title: Action brought on 28 February 1995 by Comafrica SpA and another against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-72/95)

text:
14 . 10 . 95            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 268/23
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             Parliament concerning the subsequent conduct of that
                          of 29 June 1995                              procedure, the President of the Court of First Instance has
                                                                       made an order on 18 August 1995 , in which :
in Case T-6/95 : Cantine dei colli Berici coop, arl v.
        Commission of the European Communities ( J )                   1 , the application for interim measures is dismissed;
(Agriculture — Common organization ofthe market in wine
— System of compulsory distillation — Admissibility —                  2,   the costs are reserved.
       Applicant individually concerned by a regulation)
                           ( 95/C 268/49 )
                 (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                       Action brought on 28 February 1995 by Comafrica SpA and
In Case T-6/95 : Cantine dei colli Berici coop , arl, having its       another against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
registered office in Lonigo ( Italy ), represented by Ivone
Cacciavillani, of the Venice Bar, with an address for service                                  ( Case T-72/95 )
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alain Lorang, 51 rue                                            ( 95/C 268/51 )
Albert I er, against Commission of the European
Communities ( Agents : Eugenio de March and Alberto Dal                                (Language of the case: English)
Ferro ) — application for the annulment of Article 1 ( 1 ) of
Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 3151 /94 of 21 December
1994 introducing a further derogation from the detailed                An action against the Commission of the European
rules for the delivery by producers of the table wine they are         Communities was brought before the Court of First
required to deliver for compulsory distillation in respect of          Instance of the European Communities on 28 February
the 1993/94 wine year ( OJ L 332, 1994, p. 32 ) — the Court            1 995 by Comafrica SpA, established at Genoa (Italy ), and
of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: J.                     Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd & Co ., established at Hamburg
Biancarelli, President, C. P. Briët and C. W. Bellamy, Judges;         ( Germany ), represented by Bernard O'Connor, Solicitor
H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 29 June 1995 , the                ( Ireland ), with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
operative part of which is as follows :                                Chambers of Arsène Kronshagen, 12 boulevard de la
                                                                       Foire .
I , the application is dismissed as inadmissible;
                                                                       The applicants claim that the Court should :
2 , the applicant is ordered to pay the costs, including those
      relating to the application for interim measures;                — déclaré the application admissible,
3 , the Council shall bear the costs which it incurred in              — declare void Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 2947/94
      submitting its application to intervene.                              of 2 December 1994 fixing the single reduction
                                                                            coefficient for the determination of the quantity of
                                                                            bananas to be allocated to operators in categories A and
( 1 ) OJ No C 74, 25 . 3 . 1995 .                                           B from the tariff quota for 1995 ( ! ), in so far as it affects
                                                                            the applicants, or alternatively, erga omnes,
                                                                       — order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
           OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              The applicants, both of which import bananas into the
                                                                       Community, dispute the decisions of the Commission to
                        of 18 August 1995
                                                                       reduce the quantity of bananas allocated to them for the
in Case T-146/95 R: Giorgio Bernardi v. European                       year 1995 through the allocation of a provisional reduction
                              Parliament                               coefficient set out in the contested regulation.
                           ( 95/C 268/50 )
                                                                       They maintain, first, that the Commission determined the
                                                                       reduction coefficient on the basis of wrongly calculated
                 (Language of the case: French)                        reference quantities, in that the contested Regulation
                                                                       acknowledges that certain quantities have been counted
In Case T- 1 46/95 R: Giorgio Bernardi, a former official of           twice for different operators in several Member States, and
the European Parliament, residing in Luxembourg,                       that the criteria for determining the activities giving right to
represented by Giancarlo Lattanzi, of the Massa-Carrara                an allocation from the tariff quota have been incorrectly
Bar ( Italy ), with an address for service in Luxembourg at the        applied . The Commission has further admitted that the
applicant's residence, 33 rue Godchaux v . European                     1995 reference quantities can only be laid down after
Parliament ( Agents : Ezio Perillo and Christian Pennera ) —           further checks have been made . In the circumstances, it has
application for interim measures, namely for suspension of             chosen to fix a provisional reduction coefficient using
the procedure for appointment to the office of Ombudsman               wrong information, but without the necessary express
and for various instructions to be addressed to the European           power so to do.
 ---pagebreak--- No C 268/24             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   14 . 10 . 95
Second,      the  Commission         determined    the  reduction       The applicant claims that the Court should:
coefficients without first preparing a supply balance for
1995 , as required by Article 16 of Council Regulation ( EEC )          — annul the decision of the Commission notified to
No 404/93 of 13 February 1993 establishing the common                       the applicant by letter No 5445 from DAFSE
organization of the market in bananas ( 2 ). Failure to prepare             ( Departamento para Asuntos do Fundo Social Europeu
such a supply balance amounts to a procedural irregularity                  — the Portuguese European Social Fund Agency ) of
entailing the illegality of any determination of the reduction              11 May 1995 , amending, changing and reducing the
coefficients by reference to the quota .                                    amount which had been initially approved and granted
                                                                            by another Commission decision approving file Nos
Third, in determining the reduction coefficient, the                        881311 PI and 880249 P3 ,
Commission infringed the principles of fairness,
reasonableness and good administration . The applicants                 — order the Commission to pay the costs .
maintain that the coefficients of 57, 15 and 28 % , applied by
the Commission to quantities of bananas handled by                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
primary importers, secondary importers and ripeners
respectively, are quite arbitrary . Moreover, those three               The application alleges the following defects vitiate the
categories of operators have not been clearly defined in such           legality of the Commission's decision which considers the
a way as to prevent the same bananas from being counted                 expenditure ineligible and orders the repayment of the
more than once in each of the three categories of operators .           amounts received by the applicant by way of initial
The Commission should have drawn up rules of                            advance :
administration to eliminate or reduce the risks of double
counting, but failed to do so, with the result that the                 — the decision which has now been notified to the
category of secondary importer has been wrongfully                          applicant is, even now, non-existent in its view because it
extended by some Member States . Furthermore, by reason                     has no knowledge of its actual content,
of a contradiction between the provisions of Articles 4 ( 3 )
and 7 of Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 1442/93 of                    — the decision is unlawful inasmuch as it infringes Council
10 June 1993 laying down detailed rules for the application                 Decision 83/516/EEC of 17 October 1983 on the tasks
of the arrangements for importing bananas into the                          of the European Social Fund, Council Regulation ( EEC )
Community ( 3 ), the criteria for entitlement to a quota                    No 2950/83 of 17 October 1983 on the implementation
allocation have been more strictly applied in some Member                   of Decision 83/516/EEC and Commission Decision
States than in others . In addition, the Commission has not                  83/673/EEC of 22 December 1983 on the management
required operators to keep adequate records of the source of                 of the European Social Fund,
their fruits, with the serious consequence that bananas
imported otherwise than under category A licences appear                — the decision infringes the initial decision approving the
to have been taken into account as part of the category A                    files, which imposes only one condition : implementation
reference quantities .                                                       of the operations . The condition imposed on the
                                                                             applicant was fulfilled and the operations were
(') OJ No L 310 , 3 . 12 . 1994 .
                                                                             implemented,
 ( 2 ) OJ No L 47, 25 . 2 . 1993 .
 (•') OJ No L 142 , 12 . 6 . 1993 .                                     — the decision is fundamentally contradictory in view of
                                                                             the contents of the letter from DAFSE notifying it, thus
                                                                             infringing the applicant's rights of defence,
                                                                        — the decision also infringes essential procedural
                                                                             requirements inasmuch as it lacks a statement of reasons
                                                                             or at least is based on assumptions which are erroneous,
                                                                             obscure and inconsistent, which, in the view of the
Action brought on 10 July 1995 by Proderec — Formaçâo e                      applicant, constitute insufficient grounds.
 Desenvolvimento de Recursos Humanos, ACE — against
         the Commission of the European Communities
                           ( Case T-145/95 )
                             ( 95/C 268/52 )
                                                                         Action brought on 13 July 1995 by Giorgio Bernardi against
               (Language of tbe case: Portuguese)                                            the European Parliament
                                                                                ( Case T-146/95 )
 An action against the Commission of the European                                                  ( 95/C 268/53 )
  Communities was brought before the Court of First
  Instance of the European Communities on 10 July 1995 by                                 (Language of tbe case: Frencb)
  Proderec — Formaçâo e Desenvolvimento de Recursos
  Humanos, ACE, whose registered office is at 7B Avenida 25
  de Abril, S/loja, Almada , represented by Manuel Rodrigues,            An action against the European Parliament was brought
  of the Lisbon Bar, with an address for service in                      before the Court of First Instance of the European
  Luxembourg at 2 place Virchow, 2671 Luxembourg.                        Communities on 13 July 1995 by Giorgio Bernardi, residing


