title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof, Austria, by order of that Court of 15 October 1996 in the case of Silhouette International Schmied Gesellschaft mbH & Co KG v. Hartlauer Handelsgesellschaft mbH (Case C-355/96)

text:
No C 388/6                L_EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                         21 . 12 . 96
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       Action brought on 29 October 1996 by the Commission
                                                                          of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
There are two main issues of contention, of which one is                                             Case C-354/96 )
procedural and the other substantive . The procedural issue                                            96/C 388 / 12
concerns the relationship between the procedures laid
down in Article 169 of the EC Treaty and those provided
for in Directive 89/665/EEC ( 3 ) ( the 'Remedies Directive').
                                                                          An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
The substantive issue concerns the question of the                        the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
interpretation of the expression 'contracting authority'                  29 October 1996 by the Commission of the European
contained in Article 9 of Directive 77/62/EEC as amended
                                                                          Communities, represented by Dimitrios Gouloussis, Legal
at the relevant time ( the ' Supplies Directive').                        Adviser, and Laura Pignataro, of its Legal Service, acting
                                                                          as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
— The Remedies Directive and Article 169 of the EC                        the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,
       Treaty                                                             Kirchberg.
       The Commission accepts that since, unbeknown to it,                The applicant claims that the Court should:
       the contract had already been awarded on 30 May
       prior to the Commission 's communication under
       Article 3 of the Remedies Directive, proceedings under             1 . declare that, by failing to adopt and/or, in any event,
       that Article could not be pursued. The question,                        notify the laws, regulations or administrative
       therefore * of the effect of the national judicial                      provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
        proceedings is no longer relevant. However, the                        91 /674/EEC f 1 ) of 19 December 1991 on the annual
        Commission does not accept that it is thereby                          accounts    and    consolidated        accounts   of insurance
        prevented from continuing proceedings under                            undertakings, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil
        Article 169 of the EC Treaty or that such proceedings                  its obligations under that Directive and the EC Treaty;
        would be in any way ' inappropriate'.
                                                                          2 . order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
— Contracting authority
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
        Paragraphs 2 and 4 to 9 of Article 9 of Directive 77/
        62/EEC as amended ( the relevant Directive at the time
        of the award of the contract ) provides that                      Under Article 189 of the EC Treaty, according to which a
        'contracting authorities' who wish to award a public              directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved,
        supply contract shall make known their intention by               upon each Member State to which it is addressed,
        means of a notice to be published in the Official                 Member States are required to observe the time limits laid
       Journal of the European Communities.                               down in directives for their transposition. That time limit
                                                                          expired on 1 January 1994 without the Italian Republic
                                                                          having brought into force the necessary provisions in
        From the correspondence between the Commission                    order to comply with the Directive referred to in the
        and Ireland it appears that the Irish Government                  Commission's application.
        accepts that the contract in question is a public supply
        contract for the purposes of the Directive, but that it
        disputes that Coillte Teoranta is a contracting                    (') OJ No L 374 , 31 . 12 . 1991 , p . 7 .
        authority within the meaning of the Directive .
        Having examined the Forestry Act 1988 as well as the
        memorandum and articles of association of Coillte
        Teoranta , which set out its objects and internal rules,          Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster
        the Commission considers that there are a number of                Gerichtshof, Austria, by order of that Court of 15 October
        provisions which confirm that Coillte Teoranta is a                1996 in the case of Silhouette International Schmied
        'contracting authority' for the purposes of the                    Gesellschaft     mbH          &       Co     KG     v.   Hartlauer
        Directive .                                                                           Handelsgesellschaft mbH
                                                                                ( Case C-355/96 )
 ( i ) OJ No L 13 , 15 . 1 . 1977, p. 1 .
 ( 2 ) Council Directive 88/295/EEC of 22 March 1988 amending                                         ( 96/C 388/ 13 )
       Directive 77/62/EEC relating to the coordination of
       procedures on the award of public supply contracts and
       repealing certain provisions of Directive 80/767/EEC ( OJ No        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
       L 127, 20 . 5 . 1988 , p. 1 ).                                      European Communities by an order of the Oberster
 ( 3 ) Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the             Gerichtshof ( Supreme Court ), Austria, of 15 October
       coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative
       provisions relating to the application of review procedures to
                                                                           1996, which was received at the Court Registry on
       the award of public supply and public work contracts ( OJ No        30 October 1996, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                           Silhouette International Schmied Gesellschaft mbH & Co
       L 395 , 30 . 12 . 1989 , p. 33 ).
                                                                           KG v. Hartlauer Handelsgesellschaft mbH on                         the
                                                                           following questions :
 ---pagebreak--- 21 . 12 . 96           I EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 388 /7
1 . Is Article 7 ( 1 ) of the first Council Directive 89/104/          2 . If the answer to Question 1 is that the distinction to
     EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of                    be drawn is that set out in ( i ):
     the Member States relating to trade marks ('the Trade
     Marks Directive ') ( J ) to be interpreted as meaning that            ( a ) is the phrase 'needs in the general interest' to be
     the trade mark entitles its proprietor to prohibit a                        understood as meaning that there can be no
     third party from using the mark for goods which have                        question of meeting needs in the general interest
     been put on the market under that mark in a State                           where private undertakings meet such needs ?
     which is not a Contracting State ?                                    ( b ) if so, is the phrase 'needs having an industrial or
                                                                                commercial     character'     to be understood    as
2 . May the proprietor of the trade mark on the basis of
     Article 7 ( 1 ) of the Trade Marks Directive alone seek
                                                                                meaning that needs having an industrial or
                                                                                commercial character are met whenever private
     an order that the third party cease using the trade
                                                                                undertakings meet such needs ?
     mark for goods which have been put on the market
     under that mark in a State which is not a Contracting
     State ?                                                           3 . If the answer to the first question is that the
                                                                           distinction to be drawn is that set out in ( ii ), is the
(') OJ No L 40, 11 . 2 . 1989, p . 1 .
                                                                           difference between ' needs in the general interest not
                                                                           having an industrial or commercial character' and
                                                                           'needs in the general interest having an industrial or
                                                                           commercial character' to be determined according to
                                                                           whether ( competing ) private undertakings meet such
                                                                           needs or not ?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te
Arnhem by judgment of that Court of 29 October 1996 in
the case of Municipality of Arnhem and Municipality of                 4. Is the requirement that the body must be established
                     Rheden v. BFI Holding BV                              'for the specific purpose of meeting needs in the
                                                                           general interest, not having an industrial or
                          ( Case C-360/96 )
                                                                           commercial character' to be interpreted as meaning
                             96/C 388/ 14 )                                that such a 'specific purpose' can exist only where the
                                                                           body was established exclusively to meet such needs ?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a judgment of the Gerechtshof                  5 . If not, must a body meet needs in the general interest,
te Arnhem ( Regional Court of Appeal, Arnhem ) of                          not having an industrial or commercial character,
29 October 1996, which was received at the Court                           almost exclusively, substantially, preponderantly or to
Registry on 5 November 1996, for a preliminary ruling in                   some other degree in order to be or remain able to
the case of Municipality of Arnhem and Municipality of                     meet the requirement that it must be established for
Rheden v. BFI Holding BV, on the following questions :                     the specific purpose of meeting such needs ?
1 . For the purposes of interpreting Article 6 of Council              6 . Does it make any difference to the answers to
     Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the                   Questions 1 to 5 whether the needs in the general
     coordination of procedures for the award of public                    interest, not having an industrial or commercial
     service contracts ( l ) ('the Directive'), is the first indent
                                                                           character, which the body was set up to meet, derive
     of the second subparagraph of Article 1 ( b ) of the                  from legislation in the formal sense, from
     Directive, which specifies that ' body governed by                    administrative provisions, from acts of the
     public law means any body [. . .] established for the                 administration or otherwise ?
     specific purpose of meeting needs in the general
     interest, not having an industrial or commercial                  7. Does it make any difference to the answer to
     character', to be interpreted as distinguishing:                      Question 4 if responsibility for the commercial
     ( i ) between needs in the general interest and needs                 activities is entrusted to a separate legal entity forming
            having an industrial or commercial character, or               part of a single group or concern within which
     ( ii ) between needs in the general interest not having an            activities meeting needs in the general interest are also
            industrial or commercial character and needs in                carried out ?
            the general interest having an industrial or
            commercial character ?                                     (!) OJ No L 209, 24 . 7 . 1992, p . 1 .


