European
                                                                          (1) OJ 1997 L 144, p. 19.
      Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 1997
      amending Directive 84/450/EEC (2) concerning mislead-
      ing advertising so as to include comparative advertising,
      or, in any event, by failing to have informed the
      Commission of any such laws, regulations or administrat-
      ive provisions, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has
      failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.
                                                                          Action brought on 21 June 2002 by French Republic
2.    Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
                                                                              against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case C-233/02)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (2002/C 180/32)
The period prescribed for transposition expired on 23 April
2000.
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
(1) OJ L 290, 23.10.1997, p. 18.                                          ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
(2) OJ L 250, 19.9.1984, p. 17.                                           Communities on 21 June 2002 by the French Republic,
                                                                          represented by R. Abraham, G. de Bergues and P. Boussaroque,
                                                                          acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.


title: Action brought on 23 September 1997 by Rui Teixeira Neves against the Court of Justice of European Communities (Case T-259/97)

text:
C 357/34                 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   22 . 11 . 97
Commerciali Industrial^, whose registered office is at                   Instance of the European Communities on 23 September
Bologna, Societa Sadam Castiglionese SpA, whose                          1997 by Rui Teixeira Neves, represented by Adriano
registered office is at Bologna, of the Sadam Zuccherifici               Encarna^ao, of the Oporto Bar, with an address for
Group and Societa Zuccherificio del Molise SpA, whose                    service in Luxembourg at the applicant's address, 100 Rue
registered office is in Termoli, and Societa S.F.I. R. ( Societa         de Steinsel, L-7254 Bereldange.
Fondiaria Industriale Romagnola SpA), whose registered
office is at Cesena, represented by Bernard O'Connor,                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
Solicitor of the High Court of Ireland, Ivano Vigliotti and
Paolo Crocetta, of the Genoa Bar, with an address for
                                                                         — annul the decision of the appointing authority of
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arsene                               20 January 1997 which imposed on the applicant the
Kronshagen, 12 Boulevard de la Foire.                                         disciplinary measure of relegation in step and
                                                                              accordingly order backdated payment of that part of
The applicants claim that the Court should:                                   the remuneration which he did not receive as a result
                                                                              of that decision together with default interest at 8% ,
— declare void or annul, pursuant to Articles 173 and
       174 of the EC Treaty, Regulation ( EC) No 1188/97 of              — order the defendant to pay to the applicant BF two
      25 June 1997, in so far as it concerns the applicants                   million by way of compensation for the non-material
      or, in the alternative, declare void or annul that                      damage caused by the contested decision,
      regulation erga omnes, in particular as regards
      Article 1 ( f),
                                                                         — order the defendant to pay all the costs, including
                                                                              those incurred by the applicant.
— declare inapplicable, pursuant to Article 184 of the EC
      Treaty, Regulation ( EEC ) No 1785/81 of 30 June
       1981 and subsequent amendments thereto, in so far as              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
       it concerns the applicants, in particular as regards
      Articles 3 ( 1 ), 5 ( 3 ) and 6 (2 ),                              The applicant objects to the way in which the appointing
                                                                         authority conducted the disciplinary proceedings which
— order the Council, pursuant to Article 178 and the                     resulted in the disciplinary measure challenged in the
       second paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty, to              present case .
      make good all the damage caused to the applicants,
       taking into account accrued interest and currency                 In support of his application the applicant relies on the
       fluctuations,                                                     following:
— order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.                   1 . Gross and total breach of the principle of the division
                                                                               of powers .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                          2 . Alteration and blatant manipulation of the content of
The pleas and main arguments are those relied on in Case                       the motion objected to, put forward in the Staff
T-l 68/95 Eridania and Others ('). More particularly, the                      General Assembly of 2 September 1995 .
applicants consider that the contested regulation is
unlawful on the grounds of belated adoption, inadequate                    3 . Error in law inasmuch as the applicant did not
statement of reasons, arbitrary classification of Italy as a                   conduct himself in a manner contrary to paragraph 1
deficit area and discrimination against the Italian sugar                      of Article 11 , paragraph 1 of Article 12 and Article 21
industry. They also claim that Regulation ( EEC ) No 1785/                     of the Staff Regulations but merely sought
81 of 30 June 1981 on the common organization of the                           scrupulously to comply with those provisions.
markets in the sugar sector ( 2 ) is in part inapplicable .
                                                                           4. The allegations against him are unlawful in that the
H OJ C 229 , 11 . 11 . 1995 , p. 6 .
( 2 ) OJ L 177, 1 . 7. 1981 , p . 4 .
                                                                                Court of First Instance did not complain that it had
                                                                                been offended.
                                                                           5 . Breach of the rights of the defence, of the principle
                                                                               audi alteram partem and of the principle of equality
                                                                               of arms, inasmuch as, first, the allegation was not
Action brought on 23 September 1997 by Rui Teixeira                            communicated to the applicant before the hearing of