title: Case C-189/11: Action brought on 20 April 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               25.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 186/16

         Action brought on 20 April 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-189/11)
   2011/C 186/27
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Lozano Palacios and C. Soulay, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that

                           —

                           by applying the special scheme for travel agents in cases where travel services have been sold to a person other than the traveller;

                           —

                           by excluding from that special scheme sales to the public, by retail agents acting in their own name, of trips organised by wholesale agents;

                           —

                           by authorising travel agents, in certain circumstances, to charge in the invoice an overall amount that is not related to the actual VAT charged to the customer, and by authorising the latter, where he is a taxable person, to deduct this overall amount from the VAT payable; and

                           —

                           by authorising travel agencies, insofar as they benefit from the special scheme, to make an overall determination of the basis of assessment of the tax for each tax period;

         the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 73, 168, 169, 226 and 306 to 310 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax,

               —

               order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission considers that the application by the Kingdom of Spain of the special scheme for travel agents, insofar as it is not limited to services provided to travellers, as the directive prescribes, but is extended to operations carried out between travel agents, infringes the provisions of the legislation concerning VAT.
   Furthermore, the exclusion from that special scheme of sales to the public, by retail agents acting in their own name, of trips organised by wholesale agents is not compatible with the directive either, as such activities, without any doubt in the opinion of the Commission, fall within the activities covered by the special scheme.
   Likewise, the Commission considers that the Spanish rules authorising travel agents, without any basis in that directive, to charge in the invoice an overall VAT amount that is not related to the actual VAT charged to the customer, or that authorise the latter, where he is a taxable person, to deduct this overall amount from the VAT payable, or that allow travel agencies, insofar as they benefit from the special scheme, to make an overall determination of the basis of assessment of the tax for each tax period, infringe the VAT directive.

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case C-580/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 17 November 2016 — Firma Hans Bühler KG

text:
               13.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/8

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 17 November 2016 — Firma Hans Bühler KG
   (Case C-580/16)
   (2017/C 078/12)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant on a point of law: Firma Hans Bühler KG

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 141(c) of Directive 2006/112, (1) on which the non-application of Article 41(1) of Directive 2006/112 depends, in accordance with Article 42 (in conjunction with Article 197) of Directive 2006/112, to be interpreted as meaning that the requirement laid down in that provision is not met where the taxable person is resident and identified for VAT purposes in the Member State from which the goods are dispatched or transported, even if that taxable person uses the VAT identification number of another Member State for that specific intra-Community acquisition?

               2.

               Are Articles 42 und 265 in conjunction with Article 263 of Directive 2006/112 to be interpreted as meaning that only the submission in due time of the recapitulative statement renders Article 41(1) of Directive 2006/112 inapplicable?

      (1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax; OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case T-207/02: Action brought on 9 July 2002 by Nicoletta Falcone against Commission of the European Communities

text:
24.8.2002             EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 202/37
Action brought on 29 June 2002 by Vassilios Tsarnavas                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
    against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           —     annul the decision of the Selection Board to exclude
                        (Case T-200/02)                                          the applicant from the competition following the pre-
                                                                                selection tests, communicated by letter of 2 May 2002
                                                                                admin. A2/5000LM — IT 001451 signed by Herik
                        (2002/C 202/61)                                          Halskov;
                   (Language of the case: French)                          —     annul all other subsequent and consequent decisions
                                                                                which may be adopted by the Commission with regard
                                                                                to the applicant’s exclusion from the competition in
                                                                                question;
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
European Communities on 29 June 2002 by Vassilios Tsarna-
vas, residing in Brussels, represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, lawyer,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           The applicant in the present action contests the decision of the
—     annul the decision of the Commission of 13 March 2002                Selection Board not to admit the applicant to the written tests
      rejecting in part the complaint lodged by the applicant              in general competition COM/A/10/01 Section 01/Law for
      under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations so far as               having failed to obtain sufficient marks to be included among
      concerns his claim for compensation;                                 the 400 best candidates.
—     accordingly, order the Commission to pay him                         The applicant points out in that regard that, according to
      EUR 12 500 by way of compensation for the non-                       the notice of the abovementioned competition, only those
      material damage suffered by him;                                     candidates obtaining the 400 best marks in the pre-selection
                                                                           tests were to be admitted to the competition.
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                           In support of his arguments, the applicants alleges:
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            —     unlawfulness of the notice of competition as contrary to
                                                                                Articles 4 and 5 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations of
                                                                                the European Community.
The applicant claims that he suffered damage as a result of the
infringement by the Commission of the General Provisions                   —     breach of the principles of sound administration, accord-
implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations inasmuch as                     ing to which the Commission must admit to the tests
the delay in drawing up his staff report is attributable to the                  only those candidates capable of meeting the conditions
Commission.                                                                      for admission set out in the notice.
Action brought on 9 July 2002 by Nicoletta Falcone                         Action brought on 3 July 2002 by Lene Beier against
    against Commission of the European Communities                                                      Europol
                        (Case T-207/02)                                                             (Case T-208/02)
                        (2002/C 202/62)                                                            (2002/C 202/63)
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                                            (Language of the case: Dutch)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  An action against Europol was brought before the Court of
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 First Instance of the European Communities on 3 July 2002
European Communities on 9 July 2002 by Falcone Nicoletta,                  by Lene Beier, residing in The Hague (Netherlands), represented
represented by Massimo Condinanzi, lawyer.                                 by Maria Franciscus Baltussen and Pauline de Casparis, lawyers.