title: Action brought on 15 December 1997 by Fernando Eugénio de Abreu and Others against Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Cases T-518/97 to T-564/97)

text:
C 166/16             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    30.5.98
The applicants claim that the Court should:                        Pleas in law and main arguments:
Ð declare the Council and the Commission jointly and               The pleas in law and main arguments are identical with
    severally liable, pursuant to Articles 215 and 178 of          those relied upon in Case T-316/97 Hermínia Fernanda
    the EC Treaty, for the damage caused by virtue of the          dos Santos Morais Antas v Council and Commission.
    transitional and training measures necessary in the
    sector to which the applicant belongs;
Ð order the Council and the Commission jointly and
    severally to pay ESC 3 126 768 by way of
    compensation for the abovementioned damage,                    Action brought on 15 December 1997 by Fernando
    together with the interest accrued, at the rate of 10 %,       EugeÂnio de Abreu and Others against Council of the
    as prescribed by law, from the date of the summons to              European Union and Commission of the European
    the date on which payment is actually made;                                            Communities
                                                                                (Cases T-518/97 to T-564/97)
Ð order the Council and the Commission to pay the                                         (98/C 166/42)
    costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
Pleas in law and main arguments:
                                                                   An action against the Council of the European Union and
The pleas in law and main arguments are identical with             the Commission of the European Communities was
those relied upon in Case T-316/97 Hermínia Fernanda               brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
dos Santos Morais Antas v Council and Commission.                  Communities on 15 December 1997 by Fernando EugeÂnio
                                                                   de Abreu and Others, residing in Portugal, represented by
                                                                   Cristina Ferreira, Francisco Espregueira Mendes, Teresa
                                                                   Fonseca and Rui GuimaraÄes Lopes, of the Oporto Bar.
                                                                   The applicants claim that the Court should:
Action brought on 15 December 1997 by Maria de Lurdes              Ð declare the Council and the Commission jointly and
Esteves Afonso and Ana Paula Afonso LourencËo de                       severally liable, pursuant to Articles 215 and 178 of
Oliveira and Others against Council of the European                    the EC Treaty, for the damage caused by virtue of the
  Union and Commission of the European Communities                     transitional and training measures necessary in the
               (Cases T-509/97 to T-517/97)                            sector to which the applicant belongs;
                       (98/C 166/41)
                                                                   Ð order the Council and the Commission jointly and
                                                                       severally to pay ESC 3 126 768 by way of
             (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                                                                       compensation for the abovementioned damage,
                                                                       together with the interest accrued, at the rate of 10 %,
An action against the Council of the European Union and                as prescribed by law, from the date of the summons to
the Commission of the European Communities was                         the date on which payment is actually made;
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 15 December 1997 by Maria de Lurdes                 Ð order the Council and the Commission to pay the
Esteves Afonso and Ana Paula Afonso LourencËo de                       costs.
Oliveira and Others, residing in Portugal, represented by
Cristina Ferreira, Francisco Espregueira Mendes, Teresa            Pleas in law and main arguments:
Fonseca and Rui GuimaraÄes Lopes, of the Oporto Bar.
                                                                   The pleas in law and main arguments are identical with
The applicants claim that the Court should:                        those relied upon in Case T-316/97 Hermínia Fernanda
                                                                   dos Santos Morais Antas v Council and Commission.
Ð declare the Council and the Commission jointly and
    severally liable, pursuant to Articles 215 and 178 of
    the EC Treaty, for the damage caused by virtue of the
    transitional and training measures necessary in the
    sector to which the applicant belongs;
                                                                   Action brought on 15 December 1997 by JoaÄo Luís de
Ð order the Council and the Commission jointly and                 Sousa Abreu and Others against Council of the European
    severally to pay ESC 3 126 768 by way of                         Union and Commission of the European Communities
    compensation for the abovementioned damage,                                   (Cases T-565/97 to T-595/97)
    together with the interest accrued, at the rate of 10 %,                              (98/C 166/43)
    as prescribed by law, from the date of the summons to
    the date on which payment is actually made;                                 (Language of the case: Portuguese)
Ð order the Council and the Commission to pay the                  An action against the Council of the European Union and
    costs.                                                         the Commission of the European Communities was