          Neves against the Court of Justice of European                        3 October 1995 and, secondly, the party levelling the
                               Communities                                      accusation participated in the administrative
                                                                               committee's deliberations on the disciplinary
                            ( Case T-259/97 )                                  proceedings .
                              ( 97/C 357/64 )
                                                                           6 . Breach of the presumption of innocence, since guilt
                (Language of the case: Portuguese)                             was considered an irrebutable presumption and its
                                                                                mere challenge taken as an aggravating factor. In this
An action against the Court of Justice of the European                          regard the intention was to interfere with the
Communities was brought before the Court of First                               proceedings.
 ---pagebreak--- 22 . 11 . 97           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 357/35
  7 . The Disciplinary Board lacked independence as a                       refusal to take into account, in calculating Category B
       result of deferential fear and fear of reprisals against             licences, its normal reference quantity (which is that of
       the careers of its members. The applicant claims that                the three years immediately prior to the outbreak of
       there was an attempt to interfere with a witness's                   the war in Somalia ),
       deposition.
                                                                      — in the alternative, order the Council, pursuant to
  8 . Breach of the freedom of trade union activity and of                  Article 178 and the second paragraph of Article 215
       the privileges of the staff committee and of the                     of the EC Treaty, to pay compensation to Camar in
       general assembly of the staff.                                       the event that the Court should decide that that
                                                                            institution is liable for not having adopted a specific
  9 . Misuse of powers.                                                     provision in Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/93 H allowing
                                                                            situations such as that of Camar to be resolved,
10. Breach of the principle of proportionality inasmuch
       as there were no grounds for making the disciplinary           — order the Commission and/or the Council to pay the
       measure more severe. In this regard, the applicant                   costs incurred by the applicant in these proceedings.
       points out that the disciplinary measure annulled in
       Case T-500/93 was deferment of advancement to a
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
       higher step for two years, that the Disciplinary Board
       had proposed that the official be reprimanded and
       that one of the charges constituted actual                     The applicant company is the same as that in Case T-172/
       misconduct. In the present case, despite the fact that         97 Camar v. Commission (2), which involved proceedings,
       the misconduct relied on is manifestly non-existent            alleging failure to fulfil obligations, seeking that the non
       and that the Disciplinary Board delivered the                  member country licences normally allocated to it as a
       unanimous opinion that the official should be                  Category B operator should be quantified, not on the basis
       acquitted, the disciplinary measure was even more              of imports over the three-year period provided for under
       severe .                                                       Article 4 of Regulation No 1442/93 , but rather on the
                                                                      basis of imports over the years 1988 , 1989 and 1990 . The
                                                                      present application is directed against the express decision
                                                                      rejecting the applicant's request.
                                                                      The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
Action brought on 25 September 1997 by Societa Camar                  already relied on in Case T- 172/97. Reference is made in
s.r.l. against Commission of the European Communities                 particular to breach of Article 30 of the basic regulation in
                and Council of the European Union                     the banana sector ( Council Regulation No 404/93 ), breach
                         ( Case T-260/97)                             of the principle of non-discrimination and of the
                                                                      fundamental rights of traders, as well as to the existence
                           ( 97/C 357/65 )                            of abuse of power by reason of an erroneous assessment
                                                                      of assumptions of fact.
                  (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                      (') OJ L 49 , 25 . 2 . 1993 , p. 1 .
                                                                      (2 ) OJ C 271 , 6 . 9 . 1997, p. 16 .
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities and the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 25 September 1997 by Societa Camar
s.r.l., represented by Wilma Viscardini Dona, assisted by
Mariano Paolin and Simonetta Dona, of the Padua Bar,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                      Action brought on 2 October 1997 by 'D' against Council
Chambers of Ernst Arendt, Rue Mathias Hardt.                                                  of the European Union
                                                                                (Case T-264/97)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                ( 97/C 357/66 )
— annul, pursuant to Articles 173 and 174 of the EC
      Treaty, the Commission decision of 17 July 1997                                    (Language of the case: French)
      rejecting an application for transitional measures in
      favour of Camar under the tariff quota system for
      imports of bananas,                                             An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                      brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                      Communities on 2 October 1997 by 'D', represented by
— order the Commission, pursuant to Article 178 and                   Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure, Ariane Tornel and
      the second paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty,           Fran^oise Parmentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an address
      to pay compensation for the damage which Camar has              for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire
      suffered and will suffer as a result of the Commission's        Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 March 2001 in Case T-116/00: Benthe Hørbye-Möller v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Promotion — Examine of comparative merits — Action for annulment)