title: Case C-172/16: Order of the President of the Court of 21 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Ljiljana Kammerer, Frank Kammerer v Swiss International Air Lines AG

text:
               5.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 454/20

      Order of the President of the Court of 21 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Ljiljana Kammerer, Frank Kammerer v Swiss International Air Lines AG
      (Case C-172/16) (1)

      (2016/C 454/38)
      Language of the case: German
      The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.


title: Case F-133/06: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 4 November 2008 — Marcuccio v Commission (Staff cases — Officials — Application for the restitution of personal property — Decision rejecting the complaint drafted in a language other than the official's native language — Action out of time — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               10.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/45

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 4 November 2008 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case F-133/06) (1)

   (Staff cases - Officials - Application for the restitution of personal property - Decision rejecting the complaint drafted in a language other than the official's native language - Action out of time - Manifest inadmissibility)
   (2009/C 6/90)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, acting as Agents, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)
   Re:
   First, action for annulment of the Commission decision rejecting the applicant's application to have delivered to him, at his current residence, property previously left at the official lodgings assigned to him in Angola and, secondly, a claim for damages
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Mr Marcuccio is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 22.9.2007, p. 18.


title: Action brought on 27 June 1997 by Horten AG against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-191/97)

text:
18 . 10 . 97            EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 318/ 19
have been remitted in accordance with the principle                       Instance of the European Communities on 27 June 1997
of the protection of legitimate expectations, laid down                   by Dr Seufert GmbH, whose registered office is at
in particular in Article 5 ( 2 ) of Regulation ( EEC )                    Karlsruhe, represented by Dietrich Ehle, Rechtsanwalt,
No 1697/97.                                                               Cologne, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                          the Chambers of Marc Lucius, 6 rue Michel Welter,
(') See previous cases.                                                   Luxembourg.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          — annul Commission Decision REM 21 /96 of 25 March
Action brought on 27 June 1997 by Horten AG against                            1997, refusing the remission of a payment of
                                                                               DM 126 828,26 ,
        the Commission of the European Communities
                          ( Case T-191/97)
                                                                          — order the Commission to pay the costs.
                             ( 97IC 318/37)
                (Language of the case: German)                            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
An action against the Commission of the European                          The pleas in law and main arguments put forward by the
Communities was brought before the Court of First                         applicant, whose predecessor imported colour television
Instance of the European Communities on 27 June 1997                      sets from Turkey in 1992 and 1993 , and which challenges
by Horten AG, whose registered office is at Diisseldorf,                  a Commission Decision addressed to Germany to the
represented by Dietrich Ehle, Rechtsanwalt, Cologne, with                 effect that the remission of import duties in its case would
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                   be unjustified, are similar to those in Cases T- 186/97 and
Marc Lucius, 6 rue Michel Welter, Luxembourg.                             T-l 87/97 ( M.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               (') See p. 17 and 18 of this Official Journal .
— annul        Commission          Decision    REM       14/96   of
     19 February 1997, refusing the remission of a payment
     of DM 123 809,12,
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                  Action brought on 4 July 1997 by Bo Forvass against the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-203/97)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                ( 97/C 318/39 )
The pleas in law and main arguments put forward by the
applicant, which imported television sets from Turkey                                     (Language of the case: French)
between October 1992 and January 1993 and challenges a
Commission Decision addressed to Germany to the effect
that the remission of import duties in its case would be                  An action against the Commission of the European
unjustified, are similar to those in Cases T- 186/97 and                  Communities was brought before the Court of First
T-187/97 (').                                                             Instance of the European Communities on 4 July 1997 by
                                                                          Bo Forvass, residing in Brussels, represented by Nicolas
                                                                          Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
(') See p. 17 and 18 of this Official Journal.
                                                                          Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson sari, 30
                                                                          rue de Cessange .
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
Action brought on 27 June 1997 by Dr Seufert GmbH                        — rule that the applicant is entitled to be classified in
   against the Commission of the European Communities                          grade A 4, step 4, with effect from the date of his
                         ( Case T-192/97)                                      entry into service, namely 1 February 1996,
                            ( 97/C 318/38 )
                                                                         — consequently, annul the Commission's decision of
                (Language of the case: German)                                 19 March 1997 expressly rejecting the applicant's
                                                                               complaint,
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                        — order the defendant to pay all the costs.


title: Action brought on 31 May 1996 by Francis Alan Clarke against the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) (Case T-85/96)