title: Case T-203/03: Action brought on 10 June 2003 by Lars Bo Rasmussen against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 200/26             EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                       23.8.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant is an official at the Commission. He worked                The applicant in this case contests the appointing authority's
from 1992 to 2000 in Brussels. In 2000 he was transferred to             decision to dismiss her for inadequate performance.
Luxembourg and then on 1 September 2001 he was trans-
ferred back to Brussels, where he moved back into the house
in which he had previously lived.                                        In support of her claims, she pleads breach of Article 51 of
                                                                         the Staff Regulations since she could not in the circumstances
                                                                         have been found to be in any way incompetent, breach of the
The applicant alleges infringement of Article 5(1) of Annex VII          duty to have regard to the welfare of officials, misuse of
to the Staff Regulations. In his view, he and his family did in          powers, breach of the right to an inter partes hearing at the
fact move their family residence to his place of service in              time of the administrative inquiry, and disregard of the obliga-
Luxembourg. His transfer back to Brussels cannot therefore be            tion to state reasons and of the principles of proportionality
regarded as a return to his family residence.                            and good administration.
The applicant submits that, under Article 85 of the Staff                Finally, the applicant pleads that the principle of equal treat-
Regulations, recovery of a payment is justified only if the              ment has been infringed since similar cases have been treated
recipient was aware that there was no due reason for the                 differently.
payment or if the fact of the overpayment was patently such
that he could not have been unaware of it. In the applicant's
opinion, he was entitled to assume that the payment was
justified as the Commission, in full knowledge of the facts,
had decided to grant the installation allowance.
Lastly, the applicant alleges infringement of the principle of
equal treatment of staff members. Installation allowance is
                                                                         Action brought on 10 June 2003 by Lars Bo Rasmussen
payable to a staff member not entitled to the household
                                                                              against Commission of the European Communities
allowance but not to a staff member entitled to the household
allowance whose family have not yet settled at that staff
member's place of service.                                                                       (Case T-203/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 200/48)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Action brought on 6 June 2003 by Annelies Keyman                         An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
  against the Commission of the European Communities                     nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 10 June 2003 by Lars Bo
                        (Case T-200/03)                                  Rasmussen, residing in Hellerup (Denmark), represented by
                                                                         Gilles Bounéou, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxem-
                                                                         bourg.
                        (2003/C 200/47)
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                  (Language of the Case: French)
                                                                         —     annul Commission Decision No 34988 of 1 July 2000;
An action against the Commission of the European Commu-                  —     annul the decision of 21 January 2003 rejecting the
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                   complaint;
European Communities on 6 June 2003 by Annelies Keyman,
resident in Overijse, Belgium, represented by Carlos Mourato,            —     order the defendant to repay the sums wrongfully recov-
lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                             ered on the basis of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations
                                                                               together with interest for late payment;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         —     order the defendant to pay the applicant 10 000 EUR in
                                                                               damages or any other amount, even greater, that the
—     annul the appointing authority's decision of 10 March                    Court may decide is equitable in compensation for the
      2003 to dismiss her;                                                     non-material damage sustained;
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                              —     order the defendant to pay the costs, expenses and fees.
 ---pagebreak--- 23.8.2003              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 200/27
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            lished for the sale outside the United States of spare parts for
                                                                           its construction equipment infringed Articles 81 and 82 EC.
The applicant was an official at the Commission. By the                    The Commission rejected that complaint by its contested
decision challenged the Commission reprimanded the applicant               decision. In support of its action, the applicant claims that
following alleged false statements made by the him in connec-              the defendant made manifest errors of fact, as well as errors in
tion with his missions and leave.                                          the interpretation and application of the law, in finding that
                                                                           the application to the applicant of the system of selling spare
                                                                           parts for use outside the United States does not constitute an
The applicant pleads, first, infringement of Commission Regu-              agreement within the meaning of Article 81 EC and by not
lation No 1 and Article 13 of the EC Treaty. He states that the            applying Article 82 EC although Caterpillar holds a dominant
defendant continued to use French in its letters to him in spite           position in the relevant market. The applicant also puts
of his request to use Danish or English. That constitutes,                 forward alleged infringements of procedural rules and of the
according to the applicant, language discrimination.                       complainant's rights in regard to the allegedly excessive length
                                                                           of the investigation of the complaint lodged by the applicant,
Secondly, the applicant pleads breach of medical confidentiality           the alleged failure to give reasons for the contested decision,
in so far as the defendant consulted its medical staff to                  the alleged lack of diligence and impartiality of the defendant
ascertain whether the applicant was fit to attend the hearing.             in the examination of the complaint, as well as the alleged
That opinion can be based, according to the applicant, only on             infringement of Article 6 of Regulation 2842/1998/EC (1) in
his medical history and his file and therefore constitutes a               that new matters appear for the first time in the contested
breach of professional secrecy.                                            decision without the applicant being able to submit its obser-
                                                                           vations with regard thereto.
Thirdly, the applicant pleads irregularities in the procedure in
so far as the complaints were not clearly formulated in the                (1) OJ 1998 L 354 p. 18.
minutes recording the opening of the disciplinary proceedings.
The applicant also pleads an infringement of rules of law, in
particular of Article 71 and Annex VII of the Staff Regulations.
Action brought on 10 June 2003 by Haladjian Frères
  against the Commission of the European Communities                       Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Faber Chimica S.r.l.
                                                                           against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                                Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                          (Case T-204/03)
                          (2003/C 200/49)                                                            (Case T-211/03)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (2003/C 200/50)
An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                                   (Language of the case: Italian)
European Communities on 10 June 2003 by Haladjian Frères,
established in Sorgues (France), represented by Nicole Coutrelis,
lawyer, which an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                           An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
                                                                           Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
—     annul the Commission's decision of 1 April 2003                      13 June 2003 by Faber Chimica S.r.l., represented by
      rejecting its complaint against Caterpillar;                         P. Tartuferi and M. Andreano. Industrias Químicas Naber S.A.
                                                                           was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of
—     so far as necessary, undertake all measures of inquiry to            Appeal.
      order the Commission to produce all the documents
      relevant to determination of the dispute;
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                           —     annul the contested decision;
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            —     order OHIM and also Industrias Químicas Naber S.A., in
                                                                                the event that it should intervene, to pay the costs of the
The applicant lodged a complaint with the Commission against                     present proceedings together with the costs of the admin-
the Caterpillar Corporation, claiming that the system it estab-                  istrative proceedings before OHIM.


title: Judgment of the Court of 13 September 2001 in Case C-89/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Schieving-Nĳstad vof and Others v Robert Groeneveld (Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation — Article 50(6) of the TRIPs Agreement — Interpretation — Direct effect — Application to proceedings pending at the time of entry into force in the State concerned — Conditions regarding the time-limit for bringing substantive proceedings — Calculation of that time-limit)