text:
19.5.2001               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 150/25
1.    dismisses the application;                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
2.    orders each of the parties to bear its own costs.                                              of 13 March 2001
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.00.                                                     in Case T-116/00: Benthe Hørbye-Möller v Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities (1)
                                                                            (Officials — Promotion — Examine of comparative merits
                                                                                — Action for annulment)
                                                                                (2001/C 150/49)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                        of 31 January 2001
                                                                            In Case T-116/00: Benthe Hørbye-Möller, an official of the
in Case T-24/00: The Sunrider Corporation v Office for                      Commission of the European Communities, residing in Igel
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and                       (Germany), represented by Louis Tinti, avocat, with an address
                        Designs) (OHIM) (1)                                 for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the Euro-
                                                                            pean Communities (Agent: C. Berardis-Kayser) — application
(Community trade mark — Term VITALITE — Absolute                            for annulment of the appointing authority’s decision not to
ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No                  promote the applicant to Grade B2 in the 1999 promotions
                                40/94)                                      procedure — the Court of First Instance (Single Judge:
                                                                            J.D. Cooke); D. Christensen, for the Registrar, gave a judgment
                          (2001/C 150/48)                                   on 13 March 2001, in which it:
                                                                            1.    dismisses the application;
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                            2.    orders each of the parties to bear its own costs.
In Case T-24/00: The Sunrider Corporation, having its regis-
tered office in Torrance, California, United States of America,             (1) OJ C 192 of 8.7.00.
represented by A. Kockläuner, Rechtsanwalt, Munich, with
an address for service in Luxembourg, against Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: C. Rusconi and G. Humphreys) —
application brought against the decision of the Second Board
of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 26 November 1999
(Case R 137/1999-2) concerning the registration of the term                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
VITALITE as a Community trade mark — the Court of First
Instance (Second Chamber), composed of: J. Pirrung, President,                                     of 22 February 2001
A. Potocki and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; J. Palacio González,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
31 January 2001, in which it:                                               in Case T-144/00: Daniela Tirelli v European Parliament (1)
1.    Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office       (Officials — Upgrading — Secretarial allowances —
      for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and             Article 46 of the Staff Regulations — Transfer between
      Designs) of 26 November 1999 (Case R 137/1999-2) in                                    institutions — Inadmissibility)
      respect of the following goods: ‘food for babies’ and ‘mineral
      and aerated waters’;                                                                            (2001/C 150/50)
2.    Dismisses the application as to the remainder;
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
3.    Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay one half
      of the defendant’s costs; orders the defendant to bear the other
      half of its own costs.                                                In Case T-144/00: Daniela Tirelli, official of the European
                                                                            Parliament, residing in Dahlem (Luxembourg), represented by
                                                                            G. Vogel and F. Burg, avocats, with an address for service in
(1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.00.                                                    Luxembourg, against European Parliament (Agents: H. von
                                                                            Hertzen and Y. Pantalis) — application, first, for the annulment
                                                                            of the decision of the Parliament refusing to grant the
                                                                            secretarial allowance to the applicant and, secondly, seeking


               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/67

         Removal from the register of Case T-301/99 (1)

   (2004/C 94/169)

      (Language of the Case: Dutch)

   By order of 22 January 2004 the President of the Second Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case T-301/99: Dirk Adrianus Gaikhorst v Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 63 of 04.03.2000.