text:
 10 . 8 . 96          EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 233/ 17
 Action brought on 29 May 1996 by Cipeke, Comércio e                  The applicant claims that the statement of reasons for the
 Industria de Papel , Ld .a against the Commission of the             decision at issue is contradictory, equivocal , inconsistent,
                    European Communities                               incomplete and inadequate .
                        ( Case T-84/96 )
                                                                      Moreover, the abovementioned statement of reasons is
                          ( 96/C 233 /29 )                            neither clear, explicit or relevant, which is tantamount to a
                                                                      failure to state reasons .
              (Language of tbe case: Portuguese)
                                                                      Thus, the contested act infringed essential procedural
                                                                      requirements ( Article 190 of the EC Treaty ), which entails
                                                                      its annulment .
 An action against the Commission of the European
 Communities was brought before the Court of First
 Instance of the European Communities on 29 May 1996 by
 Cipeke, Comércio e Industria de Papel , Ld .'1 , whose
 registered office is at 22-5"Esq Avenida Sidonia Pais,
 Lisbon, represented by Miguel Ferrâo Castelo Branco, of the
 Lisbon Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at             Action brought on 31 May 1996 by Francis Alan Clarke
the Chambers of François Brouxel , 6 Rue Zithe,                       against the European Centre for the Development of
 Luxembourg L-2763 .                                                                  Vocational Training ( Cedefop )
                                                                                ( Case T-85/96 )
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                                    ( 96/C 233 /30 )
annul Commission Decision C(95 ) 543 of 12 December                                  (Language of tbe case: German)
 1995 , with all the legal consequences such annulment
entails .                                                             An action against the European Centre for the Development
                                                                      of Vocational Training was brought before the Court of
                                                                      First Instance of the European Communities on 31 May
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   1996 by Francis Alan Clarke, of Eischen ( Luxembourg ),
                                                                     represented by Frank Montag, Rechtsanwalt, Cologne and
The Departamento para Asuntos do Fundo Social Europeu                 Brussels, with an address for service in Luxembourg care of
( DAFSE, the Portuguese ESF agency ) applied to the                   Francis Alan Clarke , 30 Rue de la Gare , Eischen .
Commission of the European Communities for assistance
from the European Social Fund ( ESF ) ( File ESF 871012P 1 ).        The applicant claims that the Court should :
The application for assistance was made on behalf of Partex
and not the other 10 undertakings , which include the                — annul the decision of the Director of Cedefop of 5 April
applicant. The applicant, inasmuch as it was a beneficiary                1996 , in the form of the decision of 22 April 1996 , and
and in the context of the assistance granted , carried out two            the decision of 21 May 1996 ,
paid vocational training courses in graphic arts . The
relevant curricula and budgets were approved by the ESF .            — order Cedefop to pay the costs .
Once the courses were completed , the applicant submitted
within the prescribed period its ' Quantitative and                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Qualitative Evaluation Report' and awaited payment of the
balance it believed to be due to it . On examination of the
                                                                     The applicant states that he has been employed since 1 977 in
final payment claim, the Commission informed the                     the service of Cedefop , the seat of which was moved on
Portuguese State that it was reducing the ESF assistance              1 September 1995 from Berlin to Thessaloniki . In July 1995
relating to file ESF 871012P 1 . The applicant, in its capacity      the Statistical Office of the European Communities
as a beneficiary of ESF assistance in the context of file ESF        ( Eurostat ) agreed with the defendant that the applicant was
871012P 1 , brought an action for annulment ( C-189/90 )             to be seconded to Eurostat in Luxembourg, pending his
and , on 4 June 1992 , the Court of Justice annulled the             transfer to that establishment at the earliest possible date .
Commission's decision .
                                                                     Since, at the time of Cedefop's relocation on 1 September
                                                                     1995 , the criteria for application of interinstitutional
Subsequently, also following examination of the final                mobility had not yet been established , the applicant was
payment claim for the balance, the Commission adopted                seconded to Eurostat in Luxembourg until further notice by
Decision C(95 ) 543 of 12 December 1995 , according to               decision of the Director of 31 July 1995 . It was not until
which the applicant was to repay to the ESF Esc 4 267 218 .          February 1996 that the Commission made it possible for
The Commission adopted the abovementioned decision ,                 Cedefop employees to avail themselves of the mobility
now under challenge , on the grounds , set forth in letter           arrangements . The applicant's request for an extension of
No 6045 of 24 March 1994, addressed to the Portuguese                his secondment to Eurostat until his intervening transfer to
State, that it considered that part of the ESF assistance was        that establishment was implicitly refused by the contested
not used according to the conditions laid down in the                decision of the Director of Cedefop of 5 April 19 96 . That
approval decision and that it did not consider eligible              decision, which was notified to the applicant on 1 1 April
expenditure in an amount of Esc 1 9 725 390 incurred by the          1996 , required him to take up his duties in Thessaloniki on
applicants in respect of the training courses .                      2 May 1 996 .
 ---pagebreak---  No C 233 / 18          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  10 . 8 . 96
 On 22 April 1996 the Director decided, on the basis of a               by Dr Gerrit Schohe and Dr Philipp von Dietze,
 communication from Eurostat, to extend the applicant's                 Rechtsanwàlte, Hamburg, with an address for service in
 secondment to Eurostat until 31 May 1 996 . The applicant's            Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Baden , 34b Rue
 application of 8 May 1996 for a prolongation of that                   Philippe II .
 extension until 30 September 1996 was refused by the
 Director, by letter of 21 May 1996 from Cedefop's head of             The applicants claim that the Court should :
 administration .
                                                                       — annul decision K(96 ) 841 final of the Commission of
 The applicant maintains that the contested decisions are                   13 March 1996 on special depreciation allowances for
 illegal , on the grounds set out below.                                    aircraft pursuant to paragraph 82 f of the German
                                                                            Einkommensteuerdurchfuhrungsverordnung ( income
 In particular :                                                            tax implementation regulation ), inasmuch as that
                                                                            decision concerns the extension of the validity of that
— the decisions were adopted in breach of essential
                                                                            provision from 1 January 1995 to 31 December
     procedural requirements . No adequate statement of
                                                                            1999 ,
     reasons for their adoption was provided,
— the contested decisions are illegal from a substantive               — order the Commission to pay the costs .
     standpoint, since they breach the general principles of
      Community law applicable to the public service . The             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     applicant complains in particular of the following
      breaches :                                                       The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
                                                                       in     Case T-25/96         Arbeitsgemeinschaft deutscher
     — breach of the agreements concluded between                      Luftfahrt-Unternehmen and Hapag-Lloyd Fluggesellschaft
           Cedefop and the applicant and of the guarantees             mbH v . Commission .
           given by the former to the latter, and , consequently,
           infringement of his rights,
     — breach of the principle that the administration's acts
           are binding on itself, and of the principle of the
          protection of legitimate expectations, since                Action brought on 7 June 1996 by Gisèle Lienard against
           Cedefop's decisions contravened the guidelines laid                the Commission of the European Communities
          down with regard to its future conduct, and                                        ( Case T-88/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 233 /32 )
     — breach of the general duty of an employer to have
          regard for the welfare and interests of his employees,
          since the decisions failed to take account of the                           (Language of tbe case: Frencb)
          applicant's legitimate interests,
                                                                      An action against the Commission of the European
     — breach of the principle of equality of treatment,              Communities was brought before the Court of First
          since , unlike those persons who are remaining in           Instance of the European Communities on 7 June 1996 by
          Berlin, the applicant has not been given credit for his     Gisèle Lienard, residing at Woluwé-Saint-Etienne
          years of service .                                           ( Belgium ), represented by Jean-Noël Louis, Thierry
                                                                      Demaseure and Ariane Tornel , of the Brussels Bar, with an
For the same reasons, the decision to transfer the applicant's        address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
place of employment with Cedefop to Thessaloniki from                 Fiduciaire Myson Sàrl, 1 Rue Glesener .
3 June 1996 was illegal .
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                      — annul the Commission's decision of 30 October 1995
                                                                           terminating with effect from 1 November 1995 the
                                                                           arrangement whereby the applicant was granted the
Action brought on 31 May 1996 by Arbeitsgemeinschaft
                                                                           additional tax abatement for dependent children .
deutscher Luftfahrt-Unternehmen und Hapag-Lloyd
Fluggesellschaft mbH against the Commission of the                    — order the Commission to pay the costs .
                      European Communities
                          ( Case T-86/96 )                            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                            ( 96/C 233/31 )
                                                                      The applicant, who is the ex-wife of a Commission official ,
                                                                      contests the Commission's decision granting her former
                 (Language of the case: German)                       husband the additional tax abatement provided for under
                                                                      the second subparagraph of Article 3 ( 4 ) of Council
An action against the Commission of the European                      Regulation ( EEC ) No 260/68 of 29 February 1968 laying
Communities was brought before the Court of First                     down the conditions and procedure for applying the tax for
Instance of the European Communities on 31 May 1996 by                the benefit of the European Communities .
the Arbeitsgemeinschaft deutscher Luftfahrt-Unternehmen,
Bonn, and Hapag-Lloyd Fluggesellschaft mbH ,                          The applicant points out that on 2 1 November 1 994 she and
Langenhagen ( Federal Republic of Germany ), represented              her former husband signed pre-divorce agreements by