text:
C 303/2                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        27.10.2001
3.     For the purposes of determining the five Judges who are           Sixth Chamber
to sit in each case assigned to a large Chamber, that is to say,
the Fifth and Sixth Chamber (to each of which seven Judges               (President: Judge Macken)
are attached), a list shall be drawn up for the judicial year. That      Mr Gulmann, Mr Puissochet, Mr da Cunha Rodrigues,
list shall comprise all the Judges of the Chamber, apart from            Mr Schintgen, Mr Skouris and Ms Colneric, Judges.
the President, in the following order:
(a)   the Judges of the small Chamber composed of four
      Judges, in order of seniority;                                     Appointment of the First Advocate General
(b) the Judges of the other small Chamber, in the same order.            In accordance with Article 10(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the
                                                                         Court of Justice appointed Advocate General S. Alber as First
                                                                         Advocate General for a period of one year starting on
For each case, the large Chamber shall be composed of:                   7 October 2001.
—     the President,
—     the Judge-Rapporteur,
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
—     three Judges designated in the order set out in the relevant
      list; the starting point on that list shall be moved down
      one name at each general meeting.                                                        of 13 September 2001
                                                                         in Case C-89/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
Replacement of a Judge or Judges prevented from attending                the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Schieving-Nijstad vof
shall be in the order set out in the list. However, should the                         and Others v Robert Groeneveld (1)
President of a large Chamber be prevented from sitting, he
shall be replaced preferably by the President of the small
Chamber.                                                                 (Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation —
                                                                         Article 50(6) of the TRIPs Agreement — Interpretation —
                                                                         Direct effect — Application to proceedings pending at the
If the Court, or a Chamber, considers that a number of cases             time of entry into force in the State concerned — Conditions
should be heard and determined together (whether or not they             regarding the time-limit for bringing substantive proceed-
are formally joined), the composition of the bench shall be                           ings — Calculation of that time-limit)
that determined for the first of the cases discussed at a general
meeting.                                                                                (2001/C 303/02)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
4.     For the period ending on 6 October 2002, the lists
referred to above are as follows:
                                                                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
Third Chamber
(President: Judge Macken)                                                In Case C-89/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                                                                         the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the the Hoge Raad
                                                                         der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) for a
Mr Gulmann, Mr Puissochet and Mr da Cunha Rodrigues,
                                                                         preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
Judges
                                                                         court between Schieving-Nijstad vof and Others and Robert
                                                                         Groeneveld — on the interpretation of Article 50(6) of the
Fourth Chamber                                                           Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property
                                                                         Rights, as set out in Annex 1 C to the Agreement establishing
(President: Judge von Bahr)                                              the World Trade Organisation, approved on behalf of the
                                                                         Community, as regards matters within its competence, by
Mr Edward, Mr La Pergola and Mr Timmermans, Judges                       Council Decision 94/800/EC of 22 December 1994 (OJ 1994
                                                                         L 336, p. 1) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez
                                                                         Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet
Fifth Chamber                                                            and V. Skouris (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward
                                                                         (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, L. Sevón, R. Schintgen,
(President: Judge Jann)                                                  F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and
                                                                         C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General;
Mr Edward, Mr La Pergola, Mr von Bahr, Mr Timmermans,                    L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
Mr Sevón and Mr Wathelet, Judges                                        judgment on 13 September 2001, in which it has ruled:
 ---pagebreak--- 27.10.2001             EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                               C 303/3
1.  Where the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual                  forbids the legal order of a Member State to provide, where
    Property Rights (‘the TRIPs Agreement’), as set out in Annex 1                appropriate, that its judicial authorities are to determine of their
    C to the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation,                 own motion the period within which substantive proceedings
    approved on behalf of the Community, as regards matters                       are to be instituted at the same time as ordering provisional
    within its competence, by Council Decision 94/800/EC of                       measures, without any request by the defendant being necessary
    22 December 1994, became applicable in the Member State                       for that purpose.
    concerned at a time when the court of first instance has heard
    the case but not yet delivered its decision, Article 50 of the TRIPs    6.    Article 50(6) of the TRIPs Agreement neither requires nor
    Agreement is applicable to the extent that the infringement of                forbids the Member States to provide, where appropriate, that
    intellectual property rights continues beyond the date on which               its judicial authorities are to determine of their own motion the
    the TRIPs Agreement became applicable with regard to the                      period within which substantive proceedings are to be instituted.
    Community and the Member States.                                              Since the provision in question is silent on that point, the scope
                                                                                of the powers conferred on appellate courts in that regard falls
                                                                                within the competence of each Member State.
2.  The procedural requirements of Article 50 of the TRIPs
                                                                            (1) OJ C 136 of 15.5.1999.
    Agreement, and in particular Article 50(6), are not such as to
    create rights upon which individuals may rely directly before the
    Community courts and the courts of the Member States.
    Nevertheless, where the judicial authorities are called upon to
    apply national rules with a view to ordering provisional
    measures for the protection of intellectual property rights falling
    within a field to which the TRIPs Agreement applies and in
    respect of which the Community has already legislated, they are
    required to do so as far as possible in the light of the wording                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
    and purpose of Article 50(6) of the TRIPs Agreement, taking
    account, more particularly, of all the circumstances of the case
    before them, so as to ensure that a balance is struck between the                                   (Fifth Chamber)
    competing rights and obligations of the intellectual property
    right holder and of the defendant.
                                                                                of 13 September 2001
                                                                            in Case C-374/99: Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
3.  Article 50(6) of the TRIPs Agreement is to be interpreted as
    meaning that a request by the defendant is necessary in order
    for the provisional measures ordered by way of interim relief to        (EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — 1995 financial year
    lapse on the ground that no substantive action has been brought         — Aid for consumption of olive oil — Premiums for sheep
    either within the period prescribed in the provisional measures                                        and goats)
    or, where no period is prescribed, within 20 working days or
    31 calendar days, whichever is the longer period.                                                   (2001/C 303/03)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
4.  In the absence of any provision in the TRIPs Agreement                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
    concerning the point in time at which the period of 20 working                               in the European Court Reports)
    days or 31 calendar days prescribed by Article 50(6) of that
    agreement is to start, it is for each contracting party to
    determine when that period is to start, provided always that it         In Case C-374/99: Kingdom of Spain (Agent: M. López-Monı́s
    is ‘reasonable’ having regard to the circumstances of each case         Gallego) v Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
    and taking into account the balance to be struck between the            J. Guerra Fernández) — application for partial annulment of
    competing rights and obligations of the intellectual property           Commission Decision 1999/596/EC of 28 July 1999
    right holder and of the defendant.                                      amending Decision 1999/187/EC on the clearance of the
                                                                            accounts presented by the Member States in respect of the
                                                                            expenditure for 1995 of the Guarantee Section of the European
                                                                            Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 1999
                                                                            L 226, p. 26) in so far as it relates to the Kingdom of Spain —
5.  In the absence of any Community rule on the point and in                the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola,
    accordance with Article 1(1) of the TRIPs Agreement, it is for          President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann
    each Member State to determine the limits of the powers of the          (Rapporteur) and L. Sevón, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate
    judicial authorities in ordering provisional measures.                  General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 Sep-
    Article 50(6) of the TRIPs Agreement neither requires nor               tember 2001, in which it:


C 312/8               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                10.10.98
context of the selection of employees for dismissal on                     Removal from the register of Case C-359/96 (1)
social criteria if substantially more women than men are                                     (98/C 312/15)
employed part-time in a sector?
(1) OJ L 39, 14.2.1976, p. 40.                                       By order of 28 May 1998 the President of the Court of
                                                                     Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                     removal from the register of Case C-359/96 (reference for
                                                                     a preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
                                                                     Pavia): Criminal proceedings against Luigi Bazzan,
                                                                     Agostino Traverso and Adriano Calvini.
Action brought on 1 September 1998 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the French Republic              (1) OJ C 9, 11.1.1997.
                       (Case C-326/98)
                         (98/C 312/14)
An action against the French Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                        Removal from the register of Case C-335/96 (1)
1 September 1998 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Richard Wainwright,                                              (98/C 312/16)
Principal Legal Adviser, and Olivier Court-Castera, a
national civil servant on secondment to its Legal Service,
acting as Agents, with an address for service in                     By order of 9 June 1998 the President of the Court of
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,                 Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                            removal from the register of Case C-335/96: Commission
                                                                     of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                     (1) OJ C 388, 21.12.1996.
Ð declare that, by requiring the words cotisation seÂcuriteÂ
     sociale' (social security levy') to appear on the
     labelling of alcoholic beverages from other Member
     States, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
     obligations under Article 30 of the Treaty,
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case C-318/97 (1)
Ð order the French Republic to pay the costs.                                                (98/C 312/17)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                     By order of 15 June 1998 the President of the Court of
Under French law, a contribution to the national sickness            Justice of the European Communities (Fifth Chamber) has
insurance fund is levied on alcoholic beverages having an            ordered the removal from the register of Case C-318/97:
alcohol content in excess of 25 % by volume. The                     Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of
contribution is paid by wholesalers and by producers                 Spain.
selling such beverages direct to retailers or consumers, and
the words cotisation seÂcuriteÂ sociale' must appear in the         (1) OJ C 318, 18.10.1997.
form of a circle on the labelling of those beverages.
As regards products coming from other Member States,
the labelling obligation referred to above, failure to
comply with which may lead to a criminal prosecution,
constitutes a restriction on the free movement of goods                    Removal from the register of Case C-398/97 (1)
and thus falls, as a measure having equivalent effect,
within the scope of Article 30 of the Treaty.                                                (98/C 312/18)
A labelling obligation intended to inform consumers by
                                                                     By order of 17 June 1998 the President of the Court of
pointing out the risks of alcohol abuse and the total cost
                                                                     Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
borne by the social security system may be regarded as
                                                                     removal from the register of Case C-398/97: Commission
legitimate, provided however that the measure in question
                                                                     of the European Communities v. Italian Republic.
is appropriate to the achievement of that objective. In the
Commission's view, that criterion is not fulfilled by the
words cotisation seÂcuriteÂ sociale'.                               (1) OJ C 26, 24.1.1998.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 February 2004 in Case C-406/02: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to communicate reports required under Directives 76/464/EEC, 78/659/EEC and 80/68/EEC — Standardising and rationalising reports on the implementation of certain directives relating to the environment)

text:
C 85/10                  EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                               3.4.2004
Article 5(1) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction          of initiating a procedure for that purpose without having
and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters,            shown that it is necessary and proportionate, the Italian
as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the accession              Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 28
of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of                 EC and 30 EC, the Court (Third Chamber), composed of:
Great Britain and Northern Ireland, by the Convention of 25 October          C. Gulmann, acting for the President of the Chamber, J.-
1982 on the accession of the Hellenic Republic and by the Convention         P. Puissochet and F. Macken (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Mischo,
of 26 May 1989 on the accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the              Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
Portuguese Republic, must be interpreted as follows:                         on 5 February 2004, in which it:
                                                                             1.    Declares that, by maintaining in force legislation which subjects
‘matters relating to a contract’ do not cover the obligation which a
                                                                                the marketing of food products for sportsmen and women
guarantor who paid customs duties under a guarantee obtained by
                                                                                lawfully manufactured and marketed in other Member States to
the forwarding agent seeks to enforce in legal proceedings by way of
                                                                                a requirement of applying for prior authorisation and of
subrogation to the rights of the customs authorities and by way of
                                                                                initiating a procedure for that purpose without having shown
recourse against the owner of the goods, if the latter, who was not a
                                                                                that it is necessary and proportionate, the Italian Republic has
party to the contract of guarantee, did not authorise the conclusion of
                                                                                failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 28 EC and 30 EC;
that contract.
                                                                             2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 233 of 28.9.2002.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 219 of 14.9.2002.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Third Chamber)
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
                         of 5 February 2004
                                                                                of 12 February 2004
in Case C-270/02: Commission of the European Communi-
                      ties v Italian Republic (1)                            in Case C-406/02: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Kingdom of Belgium (1)
(Measures having equivalent effect — Foodstuffs for sports-
men and women lawfully manufactured and marketed in                          (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure
   other Member States — Prior marketing authorisation)                      to communicate reports required under Directives 76/464/
                                                                             EEC, 78/659/EEC and 80/68/EEC — Standardising and
                                                                             rationalising reports on the implementation of certain direc-
                            (2004/C 85/14)
                                                                                tives relating to the environment)
                     (Language of the case: Italian)                                                      (2004/C 85/15)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                             (Language of the case: French)
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-270/02, Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: C.-F. Durand and R. Amorosi) v Italian Republic
(Agent: I. M. Braguglia, assisted by G. Aiello, avvocato dello
Stato) with an address for service in Luxembourg: Application                In Case C-406/02, Commission of the European Communities
for a declaration that, by maintaining in force legislation which            (Agent: B. Stromsky) with an address for service in Luxem-
subjects the marketing of food products for sportsmen and                    bourg, v Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: E. Dominkovitz) with
women lawfully manufactured and marketed in other Member                     an address for service in Luxembourg: Application for a
States to a requirement of applying for prior authorisation and              declaration that, by failing to communicate to it, within the
 ---pagebreak--- 3.4.2004                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 85/11
prescribed period, the reports in respect of the Bruxelles-                  The appellants claim that the Court should:
Capitale Region required under Council Directive 76/464/EEC
of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by certain dangerous
                                                                             —     reverse the order of the Court of First Instance of the
substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the
                                                                                European Communities made on 23 April 2003;
Community (OJ 1976 L 129, p. 3), Council Directive 78/659/
EEC of 18 July 1978 on the quality of fresh waters needing
protection or improvement in order to support fish life (OJ                  —     declare the respondent liable for the harm suffered by the
1978 L 222, p. 1) and Council Directive 80/68/EEC of                               appellants as a result of the attack on 27 March 2002 at
17 December 1979 on the protection of groundwater against                          the Park Hotel, Netanya (Israel);
pollution caused by certain dangerous substances (OJ 1980
L 20, p. 43) as amended by Council Directive 91/692/EEC of
                                                                             —     order the respondent, in respect of the harm suffered by
23 December 1991 standardising and rationalising reports on
                                                                                the appellants to pay the following amounts:
the implementation of certain Directives relating to the
environment (OJ 1991 L 377, p. 48), the Kingdom of Belgium
has failed to fulfil its obligations under the said directives, the                —     to Lucien Zaoui, EUR 1 million in compensation for
Court (Third Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, acting for                               non-material damage;
the President of the Third Chamber, J. P. Puissochet (Rappor-
teur) and F. Macken, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General;
                                                                                —     to B. Zaoui, EUR 1.5 million, in compensation for
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 February
                                                                                non-material damage;
2004, in which it:
                                                                                —     to D. Stain, née Zaoui:
1.    Declares that, by failing to communicate to the Commission,
      within the prescribed period, the report in respect of the
      Bruxelles-Capitale Region required under Article 2(1) of                           —    EUR 1 million in respect of physical injury;
      Council Directive 91/692/EEC of 23 December 1991 stan-
      dardising and rationalising reports on the implementation of                       —    EUR 2 million in respect of non-material
      certain Directives relating to the environment, the Kingdom of                          damage;
      Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
                                                                                —    an amount to be settled in the course of
2.    Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                                         proceedings for material damage
(1) OJ C 7 of 11.1.2003.                                                     —     order the respondent to pay all the costs.
                                                                             Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                             The unlawful conduct of the Commission, namely the grant of
Appeal brought on 3 July 2003 by B. Zaoui, L. Zaoui and                      funds to the Palestinian Authority, in total contradiction with
D. Stain, née Zaoui, against the order made on 23 April                      the fundamental values of the Community, has directly
2003 by the Court of First Instance of the European                          contributed to the harm suffered by the appellants as a result
Communities (First Chamber) in Case T-73/03 between                          of the attack carried out by a Palestinian terrorist in Netanya
B. Zaoui and Others and the Commission of the European                       (Israel), for which they now seek compensation.
                            Communities
                         (Case C-288/03 P)                                   The application of Article 111 of the Rules of Procedure of the
                                                                             Court of First Instance was manifestly unlawful, since it was
                                                                             by error of law and by distorting the clear sense of the pleas
                           (2004/C 85/16)                                    put forward by the appellants that the Court of First Instance
                                                                             held that the existence of a causal link was not established in
                                                                             this case and that the application was manifestly lacking any
                                                                             foundation in law:
An appeal against the order made on 23 April 2003 by the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities (First                   —     the Court of First Instance dismissed the application
Chamber) in Case T-73/03 between B. Zaoui and Others and                           brought at first instance by the appellants as manifestly
the Commission of the European Communities was brought                             lacking any foundation in law, holding that one of the
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                         conditions necessary for the Commission to incur non-
3 July 2003 by B. Zaoui, L. Zaoui and D. Stain, née Zaoui,                         contractual liability, within the meaning of the second
represented by J. A. Buchinger, advocat.                                           paragraph of Article 288 EC, was not established in this