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 17 October 1995 in Joined Cases C-140/94, C-141/94 and C-142/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Veneto): DIP SpA and Others v. Comune di Bassano del Grappa and Comune di Chioggia (Regulation of trade - Licences to open shops - Competition)

text:
No C 315/6          1 EN |                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 25 . 11 . 95
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                      of 17 October 1995                                                         ( First Chamber )
in Joined Cases C-140/94, C-141/94 and C-142/94                                               of 17 October 1995
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale
                                                                       in Case C-227/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling
Amministrativo Regionale per il Veneto ): DIP SpA and                  from the Arrondissementsrechtbank, Amsterdam ):
Others v. Comune di Bassano del Grappa and Comune di
                             Chioggia (*)                              E. Olivieri-Coenen v. Bestuur van de Nieuwe Algemene
                                                                                Bedrijfsvereniging ( ] )
(Regulation of trade — Licences to open shops —
                                                                       (Social security — Incapacity for work — Contract of
                            Competition)
                                                                       employment subject to private law — Employment subject
                           ( 95/C 315/ 10 )                            to a scheme for civil servants — Article 4 (4) ofRegulation
                                                                       (EEC) No 1408/71 — Point 4 (a) of the section on the
                                                                       Netherlands contained in Annex V to Regulation (EEC)
                                                                                No 1408/71)
               (Language of the case: Italian)                                                     ( 95/C 315/ 11
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
         published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
In Joined Cases C-140/94, C-141 /94 and C-142/94 :
reference to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty
from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Veneto              In Case C-227/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
( Regional Administrative Court for the Veneto Region ) for            of the EC Treaty from the Arrondissementsrechtbank
a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that            (District Court ), Amsterdam, for a preliminary ruling in the
court between DIP SpA and Comune di Bassano del Grappa                 proceedings pending before that court between E.
( C-140/94 ) and between LIDL Italia Sri and Comune di                 Olivieri-Coenen and Bestuur van de Nieuwe Algemene
Chioggia ( C-141 /94 ) and between Lingral Sri and Comune              Bedrijfsvereniging — on the interpretation of point 4 ( a ) of
di Chioggia ( C-142/94 ) on the interpretation of Articles 30,         the Section on the Netherlands contained in Annex V to
85 and 86 of the EC Treaty, the Court ( Second Chamber ),              Regulation ( EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June
composed of: G. Hirsch ( President of the Chamber ), G. F.             1971 on the application of social security schemes to
Mancini and F. A. Schockweiler ( Rapporteur ), Judges; N.              employed persons and their families moving within the
Fennelly, Advocate-General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,                       Community ( OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2 ) — the Court ( First
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a                Chamber ), composed of: D. A. O. Edward ( Rapporteur ),
judgment on 17 October 1995 , in which it ruled that:                  President of the Chamber, P. Jann and L. Sevon, Judges;
                                                                       C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General; H. A. Riihl, Principal
                                                                       Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                       17 October 1995 , in which it rules :
 On a proper construction Articles 3 (g), 5, 85, 86 and 30 of
the Treaty do not preclude rules of a Member State which
make the opening of new shops subject to the grant of a
licence issued by the mayor on the mandatory opinion of a              Point 4 (a) of the Section on the Netherlands contained in
municipal committee, where the members ofthat committee                Annex V of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of
appointed or nominated by traders ' organizations to give               14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes
expert advice are in the minority and its opinions must have           to employed persons and their families moving within the
regard to the public interest, and where the mayor, who                Community is to be interpreted as meaning that periods of
holds the power of decision, is obliged to take into account           paid employment include periods in which a person worked
public interest criteria laid down in a commercial                     as a teacher under a contract ofemployment concluded with
development plan drawn up by the municipality.                         a private educational establishment, even if that person was
                                                                       insured during that period under a special scheme for civil
                                                                       servants and persons treated as such .
 (') OJ No C 218 , 6 . 8 . 1994 .
                                                                        ( 1 ) OJ No C 304 , 29 . 10 . 1994 .


title: Action brought on 6 April 1995 by Sinochem National Chemicals Import & Export Corporation against the Council of the European Union (Case T-97/95)