title: Case T-76/04: Actionbrought on 17 February 2004 by Bactria Industriehygiene-ServiceVerwaltungs GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/74

         Action brought on 17 February 2004 by Bactria Industriehygiene-Service Verwaltungs GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-76/04)
   (2004/C 106/146)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 17 February 2004 by Bactria Industriehygiene-Service Verwaltungs GmbH, Kirchheimboladen, Germany, represented by Mr K. Van Maldegem and Mr Claudio Mereu, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               order the annulment of Article 3 (and annex II), Article 4(2), Article 5(3), Article 10(2), second paragraph, Article 11(3), Article 13 and Article 14(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2032/2003 of 4 November 2003 on the second phase of the 10-year work programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1896/2000;

               —

               declare the illegality and the inapplicability vis-à-vis the applicant of Articles 9(a), 10(3), 11 and 16(1) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market;

               —

               declare the illegality and the inapplicability vis-à-vis the applicant of Article 6(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1896/2000 of 7 September 2000 on the first phase of the programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on biocidal products;

               —

               order the defendant to compensate the applicant in the provisional amount of 1 Euro for damages suffered as a result of the adoption and entry into force of the contested measure, as well as any applicable interest, pending the exact calculation and determination of the exact amount;

               —

               order the defendant to pay all costs and expenses in these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The pleas in law and arguments invoked by the applicant are the same as those invoked in Case T-75/04.


title: Case C-60/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht Eisenstadt by order of that Court of 17 January 2002 in the private prosecutions brought by Montres Rolex S.A. and Others

text:
C 131/2                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        1.6.2002
3.    The Parliament’s application for the Court to order                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundespa-
      Mr Panichelli to bear his own costs at first instance in Case        tentgericht by order of that Court of 22 January 2002
      T-130/98 is rejected.                                                in the administrative appeal brought by Heidelberger
                                                                                Bauchemie GmbH
(1) OJ C 108 of 7.4.2001.
                                                                                (Case C-49/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 131/04)
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                     European Communities by order of the Bundespatentgericht
                                                                           (Federal Patents Court) (Germany) of 22 January 2002, received
                                                                           at the Court Registry on 20 February 2002, for a preliminary
                        (Fourth Chamber)                                   ruling in the administrative appeal brought by Heidelberger
                                                                           Bauchemie GmbH on the following questions:
                         of 14 March 2002
                                                                           For the purposes of registration as a trade mark, do colours or
in Joined Cases C-250/01 P and C-251/01 P: Mario Costac-                   combinations of colours claimed in the abstract, without
    urta v Commission of the European Communities (1)                      delineation and in hues which are indicated by a colour sample
                                                                           (colour specimen), named in words and identified under a
                                                                           recognised colour classification system fulfil the requirements
(Appeals — Application of Article 3 of Annex X to the Staff                for ability to constitute a trade mark laid down in Article 2 of
Regulations — Re-posting of the applicant to a non-Member                  First Council Directive 89/104/EEC (1) of 21 December 1988
State — Action for annulment — Inadmissibility — Appeal                    to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade
      manifestly unfounded and inadmissible — Costs)                       marks?
                          (2002/C 131/03)                                  In particular, for the purposes of Article 2 of the directive, is
                                                                           such an ‘(abstract) colour mark’
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           a)    a sign,
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     b)    sufficiently distinctive to be capable of indicating origin,
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           c)    capable of being represented graphically?
In Joined Cases C-250/01 P and C-251/01 P: Mario Costacurta,               (1) OJ L 40 of 11.2.1989, p. 1.
a former official of the Commission of the European Com-
munities, residing at Luxembourg, represented by M. Petit,
lawyer — two appeals against the orders of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities, Second Chamber, of
7 June 2001 in Case T-328/00 Costacurta v Commission, not
published in the European Court Reports, seeking to have
those orders set aside, the other party to the proceedings being
                                                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall,                Eisenstadt by order of that Court of 17 January 2002 in
assisted by B. Wägenbaur) — the Court (Fourth Chamber),                    the private prosecutions brought by Montres Rolex S.A.
composed of S. von Bahr, President of Chamber,
                                                                                and Others
D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur) and A. La Pergola, Judges; D. Ruiz-
Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made
an order on 14 March 2002, the operative part of which is as                                         (Case C-60/02)
follows:
                                                                                (2002/C 131/05)
1.    The appeals are dismissed.
2.    Mr Costacurta shall bear the costs.                                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities by order of the Landesgericht Eisen-
                                                                           stadt (Regional Court, Eisenstadt) of 17 January 2002, received
(1) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.
                                                                           at the Court Registry on 25 February 2002, for a preliminary
                                                                           ruling in the private prosecutions brought by Montres Rolex
                                                                           S.A. and Others, on the following question:
 ---pagebreak--- 1.6.2002               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 131/3
Is a provision of national law, in casu Paragraph 60(1) and (2)          Action brought on 13 March 2002 by the Commission of
of the Markenschutzgesetz (Austrian Law on the Protection of             the European Communities against the Federal Republic
Trademarks), in conjunction with Paragraph 10a thereof,                                            of Germany
which may be interpreted as meaning that the mere transit of
goods manufactured/distributed in contravention of provisions
of the law on trademarks is not punishable under criminal law,                                    (Case C-86/02)
contrary to Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 3295/
94 (1) of 22 December 1994 laying down measures to prohibit                                      (2002/C 131/07)
the release for free circulation, export, re-export or entry for a
suspensive procedure of counterfeit and pirated goods, as
amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 241/1999 (2) of
25 January 1999?
                                                                         An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
                                                                         brought before the Court of Justice of the European Commu-
                                                                         nities on 13 March 2002 by the Commission of the European
(1) OJ L 341, p. 8.                                                      Communities, represented by Josef Christian Schieferer, of its
(2) OJ L 27, p. 1.                                                       Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                         the office of Luis Escobar Guerrero, of its Legal Service, C 254,
                                                                         Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         (1) declare that, by adopting Paragraph 1(6) and Para-
                                                                               graph 1.44 of the SprengÄndG 1997 of 23 June 1998,
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hof van Cassatie
                                                                               the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its
by judgment of that Court of 28 February 2002 in the
                                                                               obligations, imposed on it by the first paragraph of
case of Agence Maritime Lalemant against 1. Malzfabrik
                                                                               Article 10 and the third paragraph of Article 249 of the
Tivoli GmbH, 2. Malteurop G.I.E, 3. Belgische Interventie-
                                                                               EC Treaty, to comply with Directive 93/15/EEC (1) and
en Restitutiebureau and Malzfabrik Tivoli GmbH against
                                                                               has failed to comply with its obligations arising from the
          Belgische Interventie- en Restitutiebureau
                                                                               first paragraph of Article 226 of the EC Treaty;
                          (Case C-82/02)                                 (2) order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
                         (2002/C 131/06)
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Hof van Cassatie                 The Commission objects to the provision whereby explosives,
(Belgian Court of Cassation) of 28 February 2002, received at            apart from those intended for export to, or introduction into,
the Court Registry on 12 March 2002, for a preliminary ruling            another Member State, may only be used or relinquished to
in the case of Agence Maritime Lalemant against 1. Malzfabrik            others if they bear an identification mark issued by the
Tivoli GmbH, 2. Malteurop G.I.E, 3. Belgische Interventie- en            Bundesanstalt für Materialforschung und -prüfung (BAM)
Restitutiebureau and Malzfabrik Tivoli GmbH against Belgische            (Federal Institute for Materials Research and Testing). The fact
Interventie- en Restitutiebureau on the following question:              that, as a result of provisional measures taken by the BAM,
                                                                         that obstacle to trade no longer exists is not enough to cure
                                                                         the infringement of Community law.
Must Article 9(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2730/
79 (1) of 29 November 1979 laying down common detailed
rules for the application of the system of export refunds on             The transitional provision contained in Paragraph 1.44 of the
agricultural products be interpreted as meaning that goods               German statute could lead to serious distortions of the internal
exported to non-member countries and in respect of which                 market, since explosives which may be freely placed on the
customs export formalities have been completed are to be                 market within the Community pursuant to the provisions of
regarded as having left the geographical territory of the                the directive are not permitted on the German market, whereas
Community when they actually leave the territory of the                  explosives which should no longer feature on the market after
Community or when they are placed in a customs warehouse?                the expiry of the transitional period might be allowed in
                                                                         Germany.
(1) OJ L 317, 1979, p. 1.                                                (1) OJ L 121 of 15.5.1993, p. 20.


No C 87/8            ΓΕΝ                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       8 . 4 . 95
 Article 1 of Regulation (EEC ) No 2241/87, not only to                     Removal from the register of Case C-146/94 ( )
 diligently to take all control measures necessary in order to                                    ( 95/C 87/16 )
ensure compliance with the rules in force but also to take
penal or administrative action against those responsible for
infringement of those rules. At no time have the French                By order of 8 February 1995 the President of the Fifth
authorities claimed that France has discharged its                     Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European
obligations in the matter.                                             Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                       C-146/94: Commission of the European Communities v.
 (!) OJ No L 207, 29 . 7. 1987, p. 1 .                                 Hellenic Republic.
 (2 ) OJ No L 378 , 31 . 12 . 1990, p. 1 .
 (3 ) OJ No L 367, 31 . 12 . 1991 , p. 1 .                             (!) OJ No C 202 , 23 . 7. 1994 .
       Removal from the register of Case C-115/94 ( )
                             ( 95/C 87/15 )
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-203/94 ( )
By order of 1 February 1995 the President of the Court of                                         ( 95/C 87/17)
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-115/94: Commission of the                  By order of 3 February 1995 the President of the Court of
European Communities v. Hellenic Republic.                            Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                       from the register of Case C-203/94: French Republic v.
(M OJ No C 161 , 11 . 6. 1994 .                                        Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                       (!) OJ No C 254 , 10 . 9 . 1994 .
                                                     COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              Haarlem-Bollenstreek,           established    in    Heemstede,
                          (First Chamber)                             Netherlands, Aannemersvereniging Veluwe en Zuidelijke
                                                                      Ijsselmeerpolders, established in Apeldoorn, Netherlands,
                      of 21 February 1995                             Combinatie van Aannemers in het Noorden, established in
in Case T-29/92: Vereniging van Samenwerkende                         Leeuwarden,        Netherlands,          Vereniging     Centrale
Prijsregelende Organisaties in de Bouwnijverheid and                  Prijsregeling Kabelwerken, established in Leeuwarden,
  Others v. Commission of the European Communities (*)                Netherlands, Delftse Aannemers Vereniging, established in
(Competition — Non-existent measure — Decisions of                    Rotterdam, Netherlands, Economisch Nationaal Verbond
associations of undertakings — Complex rules and                      van Aannemers van Sloopwerken, established in Utrecht,
regulations — Infringement — Effect on trade between                  Netherlands, Aannemersvereniging 'Gouda en Omstreken',
           Member States — Exemption — Fines)                         established in Rotterdam, Netherlands, Gelderse
                                                                      Aannemers Vereniging inzake Aanbestedingen, established
                            ( 95/C 87/18 )                            in Arnhem, Netherlands, Gooise Aannemers Vereniging,
                (Language of the case: Dutch)                         established in Huizen, Netherlands, 's-Gravenhaagse
                                                                      Aannemers Vereniging, established in The Hague,
In Case T-29/92 : Vereniging van Samenwerkende                        Netherlands, Leidse Aannemersvereniging, established in
Prijsregelende Organisaties in de Bouwnijverheid,                     Leiden, Netherlands, Vereniging Markeer Aannemers
established in Amersfoort, Netherlands, Amsterdamse                   Combinatie, established in Tilburg, Netherlands,
Aannemers Vereniging, established in Amsterdam,                       Nederlandse    Aannemers-          en  Patroonsbond    voor      de
Netherlands, Algemene Aannemersvereniging voor                        Bouwbedrijven, established in Dordrecht, Netherlands,
Waterbouwkundige Werken, established in Utrecht,                      Noordhollandse           Aannemers          Vereniging       voor
Netherlands, Aannemersvereniging van Boorondernemers                  Waterbouwkundige Werken, established in Amsterdam,
en Buizenleggers, established in Soest, Netherlands,                  Netherlands, Oostnederlandse-Vereniging-Aanbestedings
Aannemersvereniging Velsen, Beverwijk en Omstreken,                   Regeling, established in Delden, Netherlands, Provinciale
established in Velsen, Netherlands, Aannemers Vereniging              Vereniging van Bouwbedrijven in Groningen en Drenthe,