text:
No C 159/26           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      24 . 6 . 95
     of one-third of his basic salary between 5 January 1 995        Action brought on 6 April 1995 by Sinochem National
     to the end of his contract ( harm to his career ) and,          Chemicals Import &t Export Corporation against the
     provisionally, compensation in the amount of Bfr 1 ,                              Council of the European Union
     subject to increase (harm to family life ),                                               ( Case T-97/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 159/54 )
— order the Commission to pay to him, in respect of the
     second contested decision, compensation in the amount
     of Bfrs 1 000 000,                                                                 (Language of the case: Englisb)
— order the Commission to pay the costs .                            An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                     brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                     Communities on 6 April 1995 by Sinochem National
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  Chemicals Import & Export Corporation, represented by
                                                                     Mr Jean-François Bellis, with an address for service in
The applicant explains that he was engaged from 1 April              Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 1 1 Rue
1 993 by Directorate-General XII, Fusion Programme, of the           Goethe, L-1637 Luxembourg.
Commission as a member of the temporary staff
(Article 2 ( d ) of the Conditions of Employment of other
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should :
Servants of the Communities ) and assigned to the ITER
( International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor )
project as a member of the Director's Office at the centre           — annul the definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of
located at the University of San Diego . In July 1994 a new                furfuraldehyde originating in the People's Republic of
Project Director was appointed with immediate effect. From                 China, imposed by Council Regulation ( EC )
that time the applicant was excluded from what had been his                No 95/95 O ,
usual duties . At the beginning of January 1 995 the applicant
was informed by the Fusion Programme Director at DG XII              — annul the Council's decision to reject the undertaking
that he had been recalled to Europe for reasons to do with                 proposed by the applicant,
the service; as a new posting he was offered a post as
physicist at the JET laboratory where he had been Assistant
                                                                     — order the Council to bear the costs .
Director and Project Head before being posetd to ITER . The
return date was fixed at 15 April 1995 despite the fact that
the applicant had requested for a later date to be accepted
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
for personal and family reasons .
                                                                     The grounds on the basis of which the legality of the
As regards the decision to reassign him to the Commission,           contested decision is challenged can be summarized as
the applicant pleads, first, infringement of Articles 4.3 and        follows :
4.4 of the agreement on the secondment of staff between the
EAEC and the University of San Diego and abuse of process .
He also pleads error of assessment or defective factual              ( a ) The proceeding was initiated in breach of Articles 5 ( 2 )
grounds and misuse of powers . Finally, the applicant                       and 7 ( 1 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2423/88 inasmuch as
maintains that the Commission has failed in various ways to                 it concerns all imports of furfuraldehyde from the
comply with its duty to have regard for the welfare of                      People's Republic of China, whether used for the
officials .                                                                 cleaning of lubricating oils or in the manufacture of
                                                                            furfuryl alcohol, whilst the only alleged evidence of
                                                                            injury presented in the complaint and the notice of
As regards the Commission's failure to take steps, as it                    initiation of the proceeding only concerns
should have done, to remedy the situation which was                         furfuraldehyde for use in the cleaning of lubricating
detrimental to him since the entry into office of the new                   oils .
Director, the applicant considers that the institution should
have initiated the procedures provided for in Article 9 of the
abovementioned secondment agreement in the event of                  ( b ) The anti-dumping duty infringes Article 2 ( 1 ) of
disputes between the Director and a member of staff on                      Regulation ( EEC ) No 2423/88 and also the principle of
secondment .                                                                proportionality as it covers all imports of
                                                                            furfuraldehyde whilst the injury determination is based
                                                                            on the finding that injury has been caused only with
As regards the claims for damages, the applicant states that                respect to furfuraldehyde for use in the cleaning of
the contested decisions are unlawful and that they also                     lubricating oils, which accounts for a minority of
constitute service-related faults which have caused him                     European Union consumption.
obvious and indisputable material and non-material
damage.
                                                                     (c ) The finding that injury has been caused by imports
                                                                            from the PRC in the market for furfuraldehyde used for
                                                                            the cleaning of lubricating oils is vitiated by
                                                                            fundamental contradictions .
 ---pagebreak--- 24 . 6 . 95          LEN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 159/27
( d ) The rejection of the price undertaking proposed by the         Jean-Pierre Aubineau, residing in Brussels (Belgium ),
       applicant is based on invalid grounds .                       represented by Georges Vandersanden, of the Brussels Bar,
                                                                     with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
C ) OJ No L 15, 21 . 1 . 1995 , p . 11 .                             Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 1 Rue Glesener.
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                     — annul the decision of J. P. Contzen, contained in his note
                                                                           of 27 February 1995 , compulsorily transferring the
Action brought on 10 April 1995 by Hans-Günter vom Endt                    applicant to the post of Adviser to the Head of the ISEI
against the Council of the European Union and the                          ( Institute for Systems Engineering and Informatics ),
         Commission of the European Communities                           Ispra ,
                        ( Case T-100/95 )
                                                                     — award the applicant one ecu by way of token
                          ( 95/C 159/55 )
                                                                          compensation for the non-material damage suffered by
                                                                           him,
                (Language of the case: German)
                                                                     — reimburse to the applicant the whole of such personal
An action against the Council of the European Union and                   expenses as he may incur in moving to Ispra and
the Commission of the European Communities was brought                    installing himself there,
before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 10 April 1995 by Hans-Günter vom Endt,                — order the Commission to pay all of the costs .
Wuppertal ( Federal Republic of Germany ), represented by
Bernd Meisterernst, Mechtild Düsing, Dietrich Manstetten,
Frank Schulze and Winfried Haneklaus , Rechtsanwälte,                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Munster, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Dupong & Associés, 14a Rue des Bains .                   The applicant contests the decision of the appointing
                                                                     authority of the Joint Rersearch Centre (JRC ) compulsorily
The applicant claims that the Court should :                         transferring him to Ispra as Adviser to the Head of the
                                                                     Institute for Systems Engineering and Informations (ISEI)
                                                                     with effect from 1 April 1995 , which was subsequently
1 , order the defendants jointly to pay to the applicant             deferred to 1 May 1995 .
      SLOM I compensation for the period from 20 May 1 984
      to 29 March 1989 in the amount of DM 100 965,13
      together with interest thereon at 8 % from 19 May 1992         The applicant was engaged by the JRC as a member of the
      and jointly to pay the costs of the proceedings ;              temporary staff pursuant to a contract of three years'
                                                                     duration, which was subsequently changed to a contract for
2 , join the present action to that already pending in Case          an indefinite period from 1 March 1993 .
      T-77/93 Hülseberg and Others v. Council and
      Commission and also stay the proceedings .                     The applicant disputes the legality of the contested decision
                                                                     on the grounds that it contravenes :
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                     ( a ) the contract of employment concluded between the
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in                  Commission and the applicant, as amended by the
Case T-20/94 .                                                               transaction referred to above, in that it fixes Brussels as
                                                                             the place of employment;
                                                                     ( b ) Article 7 of the Staff Regulations, according to which
                                                                             the appointing authority may compulsorily transfer an
                                                                             official or a member of the temporary staff solely in the
                                                                             interest of the service;
Action brought on 11 April 1995 by Jean-Pierre Aubineau
   against the Commission of the European Communities                (c ) the principle of the protection of legitimate
                        ( Case T-102/95 )                                    expectations , in that the defendant failed to comply
                          ( 95/C 159/56 )                                    with the provisions of the settlement terminating the
                                                                             proceedings in Case T-91 /91 ; and
                 (Language of the case: French)                      (d ) the principle of good management and sound
                                                                             administration .
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 11 April 1995 by


title: Case C-133/10: Action brought on 15 March 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               5.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/15

         Action brought on 15 March 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-133/10)
   2010/C 148/23
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: V. Peere and K. Walkerová, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2005/81/EC of 28 November 2005 amending Directive 80/723/EEC on the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings as well as on financial transparency within certain undertakings, (1) and in any event by not communicating such measures to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period prescribed for transposing Directive 2005/81/EC expired on 19 December 2006. As at the date on which the present action was brought, the defendant had not yet adopted all the measures necessary to transpose the directive or, in any event, had not notified the Commission thereof.

      (1)  OJ 2005 L 312, p. 47.


title: Case F-78/06: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 19 December 2006 — Suhadolnik v Court of Justice (Officials — Recruitment — Appointment — Probationary period — Probationer — Establishment — Grading by grade and step — Transitional measures of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations — Admissibility the action)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/49

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 19 December 2006 — Suhadolnik v Court of Justice
   (Case F-78/06) (1)

   (Officials - Recruitment - Appointment - Probationary period - Probationer - Establishment - Grading by grade and step - Transitional measures of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations - Admissibility the action)
   (2006/C 331/110)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Simona Suhadolnik (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Rodrigues, A. Jaume, and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Communities (represented by: M. Schauss, Agent)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Arpio and I. Sulce, Agents)
   Re:
   Firstly, annulment of the decision of the Court of Justice of 22 July 2005 establishing the applicant and fixing her grade in accordance with Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations and her step in accordance with the new version of Article 32 of the Staff Regulations and, secondly, a request for reclassification and a claim for damages.
   Operative part of the order
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 237, 30.9.2006, p. 17.


title: Judgment of the Court of 30 September 2003 in Case C-140/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the House of Lords): Regina on the application of S.P. Anastasiou (Pissouri) Ltd and Others v Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, interveners: Cypfruvex (UK) Ltd and Cypfruvex Fruit and Vegetable (Cypfruvex) Enterprises Ltd (Approximation of laws — Protection of plant health — Directive 77/93/EEC — Import into the Community of plants originating in non-member countries and subject to special requirements — Special requirements which cannot be fulfilled at places other than that of origin — Affixing of an appropriate origin mark to plant packaging — Official statement that plants originate in an area known to be free from the relevant harmful organism)

text:
C 275/20                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                            15.11.2003
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      origin of the plants concerned. The amendments which Commission
                                                                            Directive 98/2/EC of 8 January 1998 made to items 16.2 and
                                                                            16.3 do not affect that interpretation. The phytosanitary certificate
                     of 30 September 2003                                   required in order to bring those plants into the Community must,
                                                                            therefore, be issued in their country of origin by, or under the
in Case C-140/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling                        supervision of, the competent authorities of that country.
from the House of Lords): Regina on the application of
S.P. Anastasiou (Pissouri) Ltd and Others v Minister for
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, interveners: Cypfruvex                     (1) OJ C 144 of 15.6.2002.
(UK) Ltd and Cypfruvex Fruit and Vegetable (Cypfruvex)
                         Enterprises Ltd (1)
(Approximation of laws — Protection of plant health —
Directive 77/93/EEC — Import into the Community of
plants originating in non-member countries and subject to                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
special requirements — Special requirements which cannot
be fulfilled at places other than that of origin — Affixing of
an appropriate origin mark to plant packaging — Official                                             of 2 October 2003
statement that plants originate in an area known to be free
              from the relevant harmful organism)                           in Case C-148/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                              the Conseil d’État): Carlos Garcia Avello v État Belge (1)
                          (2003/C 275/34)
                                                                            (Citizenship of the European Union — Handing down of
                                                                            surnames — Children of nationals of Member States —
                   (Language of the case: English)                                                    Dual nationality)
                                                                                (2003/C 275/35)
In Case C-140/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the House of Lords (United Kingdom) for a preliminary                                      (Language of the case: French)
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Regina on the application of S.P. Anastasiou (Pissouri) Ltd and             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Others and Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food,                                        in the European Court Reports)
interveners: Cypfruvex (UK) Ltd and Cypfruvex Fruit and
Vegetable (Cypfruvex) Enterprises Ltd, on the interpretation of
Council Directive 77/93/EEC of 21 December 1976 on
protective measures against the introduction into the Com-                  In Case C-148/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
munity of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and                 by the Conseil d’État (Belgium) for a preliminary ruling in the
against their spread within the Community (OJ 1977 L 26,                    proceedings pending before that court between Carlos Garcia
p. 20), as amended, inter alia, by Council Directive 91/683/                Avello and État Belge, on the interpretation of Articles 17 EC
EEC of 19 December 1991 (OJ 1991 L 376, p. 29) and                          and 18 EC, the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias,
Commission Directive 92/103/EEC of 1 December 1992 (OJ                      President, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen and C.W.A. Timmermans
1992 L 363, p. 1), and as subsequently amended, inter alia, by              (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola,
Commission Directive 98/2/EC of 8 January 1998 (OJ 1998                     P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr,
L 15, p. 34), the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez                        J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur) and A. Rosas, Judges;
Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), M. Wathelet,            F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Adminis-
R. Schintgen and C.W.A. Timmermans (Presidents of Cham-                     trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 2 October
bers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann,                   2003, in which it has ruled:
V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha
Rodrigues and A. Rosas, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate
General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,            Articles 12 EC and 17 EC must be construed as precluding, in
has given a judgment on 30 September 2003, in which it has                  circumstances such as those of the case in the main proceedings, the
ruled:                                                                      administrative authority of a Member State from refusing to grant
                                                                            an application for a change of surname made on behalf of minor
                                                                            children resident in that State and having dual nationality of that
On a proper interpretation of Council Directive 77/93/EEC of                State and of another Member State, in the case where the purpose of
21 December 1976 on protective measures against the introduction            that application is to enable those children to bear the surname to
into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products         which they are entitled according to the law and tradition of the
and against their spread within the Community, as amended, inter            second Member State.
alia, by Council Directive 91/683/EEC of 19 December 1991 and
Commission Directive 92/103/EEC of 1 December 1992, the
special requirement that an appropriate origin mark be affixed to the       (1) OJ C 144 of 15.6.2002.
plants’ packaging, laid down in item 16.1 of Annex IV, Part A,
Section I, to that directive, can be fulfilled only in the country of


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 October 2002 in Case T-5/02: Tetra Laval BV v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 — Decision declaring a concentration incompatible with the common market — Rights of the defence — Horizontal and vertical effects — Foreseeable conglomerate effects — Leveraging — Potential competition — General effect of reinforcement)

text:
C 19/34                   EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         25.1.2003
       —     default interest in respect of the benefits accruing to the          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
             applicant under the allowances in issue, for each month
             from October 2000 until the date on which the decision
             of 16 July 2001 takes effect, until full payment of the
             amounts due.                                                                           of 25 October 2002
3.     orders the rate of default interest to be calculated on the basis
       of the rate fixed by the European Central Bank for main               in Case T-80/02: Tetra Laval BV v Commission of the
       refinancing operations, applicable in the period in question,                             European Communities ( 1)
       plus two points.
4.     orders the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                             (Competition — Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 — Decision
                                                                             ordering separation of undertakings — Article 8(4) of
( 1) OJ C 3 of 5.1.2002.                                                     Regulation No 4064/89 — Illegality of the decision declaring
                                                                             a concentration incompatible with the common market —
                                                                                Ensuing illegality of the divestiture decision)
                                                                                (2003/C 19/65)
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                         of 25 October 2002
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
in Case T-5/02: Tetra Laval BV v Commission of the
                     European Communities ( 1)
(Competition — Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 — Decision
declaring a concentration incompatible with the common                       In Case T-80/02, Tetra Laval BV, established in Amsterdam
market — Rights of the defence — Horizontal and vertical                     (Netherlands), represented by A. Vandencasteele, D. Wael-
effects — Foreseeable conglomerate effects — Leveraging —                    broeck, A. Weitbrecht and S. Völcker, lawyers, v Commission
   Potential competition — General effect of reinforcement)                  of the European Communities (Agents: A. Whelan and
                                                                             P. Hellström): Application for annulment of the Commission
                            (2003/C 19/64)                                   Decision of 30 January 2002 setting out measures in order to
                                                                             restore conditions of effective competition pursuant to Article
                     (Language of the case: English)                         8(4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December
                                                                             1989 on the control of concentrations between undertakings
                                                                             (Case No COMP/M.2416 — Tetra Laval/Sidel), the Court of
                                                                             First Instance (First Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf,
In Case T-5/02, Tetra Laval BV, established in Amsterdam                     President, J. Pirrung and N. J. Forwood, Judges; D. Christensen,
(Netherlands), represented by A. Vandencasteele, D. Wael-                    Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
broeck, A. Weitbrecht and S. Völcker, lawyers, v Commission                  25 October 2002, in which it:
of the European Communities (Agents: A. Whelan and
P. Hellström): Application for annulment of Commission
Decision C (2001) 3345 final of 30 October 2001 declaring a
concentration to be incompatible with the common market                      (1) Annuls the Commission Decision of 30 January 2002
and the EEA Agreement (Case No COMP/M.2416 — Tetra                                  setting out measures in order to restore conditions of effective
Laval/Sidel), the Court of First Instance (First Chamber),                          competition pursuant to Article 8(4) of Council Regulation
composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, J. Pirrung and N.J. For-                     (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of
wood, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar,                     concentrations between undertakings (Case No COMP/
has given a judgment on 25 October 2002, in which it:                               M.2416 — Tetra Laval/Sidel);
1.     Annuls Commission Decision C (2001) 3345 final of
                                                                             (2) Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those
       30 October 2001 declaring a concentration to be incompatible
       with the common market and the EEA Agreement (Case                           of the applicant, including those relating to the interim
       No COMP/M.2416 — Tetra Laval/Sidel);                                         proceedings.
2.     Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the
       costs of the applicant.
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 156 of 29.6.2002.
( 1) OJ C 68 of 16.3.2002.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 December 2004 in Case C-272/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof): Hauptzollamt Neubrandenburg v Jens Christian Siig (Community Customs Code — Incurrence of a customs debt — Temporary admission procedure — Change of the tractor of a semi-trailer)

text:
               19.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/8

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 15 December 2004
   in Case C-272/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof): Hauptzollamt Neubrandenburg v Jens Christian Siig (1)