4.3.2000                 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 63/21
Ireland has not informed the Commission of any measures                         Removal from the register of Case C-235/98 (1)
taken in order to comply with the abovementioned provisions,
and the Commission is in possession of no other information                                      (2000/C 63/40)
enabling it to conclude that Ireland has taken the necessary
steps. Therefore, the Commission is compelled to assume that             By order of 30 November 1999 the President of the Court of
Ireland has not yet taken such measures and that it has thus             Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5 of Protocol 28 to       from the register of Case-235/98 (reference for a preliminary
the EEA Agreement, taken in conjunction with Article 300(7)              ruling from l’Areios Pagos): Panagis Neofytos Pythagoras Pafitis
EC.                                                                      and Others v Trapeza Kentrikis Ellados and Others.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.
       Removal from the register of Case C-122/97 (1)
                           (2000/C 63/39)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-93/99 (1)
By order of 18 October 1999 the President of the Court of                                        (2000/C 63/41)
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-122/97: Commission of the
European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.                      By order of 6 December 1999 the President of the Court of
                                                                         Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                         from the register of Case-93/99: Commission of the European
(1) OJ C 166 of 31.5.1997.                                               Communities v Portuguese Republic.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.


title: Case T-644/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Reuter v Parliament

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/58

         Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Reuter v Parliament
   (Case T-644/15)
   (2016/C 048/66)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Delphine Reuter (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

      Defendant(s): European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul decision A(2015)8627 C of the European Parliament of 14 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses;

               —

               order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments

      (1)  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 (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).


title: Action brought on 8 June 1998 by Jürgen Wettig against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-91/98)

text:
24.10.98             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 327/27
which the Commission must observe when it adopts                     economics and part of the professional experience when
administrative measures.                                             classifying him.
                                                                     Although the directive on higher-education diplomas (1)
                                                                     does not bind the Community institutions directly, it
                                                                     would nevertheless be paradoxical if those institutions
                                                                     placed a different meaning on higher-education diploma'
Action brought on 8 June 1998 by Jürgen Wettig against
                                                                     and thereby disregarded the objectives and provisions of
       the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                     the directive.
                       (Case T-91/98)
                        (98/C 327/49)                                (1) Council Directive 89/48/EEC, (OJ L 19, 24.1.1989, p. 16).
               (Language of the case: German)
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 8 June 1998 by               Action brought on 30 June 1998 by Anthony Goldstein
Jürgen Wettig, of Brussels, Belgium, represented by Peter               against the Commission of the European Communities
Wiesner, Rechtsanwalt, Cologne, Germany, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Dr                                      (Case T-100/98)
Johannes Henricus Van Vliet, 49 Rue Glesener.
                                                                                (98/C 327/50)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
Ð annul the decision of the defendant of 5 November
    1997 definitively classifying him in Step 1 of Grade
    A 5 from 1 October 1996;                                         An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                     Instance of the European Communities on 30 June 1998
Ð order the defendant to classify him in Step 2 of his               by Anthony Goldstein, represented by Raymond St John
    current grade retroactively from 1 October 1996;                 Murphy, Merriman White, 3, King's Bench Walk, Inner
                                                                     Temple, London EC4Y 7DJ, United Kingdom.
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                     Ð declare the Commission in breach of Council Directive
The applicant, a graduate of the Fachhochschule für                       84/450/EEC (1) to the extent that the Citizens First
Finanzen (higher education establishment specialising in                  Factsheet on the Recognition of Diplomas and
finance) of the Land of North Rhine-Westphalia, has been                  Qualifications of General and Specialist Doctors in the
working as a member of the Commission's temporary staff                   United Kingdom misrepresents the rules applicable to
(in Directorate E of Directorate General XI) since                        specialist medical practitioners in the United Kingdom
1 October 1996. In accordance with clause 3 of his                        in order to promote the supply of specialist medical
contract of employment, he was classified in Step 1 of                    services by a category of medical practitioners who are
Grade A 5.                                                                not qualified by law to practise the regulated medical
                                                                          profession as licensed specialist medical practitioners
                                                                          and who have not completed the prescribed specialist
The applicant contends that when he took up his duties he                 medical training at Community level and national
already had more than 16 years' professional experience                   level and thereby do not offer the minimum safeguards
which was to be taken into account. Nevertheless, in                      required by Community law for practising a medical
breach of his right to be classified in the appropriate (or               specialty regulated by Community law as a specialist
definitive') step, the initial classification was retained,              medical practitioner;
although that is inconsistent with the Commission's
current administrative practice.
                                                                     Ð declare the Commission in breach of Council Directive
By recruiting the applicant in Grade A 5, the appointing                  84/450/EEC to the extent that the Citizens First
authority had implicitly recognised his diploma in                        Factsheet on the Recognition of Diplomas and