   (Community Customs Code - Incurrence of a customs debt - Temporary admission procedure - Change of the tractor of a semi-trailer)
   (2005/C 45/15)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-272/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany), made by decision of 13 May 2003, received at the Court on 24 June 2003, in the proceedings between Hauptzollamt Neubrandenburg and Jens Christian Siig, trading as ‘Internationale Transport’ Export-Import – the Court: (Fifth Chamber) composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann and R. Schintgen, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 December 2004, in which it rules:
   Articles 718(3)(d) and 670(p) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code must be interpreted as meaning that those provisions prohibit the use of a road tractor registered outside the customs territory of the Community to transport a semi-trailer from a place within the customs territory of the Community, where the semi-trailer is loaded with goods, to another place within the customs territory of the Community, where the semi-trailer is merely parked with a view to being transported subsequently by another road tractor to the consignee of the goods, who is established outside the customs territory of the Community.

      (1)  OJ C 213 of 06.09.2003


title: Case C-477/10 P: Appeal brought on 27 September 2010 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 7 July 2010 in Case T-111/07: Agrofert Holding a.s. v European Commission

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/22

         Appeal brought on 27 September 2010 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 7 July 2010 in Case T-111/07: Agrofert Holding a.s. v European Commission
   (Case C-477/10 P)
   ()
   2010/C 328/39
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: B. Smulders, P. Costa de Oliveira, V. Bottka, Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Agrofert Holding a.s., Kingdom of Sweden, Republic of Finland, Kingdom of Denmark, Polski Koncern Naftowy Orlen SA

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               quash the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 7 July 2010 in Case T-111/07 Agrofert Holding a.s. v. Commission;

               —

               to give final judgment in the matters that are the subject of this Appeal; and

               —

               to order the Applicant in Case T-111/07 to pay the costs of the Commission arising from that case and from the present appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present Appeal concerns the interpretation of the exceptions to the right to access to documents relating to (i) the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits (hereafter ‘the investigations exception’), (ii) the protection of the commercial interests of a natural or legal person (hereafter, the ‘commercial interests’ exception), (iii) the protection of the decision-making process of the Commission (hereafter, the ‘decision-making process’ exception) and, (iv) the protection of legal advice (hereafter, the ‘legal advice’ exception). These are laid down, respectively, in Article 4 (2), third indent, in Article 4 (2), first indent, in Article 4 (3), second subparagraph and in Article 4 (2), second indent of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (1) (hereafter ‘Regulation 1049/2001’).
   More precisely, this Appeal covers the application of these exceptions to the documents in a Commission file concerning a merger control procedure in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) (hereafter the ‘Merger Regulation’).
   The Commission considers that in the judgement under appeal the General Court made errors of law in its interpretation of the aforesaid exceptions by failing to take into account the specific features of competition law procedures and guarantees offered by the Merger Regulation to the undertakings participating in the merger proceedings. In particular, the General Court in its judgment did not seek to establish a genuine and harmonious balance between the two applicable legal regimes in this case. Instead it interpreted erroneously the rules on access to documents and, in so doing, it rendered the merger rules inapplicable.
   The first question submitted for consideration to the Court is the scope of the professional secrecy obligation, as set out in the Merger Regulation and in Article 339 TFEU, for the purposes of interpreting the exceptions to the right of access, in particular the ‘investigations’ and the ‘commercial interests’ exception.
   The second question submitted to the Court is the conclusion of the General Court according to which there were no particular circumstances in this case leading to the refusal of access to documents, without it being necessary for the Commission to examine, in a concrete and individual manner, each document requested and to provide a detailed reasoning of the refusal relating to the content of each document requested.
   The third question is the restrictive interpretation of the ‘investigations’ exception, according to which this exception cannot apply after the adoption of the Commission decision terminating the administrative merger control procedure.
   The fourth question submitted to the Court concerns the extent of the obligation to state reasons for the purposes of the demonstrating the risk of disclosure in particular for the protection of ‘commercial interests’, the ‘decision-making process’ and ‘legal advice’.
   Finally, the fifth question to the Court concerns the interpretation of the rules relating to partial access. It is the Commission's position that in order for it to effectively conduct its enquiries relating to mergers, it must comply with the obligations imposed on it by the Merger Regulation, in particular those related to professional secrecy, irrespective of the fact that its decision has become definitive. Furthermore, when the procedural rules governing a particular field of activity, as interpreted by the case-law, afford protection to certain documents, such as the internal documents of the. Commission, it must be recognised that such documents benefit from a general presumption of non accessibility under Regulation 1049/2001. The judgment of the General Court has cast doubts on the scope of the Commission's ability to conduct its enquiries in this matter as well as on the rights of the parties having submitted documents to it and this Appeal is designed to permit the Court to clarify the correct approach.
   The Commission therefore submits this Appeal in order to permit the Court to rule on the fundamental issues raised by the General Court's judgment and to lay down a coherent and harmonious interpretation of the two legal instruments concerned.

      (1)  OJ L 145, p. 43.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings OJ L 24, p. 1.


title: Case T-293/08: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2010 — BASF Plant Science and Others v European Commission (Approximation of laws — Deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms — Authorisation procedure for placing on the market — Failure to adopt a decision — Action for failure to act — Action deprived of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/43

         Order of the General Court of 9 June 2010 — BASF Plant Science and Others v European Commission
   (Case T-293/08) (1)

   (Approximation of laws - Deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms - Authorisation procedure for placing on the market - Failure to adopt a decision - Action for failure to act - Action deprived of purpose - No need to adjudicate)
   2010/C 221/71
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: BASF Plant Science GmbH (Ludwigshafen, Germany), Plant Science Sweden AB (Svalöv, Sweden), Amylogene HB (Svalöv), and BASF Plant Science Co. GmbH, formerly BASF Plant Science Holding GmbH (Ludwigshafen) (represented by: D. Waelbroeck and U. Zinsmeister, lawyers, and D. Slater, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. O’Reilly and C. Zadra, acting as Agents)

      Intervening Party: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by J. Bering Liisberg and R. Holdgaard, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt a decision with regard to the applicants’ notification relating to the placing of a genetically modified Amflora potato on the market, the Commission failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 18(1) of Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC (OJ 2001 L 106, p. 1) and under Article 5 of Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (OJ 1999 L 184, p. 23)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on this action.

               2.

               The parties shall bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 272, 25.10.2008.